Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

[Monocause]

But what would you need them for? Let's say your writing a SciFi game. You want to include some plausible devices, so you spend some time looking at speculative fiction. Since it's speculative, people don't know if it could work, and will disagree with it, but these things will have some basis in fact. Now, if you want to include a quantum computer in your game, you don't need to know how the computer works. Hell, here I'm reading about how flash memory in a USB stick uses "quantum tunneling" to erase data. Does it? What does that even mean? I don't know, and I don't need to know to include a USB stick in my game.

Now, I'm not saying "learn quantum mechanics and create your own plausible speculative devices." I'm saying that if you want to look at plausible futuristic technology, there's already a lot of information out there. More than you'd ever need, and much more than any scientist or group of scientists could recreate in a couple of months. Since that information is already available to you, why do you need to hire someone?

I'm speculating that there's more to getting a scientific backdrop than that. Imagine that you're going into detail. OK, placing a quantum computer is fine, since you don't really need to explain it anyway. It's a part of the gameworld and will be accepted without much thought, just like you accept elves or dwarves. But let's say that over the course of the game you take the player through different environments - power plants, laboratories. You want one of the NPCs to be knowledgeable about tech, and you want the player to get the feeling "OK, this guy really knows what's going on". Here the plot thickens.

I can, after some brief research, do a mock up of how a high tech thing will look like or how it will basically function. But then I need to expand it in the game, make it mesh with the environment, make everything interconnected. What would be required for manufacturing such a thing? How would a laboratory working on improvements to such a thing look like? What problems would the scientists be facing (preferably something that the player would have to solve by searching for a mcguffin someplace dangerous)? And, most importantly, how placing such a device within the gameworld would affect it, change the lives of people, change the way they behave. Also, one scientific breakthrough leads to another (what would be the next step provided we have this thing covered, what would humanity try to achieve at this point?), and each imporant invention provides its own set of moral and ethical dilemmas which may or may not be relevant depending on the game you're making (DX:HR handled it superbly).

You can go down the route of a lot of games and make laboratories that are just white halls with people in labcoats using microscopes (you'd think that in the future people would have more advanced devices), or just state that "manufacturing this involves a lot of unobtanium". But that's kinda lacklustre to be honest, and it takes the "sci" out of "fi" almost completely. That's one of my gripes with the Mass Effect series, that the "lore" they had in the codex was completely separate from the gameworld and had really no impact, like fiction upon fiction. Felt like a ton of wasted potential. Heck, in the entire series you meet a lot of "scientists" and nobody strikes you as someone knowledgeable, they just have labcoats on and are otherwise completely bland NPCs, except for Mordin - but Mordin's completely over the top wacky. In some aspects the ME universe is extremely high-tech, yet in different (especially the social ones, but also regarding stuff like architecture or aesthetics) seems backwards compared to modern times. It makes the whole world crumble at closer scrutiny.

Time on researching all this from scratch and consuming the necessary knowledge to maintain the player's suspension of disbelief is probably a luxury that devs don't have. Especially in the case of relatively niche RPGs where a lot of the fanbase is the rather informed type and more demanding type.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Why do you need a scientist to improve non-science?

Fake peer reviewed papers about bullshit technobabble.
Or how would that bullshit pseudoscience thing would interact with reality if it existed.

 

[tuluse]

I like the example of 70s Doctor Who. When Douglas Adams took over, the technobabble got way better and more consistent. He wasn't a scientist himself, but he was very interested in science and keep up with latest discoveries and theories.

It did make a difference and Doctor Who is definitely as silly as it gets regarding science.

 

[Vault Dweller]

There is science (and scientific accuracy and plausibility) and there is make-believe that sometimes looks like something sciency. The former requires scientists, the latter requires game designer who can write (Avellone, Sawyer, etc).

I think a real scientist can help make the latter better as well.

Why do you need a scientist to improve non-science?

Because it's non-science that is inspired by real science. Stop being purposely obtuse.

But it's not inspired by real science. Going with your XCOM example, sectoids are inspired not by scientific theories on life outside of our universe, but on alien pulp-fiction and tabloids. The autopsy report isn't inspired by science, it's a common staple and the text itself doesn't look like a real report, even remotely. Yet it works because it tells the player something cool about the alien races.

But let's say that Microprose was smart enough to invite real scientists. What would have happened? What would a real scientist do with scientifically absurd (but looking distinctive and cool in isometric) things like:

 

[Monocause]

@VD:

I've a better example. Scientifying X-Com would become an obvious nightmare for every consultant group just a minute after launching the game.



Besides, I really felt the need to post it again. Pure awesome. The machinegun guy is my favourite.

 

[Infinitron]

the text itself doesn't look like a real report, even remotely

Again, I disagree. You have an overly reductionist conception of "science".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Besides, I really felt the need to post it again. Pure awesome. The machinegun guy is my favourite.

