Defcon DS

[deltantor]

I still think the Wii would be a good choice. However, the pointer is pretty irritating, and often hard to control with precision. It's still far superior to a regular gamepad-type interface, though.

And you could even make it available through the Wii Shopping Channel!

hmm, that would work pretty nice, although i dont have a wii, the controller would work pretty good for rts's

[Taedal]

KingAl wrote:

Oh, you crusader, you. This paragraph is the very definition of being on a 'high horse' - you are apparently better, more creative, and more open minded than others on these forums, who are morally reprehensible for their stance towards people who can't use the search function. You 'persist' despite their direst attempts to break you down - attempts which are 'indicative of many threads'. Shine on, you unfaltering star.

Please, just comprehend what people are saying. Defcon DS would be cool, but it could not be created without radical changes.

Isn't that what I've been saying all along My entire gyst has been that a graphically scaled down version of defcon maintaing gameplay would be just fine.

Also I fail to see where i claimed to be more creative and open minded than others on this forum. You don't like the fact I pointed out the forum comes across as unfriendlyto the casual reader. I'm sorry about that. It took about 30 posts of debate before a single person conceded it might be nice to play defcon on the DS. Now maybe everyone just thinks its a cr*p idea, or maybe most aren't willing to put themselves in the firing line like me (No I am not saying this to be a a martyr etc) - it is genuinely my opinion.

Neothermic, however many figures you throw at me I know that a simple vector graphic implementation of defcon, eg. in the style of asteroids, could easily run on a DS.

You have conveniently ignored all of my more cogent points:
That my analogy to elite was in fact entirely appropriate, that it highlighted that clever code can be written to take advantage of specific hardware. That you dont need to use 1800 polygons to represent north america. That indie gaming is in many ways about gameplay not graphics. That yes, AI could be improved, but I would happily play vs AI for a quick game on the bus. That the DS is internet capable - yes you likely wouldn't have cross platform compatability - but where did anyone ever say you have to have that to make a port worthwhile. In fact that is a very rare feature for any game, and certainly not a reason to rule out a port.

edit. shinygerbil, I agree a wii version would also be decent, the pointer would make it best console option to play it on.

[xander]

Isn't that what I've been saying all along :?: My entire gyst has been that a graphically scaled down version of defcon maintaing gameplay would be just fine.

No one has disagreed that, in principal, the DS would be a fun way to play Defcon. It has been pointed out that the touch screen would be a neat interface. What people have told you, over and over again, is that the DS simply is not powerful enough for Defcon, for myriad reasons. The DS does not have the power to play Defcon as it is now, and a scaled down version of Defcon would not be Defcon any longer. Because of the technical impracticality/impossibility of getting Defcon to play on a DS, people have suggested that you might get a similar experience by using a tablet PC of some kind.

xander


EDIT: Now for a bit of overt opinion:

edit. shinygerbil, I agree a wii version would also be decent, the pointer would make it best console option to play it on.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I am not saying that it is a fact that you are wrong, but, in my opinion, the Wiimote would be a terrible user input for Defcon. Defcon requires that you precisely click on targets, units, &c. in order to interface with the game. I don't think that the Wiimote offers that kind of precision. It would be like trying to play Defcon with the NES light gun, where you would have to shoot each city or unit in order to select it or target it. I honestly think that a standard D-pad or analog stick would work better.

[NeoThermic]

Neothermic, however many figures you throw at me I know that a simple vector graphic implementation of defcon, eg. in the style of asteroids, could easily run on a DS.

Then make one. In the words of someone else, put your money where your mouth is. Hell, prototype it. You'll find that it's actually a lot more complicated than it looks.

You have conveniently ignored all of my more cogent points

I don't think I have, but lets go over them again.

That my analogy to elite was in fact entirely appropriate, that it highlighted that clever code can be written to take advantage of specific hardware.

The problem is, short of dropping the detail there is no "clever code" that will help here. The DS lacks critical things like multi-texturing, doesn't have a high fill rate and has a really low polygon count. The technical limitations are much more sever. The DS has just under 100MHz to cope with everything, from rendering to AI to network code to sound to the mundane things like loading/unloading. In it's present state one could not port Defcon over. Any attempt to rewrite Defcon to work on the DS makes it not become Defcon anymore, more as a cheap handheld port.

That you dont need to use 1800 polygons to represent north america.

