Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: eralston Apr 30 2006, 09:37 PM

If you were making an SR MMO, what edition would you want to start with? Ignore any points on realism, just go with your gut.

Would it be different in another genre such as action FPS, squad-based shooter, or Real-time strategy? Or something else completely...

Posted by: hyzmarca Apr 30 2006, 09:53 PM

Realism is my gut. I'd start of scratch using elements from all 4 systems that just happen to work well in the game. The basic stat and skill systems would be overhauled to match the requirements of such a game. And it would be a first/third person massivly multiplayer online roleplaying shooter with a squad option in there somewhere and an option for basebuilding and accompanying stratagy elements.

Posted by: Squinky Apr 30 2006, 10:13 PM

Are these polls somehow related to the Shadowrun Online project?

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 30 2006, 10:18 PM

SR2 is what I'd want for one reason: grounding. I was really hurt that they took that out of SR3.

SR2: Lol tee hee I am teh powerful mage with lots of foci, lol lol lol. OH NO, WHERE DID THAT HELLBLAST COME FROM?!?!?!? Blarg, I am slain.

SR3: Lol tee hee I am teh powerful mage with lots of foci, lol lol lol.



By the way, I find it disheartening that so far more people voted for SR4 than for anything else. I really do, especially after all the wonderful hostility and skepticism that we used to have here towards SR4. I mean, SR4 missed the things that really count: firearms realism and the 80s.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 30 2006, 10:20 PM

Truth lives.

~J

Posted by: eralston Apr 30 2006, 10:23 PM

Well, I will say that SR Online's current design docs on mechanics seem unrelated to any edition of shadowrun. So I was wondering what edition might be best.

On further reflection, I think this poll is somewhat invalid due to the fact that a person could want SR4 rules, but SR3 fiction, or SR1 in 2070, or other things.

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 30 2006, 10:46 PM

SR4 all the way. If for no other reason then that it could make selling the PnP game easier.

Posted by: eidolon Apr 30 2006, 11:00 PM

MMO? Blech.

Posted by: Mr. Man Apr 30 2006, 11:32 PM

Posted by: James McMurray May 1 2006, 12:28 AM

Ah, the ever popular expression of disdain rather than doing anything constructive.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 1 2006, 12:46 AM

The disdain is because many folks here are justifiably of the opinion that any MMO could not possibly maintain the serious, grim 'n gritty atmosphere essential to the Shadowrun genre.

Despite any efforts by the developers, good intentions can never survive the assault of the mass of epic stupidity that makes up a huge chunk of any MMO playerbase.

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20040521.


-karma

Posted by: eralston May 1 2006, 12:57 AM

LOL

One problem in adapting The Matrix to a game is that the movies deal almost exclusively with the univers as it pertains to the most important person in it. In an MMO, you are not important.

Conversely, in Shadowrun, your character lives in a world where they are pretty much by definition unimportant. I think comparing SR to The MAtrix in this respect forms a false analogy

Posted by: Konsaki May 1 2006, 01:52 AM

Ah to add in random code to have Mr Johnsons doublecross you at random times.

"OK guys, we talk to this NPC and head back out of the corp building to the entrance. This will be easy Karma, I did it with my Rigger last week."
They get near the entrance and 40 lonestar with LMG spawn and mow them down.

Posted by: James McMurray May 1 2006, 02:15 AM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 May 1 2006, 02:45 AM

Posted by: toturi May 1 2006, 03:18 AM

Posted by: Valentinew May 1 2006, 03:53 AM

Personally, I'd want SR4....'cause I enjoy the wireless & I love technomancers. Storyline-wise, it might be more fun to live through the peak of Dunklezahn's popularity.

This has actually been discussed on the SRO forums. Greypawn, the main architect of this project, has stated that this world will be set in the 2050's, iirc. As for mechanics, he is thinking more of trying to emulate the feel of SR & keep the main storyline, as working out a turn-based MMO is too hard at this point to even contemplate.

He's got some pretty good ideas...now if he could only get Microsoft to run with it...if you want to look at his initial proposal that he took to MS for last year's E3, you can look http://www.shadowrun-online.com/sronline//modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=1 it's a download. If you want to look at some of the design docs, check http://www.shadowrun-online.com/sronline//modules.php?name=Content

Posted by: eidolon May 1 2006, 04:19 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca May 1 2006, 04:26 AM

I'd prefer an alternate history in which Dunkie didn't off himself. If you're going to have a MMO RPG an alternate metaplot would be quite useful so that the online games metaplot can advance seperatly from the primary metaplot.

Posted by: James McMurray May 1 2006, 04:52 AM

Posted by: eidolon May 1 2006, 06:14 AM

Sod off.

Posted by: Brontal May 1 2006, 10:19 AM

Hi people !

I would use SR 4 rules for 2 reasons .

1. The update of the rules weas needed to keep Shadowrun a believable world .
Now, in the year 2006, even my mom is using w-lan to acces the internet. An outdated science fiction world , like SR 3 , is simply not believable .