Pure awesome. The lost magic.

 

[almondblight]

I can, after some brief research, do a mock up of how a high tech thing will look like or how it will basically function. But then I need to expand it in the game, make it mesh with the environment, make everything interconnected. What would be required for manufacturing such a thing? How would a laboratory working on improvements to such a thing look like? What problems would the scientists be facing (preferably something that the player would have to solve by searching for a mcguffin someplace dangerous)? And, most importantly, how placing such a device within the gameworld would affect it, change the lives of people, change the way they behave. Also, one scientific breakthrough leads to another (what would be the next step provided we have this thing covered, what would humanity try to achieve at this point?), and each imporant invention provides its own set of moral and ethical dilemmas which may or may not be relevant depending on the game you're making (DX:HR handled it superbly).

Yeah, but how much can a scientist help you with this? How something changes lives and the way people behave, the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise from it - you don't have to understand how something works to understand that. I only have a vague clue about how nuclear weapons work, but I know a lot about how they have changed things and the dilemmas they cause. A better understanding of nuclear weapons would not help this.

How to make an interesting laboratory or power plant? How is the scientist going to help you? They can give you descriptions and pictures before you try to model it, and critique your modeling after. The former is easy to find online. As for the latter, I just don't think it's going to make a huge difference to most people. Go look at photos of labs. I can't tell immediately what kind of labs they are just from the photos, and I don't know what a lot of the equipment does just by glancing at it. If you wanted to make a modern-day genetics lab, or a futuristic one that looks just like a modern-day one (unrealistic, but whatever), then yes, I could understand you wanting to bring in someone that works in a genetics lab to help you out. But at that point, you're far past the point where most gamers care.

As for what device is it and what does it solve, here you're much better off doing your own research. By reading about things, you can get ideas that you wouldn't have if you just say to a scientist "I need you to create a scientific MacGuffin, give me a list of 3 options by next Monday." By doing your own research, you'll also have a much better idea of how it fits into the world than if it's given to you on a list (even with the list containing background information).

You can go down the route of a lot of games and make laboratories that are just white halls with people in labcoats using microscopes (you'd think that in the future people would have more advanced devices), or just state that "manufacturing this involves a lot of unobtanium". But that's kinda lacklustre to be honest, and it takes the "sci" out of "fi" almost completely.

Well, you can find pictures for many different labs on your own, and it's pretty easy to look up the basics of how something is manufactured. Again, if you feel the need to go into a lot more detail and have it be accurate I can understand why you'd want people to check and make sure things are correct. But I don't know why you'd ever want to do that in a game.

Heck, in the entire series you meet a lot of "scientists" and nobody strikes you as someone knowledgeable, they just have labcoats on and are otherwise completely bland NPCs, except for Mordin - but Mordin's completely over the top wacky. In some aspects the ME universe is extremely high-tech, yet in different (especially the social ones, but also regarding stuff like architecture or aesthetics) seems backwards compared to modern times. It makes the whole world crumble at closer scrutiny.

But that's not solved by hiring scientists. As far as I know, there's no PhD in speculative architecture of aesthetics. Making NPC's interesting and believable does not require hiring a PhD.

Now again, if you're goal is to make labs that look just like labs actually used by people, down to the placement of the machines, or what to get into the details about how something is manufactured - something more detailed than "carbon nanotubes are created by arc discharge, where carbon in the negative electrode sublimates because of the high discharge temperatures" - then yes, you might want to consult an expert. But why would you have that in a game?

On a side note, I remember Bungie made a big deal about Oni's levels being created by real architects. The levels ended up being bland, and it was hard to modify the game because they used AutoCAD.

 

[Infinitron]

Wasteland 2

most gamers

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

What would a real scientist do with scientifically absurd (but looking distinctive and cool in isometric) things like:

Spoiler

 

[trais]

Do we know what triggered evolution? Well, easy answer is: same thing that triggers evolution everywhere and anywhere: changes in the environment.

I guess you're right, human evolution was "solved" a long time ago. What did we evolve from? Animals. How did we evolved? Small changes over time. Why? Because of the case around us. Oh, you could use Google to find cases of people claiming to say they're scientists that say they are still researching this stuff, but those are just morons, because the whole things pretty straightforward.

We know when (as in: on which stage of our evolutionary development level, on timescale we can only ballpark that with better or worse accuracy, depending available fossils) our genus differentiated from tarsiers, monkeys, gibons, orangutans, gorrilas and chimps, in that order. And thanks to molecular biology we have evidence to prove that. So let me say this once again:
There are no missing links in human evolution. If anyone in AD 2012 genuinely believes they still exist, then they have either wide gaps in their education or they don't understand what the term "missing link" mean. Tertium non datur.
What is left to discover is minor details, like whether we started walking on two legs 4 or 6 million years ago. It's still hard scientific work, but there are no nobel prizes in paleobiology - we already know all the important stuff.

