What happened here? (Team17 pls read) [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : What happened here? (Team17 pls read)

rockfistus
30 Apr 2006, 07:51
I've been playing Worms for a hella lot of years and I've been waiting for this one only to find it's pathetic.
Why? The rope is buggy and the weapons are poorly programmed, no wait...the whole game is poorly made. I'm selling this thing back to EBgames so some other poor sap will have to own it.
If anyone from Team17 reads this, Do me a favor please..... Bring out Worms 3D for the DS and do it yourselves. Please don't shove the work off onto some incompetent company again for the love of god.
I'm also disappointed to see that Worms 4 is copy protected by Starforce, that means I won't be buying it.... You've burned me twice in a row. Not cool.
I love Worms World Party and Worms 3D, so I'm really not happy about all this and I'm going to kill a puppy everytime I get burned by a new Worms game from this day forward.

Rabble
30 Apr 2006, 08:43
I've been playing Worms for a hella lot of years and I've been waiting for this one only to find it's pathetic.
Why? The rope is buggy and the weapons are poorly programmed, no wait...the whole game is poorly made. I'm selling this thing back to EBgames so some other poor sap will have to own it.
If anyone from Team17 reads this, Do me a favor please..... Bring out Worms 3D for the DS and do it yourselves. Please don't shove the work off onto some incompetent company again for the love of god.
I'm also disappointed to see that Worms 4 is copy protected by Starforce, that means I won't be buying it.... You've burned me twice in a row. Not cool.
I love Worms World Party and Worms 3D, so I'm really not happy about all this and I'm going to kill a puppy everytime I get burned by a new Worms game from this day forward.
You could have just complained at another topic, there's like 8 of them.

AndrewTaylor
30 Apr 2006, 09:04
Do you think a DS could handle Worms 3D?

Plasma
30 Apr 2006, 11:20
1: A lot of the problems in the DS version is due to the DS itself.
2: Team17 weren't responsible for Starforce, Codemasters were. And if your opinions are purely based on rumours, I dont think many people want to listen to your opinions.

AndrewTaylor
30 Apr 2006, 12:36
1: A lot of the problems in the DS version is due to the DS itself.
Well, the resolution and the memory restrictions, yes, but the bad AI and the copious bugs were due to sloppy development, which in turn is also not T17's fault, as they didn't develop it. I suspect GameSauce or whatever they're called were chosen by the publisher. Anything an old Amiga could do a Nintendo DS can do and do better.

TintinWorm
30 Apr 2006, 17:06
Of course GameSauce was chosen by THQ. Only THQ could choose a developer that bad.

rockfistus
30 Apr 2006, 21:10
Do you think a DS could handle Worms 3D?
Yes, have you played Metroid? It's pretty impressive. The DS can handle Worms 2d as well.....without bugs everywhere.
I really love the new "Features" like landing a perfect grenade shot only for it to bounce rapidly uphill.. But hey there's 8 other threads complaining about it in more detail so I'll save my breath.
If you don't want to hear my opinion, that's fine. But I don't care and I'll post my thread anyway. This wasn't meant for the forumites to read, I want Team17 to see what I think about the game, otherwise how are they to know? How many more puppies must die needlessly?

TintinWorm
30 Apr 2006, 21:33
Yes, have you played Metroid? It's pretty impressive. The DS can handle Worms 2d as well.....without bugs everywhere.
Not that I don't want to hear your opinion, but I don't think the DS could handle Worms 3D. I mean, Metroid doesn't have destructable terrain, does it? But I agree that it can handle a decent Worms 2D.

rockfistus
30 Apr 2006, 21:48
Well I was kind of replying to everyone at once there, not just you :) You could be right about the destructible terrain.... But I still think it could be possible with some tricky programming. They made entire galaxy simulations on a 48k speccy so I'm sure it's possible....might not be worth the effort on the other hand.
The explosions are pathetic in Open Warfare, and where's the fire-based weapons? I want my napalms and flame throwers. Sometimes the worms animation is upside-down when you jump. :rolleyes:
Anything an old Amiga could do a Nintendo DS can do and do better.
Well put there my man, the DOS version of worms is 100% better than the DS version.
It's like they hacked the scaling in for the DS, when you zoom in or out you'll notice that all of the sprites jump immediately to their "in" or "out" size, they don't scale......Only the terrain scales smoothly, that is called sloppy programming.

quakerworm
1 May 2006, 08:30
1) ds cannot handle w3d. not enough memory, not enough processing power, and most likely not enough graphics power. i know, w3d doesn't look all that impressive graphically, but it really does have to go through a lot of polygons, even with the optimizations in mesh generation.
2) you can try buying a downloadable version of w4 from trygames.com. it should have no annoying copy protection software.

rockfistus
1 May 2006, 10:29
1) ds cannot handle w3d. not enough memory, not enough processing power, and most likely not enough graphics power. i know, w3d doesn't look all that impressive graphically, but it really does have to go through a lot of polygons, even with the optimizations in mesh generation.
2) you can try buying a downloadable version of w4 from trygames.com. it should have no annoying copy protection software.
1. It could work, Use sprites for the worms to save memory.....etc, would just have to be extremely optimized.
2. Thanks!

quakerworm
1 May 2006, 12:56
It could work, Use sprites for the worms to save memory.....etc, would just have to be extremely optimized.
the worm and weapon models, among other things that can be replaced with sprites, take up very little resources compared to the terrain engine. and without terrain engine, it just wouldn't play anything like it.

