![[se]](/mwf/flags/se.png "Sweden")
Why change just for the sake of changing? Shouldn't this project instead focus on improving and extending the game idea of clonk? Thus changing if there is a need for it, not just for the sake of change.
![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
agreeed. I dont think we need a new Design. Just other content (of gamedesign).
Change just for the sake of change is explicitly part of the purpose of this project. Arguing against that won't lead to anything. We probably should make that more clear.But feel free to find arguments for why something is good the way it was in CR. If you can refrain from mentioning that it was that way in CR, you'll have a fair chance of winning the argument. Of course, if the other side comes up with a better argument than yours, they'll also have their fair chance of winning.
There is of course also the possibility of a fork. You can take the source and build your own game which is just like CR from it.
The approach of "change for changing" is a bit stupid tbh... Sure, there wouldn't be an open clonk if there was nothing to change, but shouldn't the approach instead be "lets fix this, as it was bad in the original clonk" or "Lets try this out, to try another angle since the original wasn't perfect."
>instead be "lets fix this, as it was bad in the original clonk"
No. Because that would mean that we would take the old Clonk Rage objects as a base and just add new stuff.
>or "Lets try this out, to try another angle since the original wasn't perfect."
Sure. If you can give good reasons why stuff from the old Clonk Rage was good and why we really need to keep that (just maybe with some changes) you have a good chance that we really do keep it. But saying "that was there in Rage so we need it!!" is not the idea
Sure, only because it was in Clonk Rage, doesn't mean it should be in Clonk Next, but to remove something just because you want something new, just to make a change, that sound a bit stupid.
I wouldn't be saying anything, if you removed something because it was bad, or because something didn't fit with something new you added, but change just to change... :S
I wouldn't be saying anything, if you removed something because it was bad, or because something didn't fit with something new you added, but change just to change... :S
Don't misunderstand me here. I don't say that this is gonna be like clonk rage. I wellcome changes and additions. Changes and additions is the way you will have to work, since you use CR's code as foundation. But IMO, every addition/change should be there with the purpose of enhancing the game. Not just be there becuase you felt like changing something. Then it will add up to some random game.
I am not a total conservatist of clonk rage. If I want to play clonk rage I play clonk rage.
I am not a total conservatist of clonk rage. If I want to play clonk rage I play clonk rage.
>with the purpose of enhancing the game
Naaah, the point is that OpenClonk will be a DIFFERENT game and not only the successor of Clonk Rage with maybe just another package included
So it's fine if OpenClonk is CRAP, as long as it's a different game?
Sure I understand if you have some bold ideas that may not be as good as you thought first, or be pure genious on other hand, but to aim just to change everything, isn't that the wrong way to look at it when making a sequel?
Sure I understand if you have some bold ideas that may not be as good as you thought first, or be pure genious on other hand, but to aim just to change everything, isn't that the wrong way to look at it when making a sequel?
> So it's fine if OpenClonk is CRAP, as long as it's a different game?
No. But OpenClonk ist a chance to include new ideas. They may prove themselves as not so good but the other way round as well. You can't know that before testing it. That's what OpenClonk is meant to be, a chance for new ideas.
But you can't develop in a new direction without leaving the old ones. By just enhancing the game as it is, you will basically get the same game. You can never advance.
>But OpenClonk ist a chance to include new ideas
And exactly this is the mainpart of developing. Sure it's necessary to test it afterwards, but if we dislike the ideas, we still can change them.
Uhm... Isn't a game that is made supposed to be a bit planned? If you plan the ideas and consider the way they affect gameplay, you can get fresch new ideas that practially make it to a new game but still enhances the game experience. It's like you think that all new games are made by random trying out some brainstormed ideas... :S
Just because it is based on CR and extends it, doesn't exclude completely different gameplay and really new ideas. It is just that clonk series winning concept is its flexibility. Just imagine CR without the scripting language and only the standard objects + scenarios. It would'n get very popular. Just this flexibility that makes people able to play it as an action game, settler game, adventure game, hot seat game, sci fi game, fantasy game, lan game blabla and all combined or some new twisted idea. This is only possible because of the flexibility that practially IS clonk. It has been there since clonk 4 or so? and since this is a sequel in the same universe, it would be stupid to drop this winning concept. Observe that this winning concept could easily be made to practically a new game. Even still with only a fat extension/change of the old source code (wich is exactly what you are doing no matter how hard you don't want to). If you want a completely new game, what are you doing here? Go and make one.
Just because it is based on CR and extends it, doesn't exclude completely different gameplay and really new ideas. It is just that clonk series winning concept is its flexibility. Just imagine CR without the scripting language and only the standard objects + scenarios. It would'n get very popular. Just this flexibility that makes people able to play it as an action game, settler game, adventure game, hot seat game, sci fi game, fantasy game, lan game blabla and all combined or some new twisted idea. This is only possible because of the flexibility that practially IS clonk. It has been there since clonk 4 or so? and since this is a sequel in the same universe, it would be stupid to drop this winning concept. Observe that this winning concept could easily be made to practically a new game. Even still with only a fat extension/change of the old source code (wich is exactly what you are doing no matter how hard you don't want to). If you want a completely new game, what are you doing here? Go and make one.