Can you tell me the difference between homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

There's none. If you consider neandertals a sub-species of homo sapiens, then you call them Homo sapiens neanderthalsis; if you consider them a different species then you call them Homo neanderthalsis.
What's the point of this, besides wasting my time?

Yes, they are different. Yes, it's very interesting what caused those differences and how that happened on molecular level or whatever. But do you seriously think that we need to fucking marvel at how those species fit together? Because I think it's pretty straightforward.

So you've gone from "we need to ask a scientist about these things" to "we don't need to marvel at these things, it's pretty straightforward"?

There's no contradiction. If you don't know shit about evolution then better ask a scientist how it works, before you make an ass of yourself by jumping out with missing links and other retarded things. But if you're familiar with the subject, then it's pretty straightforward. I've no idea why simple stuff like that gives you trouble.

The thing is, if you spend 30 minutes reading up on this stuff you're already past the point where most people would care (though it might keep you from saying stupid things like "human evolution is solved since ca. 1980"). Most people aren't going to worry too much if your game has A. ramidus as an ancestor to humans and it turns out later that that wasn't the case (something that scientists still aren't sure about, so you'll have to take a guess even with consultants). Is the DNA overlap between neanderthal DNA and our own the result of interbreeding or a common ancestor? Again, scientists still aren't sure but you've already hit the point where the people that play your game won't care, and that's with spending less than an hour reading articles. If you spent a few days reading about this stuff, you'd be far past that point.

Now you stopped being anal retentive and looked at bigger picture as you should have done from the beginning? Fucking finally, not a moment too soon.

All cool, except that missing links are big stuff. Theory of evolution is the foundation of modern biology and if you want to make an interesting story involving living organisms then you need to know what makes them tick. To subvert some things and create coherent and believable fictional world you need to know what exactly you are subverting and how would that change the rest of the world.
What you definitely don't want to do is using terms you don't understand in a context you don't understand, just like VD did there. And that should be a perfect time to ask someone who knows about stuff, i.e. scientist.

 

[Alex]

Maybe the following is at the key of our argument (feel free to correct me if you disagree, though, people). Infintron, you are thinking of the consultants as people with a background on science, but not important because of that background specifically. You are thinking of them as important because they would be able to use that background to give them insights into how to best make good fiction for the game. I think this incessant discussion about how they would improve the game, or what is or isn't science, is actually only going in circles around this issue. Can a scientific background give them the tools necessary to, for example, write a better autopsy description for a sectoid?

Now, I don't think anyone will really disagree that good scientific knowledge can help that kind of thing. What I think we disagree about is how important such knowledge is for different types of fiction. for example, I would say that it would be more useful for a game like X-Com than for a game like Wasteland. And maybe a lot more useful for a game like Morrowid. after all, even if Morrowind is a fantastic game, knowing where your game is breaking from reality, or understanding and the subverting the principles of reality itself could be very useful.

But, in a game like Wasteland, I don't see that much use for a scientist, at least like that. I think that writing the small pieces of lore with a lot of focus in reality (even if to break it) could drive the game away from its focus. Because this kind of thing would end up a lot more sophisticated than these stories call for, I think. Of course, if the scientist really gets the pulpy thing, he would be of use. But then it isn't because he is a scientist, it is because he understands this type of fiction. In fact, someone jokingly said they should hire priests because they understand about fantasy, but I think being a priest has more to do with understanding pulpy fiction like this than being a scientist (note, I am not trying to make fun of religion here).

Now, to be honest, I was thinking, and I think scientists can indeed help a project like this. If they were, for example, to discuss fun facts that could help get the designers' creative juices flowing. Take one week and make a small presentation about how plant hybridizing works, or how maybe how some of the chromosomal anomalies in humans can develop, or maybe about the basics of how quantum computing works. The thing is, if you do just this, the game won't necessarily be any closer to reality, be any harder to distinguish from the real world than before. In fact, if we are talking about pulp here, it will probably be even more absurd, as long as the people making it do it right. And again, people who would talk about non-scientific topics could be just as useful. Heck, that guy that talks about the cubic earth or whatever was that could help make a cool pulpy setting.

 

[Monocause]

Yeah, but how much can a scientist help you with this? How something changes lives and the way people behave, the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise from it - you don't have to understand how something works to understand that. I only have a vague clue about how nuclear weapons work, but I know a lot about how they have changed things and the dilemmas they cause. A better understanding of nuclear weapons would not help this.

How to make an interesting laboratory or power plant? How is the scientist going to help you? They can give you descriptions and pictures before you try to model it, and critique your modeling after. The former is easy to find online. As for the latter, I just don't think it's going to make a huge difference to most people. Go look at photos of labs. I can't tell immediately what kind of labs they are just from the photos, and I don't know what a lot of the equipment does just by glancing at it. If you wanted to make a modern-day genetics lab, or a futuristic one that looks just like a modern-day one (unrealistic, but whatever), then yes, I could understand you wanting to bring in someone that works in a genetics lab to help you out. But at that point, you're far past the point where most gamers care.