Plasma
1 May 2006, 14:17
It's like they hacked the scaling in for the DS, when you zoom in or out you'll notice that all of the sprites jump immediately to their "in" or "out" size, they don't scale......Only the terrain scales smoothly, that is called sloppy programming.
IIRC, Team17 said that there were a lot of problems on scaling in the DS.
Can't remember what the problems were anymore though.

AndrewTaylor
1 May 2006, 14:59
I think it was just that the DS can't do scaline and the PSP is almost designed to.
Of course, that doesn't stop people just writing DS code that can do scaling, and logically f it can scale terrain it ought to be able to draw Worms on it and then scale it, unless they're really working to the very limits of the DS' memory.

rockfistus
1 May 2006, 22:02
the worm and weapon models, among other things that can be replaced with sprites, take up very little resources compared to the terrain engine. and without terrain engine, it just wouldn't play anything like it.
I'm not saying you're wrong. You might be right, but I still think it can be done. I've seen some amazing 3d games done on the GBA that nobody would have thought possible until someone actually did it.....so I'm sure the DS is a lot more capable than your thinking at this point. Either way, I hope Team17 gives it a shot at some point.
Of course, that doesn't stop people just writing DS code that can do scaling, and logically f it can scale terrain it ought to be able to draw Worms on it and then scale it, unless they're really working to the very limits of the DS' memory.
I've not played the Amiga version in a long time, I'm going to dig it up....Did it have scaling? The DOS version did and computers weren't all that powerful at that time... and it wasn't hardware scaling. That was just a nitpick anyway, I'm more concerned about all the bugs that exist in the game....it's an unfinished product.

MtlAngelus
1 May 2006, 23:10
I'm not saying you're wrong. You might be right, but I still think it can be done. I've seen some amazing 3d games done on the GBA that nobody would have thought possible until someone actually did it.....so I'm sure the DS is a lot more capable than your thinking at this point. Either way, I hope Team17 gives it a shot at some point.
It's been discussed before, it's not possible. Not even slightly possible. T17 have also stated that it's not possible.

rockfistus
1 May 2006, 23:30
That blows... Me loves Worms 3D

Cyclaws
2 May 2006, 00:04
That blows... Me loves Worms 3D
But isn't it a lot more fun on a nice big PC (or TV) screen? On a system where nice large maps, destructable terrian, vaious soundbanks and plenty of weapons? I'm certain the DS could not cope with that.
From what I have gathered, the DS nor PSP version of Worms are a work of art. If 2D Worms can't be done well, let's not move onto 3D Worms. :)

quakerworm
2 May 2006, 14:16
I think it was just that the DS can't do scaline and the PSP is almost designed to.
it's not that it can't scale, which any 3d hardware has to be capable of, but that it doesn't filter the scaled textures. compare scaling images in ms paint to scaling images in a descent editor with at least bi-linear filtering, and you will see why psp is a lot better for that.

AndrewTaylor
2 May 2006, 19:07
it's not that it can't scale, which any 3d hardware has to be capable of, but that it doesn't filter the scaled textures. compare scaling images in ms paint to scaling images in a descent editor with at least bi-linear filtering, and you will see why psp is a lot better for that.
The DOS version scaled with no filtering. It didn't look great, but once it was zoomed out it looked fine enough.

quakerworm
3 May 2006, 01:02
look at it this way. ds supports textured 3d geometry, right? so what if i simply copy the worm sprites and chunks of land into texture memory, and then build the scene out of 'billboards' textued with these textures. now, with the perspective mode on, start moving all of this away from the 'camera'. the result is basically that of zooming out all done through 3d libraries with no special zooming code. one could argue that this would create overhead because of having to process more terain, and do so in full resolution before it is scaled, but ds is capable of handling textured 3d geometry, and it seems that the total number of texels here is comparable. so the nearest pixel scaling could have been implemented like this.
i can only guess why it has not been. perhaps, the difference with dos version is in screen resolution or size. perhaps, on a 15"-19" screen it does not look all that bad, but on the screen of a handheld it simply does not work without filtering.

rockfistus
3 May 2006, 02:04
look at it this way. ds supports textured 3d geometry, right? so what if i simply copy the worm sprites and chunks of land into texture memory, and then build the scene out of 'billboards' textued with these textures. now, with the perspective mode on, start moving all of this away from the 'camera'. the result is basically that of zooming out all done through 3d libraries with no special zooming code. one could argue that this would create overhead because of having to process more terain, and do so in full resolution before it is scaled, but ds is capable of handling textured 3d geometry, and it seems that the total number of texels here is comparable. so the nearest pixel scaling could have been implemented like this.
i can only guess why it has not been. perhaps, the difference with dos version is in screen resolution or size. perhaps, on a 15"-19" screen it does not look all that bad, but on the screen of a handheld it simply does not work without filtering.
You spoke my thoughts, if the DS can run somewhat complex 3d scenery in realtime then it can scale 2d. Case closed.
Who cares if it looks like crap zoomed out, the point of zooming out is to be able to judge your shot better...ya know? So that's not even really much of an issue.

quakerworm
3 May 2006, 17:10
i'm not sure it would help. some pieces of terrain would not be visible when zoomed out if they only have a few pixels in them. the worm models will be just blobs of a few pixels and the position of aiming reticle relative to worm would be hard to judge.

