![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
Starting with the developement in the 'Scenario and Object' section seems to be the wrong way to me. A proper concept has to be build.
I only read along from time to time, I do not know much about the OpenClonk project at all but I've read dozens of threads, game concepts, opinions, wishes and thoughts in the past which did not provide proper results at all.
------------
Building the game from scratch is difficult, therefore I would like to start with a descriptions of the current clonk:
First of all why do I love the game? Ok some common answers here: Developer mode, dozens of extensions and a big variety of objects - wait.. I for my part have been playing clonk over a year without knowing any extensions and stuff or the developer mode - so that was not the addicting factor for me in the beginning at least, was it?
I'm reading a very good Jazz-theorie book at the moment - yes I know I'm sick but I want to become a better musician etc... - this book really wants to start from scratch like we are supposed to, but you can't make music from scratch you have to stick to the rules of nature. So the book starts with analysing tunes and stuff and asks - hey poor boy, why do you like this tune? And why do you don't like the tune this way...? If you add this note - what do you feel now?.. And how does the situation change if you play it like.. Ah, I see.
I've adepted this way of seeing things for clonk as well. We can't start totally from scratch, there are elements that are necessary - we have to find out why.
Clonk is often descriped to outsiders as a mix of Worms, The Settlers and Lemmings, or some games of that kind. We all know that is not the case, but I don't think this is totally wrong. Clonk combines many elements of popular game genres like economy simulations (with mining and ressources and stuff), strategy games with bases and tactical possibilities (I've conquered the gold mine in the middle of the two clans, now my team has an advantage), fantasy or adventure games (I'm taking with me... the sword, the shield, a bread, and a postion of healing) and the most popular element is the Jump and run genre (best represented by various knight-pack battle methods like jumping around to avoid beeing hit by the arrows of a archer).
A very simple method to reach an improvement in quality is to improve the popular aspects of the game, but before concluding 'just another game concept' we have to set the basics of the whole game, the landscape, object and gameplay possibilities. For example, if gas exists it would certainly have an effect on mining and battle tactics - fill explosive gas into your mines and incinerate it - baaam.
How will the game be like? We have to know the answer before building a game and not after it is done.
------------
At first we should decide on the possible features before making further steps. Game content will be build upon this features.
I think this will be the right way. We've got tons of experienced game content developer, scenario and object designers etc., and I'm sure they will be motivated to build the games content - but only if they know that there work is well planned and in no way in vain. Currently we have game content, but it is some sort of mystery if the content will be in the game at all... and it seems that the whole game will be a big mystery to me....
------------
1. Ok, so at first we have to decide on the features.
2. After that we can build a really big concept of the game, hardworking people are necessary to organize something like this.
3. Game content and object Design.
4. Scenario Design.
P.S. I'm sorry if I misjugded the current concept and game planning. This should in no means mean to be an offence. But all of it seems very chaotic and weird to me, I lost the track of the discussions somewhere along 3 months ago. If a well planned concept is in the making the thread serves little. Please if someone is aware of the developements planning would he/she explain the developement to me? It is really hard work to get a clear view about all the serious information given in the threads and the clonk forum etc...
I only read along from time to time, I do not know much about the OpenClonk project at all but I've read dozens of threads, game concepts, opinions, wishes and thoughts in the past which did not provide proper results at all.
------------
Building the game from scratch is difficult, therefore I would like to start with a descriptions of the current clonk:
First of all why do I love the game? Ok some common answers here: Developer mode, dozens of extensions and a big variety of objects - wait.. I for my part have been playing clonk over a year without knowing any extensions and stuff or the developer mode - so that was not the addicting factor for me in the beginning at least, was it?
I'm reading a very good Jazz-theorie book at the moment - yes I know I'm sick but I want to become a better musician etc... - this book really wants to start from scratch like we are supposed to, but you can't make music from scratch you have to stick to the rules of nature. So the book starts with analysing tunes and stuff and asks - hey poor boy, why do you like this tune? And why do you don't like the tune this way...? If you add this note - what do you feel now?.. And how does the situation change if you play it like.. Ah, I see.
I've adepted this way of seeing things for clonk as well. We can't start totally from scratch, there are elements that are necessary - we have to find out why.