As for what device is it and what does it solve, here you're much better off doing your own research. By reading about things, you can get ideas that you wouldn't have if you just say to a scientist "I need you to create a scientific MacGuffin, give me a list of 3 options by next Monday." By doing your own research, you'll also have a much better idea of how it fits into the world than if it's given to you on a list (even with the list containing background information).

You're essentially right, but you're making a couple of assumptions which may be the reason of our disagreement here:

1) You automatically assume that a sizeable part of the design team has the intellectual capacity to conceptualise such stuff at will and the time to do it. In different cases that may or may not be true. Having such an imagination coupled with an interdisciplinary mind (which is required) isn't that common; I've known very bright people who are very problem-oriented and are great when working on particular problems in their respective fields, but have issues when working with the bigger picture or talking about stuff not related to their fields of expertise, even on subjects that seem relatively simple to conceive and grasp. It's just outside of their comfort zone.

In WL2 I can't comment on their capacity (though I imagine creating video games is an occupation that naturally draws more problem-oriented people than interdisciplinary ones, and watching or reading interviews with many devs over the past years kinda confirms that impression), I can only tell that their planned release date is early Q4 2013. That makes for a really tight schedule and one can easily imagine that delegating the necessary research to a third party might make a lot of things go smoother.

2) You seem overconfident in your assumption that you'd be able to handle such a task without major flaws, especially given the time limits and that you can't just focus on designing these particular aspects of the world because you've got a lot of work in other parts of the game. You're only a man, and a man makes mistakes, especially when drawing something out of thin air in the middle of something else with the clock ticking right beside your ear. Having a group of consultants who could check your shit is a reasonable choice. Another thing is that crafting a world means you'll be necessarily dealing with things outside your field of expertise. You seem interested in the natural sciences, it seems, but imagine that, aside from inventing sci-fi tech, you're also about to paint a social picture there, with new social structures, interaction modes, customs, traditions and conflicts, all creating a huge system with that tech you've introduced.

The lack of appreciation of the deadline aspect is the most important problem with your reasoning as you seem to ignore the fact that you're not likely to have the comfort of time to do proper research and to just sit around with a pencil in your teeth juggling a hundred of "what if's" in your head. Sure that most of the time it's better to DIY, but it's hugely preferable to ask someone to do something for you if otherwise you fall out of the schedule and end up with nothing. I believe that the research necessary for creating a believable (perhaps "coherent" would be the better word here) sci-fi world is really a both demanding and time-consuming task. Case in point being that a huge majority of sci-fi literature, games and movies I've consumed has coherency issues, often bordering on the edges of stupidity or introducing dozens of dei ex machina because at some point of production it turned out that there're fundamental coherency issues with the world they created. If it was as easy as "do a google search, look at a photo of a lab and think about it", well, you know.

3) You don't need to delegate *all* the research to someone. Having such a group is handy because they can provide you with a number of ideas you might've missed and you can bounce your ideas off them and see what comes after they comment it and add their two cents.

 

[hiver]

Why do you need a scientist to improve non-science?

Its really hard to tune down to that kind of brain frequencies but ill try.
Ill talk backwards really fast too!


The answer:
To provide an internal framework of coherence and internal consistency between different features of the game - and to stop abominations such as idiotic examples of horrible and utterly stupid, contrived, disingenuous, moronic settings or parts of them - from ever being created.

- FO3 in its entirety. From the main plot to Megaton to Fatman to vats mechanics to everything else. (the prime example of design by idiots for idiots based on logic of "hey its all pulp fiction campy SF - lets throw in everything that farts out of our asses! Yeahh!")
- Mass effect in its entirety, from "you are incapable of understanding us" to giant human looking robot Reaper filled with human juice to whole ass effect 3 and its mindbogglingly retarded ending.
Plus all other shitty stupid things in the whole series, from weapons to biotic powers to everything else. (another prime example of designing that "cool shit" based on nothing but making up cool things - for morons)
- all so called fantasy settings full of shit that doesnt make sense and which those two threads on IT talk about in such detail.
- all other games based on pulling stuff out of asses.
- every feature that doesnt make sense in the setting it is or doesnt affect that setting in ways it should.


By the very nature and reality of things - as soon as you put uneducated people in charge of coming up with design of any fantastical settings (whether futuristic-science fiction or fantasy oriented) - you exponentially increase the chances of created work being full of stupid and incoherent features.
It only makes sense, right?
Its not actually the reverse - as these ridiculous bullshit statements around here claim.
The Game industry proves this every day.