You mix two things up. Changing the graphic style doesn't change the basic concepts of the game. I think, everyone agrees that we don't want to lose the flexibility.
>isn't that the wrong way to look at it when making a sequel?
Sure, but we don't make a sequel. We basically make a new game playing in the clonk universe. If we really wanted to make a sequel, we could as well copy&paste all the old stuff and just change things. But we really do want to try out things and make things different. It has already been said a lot of times: If you can give good reasons why feature XYZ from CR should be included in OC and your reasons are better than the reasons of the others you have a quite good chance.
I meant it when I wrote "Arguing against that won't lead to anything", but I guess I'm just too easy to troll...> Sure, but we don't make a sequel.
No, "sequel" is about right. A sequel can change about anything, but not too much. That means, you are not allowed to argue against any one change with "it was that way in CR", but you are allowed to argue against "Lets make a MMORPG" with that argument. Throwing the old stuff away mostly is a method to remove the temptation to change too little.
It's just like in other game series, really.
Btw, moderators.
Very productive to move peoples arguments in discussions about opinion based things to a "grabage dump" to "ridicule the guilty"...
Very productive to move peoples arguments in discussions about opinion based things to a "grabage dump" to "ridicule the guilty"...
![[es]](/mwf/flags/es.png "Spain")
I'd hardly count that an argument: http://forum.openclonk.org/topic_show.pl?pid=1573#pid1573It has been repeatedly explained to you that OC will be a different game, so there is nothing to change of. If you think you must start troll posts to persuade the community that everything should stay the same, we remove them. Simple as that. If you got any sensible arguments about a particular change, you are encouraged to post them.
![[fi]](/mwf/flags/fi.png "Finland")
> It has been repeatedly explained to you that OC will be a different game, so there is nothing to change of.
I think it's funny how a lot of people are constantly saying OC is gonna be a different game (some people really mean it) just for the sake of agreeing with others and then approach the designing of the game from the angle of traditional clonk.
I totally agree, and I think that anomaly is what this discussion is all about
I think you misunderstand something here.What we do is to throw overboard the doctrine of not-changing and thus abandoning the original game content. So discussions about new ideas become possible without people discarding the ideas immediately because it is "unclonkish" or just not compatible with the old game content/concept.
It doesn't mean that we now apply a doctrine of we-must-change-everything. New ideas are as welcome as old ideas and should be treated equally. A new idea is not better just because it's new and an old game principle is not worse because its old and established - both can be discussed and tested.
If or which ideas arrive depends on the people who give these as input.
That's what all this ridiculous discussion is about - get away from the doctrine of not-changing for the sake of not-changing.
>I think you misunderstand something here.
>What we do is to throw overboard the doctrine of not-changing and thus abandoning the original game content. So discussions about new ideas become possible without people >discarding the ideas immediately because it is "unclonkish" or just not compatible with the old game content/concept.
Actually my point was to tell that some people have just hopped on the bandwagon telling every poster how OC is gonna be another game, yet shooting ideas down because they're unclonkish. Or commenting it.
That was not intended to troll. Exaggeration and sarcasm is often used in argumentation to clearly propose ones point. And that was simply what I was doing. At least that was how I understood your way of thinking. About that part with change just for the sake of change. If I got you wrong, please explain your "changing for the sake of change, not for adding getter gameplay/fixing wrongs in current"-way of thinking.
Btw, no hard feelings on my part, it was not intended to be offensive, that was just how I interpreted your way of thinking with an exaggeration. =)
Still even if you say that OC will be a different game, it extends CR. You even say that "it is a game in the clonk universe". Besides it is freakin based on CR's source code. If you BASE it on another games source code, whatever you do, you will still only modify or add stuff to that game. Even if you add/modify to inrecognizibility, there is still only addons and changes. No matter how hard you want to call it a completely new game. And to me, when you arguing that you are not going to extend it/change it for the good of the gameplay, but for the sake of change, that is where I lose you. :S Thereby my sarcastic comment (which I still think is a valid statement in a discussion like this). I still don't understand what you mean with "change for the sake of change".
Btw, no hard feelings on my part, it was not intended to be offensive, that was just how I interpreted your way of thinking with an exaggeration. =)
Still even if you say that OC will be a different game, it extends CR. You even say that "it is a game in the clonk universe". Besides it is freakin based on CR's source code. If you BASE it on another games source code, whatever you do, you will still only modify or add stuff to that game. Even if you add/modify to inrecognizibility, there is still only addons and changes. No matter how hard you want to call it a completely new game. And to me, when you arguing that you are not going to extend it/change it for the good of the gameplay, but for the sake of change, that is where I lose you. :S Thereby my sarcastic comment (which I still think is a valid statement in a discussion like this). I still don't understand what you mean with "change for the sake of change".
http://forum.openclonk.org/topic_show.pl?pid=1596#pid1596http://wiki.openclonk.org/index.php?title=FAQ
Anything not clarified?