Iguana
3 May 2006, 18:29
There's also the fact that the PSP one had other extras besides zooming, like hitting grenades with your head and stuff. All those would have easily worked on the DS, yet weren't added. I mean, why'd Team17 let some unexperienced company do the DS one in the first place? All those glitches were easily noticeable, yet they were still present in the proper release. Am I the only one who finds all these things rather suspicious? :p

quakerworm
3 May 2006, 21:16
i'm sure thq actually chose the gamesauce to develop the ds version. what i don't understand is why t17, as the holder of the franchise, didn't protest it at some point. i have only a very vague idea of how franchises work, but i would expect that any kind of a franchise contract would have some clauses allowing the franchise holder to inspect the product to make sure that it does not hurt the franchise. though, thq might have been in the position to hold the psp version untill the ds version gets an ok, so holding the ds version would hurt the t17 more than allowing a crappy version to be released.

AndrewTaylor
3 May 2006, 22:42
i'm sure thq actually chose the gamesauce to develop the ds version. what i don't understand is why t17, as the holder of the franchise, didn't protest it at some point. i have only a very vague idea of how franchises work, but i would expect that any kind of a franchise contract would have some clauses allowing the franchise holder to inspect the product to make sure that it does not hurt the franchise. though, thq might have been in the position to hold the psp version untill the ds version gets an ok, so holding the ds version would hurt the t17 more than allowing a crappy version to be released.
Well, obviously it was thought that they'd make a good job of it or they wouldn't have been chosen in the first place. Exactly how good a job they made I can't say as I haven't played it. But T17 are unlikely to ever be in a position where they can (or would want) to say "we've played this and it's awful. You can't release this". At the start of the project they may have been given a say in who developed the DS version, but why should they think THQ had chosen a bad company? THQ stand to lose as much as Team17 if the game bombs, if not more. They've paid GameSauce, after all, and they've paid to market it and paid to manufacture the carts. And they've paid to distribute it and they aren't going to want the PSP version (which they also paid for) associated with a sub-par DS game.

quakerworm
4 May 2006, 09:23
At the start of the project they may have been given a say in who developed the DS version, but why should they think THQ had chosen a bad company? THQ stand to lose as much as Team17 if the game bombs, if not more.
this is a complete speculation, but thq could have easily suspected that gamesauce is the bad choice for the game's developer, yet chose to overlook that. thq's profit is sales - publishing costs - development costs. if they can sell almost as many units of poorly developed wow ds by simply riding the good name of the worms series, they might be able to save money on development. perhaps, gamesauce was simply able to offer lowest development cost by having a small, unqualified, low-payed team making wow ds. since the franchise does not belong to thq, they do not really care if the worms series goes under because of poor quality of the wow ds. there is something to be said about the reputation of thq itself, but if the core demographic of the core target group of thq is different from the demographic of the worms fans, they could have easily taken such a hit.

AndrewTaylor
4 May 2006, 22:59
this is a complete speculation, but thq could have easily suspected that gamesauce is the bad choice for the game's developer, yet chose to overlook that. thq's profit is sales - publishing costs - development costs. if they can sell almost as many units of poorly developed wow ds by simply riding the good name of the worms series, they might be able to save money on development. perhaps, gamesauce was simply able to offer lowest development cost by having a small, unqualified, low-payed team making wow ds. since the franchise does not belong to thq, they do not really care if the worms series goes under because of poor quality of the wow ds. there is something to be said about the reputation of thq itself, but if the core demographic of the core target group of thq is different from the demographic of the worms fans, they could have easily taken such a hit.
Well, it's possible, but it's a little more cynical than even I like to be. I mean, they could easily have had to pay more fixing bugs and resubmitting the game to Nintendo and fixing bugs and resubmitting and so on had Nintendo said "You can't put this on our system; it's full of bugs" (They blocked W4, after all) than they would have spent on a few more weeks of development by a better team.

Bolton
5 May 2006, 09:56
Do you think a DS could handle Worms 3D?
I can easily say NO.

Darkspark
18 May 2006, 15:21
Do you think a DS could handle Worms 3D?
Yes. As Ive said before, mario 64 looks amazing. I dont care if the dynamics of worms was changed, e.g. no deformable terrain. Since they changed the dynamics of W:0W a lot with the reduced weapon set, and some people actually like it.... (...yea I know, its true!)
Anyway, has anyone played New mario brothers?
Well, Im wondering, why the hell could the DS not pull or graphics as good as that. Everyone just admit this game (W:OW) is a hackjob. YOu can defend it all you like "oeeh, the DS cannot handle it" blah blah blah, but if this developer had put as much love into the game as nintendo does to their own. You would get quality like this
http://uk.media.ds.ign.com/media/682/682879/imgs_1.html
I couldnt care about deformable terrain, but when mario goes supersize, I think they pull off the deformable terrain 1000X times better than Worms, and worms is famous for deformable terrain. True it is pulled off alittle differently, e.g. the terrain is sorta scripted when it deforms, but when you;re playing, the landscapes reacts accordingly, which is better than open warfare can claim.
HECK. I wouldnt mind playing worms in this perspective when it looks this good.
http://uk.media.ds.ign.com/media/682/682879/img_3583950.html

Iguana
18 May 2006, 17:27
I believe that that a proper Worms game WOULD have worked on the DS with some effort, Even the GBA version of WWP was more stable. As I said, the fact that Team 17 put a decent amount of effort into the PSP version yet neglected the DS one is rather suspicious. That, and the "extras" which would've worked just fine on the DS. It's not like a proper DS version wouldn't have been profitable, seeing as it's been selling more than the PSP lately.

quakerworm
18 May 2006, 20:25
the argument that wow ds was limited by ds hardware is absolutly unfounded. just ignore these claims. people who make them have no idea what they are talking about.
as for t17's descision to develop the psp version, i expect it might not have been just about the money. if someone came to me and asked me to develop a game on ds or psp, unless i had some special plans for touchscreen, i'd go with psp, simply because it's a piece of hardware with more capabilities, so it would be more fun to code for.