The examples of these - "lulzy, pulp fiction or fantastical" settings that are full of crap, stupidity, flip-floping, cheapness, incredible twists in setting or story, or any other core details or technologies or magic - based simply on nothing and without any further consequences on anything else, plot holes, inconsistency across the board including all utter dumbfucking stupid things, creatures, skills, weapons, items, powers and whatever else you can think off -

- are far more numerous than such settings and games that actually work and that no one is criticizing for not having any of all these faults.



And mr Sales Manager here would have you all believe this is a better approach.... that it is better to create fantastical setting based on stupidity rather then reason. On ignorance rather then knowledge.
On simply pulling silly stuff out of your ass instead of designing them smartly.
(well, he thinks pulling stuff out of your ass is smart)

For example, according to his internal logic it is better to have someone who doesnt know shit about weapons designing the weapons systems in the game.
Someone who doesnt know shit about military tech and how it performs in live conditions is better then consulting an expert in the field.
And on and on and on.

And then he writes reviews of these wonders of game design and complains about lack of internal consistence and idiotic, nonsensical things in them.
And how it all doesnt make sense.

Sales manager who thinks science and common sense, logic, and reason are different things.
If that isnt ridiculous and so god damn sarcastic - i dont know what is.

The fact that his only defense against being proven wrong is simply turning his head away, pretending not to see anything and then repeating the same limited, blind, uneducated shit again and again - is awesome too.

 

[Alex]

By the way, is the reaction of anyone here affected by Michael Stackpole, know for the "stackpoling" effects of the mechs in BattleTech, being a designer in this game?

 

[Infinitron]

By the way, is the reaction of anyone here affected by Michael Stackpole, know for the "stackpoling" effects of the mechs in BattleTech, being a designer in this game?

Hmm, interesting, I did not know about that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

For example, according to his internal logic it is better to have someone who doesnt know shit about weapons designing the weapons systems in the game.

Didn't you like AoD's combat? Weren't you raving about the spear mechanics and saying that they are the best you've ever seen?

Well... remember when I told you that I served as a hoplite in my youth? I lied.

 

[almondblight]

You're essentially right, but you're making a couple of assumptions which may be the reason of our disagreement here:

1) You automatically assume that a sizeable part of the design team has the intellectual capacity to conceptualise such stuff at will and the time to do it. In different cases that may or may not be true. Having such an imagination coupled with an interdisciplinary mind (which is required) isn't that common; I've known very bright people who are very problem-oriented and are great when working on particular problems in their respective fields, but have issues when working with the bigger picture or talking about stuff not related to their fields of expertise, even on subjects that seem relatively simple to conceive and grasp. It's just outside of their comfort zone.

They could lack that capacity, but they're the ones designing the world. If they lack the capacity to do that, then I doubt consultants are going to help much.

In WL2 I can't comment on their capacity (though I imagine creating video games is an occupation that naturally draws more problem-oriented people than interdisciplinary ones, and watching or reading interviews with many devs over the past years kinda confirms that impression), I can only tell that their planned release date is early Q4 2013. That makes for a really tight schedule and one can easily imagine that delegating the necessary research to a third party might make a lot of things go smoother.

How's that going to help though? Instead of reading a few articles about what's happened in Chernobyl they'll hire scientists to give them the summary? I mean, that's what the articles already are, summaries of what's happening/known.

2) You seem overconfident in your assumption that you'd be able to handle such a task without major flaws, especially given the time limits and that you can't just focus on designing these particular aspects of the world because you've got a lot of work in other parts of the game. You're only a man, and a man makes mistakes, especially when drawing something out of thin air in the middle of something else with the clock ticking right beside your ear. Having a group of consultants who could check your shit is a reasonable choice. Another thing is that crafting a world means you'll be necessarily dealing with things outside your field of expertise. You seem interested in the natural sciences, it seems, but imagine that, aside from inventing sci-fi tech, you're also about to paint a social picture there, with new social structures, interaction modes, customs, traditions and conflicts, all creating a huge system with that tech you've introduced.

Yeah, but why do you need someone with a PhD in pharmacology to craft new social structures, interaction modes...etc.?

Now, of course it helps to have a group. And Wasteland 2 is a team, I assume they throw ideas around, and bounce them off of each other. If they threw them around their forum I'm sure that they could get decent feedback, and maybe information that scientific consultants wouldn't pick up on, because you're dealing with a wider group.

Now, this isn't to say that the consultants won't help at all. Hell, if one of them tells Fargo that the Timmy in the well example is stupid, then it's money well spent. But I question the value of specifically hiring a group of PhD's for scientific consultation in a game, especially one like Wasteland.

The lack of appreciation of the deadline aspect is the most important problem with your reasoning as you seem to ignore the fact that you're not likely to have the comfort of time to do proper research and to just sit around with a pencil in your teeth juggling a hundred of "what if's" in your head. Sure that most of the time it's better to DIY, but it's hugely preferable to ask someone to do something for you if otherwise you fall out of the schedule and end up with nothing. I believe that the research necessary for creating a believable (perhaps "coherent" would be the better word here) sci-fi world is really a both demanding and time-consuming task.

