Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Would you play this game?  (Read 3694 times)

Ampersand

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2009, 05:21:45 pm »

Sounds like Dwarf Fortress meets The Sims with a first person component added to it. I've already suggested such a thing in a thread last year I think, commenting that the Roguelike Genre, due to it's non-graphical nature, allows for many more abstractions and interactions between in-game objects, and is therefore much more apt to be used in simulation type games.

A SimsRogue may be a game that I'm willing to play, provided the behaviors and interactions are both complex and viewable in some way, like Adventure Mode combat reports.

But the Gary's Mod style type thing that the OP suggested... Well, it seems like it would be far shallower, to me.
Logged
!!&!!

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: Would you run this computer software for your entertainment?
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2009, 11:22:05 am »

  Perhaps we are going in the wrong direction. Garry's Mod would not be the basis or the main element of the program. I just brought it up to explain the basic idea; all I'd take would be the feeling of physics and construction, not the rocket car or blank canvas tropes.
  Are you familiar with the Creatures series? These "living" beings (I use the word loosely, as technically speaking the creatures are far simpler than alge; on the other hand, they are also far more complex than any other software characters.) are the real drive of the game; as ampersand said, it's somewhat like Sims in the sense of taking care of these beings, and the fact that you can say you want to keep them happy to win.
  A major difference from Sims would be the fact that these creatures aren't just AI, but actual neurological simulations- something coming from the original Creatures games of '96. You have no control over these creatures than you do over, say, your own pets.
  Just to make a point clear that otherwise is cloudy, though the structural complexity of the creatueres is low, below most plants, the neurological structure is much more complex; they are able to learn to speak and learn complex behavior patterns, even though they are effectively one cell in terms of biochemistry. There are a number of shortcuts made, particularly short-term pathing; other shortcuts include the fact that picking up an object is a one-signal command from the brain, as opposed to the entire network of feedback involved with a human picking up an object.

I do apreicate the feedback- It is helpful to refine my idea with what you say.
Logged
A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.

Ampersand

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2009, 01:21:45 pm »

I still think that the game would probably be better in the roguelike format simply because I think no animations are better than bad ones, and when interactions between actors and objects get complex, animation usually gets generalized, like in the Sims, where an actor would reach toward an object and have it magically teleport into it's hands. Might not reach as wide an audience, but it's just my personal preference.
Logged
!!&!!

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2009, 01:33:59 pm »

I owned Creatures 3 and loved that game. Unfortunately someone stole my disk while I was at school (I pretty much know who likely did it. That guy was a Kleptomaniac and stole a lot of my stuff)

Though you could end up unlocking the ability to lift your creatures (which was helpful because they could sure act dumb and eject themselves out of airlocks, dive into the ocean, or hang out in the disease ridden jungle) you could also lure them with smell generators, objects, and other techniques.

Ohh creatures 3 I miss you... WHY!!!
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 01:36:02 pm by Neonivek »
Logged

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2009, 02:35:39 pm »

I have the CD around here  somewhere... Also there's the Docking Station program; that's free. There's a Creatures 1 for DS mod, too. DS apparently connects to C3, too.
Logged
A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.

Rhodan

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2009, 05:42:56 pm »

Rant about Creatures:
Creatures would have benefited from a bit more hardcoded restraints in the genetics.  Allowing stuff like "1 Air = 100 Air & 100 Energy" made it way too easy to make have immortal creatures pop up.  Forcing the chemistry to follow 1+1=2 logics and hardcoding the energy and nutrient requirements for motion, growth and breeding would have made them far more interesting.
And even though emotions are indeed chemicals, they're too complex to simulate along with the other biochemistry of Norns, they should've been pure neurologic features.

What made Creatures fun was setting your own goals, trying stuff just to see what happens.  I loved attempting stuff like breeding Norns in the tiniest space possible to see if they'd even get used to being crowded, or trying to maintain waterbreathing populations.
My favourite was this combination of agents that teleported all eggs to the start of an obstacle course, so only the creatures that managed to make it to the end before starving could procreate.  I ended up with Norns that turned air into food and just stayed put at the starting area.  Heck, even their respiratory system had this gene that said "If you're in a room with air, take in these chemicals every so often as long as you still have lungs."  One simple checkbox reversed this and made Norns aquatic or amphibious, or they could just mutate to begin breathing pure fat out of thin air.