2. The possible players of a SR mmo game.
There are 2 possible playerbases of a SR mmo game :
- the normal mmorpg player, playing it just because it is another new mmorpg
- Sr pen and paper players, playing it because it is Shodowrun

For the first group, the normal mmorpg players, the rules are absolutly unimportant , they will adapt whatever rules are used without spending a second thought about them .
The second group, SR pen and paper players, allready know the game, the rules and the setting . Writing Shodowrun on the box and then delivering something different would be a slap in the face of the possible customer base.
Turning away 1 of the 2 possible consumer groups would be a very bad idea i think, just look at D&D online.

Just my opinion to SR online :

Posted by: Thanee May 1 2006, 02:08 PM

Shadowrun MMORPG.

That's something I have thought about a long, long time ago already (and plenty others, too). Never bothered writing down a concept documentation, though, since it is so damn unlikely to ever happen to be of any use.

IMHO Shadowrun is almost the perfect background for an MMORPG style game, and I have numerous ideas how to make one (though the technical realization could be problematic in some areas... on the other hand, there is plenty experience in this field these days, so things become easier obviously), but alas, with Microsoft holding the license, it's rather unlikely, that I would ever get into the position to help making one.

Of course, one could always make one similar enough, but not quite as equal, so there is no copyright problem, but it's still cyberpunk with fantasy elements, but that would not be the same thing.

Even got some nifty ideas how to make the game full PvP (which it most likely had to be, as much as I despise PvP myself), without making it totally suck, thanks to the uber-immature players out there (key factors are a functional police, camera and drone surveillance so gunning someone down in random places becomes a really bad idea, and harsh sentences for getting caught (harsh, as in account lock for days or even weeks - guess that would be hard to realize with paying customers )). In fact, I would prefer it to be full PvP with real death (but death wouldn't come so easy and runners that are down would have to be illegal targets, even though that's a bit unrealistic there, but you must draw the line somewhere). That would also make Doc Wagon contracts useful!

What I also find very important is a highly sophisticated random mission generator, which should create really cool missions, which do not always appear too similar.

Such a game should not have the usual rare item hunting as a key element, in fact, there should be no such rare items at all (maybe hard to get items, but not this stupid random drop stuff). That's also something, that would be somewhat difficult to do... find decent rewards for major missions, i.e. special contacts, that are not supercool pieces of the latest ultrarare item set.

Anyways, I would definitely base it on the SR4 ruleset (and the background, too, although there are some elements, which would be nice to be different, but those are no biggies... AR alone is too good a thing to pass up).

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: stevebugge May 1 2006, 03:03 PM

If I were doing I would use SR4 because using any other edition would undoubtedly create marketing problems. You need to keep all of the products, no matter if they are developed by different design teams and license holders, consistent to reinforce the brand as a whole.

Posted by: Valentinew May 1 2006, 04:21 PM

Posted by: Valentinew May 1 2006, 04:24 PM

Posted by: Thanee May 1 2006, 04:38 PM

It's not really that I'm thinking there will never be a SR MMORPG, it's just a matter of time, especially now with the huge influx, but my notes in particular would prolly be of limited use then.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: eidolon May 2 2006, 01:02 AM

Posted by: Shrike30 May 2 2006, 01:18 AM

You give me the ability in an MMO to slip onto a rooftop with a high-caliber rifle and wait for one of my enemies to go walking on by, or to go roping down the side of a building/elevator shaft, and I'll be a happy guy.

Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 01:41 AM

D&D is not set in our future, with a technological curve that starts where ours left off in the 80s. If it were then I would definitely want there to be wireless access points all over the place.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 2 2006, 01:45 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 2 2006, 02:14 AM

Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 02:33 AM

It's set in our technological future, with the vast majority of it's past being the same as ours. That's close enough for me.

Posted by: eralston May 2 2006, 02:42 AM

Why do you guys focus on this wireless thing? Did you ever read Matrix? There were rules for RF links (wireless technology is just standardized radio). They sucked in comparison to sat links too because sat links would halt trace attempts at the sattelite (utterly decimating my GM's cliche attempts at tracking us).

Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 2 2006, 03:03 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca May 2 2006, 03:05 AM

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 2 2006, 03:08 AM

Bah, it's more 80s than ever. AR Gloves, Miracle Shooter is just Duck Hunt, escapist culture under a fascist government. Look at the cover of SR4: 1 ninja, guy in pink sunglasses and matching shorts, jammer pants, giant rats, and oppressive asian influence. Technomancers are just DARYL.
.

Posted by: GreyPawn May 2 2006, 04:00 AM

Third edition setting and physics, with select elements of the 4th.

Posted by: ChuckRozool May 2 2006, 06:06 AM

Posted by: Brontal May 2 2006, 11:24 AM

That is a very good question eidolon and i will try to be as exact as possible.