The problem, as we've already discussed is that if you use less polygons, you have no other way of making the detail back up to the user. A texture quality falls when you zoom, and the cost of loading/unloading a new texture layer for zoom would be too high. Thusly without a nice looking set of vector lines, it would look horrid to do anything bar look at the map zoomed out. (See my point about money and mouth if you wish to argue this)

That indie gaming is in many ways about gameplay not graphics.

Correct. This was never disputed. However, if you're trying to infer that someone should sacrifice all decent graphics for gameplay, then you're looking at the wrong end of the stick. The whole reason why it's about gameplay over graphics is that a small development team does not have the manpower to make detailed graphics. Have a look at IV's Imperial presentation last year (search the forums, there's a video somewhere). You'll see why such choices were made.

That yes, AI could be improved, but I would happily play vs AI for a quick game on the bus.

You missed my point here obviously. Improved AI == higher demand on cycles. The DS is limited majorly in cycles. Since you're balancing key items on just a small number of cycles, something has to give, and you can't drop graphics (the other major cycle hog).

That the DS is internet capable - yes you likely wouldn't have cross platform compatability - but where did anyone ever say you have to have that to make a port worthwhile.

I pointed that out because if it can't play against the existing userbase, then you're stuck with playing against other DS players who happen to have wifi near them. Some people are finding it hard to fill a 6 player game online, and that is comming from the already existing large userbase of Defcon (where sales are probably in the 50,000+ range). I highly doubt the DS would sale as much as the windows version (or the mac or linux versions...), so the lack of cross platform compatibility would kill the point of the port.

It would be like trying to play Defcon with the NES light gun

There's an idea! *goes off to develop a lightgun bridge for Defcon*


NeoThermic

[Taedal]

To get the money/mouth thing out of the way, I have a full-time job and do not have the time to learn to program for the DS at this point in my life. It would also be quite a bad case of plagiarism. To continue.

Any attempt to rewrite Defcon to work on the DS makes it not become Defcon anymore, more as a cheap handheld port.

Without getting too philisophical I just don't buy this one. It would be defcon, just defcon without as good graphics. Take as an analogy: Is chess still chess when you play it on a travel kit not a full size board.

The problem, as we've already discussed is that if you use less polygons, you have no other way of making the detail back up to the user.

What does this mean? If you draw a triangle for north america with 20 dots for cities, when you zoom in, it is still a triangle, but with perhaps less cities visible. I fail to see your point regarding "making the detail back up to the user."

A texture quality falls when you zoom, and the cost of loading/unloading a new texture layer for zoom would be too high. Thusly without a nice looking set of vector lines, it would look horrid to do anything bar look at the map zoomed out. (See my point about money and mouth if you wish to argue this)

Why use textures at all. IF i were to code a DS version I would likely do the world map with vector gfx for easy scaling. Units could be represented with simpler shapes.
Secondly, if you went down the texture route to represent units, an easy workround would be to only redraw the texture after the zoom level is determined. Or scale them then only redraw with more detailed textures after zooming is complete.

Correct. This was never disputed. However, if you're trying to infer that someone should sacrifice all decent graphics for gameplay, then you're looking at the wrong end of the stick. The whole reason why it's about gameplay over graphics is that a small development team does not have the manpower to make detailed graphics. Have a look at IV's Imperial presentation last year (search the forums, there's a video somewhere). You'll see why such choices were made.

Your point would be valid if it read "ONE reason why it's about gameplay over graphics is that a small development team doesnt not have the manpower."
ANOTHER reason is CPU. Or GPU if you prefer. Technology of the system you are working on limits the graphics. Nothing new.

You missed my point here obviously. Improved AI == higher demand on cycles. The DS is limited majorly in cycles. Since you're balancing key items on just a small number of cycles, something has to give, and you can't drop graphics (the other major cycle hog).

Why can't I drop graphics..? How many cycles does it take to create an effective AI alogrithm to play defcon. There are probably some fairly simple planning systems which could be used. Have you played advanced wars on the DS? This seems to easily handle the type of AI we are talking about here.

I highly doubt the DS would sale as much as the windows version (or the mac or linux versions...), so the lack of cross platform compatibility would kill the point of the port.

Speculation. I suspect you simply do not have a DS yourself and therefore think it would fail. Either way, DS games sell very well, and the market for stategy games is demonstrable on the DS.

It would be like trying to play Defcon with the NES light gun

There's an idea! *goes off to develop a lightgun bridge

By saying that you make me think you have not used a wii. It is a simple matter to point and click on the wii. You can use it for web browsing, for example, or clicking buttons within game menus, with ease. I have noticed that the pointer is more steady in zelda than wii sports for some reason, however the tech is clearly there.
"Use a point and click to device to point and click you say?. Bwhahahaha." - Thats you i'm afraid.

