Can we make our own game?

[SloeyEZ]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cryolemon

It's easy enough to develop for the 360 (XNA is so easy to use it's unreal). PS3 is a lot of hassle to develop for by all accounts. I majored in Games Computing at college, so I can code a fair bit. Mostly in C# / XNA, which is obviously a 360 or PC thing.

Really? so could you like make a bunch of Xs and Os busy about on a football field? I'm really curious to know what it would take to build a "sim" engine as I suppose that is what we'd have to do right? And yes, I suppose we will develop for PC at least to get a prototype. Dream would be we put in a few years and just sell the prototype to EA or someone else so we can just play

[Cryolemon]

Quote: Originally Posted by SloeyEZ

Really? so could you like make a bunch of Xs and Os busy about on a football field? I'm really curious to know what it would take to build a "sim" engine as I suppose that is what we'd have to do right? And yes, I suppose we will develop for PC at least to get a prototype. Dream would be we put in a few years and just sell the prototype to EA or someone else so we can just play

It would probably be relatively easy to get a system where it plays a pre-determined animation for each play outcome. Of course making enough animated outcomes so it didn't get stale quick would take time.*

As I said, a sim engine that generates stats on a game by game basis is pretty simple if you have enough data (NFL, CFL and Arena League stats and averages are probably easy enough to find).

A play by play engine (think OOTP style) is a different matter altogether, and in fact would probably need to be more complex than that because there are less variables about a play outcome in baseball than in football. The very fact that each team calls a play, which need to be compared to each other, while also factoring in player ratings and random chance, makes it very daunting.

*Basically, it would work like this:

1 - Choose the plays (either by the AI or user input as appropriate)
2 - work out the outcome of the play (this is the complex part, see above)
3 - choose an animation based on the outcome
4 - play the animation and display the outcome.

Obviously this is for a "text based game" (although one that would use animations...). Anything more complex than that would vary according to what engine you want to use. Developing one from scratch would be monumentally time consuming.

[SloeyEZ]

My respect for Rockstar is growing by leaps and bounds at the moment, and I already considered them the best at making engines...what was it the Havoc engine back in the day with Half Life? I know that wasn't Rockstar but that is the first time I can remember hearing about an engine. Has anyone tried to make a football engine? I don't think so, probably just always been a mathematical paradigm, which I think is fine, especially for a game that isn't user-controlled, but...

Oh and let me ask you this, even though it may be a bit outside your scope...what about audio inputs rather than keypad inputs? What does that add?

I have a really neat foundation for the game, which I'm not quite ready to share yet, in public, and it probably isn't revolutionary, I'm sure someone has thought of it before, but vocal input/reading would definitely be a part of it. (think coach on a head set, which I'm sure EA is probably already working on but in any great invention in history, it's not who does it first, it is who does it better )

[Cryolemon]

Quote: Originally Posted by SloeyEZ

My respect for Rockstar is growing by leaps and bounds at the moment, and I already considered them the best at making engines...what was it the Havoc engine back in the day with Half Life? I know that wasn't Rockstar but that is the first time I can remember hearing about an engine. Has anyone tried to make a football engine? I don't think so, probably just always been a mathematical paradigm, which I think is fine, especially for a game that isn't user-controlled, but...

Backbreaker tried to use a physics engine for a football game, that's probably the closest. It worked pretty well, considering. I know the licenses for their physics engine cost something like $100,000 though (we had a Q&A with one of their guys while I was at college and someone asked lol). IIRC The engine Rockstar used in GTA IV was a version of the Natural Motion one that Backbreaker used.

Quote: Originally Posted by SloeyEZ

Oh and let me ask you this, even though it may be a bit outside your scope...what about audio inputs rather than keypad inputs? What does that add?

It's certainly an interesting idea. In a coach sim (where you don't control the players directly) it would probably work pretty well, as long as the voice recognition could be calibrated properly. Voice recognition is still a bit of crap-shoot though.

Quote: Originally Posted by SloeyEZ

I have a really neat foundation for the game, which I'm not quite ready to share yet, in public, and it probably isn't revolutionary, I'm sure someone has thought of it before, but vocal input/reading would definitely be a part of it. (think coach on a head set, which I'm sure EA is probably already working on but in any great invention in history, it's not who does it first, it is who does it better )

I personally think that if a game is going to be developed by independent developers (i/e us!) then it needs to be a text sim with graphic representation of the play outcomes (unless someone wants o give us enough money to license 2k Sports animation engine from APF, which is unlikely at best lol). Over multiple versions that representation can be improved of course.

[SloeyEZ]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cryolemon

Backbreaker tried to use a physics engine for a football game, that's probably the closest. It worked pretty well, considering. I know the licenses for their physics engine cost something like $100,000 though (we had a Q&A with one of their guys while I was at college and someone asked lol). IIRC The engine Rockstar used in GTA IV was a version of the Natural Motion one that Backbreaker used. It's certainly an interesting idea. In a coach sim (where you don't control the players directly) it would probably work pretty well, as long as the voice recognition could be calibrated properly. Voice recognition is still a bit of crap-shoot though. I personally think that if a game is going to be developed by independent developers (i/e us!) then it needs to be a text sim with graphic representation of the play outcomes (unless someone wants o give us enough money to license 2k Sports animation engine from APF, which is unlikely at best lol). Over multiple versions that representation can be improved of course.

yeah, the voice control is for coach mode. I'd like to have a player mode eventually also but not with voice control. that'd be stick control like Madden.

Agree on the text sim with animations on top. I think if focussed on, the animations can be great, in fact, should be easier to make it more immersive. I guess that is where our first constraint would occur though, memory vs how many different animations we can have.

[Juce734]

Text game with outcome animations would be great. That would be a great game and would be more about strategy than stick skills. This is a game I would want to play.

[SloeyEZ]

Did you guys play Head Coach? Don't know if I ever asked.

[thegipper]

Quote: Originally Posted by Juce734

Text game with outcome animations would be great. That would be a great game and would be more about strategy than stick skills. This is a game I would want to play.

Right, some graphics and sounds users could customize just like Second and Ten. A game with a realistic game play. I like eyecandy but my dream is to have a game where preparing your plays and gameplan for your next game were as exciting as playing the game. Kind of a realistic football-chess game where calling crossing routes against man to man would make sense and where calling a draw versus zone coverages wouldn't usually give you any gain.