The D&D setting is based on an not very exact defined medieval timeframe without the aim to reflect the medieval "realty" , for example the hygienical situation of that time .
The roots of the main aspects of the game are based on fiction / fantasy / fairy tales .... . the evil wizzard, orks, dragons, magic, mysterious dungeons, elfes, a cursed wood, etc. .... without the purpose to reflect a "real" world .
So as long as you, or me, are willing to "dive" into this fary tale world it is believable because ( sorry since english is not my first language it is difficult to describe ) it is fantasy by default .

The setting of Shadowrun on the other side is based on the real world which I and you can see everyday when looking out of the window. It is a not to far fictional version of the future. It is using places, names and tools of the actual happening real world. If I had the money and the time I could jump into the next plane and visit the scenes described in the Shadowrun books. I can goggle for "Hecklar & Koch", "Krupp" or "Lone Star" and get results of now existing real companies .
So Shadowrun is basicly aiming to reflect a fictional version of the real world with the addition of fantasy / fary tale elements.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 2 2006, 01:56 PM

Posted by: Lindt May 2 2006, 03:14 PM

Here is the problem. SR is such an emmently leathal setting, where Joe Wageslave with his Glock can flatout kill a hardened runner by blindly fireing. It would make for a lousy setting where a NPC can easly one shot kill you. Never mind the fact that SR dosent easly support ressurecting that well at all.

And never mind the fact that you would almost need to have a PvP element, which would consist of one asshat sitting on a roof top a mile away with a barret and his mage buddy running cover.

Posted by: eralston May 2 2006, 03:23 PM

I'm sure someone will come along and remind you that such comments are useless in this thread, because wanting an MMO is prerequisite to wanting an edition for the MMO, but...

Obviously the MMO would have to present tweaked mechanics to preserve characters. You can sure bet that the SR game for 360 isn't going to let players die over one lucky shot on the part of joe wageslave. Furthmore, I'm willing to bet that the 360 game will not feature abuse of the extreme range of some weapons being kilometers. If the whole game comes down to you pissing someone off and them spraying you down from ten blocks away with an HMG, that's not entertainment even in the PnP game.

Foremost on my mind, and the number one complaint I would bring up, would be that MMOs have a tendency to never offer long-term storytelling elements and all you do comes down to finding a job then squishing a monster or (worse) delivering something to someone. True, it will have to support the 20 minutes at a time casual types, but something meangingful could be accomplished in a game in an hour's play. But then, how would you counterbalance that so everyone on a team gets their fair share of face time? It's a quandry

Posted by: Platinum May 2 2006, 05:11 PM

What I don't seem to follow is why people think that if you are running an MMO, you would use all of the game mechanics. That just would not happen. MMO's use complex lighting and physics engines. Bullets will arc, etc. If there is a MMo it will use the genre and feel of the game but overlayed on a much more complex system. Can you imagine people playing this? I would be glued online till I had like 10 million karma pool. Muahaha ... and I can survive nuke blasts. The karma pool mechanic could be a neat feature, but it would have to be something that you employ before you attempt something.

Posted by: Valentinew May 2 2006, 05:22 PM

Has anyone here played DDO? I ask because it's advertised as being the PnP put online & I'm curious as to how successful the game is...what I saw of it didn't impress me, but that was months before it's release.

I am not expecting any MMO to mirror the PnP game, any more than the Sega game mirrored it. What I do expect is to retain the flavor & storyline of SR.

Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 05:40 PM

Here's what a guy at another board said about DDO. I've never played it (or even seen it played) so I can't verify anything.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 2 2006, 06:03 PM

Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 06:04 PM

Is the loathing a personal preference thing because you prefer people to memorize spells or something else?

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 2 2006, 06:13 PM

A few reasons. Part of it is that I find the idea of wide-scale innate magical talent in humans (within the context of D&D) to be offensive—I've never liked the memorization system, but I like even less the departure from it while it's left in the game. More importantly, though, the class system (which has always been a bit of a stretch) makes absolutely no sense for them—they have innate magical talent, it isn't something they study at. As a result, there's no reason that I've found why a sorcerer spent all that time somehow learning to be a sorcerer rather than, say, another class.

I will admit that my personal preferences with regards to D&D are unusually stringent—this is the result of my realization several years ago that it would never be the game I wanted to play most of the time, so I settled on it being the game I wanted to play when I wanted a particular kind of experience. As a result, anything deviating from that experience (like all of 3.0/3.5 and several things about 2e) is likely to provoke disfavour in me.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 06:34 PM

Cool. I completely disagree with you on the sorcerer issue, but this isn't a D&D board so I'll just leave it at that.

Posted by: Thanee May 2 2006, 06:35 PM

Not everyone must like every game.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: mfb May 2 2006, 07:51 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 2 2006, 08:03 PM

Interesting. That wasn't the feel I got from skimming the PHB, but I will admit that I gave it a very brief skim indeed.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 08:08 PM

They're kinda like almost every other class can be portrayed if you want: innately capable of <fighting / sneaking / praying> but need to practice (by fighting monsters and overcoming other challenges) to hone their skills.