Clonk is often descriped to outsiders as a mix of Worms, The Settlers and Lemmings, or some games of that kind. We all know that is not the case, but I don't think this is totally wrong. Clonk combines many elements of popular game genres like economy simulations (with mining and ressources and stuff), strategy games with bases and tactical possibilities (I've conquered the gold mine in the middle of the two clans, now my team has an advantage), fantasy or adventure games (I'm taking with me... the sword, the shield, a bread, and a postion of healing) and the most popular element is the Jump and run genre (best represented by various knight-pack battle methods like jumping around to avoid beeing hit by the arrows of a archer).
A very simple method to reach an improvement in quality is to improve the popular aspects of the game, but before concluding 'just another game concept' we have to set the basics of the whole game, the landscape, object and gameplay possibilities. For example, if gas exists it would certainly have an effect on mining and battle tactics - fill explosive gas into your mines and incinerate it - baaam.
How will the game be like? We have to know the answer before building a game and not after it is done.
------------
At first we should decide on the possible features before making further steps. Game content will be build upon this features.
I think this will be the right way. We've got tons of experienced game content developer, scenario and object designers etc., and I'm sure they will be motivated to build the games content - but only if they know that there work is well planned and in no way in vain. Currently we have game content, but it is some sort of mystery if the content will be in the game at all... and it seems that the whole game will be a big mystery to me....
------------
1. Ok, so at first we have to decide on the features.
2. After that we can build a really big concept of the game, hardworking people are necessary to organize something like this.
3. Game content and object Design.
4. Scenario Design.
P.S. I'm sorry if I misjugded the current concept and game planning. This should in no means mean to be an offence. But all of it seems very chaotic and weird to me, I lost the track of the discussions somewhere along 3 months ago. If a well planned concept is in the making the thread serves little. Please if someone is aware of the developements planning would he/she explain the developement to me? It is really hard work to get a clear view about all the serious information given in the threads and the clonk forum etc...
Nice text. :)The current "most complete" concept we have can be found here but of course everything can still change :)
![[es]](/mwf/flags/es.png "Spain")
Hm, I have to say I don't really get your point. First of all, we don't start from scratch. We completely redesign the objects pack, yes - but this is not starting from scratch as the current concept still looks at the original one from Clonk 4.I see that the flood of ideas here in this subforum might be confusing and create the impression that there is not one well-thought out concept but instead many little ideas and feature requests. But this is not true. Everybody can post ideas here, not only the actual developers of the game. If something gets posted here, it doesn't mean that it will even be considered to be implemented in the game. This subforum is just about ideas and the reason why some ideas are not discussed about or denied a lot is that it is a waste of time to "argue away" an idea - there is no obligation for us developers to consider anything posted here (contrary to what Asmageddon wrote in his signature).
So, you always have to look at who posted the concept and also who implements it.
Additionally, a "really big concept" of the game, planned through in all details and based on certain features that where decided on might be a possibility for a commercial game of a company, but this is an open source project. This works different. Much more people are involved - the activity and number of contributions can vary a lot over time and is dependent on their motivation. Basically, its more like the one who codes it, will decide how it works rather than a boss. The more you contribute, the more you decide. That is why smaller concepts like "Controls revised", "Standard tools as seperate items", "new melee combat system", ... were brought in instead of one grand super-concept. The biggest danger in an open source project is that the motivation dies down before the game is done. It is by far better to plan and code first very compact and only later extend it.
>First of all, we don't start from scratch.
Ah, this is confusing. I read a lot of postings and discussions about starting the game from scratch with the goal of adding small elements one after another.
Why was it that this idead was abjected? The way we are building the game may bring the same flaws into the game, which the current Clonk is already suffering from.
At the beginning of the discussions in the german Clonk forums, Günther and Clonkonaut, if I remember correctly, stated that a new Clonk game would give us the possibility to start from scratch. This of course provides certain advantages, flaws which can not be fixed easily because they have become a part of the game (just an example: shooting through walls) can be filtered out early, features which would change the gameplay too radical, like new materials or new behaviours which would kill the gameplay can be tested, too.
A lot of people were talking about 'starting from scratch', even yourself ( http://forum.openclonk.org/topic_show.pl?pid=1155;hl=scratch - for some reason I can't format my text), although you are talking just about the code in this context.