AndrewTaylor
18 May 2006, 20:33
the argument that wow ds was limited by ds hardware is absolutly unfounded.
Well, no, that's patently untrue. Of course the DS version was limited by the DS' hardware. That's a given. The alternative is that the DS' hardware has unlimited capabilities. The fact of the matter is just that that wasn't the bottleneck in this case. It was never going to look as shiny as the PSP version, but it should have been better than it was.
i'd go with psp, simply because it's a piece of hardware with more capabilities, so it would be more fun to code for.
Idunno... I'd much rather program my Sony Ericsson T300 than my PC. PCs are a right pain to program.

quakerworm
18 May 2006, 20:43
the crappy development put a cap on the wow ds performance long before it got anywhere even close to hardware limits of ds. ds hardware should have been the lmiting factor, but it was not.
Idunno... I'd much rather program my Sony Ericsson T300 than my PC. PCs are a right pain to program.
that's because your ability to express your game ideas is limited by your skill as a coder rather than by the hardware. even with something as simple as tetris one can think of many things that can be added on the pc version that are impossible on the cell phone, from 3d graphics to funky music to onlinie scoring tables. granted, it would probably not alter gameplay, but it can make it more fun to play.

AndrewTaylor
18 May 2006, 23:26
that's because your ability to express your game ideas is limited by your skill as a coder rather than by the hardware.
I prefer to think of it as being becasue the T300 is a simple system controlled by one ruleset designed in a year by one company, whereas the PC is a random collection of parts, each operating to its own ruleset, "designed" by a blind watchmakers' rabble of only mostly-competent companies that never talked to each other, over about two decades, and no two are the same. They're full of combinations and permutations of hardware, software, firmware, settings, faults, and quirks that are unpredictable and difficult to identify. It's probably the single hardest platform to develop software on that the world has ever known.

Squirminator2k
19 May 2006, 10:47
It's worth mentioning that THQ's WOW website doesn't actively promote the DS version aside from a demo video... it's as if they knew it would bomb and didn't want to be seen trying to "big it up", as it were.
Next Team17, Teamsters, do it yourself. I know developing games is a lot of work these days, particularly on two handhelds with vastly different specs, but if you're doing it yourself at least we know that it's a job done properly. And you know you'll be happy with the results, for one thing.

Darkspark
19 May 2006, 10:58
[QUOTE=quakerworm]the argument that wow ds was limited by ds hardware is absolutly unfounded. just ignore these claims. people who make them have no idea what they are talking about.[QUOTE]
Exactly, if the PSP didn;t exist, they would just downright say W:OW is just a damn bad game.

Plasma
19 May 2006, 18:00
Next Team17, Teamsters, do it yourself. I know developing games is a lot of work these days, particularly on two handhelds with vastly different specs, but if you're doing it yourself at least we know that it's a job done properly. And you know you'll be happy with the results, for one thing.
It might not have been T17's choice.

AndrewTaylor
19 May 2006, 18:20
It might not have been T17's choice.
It's always Team17's choice. Worms is their IP; once they sign something with a publisher, they have to stick to it, but until then they can always just point blank refuse to sign anything if they don't approve.

Rabito71
20 May 2006, 06:38
i havent talked in a big while and im still watched like 6 months ago thats weird but still i came back to say a very important fact. worms is dead the great game thats was once worms has becomed crap its bad the psps and ds versions odf worms sucked they had score below 75% look if more games of worms will go out you cant cut weapons off.
WORMS IS DEAD BECAUSE THE VERY LAZY ASSES OF TEAM 17 ASSASINATED WORMS THEY COULD MAKE GAMES BETTER BUT THEAY DIDNT OK SO GET IT TEAM 17. worm was cool but u dont get ti that new versoins have more stuff not less stuff. ugly ugly bann me if u want but all the persons that will read this with some worms experience will know that im right team 17 killed worms.

Rabito71
20 May 2006, 06:42
I believe that that a proper Worms game WOULD have worked on the DS with some effort, Even the GBA version of WWP was more stable. As I said, the fact that Team 17 put a decent amount of effort into the PSP version yet neglected the DS one is rather suspicious. That, and the "extras" which would've worked just fine on the DS. It's not like a proper DS version wouldn't have been profitable, seeing as it's been selling more than the PSP lately.
also by the way no one buys worm idiot its a bad game that no one likes
its like if u buy barbies tales as bad as that.

Iguana
20 May 2006, 08:18
Rabito, just shut up. There was a REASON why you got watched.