Posted by: mfb May 2 2006, 09:28 PM

well, check the first line in the description:

Posted by: eralston May 2 2006, 10:51 PM

Ok, not that I like the degeneration of this thread, but let's bring up DDO for a second:

1) It had more to live up to than it could ever deliver. D&D is the ultimate PnP RPG and nothing they could have made in recent years would have satisfied the people who have played for decades

2) This is the first version of the game and those often suck (anyone still play first edition D&D, why again?)

3) (I suppose this is mostly IMO, but...) Everything Atari touches turns to shit (need I say more?)

4) Also, IMO again, but...the WOTC projection that Eberron is the definitive D&D universe is (IMO again) completely wrong. It is a novel Universe in some respects, but not representative of everyone's experience with the game (it was largely introduced for that reason). (Here is where I express my love of Forgotten Realms, but I also really would have just settled for Greyhawk).

Analyzing that person's specific commentary, it is a simultaneous an argument for and against direct mapping of PnP game mechanics to an MMO. On the one hand, he directly highlights their deviation from the PnP's rules (also citing cross-editioning as bad), warning people away from using the game rules because they are so flawed in their implementation; however, imagine how much angrier he would have been if they hadn't used them at all. I think this is too small a sample size.

Let's fix that

Posted by: eidolon May 3 2006, 04:28 AM

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 04:32 AM

Posted by: eidolon May 3 2006, 04:40 AM

Ah, but improved is a matter of opinion, much like our choice of rules set.

And if you'll notice, I was speaking of the days and releases of TSR. WotC fairly well did put out an edition and say "we just found out that Rome had better gods." See: why I prefer AD&D 2nd to D&D 3.X.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 04:47 AM

Yeah, and TSR went out of business... Hum, makes you wonder. Adam posted a great article about why TSR lost out, but I'm not in the mood to go find it.

I prefer the flexibility of SR3 but the love world of SR4. With D&D, I prefer the flexibility of D20 and 3.x to that of AD&D, but prefer the world flexibility of AD&D.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 05:27 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 02:31 PM

I can picture that exchange.

I can picture it being made up by someone trying to prove a point. I can't picture it actually taking place spontaneously, let alone more than once.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 03:14 PM

You can't imagine one game telling another gamer sucks? Have you ever been to a game store and/or talked to gamers?

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 03:19 PM

I absolutely can imagine them saying a game sucks. What I can't imagine is them doing so because the game doesn't have wireless in coffee shops.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 03:25 PM

Oh, I'm sure that if asked they would go on to explain all the other things that make the level of technology unbelievable. But for most people, a game set in the future that doesn't have wireless networking would be enough to make them wonder what the hell the designers were thinking.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 May 3 2006, 03:55 PM

Am I the only one who mourned the demise of the decker and the cable sphagetti that gave Shadowrun that jolt of the Matrix feeling?

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 03:55 PM

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 04:02 PM

People wanting to try a new game don't want to have to buy antoher book (Matrix) just to make one portion of the technology believable.

Wireless is obsolete? So the data moving around just teleports?

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 04:24 PM

See, that's what it does when it supposedly goes over a wireless connection. Let me introduce you to a man called Claude Shannon.

~J

Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 3 2006, 04:33 PM

James the reason that simsense may see a temporary end to wireless is that simsense is data intensive

and to date wired methods of data transfer remain fatser than wireless ones

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 04:39 PM

Wired methods will probably always be faster than wireless simply because you can't go optical with wireless, but that doesn't make wireless obsolete, especially when considering that technology will progress. If you assume that transfer methods progress fast enough to keep pace with data needs, wireless is here to stay.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 04:44 PM

Ok, I'll admit I should have explained.

My point is that unless data needs stop progressing, wireless transfer methods will fail to keep pace. The reason for that is the same reason that optical is such a good transmission method: there is a theoretical limit to how much information you can transmit (including compression) given a certain bandwidth and noise level. That limit isn't very high, especially when you consider that the signals to everyone else are going to be noise to you.

"Obsolete" was too strong a word. Low-data-rate needs will always be met by wireless barring a catastrophic increase in noise level for some reason. That said, as a primary datamover, wireless will be obsoleted by widespread high-data-rate usage.

~J

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 04:50 PM

I don't agree. People will take the hit in performance for the portability. They already are with their cellphones. With the massive memory capabilities of SR4, one could easiliy create an active-x system for simsense, a type of client side scripting that removes the brunt of transmission. The majority of bandwidth would be people downloading updates for this - and that could be done at home on a wired system (perhaps at the same time one recharges the batteries).

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 04:55 PM

Er? I'm not exactly certain what you're saying here relating to ActiveX.

~J

Posted by: blakkie May 3 2006, 05:29 PM

I believe he is talking sort of along the lines of an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model.

Attempting to reduce bandwidth requirments by encoding very dense messages that utilize data that is already shared between the nodes prior via higher bandwidth methods and letting the nodes do the processing to expand/decode the dense messages out into their full form.