[Xocrates]

Is chess still chess when you play it on a travel kit not a full size board.

But it won't be chess if you can only have half the pieces: That is the point NeoThermic is trying to make.

The question is not size or quality, the question is making it viable. What I'm starting to find extremely annoying is that you assume it is possible even while someone that can directly access the game and those who made them tells you that it isn't.

Like NeoThermic said: prove it! If you can't then don't keep insisting the point.

You don't have to learn how to code to the DS, just make it so it will run under the conditions necessary to run on th DS. Heck, it doesn't even have to be you doing the code. Just show that it is possible.

[MoonHill]

After this whole thread, I can't get away from the idea that a port of Defcon to the DS would be pretty much as different a game from the original as Codename:Gordon is from Half-Life 2.

Yeah, the elements are still there, but it would seem to be asking a whole hell of alot from such a little system.

[NeoThermic]

To get the money/mouth thing out of the way, I have a full-time job and do not have the time to learn to program for the DS at this point in my life. It would also be quite a bad case of plagiarism. To continue.

Prototyping doesn't need to (and should never) be done on the target device and language. (First rule of prototyping!). As for plagiarism, you're just proving a concept, not selling a game. Finally, I have a part time job and full time university and I still find the time to do rather large things (for example I work for the phpBB Group between going to uni for 4 days a week and working for 3, and I also administrate these forums). You only do not have the time if you do not make the time to have.

Any attempt to rewrite Defcon to work on the DS makes it not become Defcon anymore, more as a cheap handheld port.

Without getting too philisophical I just don't buy this one. It would be defcon, just defcon without as good graphics. Take as an analogy: Is chess still chess when you play it on a travel kit not a full size board.

It is a game of chess, to a point. However, having a full sized board gives more atmosphere when I play. I find it difficult to have as much depth and fun when I'm playing with anything smaller than a board the size of a foot square. I feel the same way with a DS port of Defcon, it might be named the same but it will never play the same.

The problem, as we've already discussed is that if you use less polygons, you have no other way of making the detail back up to the user.

What does this mean? If you draw a triangle for north america with 20 dots for cities, when you zoom in, it is still a triangle, but with perhaps less cities visible. I fail to see your point regarding "making the detail back up to the user."

Ok, you can't use multi-texturing, so the world can't be drawn in the same format as the current world in Defcon. You also don't wish to use up many polygons for drawing the outlines of the world. You'll also then drop the borders between the countries as well in an effort to make sure you've got spare polys when needed. It's going to look crude. Seriously, try it. Alter Defcon to not use the vector country borders. Also manually edit the coastlines files to remove a large amount of the lines used to draw the continents. Defcon will look horrid.

Why use textures at all. IF i were to code a DS version I would likely do the world map with vector gfx for easy scaling. Units could be represented with simpler shapes.

Thing is, textures save polygons. You only need one polygon to render a texture on to, where as to draw even a simple shape out of polygons could potentially require more polygons for less detail. Incidentally enough, the world map in defcon is both textures and vectors. Both are currently impossible to port down to the DS in their present state, yet you're saying you would use vector lines. I've already proven in previous posts that in order to do this you'll have to horribly cramp the quality.

Secondly, if you went down the texture route to represent units, an easy workround would be to only redraw the texture after the zoom level is determined. Or scale them then only redraw with more detailed textures after zooming is complete.

As I noted, operation to load/unload a texture takes time, which is why any games, regardless of platform, try to load all their textures before they begin. The DS is limited in memory, so having many textures in memory for different zoom levels isn't possible, and the cost of loading a texture into memory would be too much.

Your point would be valid if it read "ONE reason why it's about gameplay over graphics is that a small development team doesnt not have the manpower."
ANOTHER reason is CPU. Or GPU if you prefer. Technology of the system you are working on limits the graphics. Nothing new.

Eh? Sure, every system is limited in power, however my point about the DS is it's so limited that developing for it would require a total rethink on how things are done. You've yet to present a decent way in which one could do this without murdering the quality. The reason why IV do not do flashy life-like graphics in their games comes purely down to manpower, not system specs.

Why can't I drop graphics..? How many cycles does it take to create an effective AI alogrithm to play defcon. There are probably some fairly simple planning systems which could be used. Have you played advanced wars on the DS? This seems to easily handle the type of AI we are talking about here.