Relevant bit:
Anyways, if you want the game to be interesting, you need a pre-evolved basic creature.  But I'm not sure how one would allow these creatures to adapt to their environment.  Say you want them to adapt to toxic food.  Would their "poison resistance" stat mutate and get higher?  Would they just gain a mutated gene that turns poison into rainbow kittens?  Would they already have a complex series of genes that handles poison and improve on this by evolution?
The latter seems best, but would require a complex chemistry model to make it interesting.  Just "Poison => Kitten" won't work.  There's just so much to take into account.
Perhaps this is why most evolution software, like Genepool or Framsticks, focuses on the neural net and morphology.  But these still take ages to evolve something useful even on the most powerful computers, at high-speed.   And you won't have awesome stuff like your creatures adapting to eat meat or holding their breath for ages.
So how do you imagine the underlying evolution system?  I'm curious since everything else has been done in some way, but the evolving bit is still something that never really made it into reality.

Rambling about how virtual genetics could work:
Looking at my Rubik's cube, I think having each chemical being a molecule that can be pieced together from other molecules, and genes being the instructions for this piecing, would work.  With a system like this, molecules go in via air and food, and get pieced into energy and bone/muscle/whatever mass.  Organs would be collections of instructions and molecule containers which get triggered by the brain.  The stomach, for example, would receive all food and have instructions to break it down and send it to the blood stream.  Waste (old, unused molecules) gets dumped.  Mutations would likely cause more waste since they'd break down useful molecules the wrong way.  But this new waste might turn out to be useful for the spleen to make more of whatever the spleen makes.  All organs would just pick their molecules from the bloodstream, decided by the brain which organs needs most at any moment.
Toxins would be molecules that turn into bad molecules when broken down the wrong way.  With enough mutation, any molecule could get broken down or assembled into a bad molecule.  Bad molecules are bad because they might turn other molecules into useless molecules, causing shortages in nutrients or tissue and all that.
To make babies, the uterus would just collect enough tissue and startup chemicals to create a new child.   Mating should probably be abstracted to just some kissing or lovemaking without exchange of fluids.  Too complex.
There's probably a few gaps in here, like what molecules would look like and how the instructions would work.  Maybe an abstracted version of the Codex of Alchemical Engineering? http://jayisgames.com/archives/2008/12/the_codex_of_alchemical_engineering.php
Logged

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2009, 06:30:52 pm »

I like where you're going with this, Rhodan. We could make each organ have a virtual "cell" or two that does the low-level chemical processes.

In fact, the issue that may be the greatest obstacle will be pathing; creating a neural net simple enough to run, and complex enough to figure out that it might need to use an elevator, while being realistic enough so that they don't follow DF-like perfect paths. Something where one might get lost or so on.

Also, world Cellular Autonoma; Creatures used a limited one, I'd like to see a CA with a size arround a square yard and 1.5 yards tall; then I'd like to make it sensitive enough so that a forest canopy will diffuse rain below it and so on.

Edit: looking at that game, I wanted to say I like the idea of players being able to extract and manipulate chemicals on small and large scales; everything from extracting Gyroclicine Tetraline from Teratoxleose using a centrifuge and a nanopipette, to finding the right kind of herb and boiling it into a tea.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 06:35:18 pm by PTTG?? »
Logged
A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.

Virex

  • Bay Watcher
  • Subjects interest attracted. Annalyses pending...
    • View Profile
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2009, 09:15:15 am »

There is definitly a major gap in there. You're ignoring energy. What I mean by this si that you can't just take CO2 and water and end up with sugar, because there's more energy contained in sugar then there's in water and CO2. Basicly, any conversion either costs or releases energy, and this should also be incorperated in the system that models biochemistry. It can be done realy easely if you've got a defined set of chemicals, becuase then you can assing each compound an energy level and calculate the energy needed/released from the differences in energy levels. If you'd like to proceduraly generate the different compounds then you'll need to make some rules regarding the energy levels of compounds. A simple start would be setting the energies ascosiated with different bonds and then setting the energy level of a compound to the sum of the bond energies or something like that (of course most bond energies should be negative or else everything will be broken down into atoms...)
Logged