As for the "via higher bandwidth methods", never underestimate the bandwidth of a truckload of floppy disks traveling down the highway at 100 kph.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 3 2006, 05:39 PM

James: as Kage said, not a safe assumption

Kanada: as per SR3 such a client side system was already in place

Posted by: Platinum May 3 2006, 05:47 PM

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 05:53 PM

The Matrix is wireless in third edition.

Posted by: Platinum May 3 2006, 05:58 PM

There are rules for wireless connections in 3rd ed, but the matrix is not a wireless framework like in 4th.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 06:32 PM

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 06:38 PM

So you're problem is that the third world is creating a modular wireless network rather than laying thousands of miles of cable? A wireless network is already forming, a mere thirty years after the basic technology was created. Here, today, now. Cell towers, satellites, bluetooth.

I think the fact that SR has moved away from being based on crap fiction and is based more on a relatable world is somehow a problem for people. Of course, the problem is nostalgia more than some BS failure to suspend disbelief.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 06:50 PM

My problem is that SR has moved away from being based on crap fiction that coincidentally ended up, in several places, to coincide with reality to being based on crap fiction that has no fucking clue what it's talking about.

If "defying even more rules of physics for unimportant reasons" somehow equals "more relatable" for you, I'm not sure there's any way to productively discuss this.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 06:58 PM

KAge, I'm unsure there's any way to productively discuss this anyway. It's pretty obvious that you won't be changing your stance (nor will a lot of oldtimers who dislike the new wireless world). The odds are also pretty good that I (and those like me) won't change our stance, as we really like the new wireless world.

The fact of the matter is though, the average gamer doesn't care a lot about physics, they want a world they can suspend disbelief enough to play in. A world that is, however superficially, set in our future but does not conform tot he things you expect to see in our future, loses large chunks of that believability.

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 07:02 PM

i dunno. i like the wireless stuff, and i like realism. i just don't view the obstacles presented as being insurmountable. i will agree, however, that the move from poorly-researched but basically believable scifi to wholly insane scifi is lamentable.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 07:06 PM

I'd say that it wasn't really all that big of a move.

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 07:34 PM

for the wireless stuff? no, not a huge jump. in other (technomancer) areas, though (technomancers), i can't even (technomancers) think about it without (technomancers) trying to claw out my own (technomancers) eyes.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 07:38 PM

Rumors that Nebis may have a second name with even more dread power are as yet unsubstantiated.

~J

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 07:54 PM

You can't seriously be suggesting that the portrayal of cyberspace and the physics of the Matrix make in sense in any edition? They don't, at any point, even begin to work how computers can even possibly work. Some moron thought holographic memory meant code would be /shaped/ in /3D space/ to resemble physical objects! Come on!

And no, technomancers don't make sense. They're some kind of anti-magic that projects into hyperspace which is somehow a reflection of the technological dream world.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 07:55 PM

mfb: What about Otaku? Or Mages? Why were they ok but technomancers aren't?

Kage: huh?

Posted by: Platinum May 3 2006, 07:55 PM

Posted by: Platinum May 3 2006, 07:59 PM

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 08:02 PM

I'm not sure I disagree with that, but even a wired backbone with ubiquitous hubs would result in the same effect.

I agree that spammers and zombies won't go away, but that's not really a turn off for me. The ability to eliminate my TV, phone, computer, radio, and the rest of my entertainment center (not to mention the ability to post on DS while on the can) with a little watch and a pair of glasses makes that worth it. More than worth it. IMO, of course.

Posted by: Platinum May 3 2006, 08:02 PM

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 08:04 PM

That version of cyberspace you posted is not the original one, it's the one we've forced into the game because it makes a semblance of logic.

The original version is why they call creating a physical shape "scultping" the Matrix.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 08:12 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 08:15 PM

Posted by: Platinum May 3 2006, 08:18 PM

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 08:20 PM

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 09:02 PM

you're absolutely right, McMurray. brain radios are just as feasible as reading peoples' minds and shooting fire from your fingertips--which is to say, they're completely infeasible unless there's magic involved. with otaku, you basically just say that they're a very specialized type of savant.

as for otaku being something out of anime... what anime have you been smoking?

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 09:26 PM

I'm glad we agree on the feasability of technomancers in a scifi/fantasy game.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 09:31 PM

Feasibility? Sure. Desirability?

See, this is what I'm trying to get across to you. Yes, you can handwave everything into the game. Every time you do it it damages suspension of disbelief. Because of that, handwaving anything you don't have to is bad.

Can you give me even a vaguely quarter-decent reason why Technomancers are better as a concept because they've been given a laws-of-physics handwave?

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 09:32 PM

No, but I don't have to. I like them as a concept, with or without a handwave. You don't, and that's fine.

Posted by: SL James May 3 2006, 09:47 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 09:55 PM

That's the handwave. I'm still not seeing the reason therefrom. What interesting thing are they doing with the newfound magicalness of Technomancers?