You're seriously asking me why you can't drop graphics? How else are you going to display the game to the user? As for cycles, that wholly depends on many factors. The current AI in Defcon isn't overly demanding on the system, but it still requires cycles. In the DS, everything you do shares those cycles. I'm not sure why you can't see the problem in that.

Speculation. I suspect you simply do not have a DS yourself and therefore think it would fail. Either way, DS games sell very well, and the market for stategy games is demonstrable on the DS.

Hmm. Lets see. Top selling DS game? "New Super Mario Bros". Approx total sales? 7 million. Top selling PC game? Sims 2. Approx total sales? 15 million plus. When you contrast like that, and consider that Defcon is an indi game, you'll see that sales on the DS will not be as high as those on the PC for the same game. Defcon would suffer the same fate.

It would be like trying to play Defcon with the NES light gun

There's an idea! *goes off to develop a lightgun bridge

By saying that you make me think you have not used a wii. It is a simple matter to point and click on the wii. You can use it for web browsing, for example, or clicking buttons within game menus, with ease. I have noticed that the pointer is more steady in zelda than wii sports for some reason, however the tech is clearly there.
"Use a point and click to device to point and click you say?. Bwhahahaha." - Thats you i'm afraid.

I've used the Wii. Try not to make assumptions.

NeoThermic

[Taedal]

Well I think we have all learnt important things in this thread. For me it was worthwhile. Long story short, I think defcon with poorer graphics on the DS would still be cool. It would not be defcon - it would be defcon ds. A simplified world map with no borders, with basic vector graphics would suit me fine if I could play it on the go, because I find the tactics of the game so engaging. This is the point I was trying to make, and that, given such concessions, it could be technically feasable albeit lacking the visual flare we see on the PC. It appears I may well be alone in this however

[Xocrates]

Well I think we have all learnt important things in this thread. For me it was worthwhile. Long story short, I think defcon with poorer graphics on the DS would still be cool. It would not be defcon - it would be defcon ds. A simplified world map with no borders, with basic vector graphics would suit me fine if I could play it on the go, because I find the tactics of the game so engaging. This is the point I was trying to make, and that, given such concessions, it could be technically feasable albeit lacking the visual flare we see on the PC. It appears I may well be alone in this however

It would not be only visual limitations you know.

[shinygerbil]

...Now for a bit of overt opinion:

edit. shinygerbil, I agree a wii version would also be decent, the pointer would make it best console option to play it on.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I am not saying that it is a fact that you are wrong, but, in my opinion, the Wiimote would be a terrible user input for Defcon. Defcon requires that you precisely click on targets, units, &c. in order to interface with the game. I don't think that the Wiimote offers that kind of precision. It would be like trying to play Defcon with the NES light gun, where you would have to shoot each city or unit in order to select it or target it. I honestly think that a standard D-pad or analog stick would work better.

Obviously I have to disagree, and it's not simply because I have a Wii - although as I do own one, I am quite familiar with its limitations. As I mentioned, the pointer can be irritating; in fact, I found it much worse than I expected it to be when I first used it. However, I do believe it can be made into a very workable interface, especially when compared to a regular D-pad/Analog stick interface.

The way I see it, while the pointer may not be any more accurate than a pad/stick, it is no less accurate. On top of this, traditional gamepad RTS interfaces all have one annoying limitation - the speed of the pointer. Usually, the pointer will move at a (low) fixed speed, until a certain amount of time has passed, at which point it suddenly jumps to a much higher speed causing you to overshoot your target by some distance. Here is where I feel the Wiimote would have its advantage.

I realise you were not directly contesting my point, but I had to chip in with an opinion of my own.

[xander]

...Now for a bit of overt opinion:

edit. shinygerbil, I agree a wii version would also be decent, the pointer would make it best console option to play it on.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I am not saying that it is a fact that you are wrong, but, in my opinion, the Wiimote would be a terrible user input for Defcon. Defcon requires that you precisely click on targets, units, &c. in order to interface with the game. I don't think that the Wiimote offers that kind of precision. It would be like trying to play Defcon with the NES light gun, where you would have to shoot each city or unit in order to select it or target it. I honestly think that a standard D-pad or analog stick would work better.

Obviously I have to disagree, and it's not simply because I have a Wii - although as I do own one, I am quite familiar with its limitations. As I mentioned, the pointer can be irritating; in fact, I found it much worse than I expected it to be when I first used it. However, I do believe it can be made into a very workable interface, especially when compared to a regular D-pad/Analog stick interface.