But again, what are they going to do? Present InXile with a report and tell them to create a world around it? That saves some time, sure, but you don't need a PhD to do that, and I doubt it saves much since the developers still have to have the capacity to comprehend what's been given and the ability to make a coherent world with it. And what happens when they decide to add a new creature? Create a draft design of it, and then send it to the scientists to see what they say? Chances are there will be some changes and revisions in the game, and when they occur the game's going to feel more coherent if the people that designed the world had a firm grasp of what they were trying to do.

Case in point being that a huge majority of sci-fi literature, games and movies I've consumed has coherency issues, often bordering on the edges of stupidity or introducing dozens of dei ex machina because at some point of production it turned out that there're fundamental coherency issues with the world they created.

True, but I've found that groups of fans do a good job at pointing these out, I don't think you need PhD's to do that.

If it was as easy as "do a google search, look at a photo of a lab and think about it", well, you know.

To make a believable lab (like your earlier example), I don't think you need to hire a PhD. Deus Ex, System Shock, Portal, Fallout - they all had labs in them, and in none of those games did I feel they weren't accurately portrayed. Did any of those games consult with scientists to make them feel accurate? I have no idea. None of them felt more authentic than another.

3) You don't need to delegate *all* the research to someone. Having such a group is handy because they can provide you with a number of ideas you might've missed and you can bounce your ideas off them and see what comes after they comment it and add their two cents.

Look, I think getting feedback and bouncing ideas of of people is great. But I don't think that having a PhD is the most important part of being a sounding board, and I don't think flaws that only they would notice are that important for most games, because again - by the time their expertise comes into play, you're already far past the point where most people care, and just shoe-horning in more stuff will probably be detrimental to your game.

 

[almondblight]

We know when (as in: on which stage of our evolutionary development level, on timescale we can only ballpark that with better or worse accuracy, depending available fossils) our genus differentiated from tarsiers, monkeys, gibons, orangutans, gorrilas and chimps, in that order. And thanks to molecular biology we have evidence to prove that. So let me say this once again:
There are no missing links in human evolution. If anyone in AD 2012 genuinely believes they still exist, then they have either wide gaps in their education or they don't understand what the term "missing link" mean. Tertium non datur.
What is left to discover is minor details, like whether we started walking on two legs 4 or 6 million years ago.

Some people - including this science correspondent - seem to use it as a shorthand for previously undiscovered transitional fossils:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html

Would I personally use that term? No. But I think it's far less offensive than saying that human evolution was solved in 1980.

It's still hard scientific work, but there are no nobel prizes in paleobiology - we already know all the important stuff.

Yeah man. They were giving out the prizes until 1980, then said that since scientists solved human evolution they were going to stop.

Can you tell me the difference between homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

There's none. If you consider neandertals a sub-species of homo sapiens, then you call them Homo sapiens neanderthalsis; if you consider them a different species then you call them Homo neanderthalsis.
What's the point of this, [/quote]

Oh, I don't know...

Dude, listen. Difference between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens it's like a difference between gray wolf and jackal.
...
Yes, they are different.

Moving on...

There's no contradiction. If you don't know shit about evolution then better ask a scientist how it works, before you make an ass of yourself by jumping out with missing links and other retarded things. But if you're familiar with the subject, then it's pretty straightforward. I've no idea why simple stuff like that gives you trouble.

No, you don't need to ask a scientist to realize that "missing link" isn't a scientific term. If you look up the term, you'll see that immediately.

Now you stopped being anal retentive and looked at bigger picture as you should have done from the beginning? Fucking finally, not a moment too soon.

All cool, except that missing links are big stuff. Theory of evolution is the foundation of modern biology and if you want to make an interesting story involving living organisms then you need to know what makes them tick. To subvert some things and create coherent and believable fictional world you need to know what exactly you are subverting and how would that change the rest of the world.
What you definitely don't want to do is using terms you don't understand in a context you don't understand, just like VD did there. And that should be a perfect time to ask someone who knows about stuff, i.e. scientist.

Yeah man, VD should have consulted with a scientist before making that post. Even if we are really, truly concerned about using a popular term in a Codex thread, half a minute on Google shows us it's not a scientific term.

 

[hiver]

For example, according to his internal logic it is better to have someone who doesnt know shit about weapons designing the weapons systems in the game.

Didn't you like AoD's combat? Weren't you raving about the spear mechanics and saying that they are the best you've ever seen?

Well... remember when I told you that I served as a hoplite in my youth? I lied.

I was just thinking how i could have expanded on that one and mention how you went and studied roman empire, their technology and weapons, society, even nomeclature itself - in order to make a convincing game.
ergo - you applied a rational, logical, scientific approach to the matter, largely, i would dare say - based on work of real scientists in the field who provided all the literature and data you studied.
Im sure many players actually learned what a hoplite is, for the first time, when they played AoD.