~J

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 09:59 PM

Allowing them to summon spirtes and cast complex forms. Technomancers can manipulate the flow of radio noise to create tangible world affects; that's no different than asking what's so great about magic? One can always pick up a flamethrower or shove a p'fix in a mark, and almost with the ease of magic...

Posted by: SL James May 3 2006, 10:07 PM

Oh, woops.

Uh, because that way it allows them to carry on describing TMs in a mystical setting and mindset instead of the hyper-rational and eerily intelligence savants they could have been described as?

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 10:16 PM

I'm not sure it precludes either. You're just describing the difference between technoshamans and technomancers.

[e] Whether technomancers use a brand of magic or some undiscovered hyperphysics to assence and affect the electromagnetic soup surrounding them doesn't really change the game. Whether their minds have been altered to behave like superRFID, absorbing the waves and then refracting them on a subconscious level or if they are consciously altering code phrases doesn't alter my suspension.

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 10:37 PM

no, see. they didn't just buckle down and make them magical. matter of fact, the opinion of many of the freelancers is that they're not magical. therefore, they're not feasible.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 10:50 PM

And exactly why not? The human body can behave like an RFID already. Each person when subjected to radio waves reflects those waves in a unique way (this is why people glow on mm-wave). Technomancers simply have the ability to alter how they reflect to such a degree that they can simulate wireless code. Now we could say that the power of this reflected wave would be far too weak for detection, but think about the word Resonance. Their waves "echo" inside a wireless hub because resonance is a fundamental part of the new technology.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 10:52 PM

And besides, it's cool.

Posted by: SL James May 3 2006, 10:53 PM

And so... How can they do that while being (AFAIK) almost completely indistiguishable biologically from normal people?

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 10:55 PM

By technology not yet knowing what it is that makes them different? They're a relatively new and as yet mostly unknown quantity. Most folks don't even know they exist, much less if and how to distinguish them from normal people.

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 11:03 PM

technomancers do more than simply reflect radio waves, they generate them.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 11:05 PM

Can two technomancers in a dead zone with no wireless devices around connect to each other as a small network and communicate nonverbally via their personae?

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 11:06 PM

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 11:10 PM

point me to the text that says they can't. all it says is that people set up personal networks in deadzones. if technomancers somehow can't access them, that'd be something i would note in the text.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 11:14 PM

Point to the text that says they can. You're making the claim that they generate radio waves, it's up to you to prove the claim or drop it, not the other way around.

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 11:19 PM

sure, no prob.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 11:30 PM

Does it say if commlinks generate radio waves?

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 11:31 PM

hahahahahaha! yes, yes it does. see my comments on the Signal attribute. or read the text yourself, on page 212. the phrase raw broadcasting power is particularly relevant.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 11:32 PM

That works as proof enough for me (without any counterevidence of course. So technomancers generate radio waves as well. Sweet!

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 11:34 PM

which, like i said, is infeasible unless they're magical. the writers' comments seem to indicate they aren't.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 11:37 PM

Meh, like I said long time ago, I wanted the wireless to use an em-cloud and just have everthing work by manipulating and reflecting the waves.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 11:39 PM

Can you prove that it's impossible for a biological organism to create radio waves? And if you can, does that matter in a scifi-fantasy game? To some it will, to others it won't. The first group should ignore technomancy and the second group use it. Seems pretty simple to me.

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 11:45 PM

can i personally provide you with the biological details of why the idea of a radio brain is batshit loco? nope. i know enough about radios and biology to tell you it seems like a really cockeyed idea, and i can tell you that if you talk to anybody who knows the first thing about the subject, they'll laugh at you.

yes, it does matter in a scifi-fantasy game. you see, there's this thing called suspension of disbelief. the more unbelievable something is, the harder it is to suspend disbelief about it. people use this argument to justify all kinds of retarded crap, ignoring the fact that good scifi doesn't break suspension of desbelief, it enhances it.

Posted by: Ophis May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

What puzzles me is how people seem to treat Otaku as oh so feasible without it being a mystic thing... Just would like to know.
In my game Techno's are weird shit, like meta humans a non magical thing that magic allows to happen(you don't stop being a meta in a dead magic zone or die in orbital stations.) A physical change/mutation that the higher mana lvel allows. It didn't happen before(4th age) because there were no radio waves/computors to work with. Techno's are able to interact with current tech, maybe they always could but the tech wasn't around?

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 11:48 PM

otaku are feasible. they don't do anything that any savant doesn't do--they just do it with a tighter focus, and on a larger scale. they're Rain Man writ large.

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 11:48 PM

Right, technomancers break your suspension of disbelief. That puts you in the first group. Please feel free to ignore technomancy all you want.

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 11:50 PM

why ignore it, when i can jeer at it from the sidelines?