>Exaggeration and sarcasm is often used in argumentation to clearly propose ones point.
Might be, but it's not a valid one. It's a fallacy.
I get what you are saying, your way of saying it before have been stupid though :P
Your goal is not to change for the sake of changing, it's to improve clonk without having to care about backwards-compability and annoying stuff like that, to fix the foundation. :P
I remember that have been the most common reason to not accept suggestions before, that it wouldn't work with current clonk, or destroying backwards compability.
Your goal is not to change for the sake of changing, it's to improve clonk without having to care about backwards-compability and annoying stuff like that, to fix the foundation. :P
I remember that have been the most common reason to not accept suggestions before, that it wouldn't work with current clonk, or destroying backwards compability.
Sorry, but your posting was trolling to provoke and is treat accordingly.
>there is still only addons and changes.
Not in the player's eyes. What the player see is the objects, the ingamecontents. Not the engine. He probably wouldn't even be able to tell if it was the old engine or not. The "game" or the "gameplay" is totally defined through the object packages. If we start from scratch there, we get a new "game". Even if the "engine" is old. I mean: HalfLife and TeamFortress both use the Source™ engine. And still are totally different games :)
> And to me, when you arguing that you are not going to extend it/change it for the good of the gameplay, but for the sake of change, that is where I lose you.
Sorry to disappoint you, but we are not capable of doing miracles. (Neither are you, I think. Forgive me this little ad hominem attack.) Thus we cannot create the one perfect game to end all games. Clonk Rage is about as good as it gets - there might be one or too little steps we could still take to make it strictly better, but nothing spectacular. So if we want to keep interest going, we have to change something. We might try to fool ourselves and pretend that the change would be strictly for the better. But we prefer to be honest, and we know that for every change there is somebody playing Clonk who will hate the change. Even crashfixes are not always exempted! So the best you can get is a game where all changes are for the better in your opinion. Of course, you'll have to help with development to make that happen. :-)
Perhaps we should start a FAQ in which we explain stuff like "Why is the forum in english" and "why do we start from scratch?"http://wiki.openclonk.org/index.php?title=FAQ
Edit: done.
I generally agree on everything Newton has said here.
Moreover I add my personal opinion.
Clonk is an old game. Not old meaning "bad". It is just old. Its mechanics, its interfaces, its design has changed a lot during the years, but they are all related to the basic game that has more than 15 years.
I think Clonk is a great game. But I think that the old design has several huge limits. A lot of work has been done to create workarounds around these limits and to add more and more game content. But I also think that after all these years clonk should just stop to "improving" and start "evolving".
I have so many things in mind that could be so awesome in clonk, but that they just won't be as fun as they could be in the actual design. Air, sea and ground vehicles combats for example. They are possible in actual clonk, but they are slow, stupid, not fun. Or better they are 20% of the fun and excitement they could give with new design. This is just an example, but all the ideas in the "ideas subforum" are wonderful examples of how the game can evolve (not improve).
After all I think that all people here loves clonk for its infinite possibilities, deep interaction with objects and environment, and so on.
And I don't think these elements will go away in the new title.
They will just (hopefully) be brought to a new level. Huge improvements can be done on user control, interfaces, combat, productions, buildings, and so on. Probably so huge that this will bring the game to a title that has little in common with the original clonk.
But 1) the original clonk is still there, you can play it whenever you want
2)the things you love from clonk will still be there. It will just have a different feeling of using it. Different mechanics. But different is not worse. Changes are not for the sake of changing. Changes are for the sake of developing some features and ideas that are easier and better to be implemented in a new system than inside the old one.
Moreover I add my personal opinion.
Clonk is an old game. Not old meaning "bad". It is just old. Its mechanics, its interfaces, its design has changed a lot during the years, but they are all related to the basic game that has more than 15 years.
I think Clonk is a great game. But I think that the old design has several huge limits. A lot of work has been done to create workarounds around these limits and to add more and more game content. But I also think that after all these years clonk should just stop to "improving" and start "evolving".
I have so many things in mind that could be so awesome in clonk, but that they just won't be as fun as they could be in the actual design. Air, sea and ground vehicles combats for example. They are possible in actual clonk, but they are slow, stupid, not fun. Or better they are 20% of the fun and excitement they could give with new design. This is just an example, but all the ideas in the "ideas subforum" are wonderful examples of how the game can evolve (not improve).
After all I think that all people here loves clonk for its infinite possibilities, deep interaction with objects and environment, and so on.
And I don't think these elements will go away in the new title.
They will just (hopefully) be brought to a new level. Huge improvements can be done on user control, interfaces, combat, productions, buildings, and so on. Probably so huge that this will bring the game to a title that has little in common with the original clonk.
But 1) the original clonk is still there, you can play it whenever you want
2)the things you love from clonk will still be there. It will just have a different feeling of using it. Different mechanics. But different is not worse. Changes are not for the sake of changing. Changes are for the sake of developing some features and ideas that are easier and better to be implemented in a new system than inside the old one.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