I was praising the spear combat precisely because it has improved additional realistic capabilities that are actually present and used in reality, (especially in eastern spear combat), instead of how every other game before used spears - if they had them at all.
AT least, as far as i know.

Not that its perfect, but it is a noticeable advancement and improvement - based on factual approach and reasoning. On facts.
Additionally, the mechanics for weapons show an increased realistic approach too, in different types of attacks you can do with them, all appropriately stronger or weaker, costing more APs or less - just as common sense and reality would expect.

Armors have a more realistic role and effects.
Shields are... still being redesigned and improved - to make more sense!
Materials, metals and such all have realistically designed strengths and advantages.
In fact - all of combat mechanics are based on realistic approach - within boundaries of the system, setting and engine, of course.

Now, despite your setting not even trying to be campy pulp sci fi, it is completely correct to say that your game was improved whenever you applied research of a relevant subject and studied it - which is scientific approach - common sense - realism.
Amazingly.... - It did not negatively affect the general post-apocalytic quazi roman empire setting idea at all. -

(and dont even start talking about a setting being "totally realistically altered" because youre the only one talking about it and i told you so fifteen pages ago)

- Except actually made it better, and more internally consistent, conceptually and in terms of gameplay. (within boundaries of specific type of an RPG, turn based combat, PoV, etc.)
(not to mention, you use math - which is a science - to design mechanic calculations themselves that the engine can use)
Everything else in the game works in more coherent ways because of this internally consistent framework, and is helped by maintaining such approach to the more fantastic section of the story.
The very fact that every character cannot experience or even see what a different one could - is based on realism too.

- your posts on magic systems were scientific approach to the problem - under the basic assumption such conditions and such setting exists.

Asking or saying "well if there are magic portals available - why is no one using them in very obvious ways common sense would expect?" is by definition and any other possible angle - realistic thinking.
It is asking for realism within that set of rules and conditions - i.e. the setting.

"If such and such power exists and works as presented then - logically - it should affect this - and / or be used like that too" - right?


Now, if you, a former market-sales-something-manager could achieve all that, imagine what a good team of actual experts could do together with a dedicated experienced game design team.

/

How about a internally consistent post apocalyptic setting?
That seem too crazy?

 

[Vault Dweller]

I was just thinking how i could have expanded on that one and mention how you went and studied roman empire, their technology and weapons, society, even nomeclature itself - in order to make a convincing game.

I thank you for saying that it's a convincing game, but it's a not a historically accurate game in any way. It took effort and basic research to make the setting coherent, not expert level knowledge.

I was praising the spear combat precisely because it has improved additional realistic capabilities that are actually present and used in reality, (especially in eastern spear combat)... Not that its perfect, but it is a noticeable advancement and improvement - based on factual approach and reasoning. On facts.

Using facts may be a scientific approach, but hard science it's not and that's what we're talking about here. Obviously, I'm all for logic and reason, but the issue here is not using logic and reason when developing games but bringing in actual scientists, experts in different fields. I think it's unnecessary and serves no purpose.

As for spears, I didn't research spear fighting or googe "fucking spears how do they work". I used common sense - you have a long stick in your hands, the advantage is obvious, how do I make it interesting for the player and different from other weapons. Again, you may say that it's a scientific approach, but it's neither science nor expertise in the field. The only relevant skill here is that of a game developer.

In fact - all of combat mechanics are based on realistic approach...

But not on science or expertise in combat, armor, melee weapons, etc.

...not to mention, you use math - which is a science - to design mechanic calculations themselves that the engine can use...

I don't think you took the time to understand my position, which was, in a nutshell, that it's unlikely that bringing in outside experts in various science fields would make the game better.

Everything else, things like LETS MAKE GAMES WITHOUT ANY SCIENCE, WHO NEEDS MATH AND CAMPUTARS!! are a figment of your overly vivid imagination.

Asking or saying "well if there are magic portals available - why is no one using them in very obvious ways common sense would expect?" is by definition and any other possible angle - realistic thinking.

I'm aware. However, there is a difference between trying to imagine how magic portals could have changed medieval society (no expert can help you there) and hiring an expert in quantum physics to provide a plausible explanation. Tell me you understand what this difference is.

Now, if you, a former market-sales-something-manager could achieve all that, imagine what a good team of actual experts could do together with a dedicated experienced game design team.

A better question is, if I, an inexperienced former sales-something-guy could achieve all that, imagine what industry veterans and legendary designers with twenty years of experience could do?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Im sure many players actually learned what a hoplite is, for the first time, when they played AoD.

I learned it playing Age of Empires. 2 kool 4 skool

 

[hiver]

I was just thinking how i could have expanded on that one and mention how you went and studied roman empire, their technology and weapons, society, even nomeclature itself - in order to make a convincing game.