Squirminator2k
20 May 2006, 08:45
Rabito, as you lack any form of brain in your empty, eggshell-like, I'd be more than happy to update your post using Deadly Logic. Let's start, shall we?
i havent talked in a big while and im still watched like 6 months ago thats weird
Well, if you posted then like you're posting now, I don't blame them for keeping you Watched.
but still i came back to say a very important fact. worms is dead the great game thats was once worms has becomed crap its bad the psps and ds versions odf worms sucked they had score below 75% look if more games of worms will go out you cant cut weapons off.
Reviewers didn't like the game? That, really, doesn't mean anything. Ever. To put things into perspective: PC Gamer gave the original Worms a 45% score. Amiga Power gave it something approximately the same. Several years later, PC Gamer state that Worms World Party is, hands down, the greatest Party game of all time. The difference? New graphics and more weapons. This just goes to show the sort of mentallity your average Games Journalist has. Anyone who gives "The Getaway: Black Monday" anything higher than a 10% score is, in my eyes, not doing their job properly.
WORMS IS DEAD BECAUSE THE VERY LAZY ASSES OF TEAM 17 ASSASINATED WORMS THEY COULD MAKE GAMES BETTER BUT THEAY DIDNT OK SO GET IT TEAM 17.
IF they were really that lazy they'd outsource development of any Worms game to other companies. Like GameSauce. Who, incidentally, developed the astoundingly poor DS version for Team17. The PSP version was, as it happens, rather good.
worm was cool but u dont get ti that new versoins have more stuff not less stuff.
Oh dear. I bet you didn't like their remake of Lemmings either. THERE WERE NO NEW TOOLS FOR TEH LEMMIGNS TO USE! NEW VERSOINES HAVE MORE STUFF NOT LESS STUFF LEMMINGS WAS RUBBISH TEAM 17 R SO LAZY LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, right? Moron.
ugly ugly bann me if u want but all the persons that will read this with some worms experience will know that im right team 17 killed worms.
People get bannmed from forums all the time, but it doesn't make them right. generally, it makes them Bloody Stupid. Hey, have you visited the SomethingAwful forums? I bet you'd go down a treat there.

quakerworm
22 May 2006, 08:02
I prefer to think of it as being becasue the T300 is a simple system controlled by one ruleset designed in a year by one company, whereas the PC is a random collection of parts, each operating to its own ruleset, "designed" by a blind watchmakers' rabble of only mostly-competent companies that never talked to each other, over about two decades, and no two are the same. They're full of combinations and permutations of hardware, software, firmware, settings, faults, and quirks that are unpredictable and difficult to identify. It's probably the single hardest platform to develop software on that the world has ever known.
nearly all of these things are taken care of by the compiler or os kernel and set of drivers. unless you are trying to write your own operating system in x86 machine code, you really don't care about any of that. you don't care if your cpu is running in real or protected mode. you don't care which bus your hard drive is on. all you need to know is the set of interrupts that you can use to communicate with the operating system, and even that is typically replaced by calling functions from kernel library that you staticaly link into your executable.

quartzlcc
22 May 2006, 16:59
Do you think a DS could handle Worms 3D?
If you put down the quality a bit.
I've seen Rayman 2 on the flippin' DS, called Rayman DS, works just fine, has about as good of graphics as Worms 3D. So yeah, it could.
The only thing the DS MIGHT not be able to handle there, is the destructable terrain.

AndrewTaylor
22 May 2006, 18:22
nearly all of these things are taken care of by the compiler or os kernel and set of drivers. unless you are trying to write your own operating system in x86 machine code, you really don't care about any of that. you don't care if your cpu is running in real or protected mode. you don't care which bus your hard drive is on. all you need to know is the set of interrupts that you can use to communicate with the operating system, and even that is typically replaced by calling functions from kernel library that you staticaly link into your executable.
Yes? Then why is it so much harder to programme a simple 2D game on a PC than it is on a T300? I mean, without using .NET (which isn't really programming a PC at all) or Allegro (which is just deferring the hard work to someone else).

quakerworm
22 May 2006, 23:36
Yes? Then why is it so much harder to programme a simple 2D game on a PC than it is on a T300? I mean, without using .NET (which isn't really programming a PC at all) or Allegro (which is just deferring the hard work to someone else).
it really is not. yes, you will have to write up a few pages of code to set up event handling, open up a window, and get everything ready for rendering, but compared to the ammount of code that you'd need to write for anything more than putting one sprite on the screen, it is nothing. on the other hand, if i set up my 2d rendering through opengl, and then i want to add dynamic lighting of sprites using a 2d normal map, it's just another page of code where i set up texture combiners.
writing a 2d engine on a windows pc takes a lot more knowledge of the system than on a simple system such as a cell phone, but it is by no means more difficult when you know what you are doing.
The only thing the DS MIGHT not be able to handle there, is the destructable terrain.
that's right. but is worms really worms without destructible terrain?

SiN
23 May 2006, 05:11
writing a 2d engine on a windows pc takes a lot more knowledge of the system than on a simple system such as a cell phone, but it is by no means more difficult when you know what you are doing.
It's not so much the initialization code thats a bother, it's the vast amount of specs you need to take into consideration. Writing a full 2d engine is quite frankly a waste of time these days ... writing a wrapper around DirectDraw/DirectGraphics would be a far better idea, or using OpenGL to do 2d in 3d.
The thing is though when writing a game, you need to make sure it's completely scalable. Graphics, sound, etc. You're not really allowed to push the system to its limits, because thats just pushing your system to its limits ... if you've got a high-spec rig, theres no doubt it'll work crap on everyone elses systems. When developing on a console, you can be sure that if you're pushing your system to its limits, it'll be the same for everyone else too.
And, yeah, you'd think an "os kernel and set of drivers" would handle everything, wouldnt you? To be fair, it mostly does, but bizarre bugs to pop up every so often. A person mailed the development team I'm on saying that "the bullets don't show up on my screen" ... apparently, all the other sprites showed up fine, except the bullets. How the hell do you go about debugging that!? :) :)
Oh, and cellphones btw, are even worse. I've been developing a cellphone game, and apart from using awful java there's the fact that you need to make it compatible with all the 10 billion different cellphones in the world! I took a week to write code that would scale the game depending on screen resolution ... everything from 120x131 to 360x240 !!! Absolute hell to write, but ultimately rewarding when you're done.
that's right. but is worms really worms without destructible terrain?
I've had this argument before, and it *totally* wouldn't work anyway! I mean, even without destructable terrain, if you still wanted random maps, there'd be dynamic lighting to consider, no precalculated vis data, and AI that would have to work on the fly ... worms3d ai is bad enough on a pc, it'd be even worse on a DS!
SiN