The way I see it, while the pointer may not be any more accurate than a pad/stick, it is no less accurate. On top of this, traditional gamepad RTS interfaces all have one annoying limitation - the speed of the pointer. Usually, the pointer will move at a (low) fixed speed, until a certain amount of time has passed, at which point it suddenly jumps to a much higher speed causing you to overshoot your target by some distance. Here is where I feel the Wiimote would have its advantage.

I realise you were not directly contesting my point, but I had to chip in with an opinion of my own. ;)

I can't disagree. I think the point that is made is that Defcon, and indeed all RTSes, are not well suited to consoles.

xander

[deltantor]

...Now for a bit of overt opinion:

edit. shinygerbil, I agree a wii version would also be decent, the pointer would make it best console option to play it on.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I am not saying that it is a fact that you are wrong, but, in my opinion, the Wiimote would be a terrible user input for Defcon. Defcon requires that you precisely click on targets, units, &c. in order to interface with the game. I don't think that the Wiimote offers that kind of precision. It would be like trying to play Defcon with the NES light gun, where you would have to shoot each city or unit in order to select it or target it. I honestly think that a standard D-pad or analog stick would work better.

Obviously I have to disagree, and it's not simply because I have a Wii - although as I do own one, I am quite familiar with its limitations. As I mentioned, the pointer can be irritating; in fact, I found it much worse than I expected it to be when I first used it. However, I do believe it can be made into a very workable interface, especially when compared to a regular D-pad/Analog stick interface.

The way I see it, while the pointer may not be any more accurate than a pad/stick, it is no less accurate. On top of this, traditional gamepad RTS interfaces all have one annoying limitation - the speed of the pointer. Usually, the pointer will move at a (low) fixed speed, until a certain amount of time has passed, at which point it suddenly jumps to a much higher speed causing you to overshoot your target by some distance. Here is where I feel the Wiimote would have its advantage.

I realise you were not directly contesting my point, but I had to chip in with an opinion of my own.

I can't disagree. I think the point that is made is that Defcon, and indeed all RTSes, are not well suited to consoles.

xander

ahh, that is so very true, i remember starcraft on the n64....but an rts might be ok on the wii...maybe

[shinygerbil]

...Now for a bit of overt opinion:

edit. shinygerbil, I agree a wii version would also be decent, the pointer would make it best console option to play it on.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I am not saying that it is a fact that you are wrong, but, in my opinion, the Wiimote would be a terrible user input for Defcon. Defcon requires that you precisely click on targets, units, &c. in order to interface with the game. I don't think that the Wiimote offers that kind of precision. It would be like trying to play Defcon with the NES light gun, where you would have to shoot each city or unit in order to select it or target it. I honestly think that a standard D-pad or analog stick would work better.

Obviously I have to disagree, and it's not simply because I have a Wii - although as I do own one, I am quite familiar with its limitations. As I mentioned, the pointer can be irritating; in fact, I found it much worse than I expected it to be when I first used it. However, I do believe it can be made into a very workable interface, especially when compared to a regular D-pad/Analog stick interface.

The way I see it, while the pointer may not be any more accurate than a pad/stick, it is no less accurate. On top of this, traditional gamepad RTS interfaces all have one annoying limitation - the speed of the pointer. Usually, the pointer will move at a (low) fixed speed, until a certain amount of time has passed, at which point it suddenly jumps to a much higher speed causing you to overshoot your target by some distance. Here is where I feel the Wiimote would have its advantage.

I realise you were not directly contesting my point, but I had to chip in with an opinion of my own.

I can't disagree. I think the point that is made is that Defcon, and indeed all RTSes, are not well suited to consoles.

xander

Point taken (and agreed with) - but I think the Wii is beginning to change things. It's only a beginning, mind you. A few years down the line, when Sony finish bastardising Nintendo's ideas for the PS4, then we'll probably see fairly decent pointer-based games emerge for consoles.

[xander]

Point taken (and agreed with) - but I think the Wii is beginning to change things. It's only a beginning, mind you. A few years down the line, when Sony finish bastardising Nintendo's ideas for the PS4, then we'll probably see fairly decent pointer-based games emerge for consoles.

Maybe. I have played a little with the Wiimote, and it doesn't strike me as any better for RTSes than a D-pad or analog stick. Not worse, in general, just not any better. RTSes really require the precision and quick-movability that a mouse or touchscreen can provide. Consoles, in general, don't provide a mouse or keyboard, and, therefore, not well suited to RTS style games. Same thing with FPSes. However, I do thing that the Wiimote is well suited to FPSes, where the entire game is based upon how well you can aim the control (as compared with an RTS, where aiming the control should not get in the way of playing the game).

xander