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2009, 11:51:24 am »

  To change the topic from chemical biology, how about this; instead of having an ecology made up of many independent agents, have a large-scale 3D Cellular Autonama that not only keeps track of temperature, sunlight, rainfall, odors, soil nutrients and so on, but also tracks the growth of plants; a 1yrd x 1yrd square area could have a certain amount of grass, an amount of tree growth and so on. When you visit an area, it procedurally generates the position of brush and trees in an area, and you can harvest plants from this area as if they where agents. If the seed number for each square was permanent, then it will even be the same every time you visit. (i.e., trees won't move and cause problems like having a tree house's main support tree vanishing next time you visit.)

Going back to the biochemistry, if the CA made sure that it's chemical energy output didn't exceed the solar energy constant, there you go.
  How about this; all items have a size and a represenitive molecule or collection. Carrots consist of several different molecules in various proportions, while a glass of well water may be mainly water with a chance of contaminants. Viruses may be molecules in this case.
Creatures (and animals, which are much simpler simulated beings) can bite items and (assuming they have jaw strength and teeth to do so) eat a unit of it, decreasing the size of the item and all the implied results. Normal creatures will have no trouble eating carrots. A mutant creature or perhaps a dangerous animal will be able to eat your flashlight, and a stupid creature will try to eat a beach ball or a toadbear.
  These tie together, as Creatures and Animals can now wander the wilds, with a hard limit on the amount of life being the solar constant plus any artifical energy producers you may build.
Logged
A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.

Sowelu

  • Bay Watcher
  • I am offishially a penguin.
    • View Profile
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2009, 12:22:01 pm »

*twitch, wibble*

I've done square-by-square procedurally generated landscapes/plants before, and they aren't any fun.  Mostly because A) they can't be changed, and B) they are always unaware of their neighbors, even neighbors three feet away, which means vast trees right next to each other, or rivers that come from nowhere and go nowhere.

If you actually want to use cellular automata, then you can't use locationally-seeded procedurally generated stuff, because data gets lost. over time.
Logged
Some things were made for one thing, for me / that one thing is the sea~
His servers are going to be powered by goat blood and moonlight.
Oh, a biomass/24 hour solar facility. How green!

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2009, 01:26:22 pm »

I mean that the overall structure is determined by the CA, and then the position of trees, grass, and plants within each tile is determined by a seeded random number generator. It's the best of both worlds; the permanent rational structure of the landscape, and the efficient saving of locations of the fine details from procedural placement. Add in a way to account for specific player actions, like cutting down a specific tree in a tile (for instance, have each tile's simulation have a "tree number stat" integer and keep logging abstract- "you cut down three trees" instead of attacking an individual trunk with an axe) or something, and you have what looks like agent-based simulation at a fraction of the cost.

Then you make the CA have a flexible definition of a "tile" so that when players dig a small room, it's one whole tile, and a small shack built over the divider line won't turn the whole tile into an internal room.

The whole world structure might go something like this:

-World Model (a "height map" of some sort that gives terrain shape, plus internal caves and artificial structures, as well as all other notable items, including large natural things like ancient trees and anything else that might cause natural microclimates. Much of the terrain is fractal-ly and procedurally generated, but it is stored conventionally.)

-CA (Derived from the World Model, a set of arbitrarily-shaped tiles with borders of various porousness; the default may be a 1yrd x 1yd x 3 yrd room, a cell or two above this for the atmosphere, and a cell or two below for ground area. The status of each cell is deterministic, and stored conventionally.)

-Cell Contents (Derived procedurally based on cell statistics; these are inconciquencial plants, insects, and rocks. Each individual species of plant can have a separate number of seeds, plants, and maturity. Each insect species can have these numbers as well. Harvesting, killing, pruning and so on decrease the population density and maturity, effecting lasting changes. Note that a specific quantity of energy is represented by these numbers. Growth of plants requires the presence of nutrients, bacteria, sunlight and moisture in the CA stats for the cells. (A cell may have hundreds if not thousands of values by the time we're done.) Something not defined yet are the important cell barriers- like in the original creatures, these change the ability of cell stats to flow. Everything that can be defined as a transition- steel sheet, open air (from two adjacent cells in the grassland, for instance), soil-to-air transition, wooden dividers, tree canopies, and so on, has a definition on it's ability to allow any cell value to propegate. Finaly, weather effects such as windyness, rainfall, thunder sounds, snowfall, ect, is displayed based on what the level of the effect is in that cell- thus leading to emergent effects, like trees diverting snow and rain, or even something as simple as a roof and walls keeping wind "outside".)