quakerworm
23 May 2006, 07:35
...or using OpenGL to do 2d in 3d.
that's what i usually do. it's the same concept, though, as writing your own 2d engine. you just take a bit of a shortcut with pasting sprites into the buffer by pushing it over to the graphics hardware.
The thing is though when writing a game, you need to make sure it's completely scalable. Graphics, sound, etc. You're not really allowed to push the system to its limits, because thats just pushing your system to its limits ... if you've got a high-spec rig, theres no doubt it'll work crap on everyone elses systems.
my point was that developing for a more powerful system gives you more opportunities. this gives me a fiat to assume that the user will have a powerful system.
When developing on a console, you can be sure that if you're pushing your system to its limits, it'll be the same for everyone else too.
that is an advantage, but it also means that even with advances in hardware, your game will not look any better. with pc development, sometimes you can look a bit forward and allow for features that don't even exist yet. for example, consider doom3. it needs 512mb of video memory to use textures fully uncompressed. at the time of the release, 512mb hardware did not exist, but the option to use it is in the game. now that 512mb cards exist, one can use that option. even more common is inclusion of support for features that are rare, but are expected to become more common some time after the development is complete.
it's an added complexity, but it's an optional one, which goes to the same point that more complex hardware opens more possibilities for development.
And, yeah, you'd think an "os kernel and set of drivers" would handle everything, wouldnt you? To be fair, it mostly does, but bizarre bugs to pop up every so often.
from experience, these things tend to happen when you try to use something that isn't exactly standart. places where the specs for hardware and drivers could be interpreted more than one way. and if you are doing something fancy, the odds are, you are aiming at some particular hardware. if you are writing code that renderes the scene in stereo, you do not need to worry about whether or not a card with no stereo support will freak out about the quad-buffering. and if you are using more or less standart features, you can expect them to be fairly stable.
freak errors can still occure, but they can occure even on systems with no os at all. what do you blame then?
I've had this argument before, and it *totally* wouldn't work anyway! I mean, even without destructable terrain, if you still wanted random maps, there'd be dynamic lighting to consider, no precalculated vis data, and AI that would have to work on the fly ... worms3d ai is bad enough on a pc, it'd be even worse on a DS!
of course, the destructible terrain wouldn't be the only thing that needs to be cut. you'd have to get rid of the random terrain. with fixed terrain you can add a few things, like way points for ai, which will allow ai to run desently well on the ds. graphics would, of course, have to be cut down. nobody expects ds to compute shadows, like w3d on pc does. simple diffused lighting from a single source would be sufficient. basically, something that looks like w3d can be put on ds. it wouldn't play like w3d, but the fact that you are getting rid of the destructible terrain would allready do that.

Darkspark
23 May 2006, 09:33
I dont think destructable terrain works in 3d anyway. As long as theres water on the side to drown ppl, it does not have that much affect to a game, unlike 2d worms.

AndrewTaylor
23 May 2006, 19:23
from experience, these things tend to happen when you try to use something that isn't exactly standart. freak errors can still occure, but they can occure even on systems with no os at all. what do you blame then?
That's not the point. Obscure and unpredictable bugs happen on all platforms that are beyond a certain level of complexity, but if you're developing on something like a PC then you have a lot more of them, and there are more places for them to hide. Maybe it only happens if you use a certain CD driver, or a certain brand of mouse, or have a certain keyboard layout or regional localisation. Or maybe there's a Windows setting that 99% of people never touch that messes it up. And maybe only a handful of people are affected and maybe you don't have access to a machine that you can reproduce the bug on. What can you do? Not a lot, generally, and that's why you get things like that whole Starforce Doesn't Work With My DVD Drive fiasco we had a bit back. On a console you just add in asserts and exceptions and traces and debug files until you can pinpoint the problem, and then set about working out what's causing it.
Plus, on a console, your game or application is the only thing running. You know there aren't any other programmes snooping around its RAM or deleting its files. Of course, the occasional bug sneaks through, but not nearly so many as on a PC.

quakerworm
24 May 2006, 00:13
Plus, on a console, your game or application is the only thing running.
that is no longer true. on both 360 and ps3 there are a lot of things running at the same time as the game. ps3, i believe, is even going to be capable to split the screen, allowing each running task to be running in it's own 'window'.
but that's beside the point. yes, console development is simplified in many ways by the fact that you run the same system as everyone else. yes, there is less of a chance of havig a weird un-reproduceble bugs, though they can and they do happen on every system. but i do not see how that relates to the argument at hand. whether developing for a pc or for a console, if you develop for the more powerful system, you will have fewer limits on what you can do with the game. that is even if in the end it turns out that 1% of systems that meet the specs can't run it.