Posted by: SL James May 3 2006, 11:50 PM

*Whistles innocently*

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 11:54 PM

Posted by: mfb May 3 2006, 11:58 PM

as long as nobody's fooling themselves with faulty facts or logic, my work is done. i could care less if you're convinced that technomancers are retarded or not, as long as you're in possession of the facts--which state technomancers' retardery quite clearly.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 11:58 PM

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 11:59 PM

Yep, it appears they are retarded from a biological standpoint. You win that one. Go mf!

Posted by: mfb May 4 2006, 12:05 AM

Posted by: James McMurray May 4 2006, 12:07 AM

No, it was purely intentional.

And since my entire point in posting here was proving that some people don't care if they're biologically infeasible, I'm happy too.

Ain't it a rosey red world we live in?

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 4 2006, 12:08 AM

Posted by: mfb May 4 2006, 12:09 AM

congrats! you grew some eggs, McMurray. of course, now you're either a liar or a spaz, but you can't win 'em all.

at any rate...

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 4 2006, 12:15 AM

Well, I wouldn't care which way they went to do it; the promise of SR4 was consistancy and streamlined. 1/2 out of 2 is pretty bad when you're starting from stratch.

Posted by: mfb May 4 2006, 12:18 AM

i find myself unable to counter your point.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 4 2006, 12:20 AM

Hehe. Well, allow me to add but the tech upgrade and new world order make it worthwhile.

Posted by: mfb May 4 2006, 12:22 AM

well, they interest me. i find them interesting enough that i'm willing to play some form of SR. just not SR4. it's a hell of a lot of work, though.

Posted by: James McMurray May 4 2006, 01:09 AM

Posted by: eidolon May 4 2006, 06:59 AM

Posted by: mfb May 4 2006, 07:33 AM

those are good points, but it's worth pointing out that had SR stayed with the old all-wired paradigm, then the Matrix would have remained largely unused in many games. that doesn't mean it was absolutely necessary to go with the current wholly unwired setup, really; a 50/50 mix of wireless (skinlinks, PANs, general AR) and wired (hardcore decking and programming) would have done the same job. but in the end, while i'm less than thrilled with the rate of change (come on, from an infrastructure hit so bad it's referred to as the Crash 2.0, to a completely up-and-running wireless Matrix with full integration into society--all that in less than five years? oooookay!), i generally like the new stuff.

and McMurray, it was the previous time you called me a motherfucker. get some new material, howabout?

Posted by: Platinum May 4 2006, 01:31 PM

It wasn't the wired/unwired paradigm shift that kept deckers from being played. we played them and quite effectively, it was the complexity of the decking rules.(The rules kept changing as well) It didn't take a rocket scientist to decipher the rules but it did take a few reads to finally understand them.

Posted by: noname_hero May 4 2006, 02:42 PM

The problem I have with the 4th edition is that the few good ideas it introduces (e.g. better availability of wireless, assault rifles more powerful than heavy pistols, splitting the Intelligence attribute...) are hidden inside a system that I conside inferior to the old one, in a setting that is *very* difficult to believe.

Like others have said, the world suffered Crash 2.0 - *how the hell* did it manage to turn into what the 4th edition presents us with? Are they trying to tell me that the technology jumped so fast that the same bandwidth that required *costly* and *bulky* equipment in 2064 is available to 100Y commlinks, or even 1Y RFID tags, in 2070?!? Are they telling me this new tech is nearly everywhere, and nearly everyone is used to it?

IMO, the simple solution to a more widespread wireless would be to limit it a similar way to how SR3 limited cyberterminals ("tortoises"). That way you can have most of the mundane advantages the (IRL relatively low-bandwidth) wireless offers, and wireless "true decking" will require more expensive toys like it does in SR3. Leave the old wired systems in, lower the costs for high-bandwidth wireless, and use (relatively) low-bandwidth wireless that would be sufficient for most of the everyday uses of SR4 matrix. Use these cheap low-bandwidth systems for things like reading emails, browsing the web, reading the restaurant's menu, driving a car, watching trid, receiving spam... And force those willing to remain competitive to invest into better gear with higher bandwidth.

It is economy, people. Heck, it is common sense! Different applications require different bandwidth, there will *always* be applications that could use more bandwidth than even the best available tech can offer, and it would be *stupid* to build the *best* and *most expensive* technology into *everything*. In my opinion, there *should* be a difference between the requirements for listening to weather predictions and the requirements for hacking the supercomputer generating said predictions.

To sum it up: IMHO the good ideas SR4 introduces are swamped by way more stupid ones. I had no problems switching from SR2 to SR3, but this time both the rules and the setting are *worse* in the newer version. I'm sticking with SR3.

Posted by: eralston May 4 2006, 04:12 PM

They could have spared themselves SR4's matrix themes completely if they reiterated just how large a megapulse is supposed to be. They could have totally gotten away with "MPs are too huge to transmit wirelessly all the time in non-tortoise mode".

Do they say anywhere in the book how big an MP is?