-Actors or agents (creatures, animals and all "items"- for instance, a beach ball, a picked carrot, a rock, a pile of lumber, a cart which contains a small cell- the covered back. These can interact with both of the other sections- they can change the world model by building and digging, they can change cell boundries (potentially via the world model), and they can change cell values- for instace, a fireplace that increases warmth or a Creature that picks a plant. The Player Charicter most likely falls in this category, and flags will either prevent them from getting killed or allow them to "emergency teletransport" home.)

These above are design documents protected by copyright, I've decided just now.

And yes, that CA thing is in the top 300 longest parenthetical statements.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 02:01:09 pm by PTTG?? »
Logged
A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.

Virex

  • Bay Watcher
  • Subjects interest attracted. Annalyses pending...
    • View Profile
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2009, 03:20:33 pm »

*twitch, wibble*

I've done square-by-square procedurally generated landscapes/plants before, and they aren't any fun.  Mostly because A) they can't be changed, and B) they are always unaware of their neighbors, even neighbors three feet away, which means vast trees right next to each other, or rivers that come from nowhere and go nowhere.

If you actually want to use cellular automata, then you can't use locationally-seeded procedurally generated stuff, because data gets lost. over time.

You can fix B by having the automatoi relay their data to all squares in a certain area. You´re essentialy using the squares themselves as containers for the data instead of having the automatoi pull their data from their neighbors.

To illustrate: Take the game of life. Now instead of having the automatoi die when they have a certain amount of neighbors, have them die when the toxicity level of the square they're on is over a certain value. Now, each generation you first have all automatoi adjust the toxicity level of the squares around them by a value dependant on the distance, and then you do the normal pass.

This way you can store data like light intensity, humidity and toxicity in the map rather then on the automatoi, avoiding the problem of having mile-high trees grow next to eachother.
Logged

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: Would you play this game?
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2009, 01:45:58 am »

Consider this the equivalent of a Three Toe story for this game:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I wasted a few hours on that. Keep in mind it's semi-in-game; for instance, the writer does not need food or sleep, and has arbitrary skill, only being limited by the tools and resources he has. Also, the tech level is crazy, so while there's robots, they are busy feeding a woodstove a major bit of the time. Also note that a small hydroelectric system that was just "tossed in" the river should probably not be able to power an iron-smelting crucible. Let alone a bunch of batteries.

This edition focuses on construction; living creatures is an entire work on it's own.

The island is vaguely defined, but I'd estimate it's... humm... (15 units shore to valley)+(10 units from valley to mountain ridgline)+(10 units to shore on far side) = 45 units wide, which might be a quarter of the length, roughly, so 180 units long. The island has inlets and it tapers at the ends, but also has several peninsulas and islets that cancel this out, so that's 8100 square units. If these are miles, that's 25,090,560,000 square-yard-sized CA cells of land, plus whatever's at sea (which can be considerably simpler). So let's say that each unit is a quarter mile... 506.25 square miles, or merely 1,568,160,000 cells.

Oh, multiply each of those by at least five for vertically stacked cells.

If each cell of our 7,840,800,000 stores 500 (a rough estimate of the number of CA values we're using) 8-bit values, that's 3.565 terabytes of CA data.

It would cost roughly $400 to store this much data, which does not include such trivialities as file headers and, for instance, the terrain shape data or creature dDNA. These are harder to estimate, but would likely pale in comparison to the world.

However, since a good gaming computer today has about half a TB, and this doubles every 16 months, that's only three 16-mo. periods, or four years, until a good gaming computer could save one of these worlds. Actually running them? I don't know. 16 years... maybe.

I can wait.
Logged
A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.
Pages: 1 [2]