AndrewTaylor
24 May 2006, 00:19
that is even if in the end it turns out that 1% of systems that meet the specs can't run it.
Ah, well there we hit the nub of the problem.
Developing on a PC is harder than on a console if you want to make sure people other than you can actually play your game. Developing on a console is harder if you want to make a gorgeous and future-proof piece of eye-candy. It's a question of priorities. The two have different strengths and each is easier for different tasks.
Personally I think a 99% compatibility rate is really quite dreadful. A product that one-in-a-hundred people can't use is not what I'd call a great success rate. 1% of the total income from a game is quite a lot of money. I'd much rather something that looked a little dated but ran.

quakerworm
24 May 2006, 00:25
first of all, i never intended to compare the pc development to console development. as you recall, the argument started on the ds vs psp level. furthermore, these days, you can't even assume that the pc is going to be the more powerful system. both 360 and ps3 can kick the crap out of my current bucket of bolts. so i'd much rather develop for a ps3 than on my pc in the first place.
second, if you are talking about marketing, it is a completely different question all together. you must account for how many people own that system, etc. for example, if twice as many people would buy the game on the pc, but only 99% could run the game, you would still make more money. it's a complicated question, and has nothing to do with which platform is more fun to develop on, which is, i belive, the way i put it originaly, or how far you can actually take the game.

Rabito71
24 May 2006, 02:06
Rabito, as you lack any form of brain in your empty, eggshell-like, I'd be more than happy to update your post using Deadly Logic. Let's start, shall we?
Well, if you posted then like you're posting now, I don't blame them for keeping you Watched.
Reviewers didn't like the game? That, really, doesn't mean anything. Ever. To put things into perspective: PC Gamer gave the original Worms a 45% score. Amiga Power gave it something approximately the same. Several years later, PC Gamer state that Worms World Party is, hands down, the greatest Party game of all time. The difference? New graphics and more weapons. This just goes to show the sort of mentallity your average Games Journalist has. Anyone who gives "The Getaway: Black Monday" anything higher than a 10% score is, in my eyes, not doing their job properly.
IF they were really that lazy they'd outsource development of any Worms game to other companies. Like GameSauce. Who, incidentally, developed the astoundingly poor DS version for Team17. The PSP version was, as it happens, rather good.
Oh dear. I bet you didn't like their remake of Lemmings either. THERE WERE NO NEW TOOLS FOR TEH LEMMIGNS TO USE! NEW VERSOINES HAVE MORE STUFF NOT LESS STUFF LEMMINGS WAS RUBBISH TEAM 17 R SO LAZY LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, right? Moron.
People get bannmed from forums all the time, but it doesn't make them right. generally, it makes them Bloody Stupid. Hey, have you visited the SomethingAwful forums? I bet you'd go down a treat there.
dude your an idiot because you know the games were good but listen im just saying that the psp and ds games were not that good psps was a bit superior but it was bad. wwp was better and i think if wow was newer thaey should have tried to make it better.
its like mario one lets say its cool its great everyone loves it and mario two is coming up everyone has great hopes for it but its worse than the first it has less stuff and less levels and the graphics may be better but the game went down in quality.
worms was not a good game and you know because when you play it you know theres something missing.

Rabito71
24 May 2006, 02:10
im going to say this strictly to team17, what will you do because if you cant get good new games in the new consoles coming up. because obiously there will be no worms for the 360 for example. you need to make something new and exciting because i think the worms and lemmings saga is over because technology has advanced too much for them.
ideas for example make a new game of a diferent topic try it because u need help because your games are too old fashioned for my opinion. because 2d is bad and 2.5d its better but bad.

TintinWorm
24 May 2006, 03:39
dude your an idiot because you know the games were good but listen im just saying that the psp and ds games were not that good psps was a bit superior but it was bad.
So you're calling him an idiot for being logical and correct? And proving you wrong on every illogical point? And you wonder why you're being watched.

Iguana
24 May 2006, 12:12
dude your an idiot because you know the games were good but listen im just saying that the psp and ds games were not that good psps was a bit superior but it was bad. wwp was better and i think if wow was newer thaey should have tried to make it better.
While I do agree that W:OW should have had more weapons, options and the like, you're expressing this in a VERY immature and idiotic way.
ideas for example make a new game of a diferent topic try it because u need help because your games are too old fashioned for my opinion. because 2d is bad and 2.5d its better but bad.
Yes, too 'old fashioned' for YOUR opinion. 2D is not bad, do you really want gaming to consist of 'realistic' games with nothing but pointless eye-candy and no real entertainment? A simple 2D game can look much more artistic than a realistic game with detailed 3D models and the like and still have gameplay that never gets old. With a bit of effort, both Lemmings and Worms could last quite a lot, even in their current 2D forms.

MadEwokHerd
25 May 2006, 00:35
In a few years, he'll want his games to be remade in 4 spatial dimensions.