In discussions about which way the new game will be like I remember a newbie saying "but that won't be clonk anymore, it's to radical", and someone answered him "It could be, if we change certain elements, because we are building the game content from scratch, maybe".
And I was thinking that new ideas would be of the most important priority for the new game, because several features only have this one and only chance to be build - in a nearly finished game they would be too radical and too much of hard work.
By building a similar game to Clonk Rage, we'll kill dozens of individual features which can't be implemented once a basic game is created.
A lot of people were talking about 'starting from scratch', even yourself ( http://forum.openclonk.org/topic_show.pl?pid=1155;hl=scratch - for some reason I can't format my text), although you are talking just about the code in this context.
In discussions about which way the new game will be like I remember a newbie saying "but that won't be clonk anymore, it's to radical", and someone answered him "It could be, if we change certain elements, because we are building the game content from scratch, maybe".
And I was thinking that new ideas would be of the most important priority for the new game, because several features only have this one and only chance to be build - in a nearly finished game they would be too radical and too much of hard work.
By building a similar game to Clonk Rage, we'll kill dozens of individual features which can't be implemented once a basic game is created.
We are actually starting from scratch in regards to the game content (the objects). But we are not starting from scratch in regards to the engine
![[us]](/mwf/flags/us.png "United States")
It's a good opportunity to change basic gameplay. But your examples aren't so great. Shooting through walls is not crucial to CR. We could remove it if we had alternative ways e.g. to defend a castle - or if there were compelling reason to do so. I don't get why tactical opportunities like that should be restricted. Adding new materials would be no problem in CR. Many scenarios do this.Things that can *not* be changed without breaking existing CR scenarios include player controls, homebase, basic production chains, landscape generator, etc.
well yes my example is not that great...
Well materials are no problem in CR? Like swampwater which will suck down your clonk, like explosive-acid which by contact explodes instead of corroding? Like gases which will choke the clonks...
Or like lava, remeber your lavaproofed boots with which you can walk in lava, as long as you don't swim in it....
Gimme a few days, I'll think about better examples.
Well materials are no problem in CR? Like swampwater which will suck down your clonk, like explosive-acid which by contact explodes instead of corroding? Like gases which will choke the clonks...
Or like lava, remeber your lavaproofed boots with which you can walk in lava, as long as you don't swim in it....
Gimme a few days, I'll think about better examples.
Yes, that's all possible. Much of it could be implemented in script (material reactions); some stuff (like gases) would probably need engine support. But that's not the point. It could be added in CR. New scenarios could use it. Things we can't change in CR are things that change existing gameplay. E.g., change lava to kill Clonks instantly and evaporate most objects as they fall in.
![[se]](/mwf/flags/se.png "Sweden")
>change lava to kill Clonks instantly and evaporate most objects as they fall in.
Why is that a problem in CR?
So your point then is that it's not good that we do not completely start from scratch and wait for the (engine-side) features to start to do anything. That we miss oppurtunities by sticking too much to old ideas because later on, we can't do these substantial changes because they are too basic to later change them.OK. And, that would be...?
I can't give you a list of the best ideas and featurewishes.., maybe because I've only got access to the internet at my workplace and I don't have that much time at all.
For example a new idea would be to allow buildings to be inclined. That of course would perfectly blend into some of the rougher landscapes, but it would crush against the system with the flat bases in Clonk so far.
But I understand your point as well, of course doing something is always better than doing nothing.
For example a new idea would be to allow buildings to be inclined. That of course would perfectly blend into some of the rougher landscapes, but it would crush against the system with the flat bases in Clonk so far.
But I understand your point as well, of course doing something is always better than doing nothing.
Good point.
I think a thing it very weird with this open clonk project. That is that it seems to lack proper structure. Everybody just sprouts out ideas/work on random models/textures/we without a plan. For a game to be developed, I believe planning and structurising is all. You can't just random start to do completely random stuff without even knowing how the game will be. It will be a mess in the end. Some guy with much free time and dedication to clonk should become leader of this project and start to organize stuff before it goes out of hand. Then all ideas can be gathered by him and evaluated and argumented for. Then he decides what goes in and not. THEN when a proper plan is made, people can start work on things.