I thank you for saying that it's a convincing game, but it's a not a historically accurate game in any way.

oh no! for realz?!

It took effort and basic research to make the setting coherent, not expert level knowledge.

:facepalm:

so...knowledge coming from an uneducated person studying scientific research and historic data is good but--- bringing in experts is bad?

I was praising the spear combat precisely because it has improved additional realistic capabilities that are actually present and used in reality, (especially in eastern spear combat)... Not that its perfect, but it is a noticeable advancement and improvement - based on factual approach and reasoning. On facts.

Using facts may be a scientific approach, but hard science it's not and that's what we're talking about here.

Obviously, I'm all for logic and reason,

but the issue here is not using logic and reason when developing games but bringing in actual scientists, experts in different fields. I think it's unnecessary and serves no purpose.

- repeating that statement doesnt make it any less dumb. Contrary to your "logic and reason".

As for spears, I didn't research spear fighting or googe "fucking spears how do they work". I used common sense - you have a long stick in your hands, the advantage is obvious, how do I make it interesting for the player and different from other weapons. Again, you may say that it's a scientific approach, but it's neither science nor expertise in the field. The only relevant skill here is that of a game developer.

Scientific approach is not science, people!
You heard it here first!
/
Spears behave more realistically regardless of whether you intended it or just lucked out, thats why they work better - the whole point of the reply was to show how your game was made better by using real data, scientific approach, realism and facts.
NOT TO CLAIM YOU USED PROFESSIONAL EXPERTIZE.
/
common sense and "obvious advantage" idea work only when you have enough realistic data-knowledge to make correct assumptions - which is scientific approach - science.
/
No, its not the only relevant skill. Dont be fucking stupid.
Ive just shown that to you on your own example. You trying just to wriggle out of it in this way only makes you so obviously disingenuous its laughable.
/
Did i say you used or possessed expertise in the field? I didnt?
Then why are you repeating it?
/
Is it... because knowledge coming from an uneducated person studying scientific research and historic data is good but--- bringing in experts is bad?

In fact - all of combat mechanics are based on realistic approach...

But not on science or expertise in combat, armor, melee weapons, etc.

Studying the subject, researching what is known about materials, metals, weapons, combat and everything else and then trying to apply all that realistically as possible - IS NOT SCIENCE PEOPLE!


ITS DUMBFUCKERY!


I also wonder why this "expertise" was even mentioned here... did i think just researching something makes anyone an expert?
So it was needed to point out it doesnt?

or is it ... because knowledge coming from an uneducated person studying scientific research and historic data is good but--- bringing in experts is bad?

I don't think you took the time to understand my position, which was, in a nutshell, that it's unlikely that bringing in outside experts in various science fields would make the game better.

I didnt? Wasnt i laughing my ass off at it all this time? Cause it sure as hell looked like that to me!


so...knowledge coming from an uneducated person studying scientific research and historic data is good but--- bringing in experts is bad?

Everything else, things like LETS MAKE GAMES WITHOUT ANY SCIENCE, WHO NEEDS MATH AND CAMPUTARS!! are a figment of your overly vivid imagination.

No, thats just where your hilariously limited cognitive dissonance logic leads - so i use it to ridicule itself.

I'm aware. However, there is a difference between trying to imagine how magic portals could have changed medieval society (no expert can help you there) and hiring an expert in quantum physics to provide a plausible explanation. Tell me you understand what this difference is.

Ahem.... CAN YOU TELL ME WHO ACTUALLY CLAIMED THAT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH MUST RESULT IN FINDING AN EXPERT IN QUANTUM PHYSICS TO PROVIDE AN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR A MAGICAL OR OTHERWISE COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC FEATURE????

The only answer is: you Vince. You invented it and have been complaining about it ever since.

Now, if you, a former market-sales-something-manager could achieve all that, imagine what a good team of actual experts could do together with a dedicated experienced game design team.

A better question is, if I, an inexperienced former sales-something-guy could achieve all that, imagine what industry veterans and legendary designers with twenty years of experience could do?[/quote]
And thats a better question - how? by leaving out experts it becomes better? Do you even realize how stupid this looks?
For what it would seem better? for your angle?


And - so... knowledge coming from an uneducated person studying scientific research and historic data is good but--- bringing in experts is bad?


As i said before - the word "science" means a realistic reality simulation of some sort to you, and that "bringing in experts" means they will take over and reformat the whole setting and mechanics and everything and turn the game into this retarded concept of "reality simulation", or as you call it - science!
Which is all completely, utterly and hilariously stupid.

Especially seeing how you used real world data, historic records, and expert opinions - in creating a believable, detailed setting filled with appropriate details of all sorts, from correct names to everything else.

 

[Jaesun]

 

[Alex]

God damn it, I always end up with supporting roles only.