Squirminator2k
30 May 2006, 21:22
dude your an idiot because you know the games were good but listen im just saying that the psp and ds games were not that good psps was a bit superior but it was bad.
Let's you and I hop into our Magic Time Machine and travel to January 11th, 1996. There we will see my past self with my Father, happily sitting down to try out a game my Dad has been given for his birthday. The game, of course, is Worms. Should we interrupt the pair as they sit, content with each other, laughing at the worms' mocking of our terrible shots, and tell them not to bother because Team17 will be releasing a better version in a few years? WOW is, essentially, the original Worms with better graphics. A lot of games are like that. Doom3, for example, is merely a remake of the original. But they are effectively the same game, more or less.
wwp was better and i think if wow was newer thaey should have tried to make it better.
In that case, you'll want to get in touch with a few other companies. Here's a list for you:
Taito. They released Space Invaders Anniversary back in 2004 which is essentially an arcade-perfect conversion of the original game, but for the PS2 and PC. They added nothing new aside from a "3D" mode.
Hudsonsoft. Bomberman DS was pretty much the same as the original Bomberman, only with a multiplayer mode and better graphics.
Capcom. They released MegaMan Anniversary Collection back in '03 (in the States, at least). This contains ports of the entire NES and SNES catalogue of core MegaMan games, as well as MegaMan 8 from the PSone and those two arcade games. Nothing was altered, no additions were made, and graphics weren't even improved.
Nokia. They included the same version of Snake on every phone they released for, ooh, yonks.
Apple. Solitaire? On an iPod? Were they mad?!
UbiSoft. Catz and Dogz 1-5 were, effectively, the same game.
Microsoft. And so on.
Long story short, you've got a similar bone to pick with a lot of companies if this is the logic you use to decide what makes a game "good" or not. Keep in mind that Chess has remained the same for centuries. The only thing that's changed is the people who play it (and, sometimes, the look of the pieces). The rules remain the same. If it ain't broke, eh?
its like mario one lets say its cool its great everyone loves it and mario two is coming up everyone has great hopes for it but its worse than the first it has less stuff and less levels and the graphics may be better but the game went down in quality.
The only poor-quality Mario game so far as been Mario Sunshine, which looks good but was a tad boring. It's nothing like that, though.
worms was not a good game and you know because when you play it you know theres something missing.
My only complaint? There's no real singleplayer mode aside from the "Challenges", the Minigun is missing, and the inclusion of a worm-turning-around animation does waste a bit of time, no matter how minute. Aside from that the game's tops.
im going to say this strictly to team17, what will you do because if you cant get good new games in the new consoles coming up. because obiously there will be no worms for the 360 for example. you need to make something new and exciting because i think the worms and lemmings saga is over because technology has advanced too much for them.
Team17 have been making games for the better part of two decades. You're welcome to [try some of them yourself (http://www.dream17.co.uk/)] if you're not sure about what they're capable of.
ideas for example make a new game of a diferent topic try it because u need help because your games are too old fashioned for my opinion.
But they sell. Hey, how many best-selling, award-winning games have you developed this year, Rabs?
because 2d is bad and 2.5d its better but bad.
Ah. From this sentence on its own I deduce that you own a PS2 and/or an XBox, but you don't own a Nintendo console. You own at least one EA Sports game (probably the latest update of FIFA). You don't like games that require you to do anything challenging or thought-provoking so you probably stay away from games like Lumines or Silent Hill, but you'll probably play Resident Evil because you thinl Jill Valentine is a bit of alright. You probably like Gangsta Rap, and you might go so far as to own copy of "Own The Mic", but you won't touch things like Singstar, Donkey Konga, or DDR. Oh, and you have the latest Need For Speed game with your ride about as pimped out as you can get it.
Nail. Head.

TintinWorm
31 May 2006, 01:03
Team17 have been making games for the better part of two decades. You're welcome to [try some of them yourself (http://www.dream17.co.uk/)] if you're not sure about what they're capable of.
Based on the comments, I doubt Rabito can emulate the amiga or use DOS.

Paul.Power
31 May 2006, 21:21
Taito. They released Space Invaders Anniversary back in 2004 which is essentially an arcade-perfect conversion of the original game, but for the PS2 and PC. They added nothing new aside from a "3D" mode.
Hudsonsoft. Bomberman DS was pretty much the same as the original Bomberman, only with a multiplayer mode and better graphics.
Capcom. They released MegaMan Anniversary Collection back in '03 (in the States, at least). This contains ports of the entire NES and SNES catalogue of core MegaMan games, as well as MegaMan 8 from the PSone and those two arcade games. Nothing was altered, no additions were made, and graphics weren't even improved.
Nokia. They included the same version of Snake on every phone they released for, ooh, yonks.
Apple. Solitaire? On an iPod? Were they mad?!
UbiSoft. Catz and Dogz 1-5 were, effectively, the same game.
Microsoft. And so on.
Sega. Released Sonic Mega Collection, a compilation of Mega Drive and Game Gear Sonic games, pretty much as released. Later released Sonic Gems Collection, which patched up the holes left by Mega Collection.
Sorry, had to say it :)

DodgeFreak
31 May 2006, 23:06
ok just been playing my copy for about 30-40 mins, and I really like it, I love the new graphix style and i am a massive fan of the 2d series, it is a bit diffrent in terms of Ropeing is hard as nails but im bound to get the hang of it and there is a few more things. even tho there is a limited set of weaps and that, its still rocks in my opinion, and i cant wait to battle my buddys, hopefully you guys made alot of sales on this game and will be looking into making a squel with online play, coz it would just be the iceing on the cake. so far so good, less chat more play. peace

MadEwokHerd
31 May 2006, 23:35
Sonic Mega Collection is great. I never had any of the original systems.

Paul.Power
2 Jun 2006, 13:47
I had an Amstrad Mega PC (weird PC/Mega Drive hybrid), but the only classic Sonic game I actually owned was Sonic 2, which I was rubbish at (Darn you, second half of Chemical Plant Act 2! Darn you to heck!). I'm better at it now, but only through lots and lots of practice... and CPA2 still gives me a lot of trouble.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.