I think a thing it very weird with this open clonk project. That is that it seems to lack proper structure. Everybody just sprouts out ideas/work on random models/textures/we without a plan. For a game to be developed, I believe planning and structurising is all. You can't just random start to do completely random stuff without even knowing how the game will be. It will be a mess in the end. Some guy with much free time and dedication to clonk should become leader of this project and start to organize stuff before it goes out of hand. Then all ideas can be gathered by him and evaluated and argumented for. Then he decides what goes in and not. THEN when a proper plan is made, people can start work on things.
> Everybody just sprouts out ideas/work on random models/textures/we without a plan.
http://forum.openclonk.org/topic_show.pl?pid=2633#pid2633
I don't call that a plan really. It is more like a list of objects that will go in the game. I for one have no clear image of how open clonk is going to look, feel like, or be at all. Like it says Axe for Chopping. That doesn't say much.
I mean for example how can you already be scripting items and stuff before you have even decided about the foundations of the game. There is still discussions about wheter or not clonk will use 3D-models or not, or polygon landscape or not. I mean, the foundation of the game is still in concept stage at most.
I mean for example how can you already be scripting items and stuff before you have even decided about the foundations of the game. There is still discussions about wheter or not clonk will use 3D-models or not, or polygon landscape or not. I mean, the foundation of the game is still in concept stage at most.
>There is still discussions about wheter or not clonk will use 3D-models or not,
No, it is not. Once, ck finishes implementing that we can test it and decide then.
>or polygon landscape or not
Also not really. newton has begun building stuff in that direction. When it's done we can decide
The features you are mentioning have no effect to the scripting of the objects at all. If you script e.g. the buildings or not is regardless. So why wait for those engine features?(in addition you can't judge whether those features enhance the gameplay or not without having something to play the game ;)
My largest point was not in those specific features, but in how the whole game feeling and concept is very vague. But I won't argue on this one because it isn't thatr important to me, and I am not very into this community anyways so I might as well be wrong. It is just the feeling I got from this community so far.
At the moment OC seems going to be just another Clonk Sequel with almost the same content, just with some little changes in Structures and Graphics. Yeah you are right, at the beginning it sounded like OC was going to be some really different kind of gameplay or something, a game with big differences, but right now it looks like the most work is put into the Graphicstyle and stuff.
BUT actually I'am not against it. I was never a fan of the idea, to bring up a totally new gameplay or a really new concept. I like Clonk like it is in CR, of course I would accept some main changes, but in the end I would like Open Clonk mostly like Clonk always was (or most of the time I played it).
This from "scratch to bla" idea sounded phantastic at the beginning, but I think now this here is the more unemotional way of doing what is really necessary or possible in this kind of community. Correct me if I'am wrong, but I think OC will be just an improved kind of Clonk with new features. Not really a new concept at all.
BUT actually I'am not against it. I was never a fan of the idea, to bring up a totally new gameplay or a really new concept. I like Clonk like it is in CR, of course I would accept some main changes, but in the end I would like Open Clonk mostly like Clonk always was (or most of the time I played it).
This from "scratch to bla" idea sounded phantastic at the beginning, but I think now this here is the more unemotional way of doing what is really necessary or possible in this kind of community. Correct me if I'am wrong, but I think OC will be just an improved kind of Clonk with new features. Not really a new concept at all.
>Yeah you are right, at the beginning it sounded like OC was going to be some really different kind of gameplay or something, a game with big differences, but right now it looks like the most work is put into the Graphicstyle and stuff.
Well, if you have brand new ideas regarding the gameplay - feel free to post and discuss them.
I think one problem is that the developers of CR got tons and tons of disagreement on some changes to the basic gameplay, were really tired of that and wanted to avoid those by telling everybody that there will be changes now, and that "It has always been that way" is not a valid argument. We might have gone overboard with that - Lots of features have always been that way because it's good for them to be that way, not because it was simpler to implement or something. But lots of features would also have been equally good another way, and we'll want to change some of them just to have something new. A sequel that doesn't really change anything gameplay-wise is rightfully called uninspired and boring. I think we only got away with that with CR because everyone was distracted by the shiny network improvements.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