Posted by: Platinum May 4 2006, 04:20 PM

You want to go here for that discussion. Happened a few weeks ago.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=12692

Posted by: eralston May 4 2006, 04:52 PM

thanks for the link

Yeah, I have a hard time believing in a wireless technology capable of transmitting that much information so quickly. It runs into a bit of a speed of energy problem.

Posted by: Platinum May 4 2006, 05:58 PM

I don't have a problem with the tech working so quickly, I know it is possible, and it is getting faster all the time. (In isolated labs) The problem is that in production, there are so many other people using the same frequncies that it becomes like trying to talk to someone at a concert while the band is playing and pyrotechnics are going off. Sure you can do it, but it is slow, and difficult.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.

Posted by: eralston May 4 2006, 06:37 PM

That's more or less my thought. The model presented on the linked page of that discussion (pumping the entire matrix out all at once to reduce time for requests and responses) would really be outta control with a wireless technology. There would be some crazy new regulations for how much spectrum matrix 2.0 is able to use. I suppose, mega-corps being mega and all, that could have swung and maybe optical chips are just so cool they could process information that quickly, but then you heap onto that encryption and protocols? Ouch.

Stepping back for a moment, it is kind of silly to overanalyze such as we have, especially considering their thread was suppose to figure what edition of the rules to use in an SR video game...

Posted by: mfb May 4 2006, 06:48 PM

Posted by: Platinum May 4 2006, 07:21 PM

It may have for your group, but not for mine....
Quoting myself.

Posted by: mfb May 4 2006, 07:55 PM

that's good point. however, there are flaws. for one, a mage doesn't have to go astral every time he wants to do something magical. for two, an astral mage can often directly participate in whatever the rest of the team is doing; the astral mage is, after all, right there in the same area as the rest of the team. it's much easier to integrate an astral mage into activities that the rest of the team is conducting than it is to integrate the decker into those activities.

a good GM can work around these problems, of course--but it is work, on the GM's part. it means he can never simply set up a Matrix problem; he has to set up a Matrix problem with real-world components every time. the GM can throw up a magical threat at any time, with no extra planning invovled; any PC can act against magical threats. the street sam might not be as effective against a magical threat as the mage is, but at least the sam has something to do.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 4 2006, 08:08 PM

That is frequently not the case, particularly when it comes to magical security (which many times consists of astral observers).

~J

Posted by: mfb May 4 2006, 08:15 PM

that's a worst-case scenario. if you're sneaking into somewhere and the only security in the area is an astral observer then, yes, the mage is going to have a few rounds of alone time. it's much easier for a GM to avoid those situations, however, than it is for him to design Matrix scenarios which directly involve the rest of the team. it can be as simple as giving the astral observers orders to materialize and attack--something you certainly can't do for deckers.

Posted by: James McMurray May 4 2006, 10:14 PM

Yes, it's possible that someone will tell you not to play D&D because there's no wireless connections in the game. Completely unlikely and moronic, but possible.

There's a big difference between someone expecting wireless in a fantasy tavern and somebody expecting wireless in a future Earth that has no reason for technology to have rolled backwards except "the rules don't allow wireless connections."

The previous time I called you that I was lying. It was obvious to me, obvious to you, and obvious to everyone involved. It's called "feigning innocence" and done sarcastically as amusement. Maybe you could use some of your fertilizer on your own humor plant?

I agree on the deckign though. It's psosible to integrate a decker into a standard game on SR3 without wireless, but doing it over and over again tended to (at least in our games) stretch the bounds of reality.

But in our games the decker / hacker usually wants to move in first and take control before anyone comes in whenever possible, so they generally just hire an NPC. Wireless hasn't changed that. The only thing it has done is make it so people look up their own information on the matrix, have some computer skills, and take part inthe world's technology a bit more.

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 01:31 AM

there isn't that big a difference, though. science fiction, especially science fiction gaming, has to take into account the fact that their vision of the future is probably 90% wrong. our current vision of what the future will be like would be almost unrecognizable to someone from the 80s, and their vision would be complet gobbledygook to someone from the 50s. this is as true about technology as it is about everything else. for instance, despite the fact that Japan is no longer poised to take over the globe with their strange, Asian business practices, the corporate world of SR is still largely dominated by Japanese megas. hispanics don't have a major place in the UCAS, CAS, or NAN, despite the fact that that they're currently the fastest-growing ethnic group on the continent. should the next SR book that comes out have all the Japanacorps being taken over by Chinese businessmen, and talk about how Aztlan has suddenly jumped up a few points because it's finally decided to start catering to the massive hispanic population of North America?

i mean, give me a break. you're okay with suspending your disbelief when it comes to people shooting radio waves from their brains, but there's no room in there for a wired Matrix? double standard much?

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 5 2006, 01:42 AM

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 01:54 AM

yes, they've said there are hispanics in the NAN. that's about it. they didn't mention how hispanics outnumber all other ethnic groups besides caucasian, or how the reason the CAS hasn't just stepped down there and whooped the crap out of Aztlan is because of all the ex-Aztlaners living in the south, or how there's racial violence between the Cuban smugglers and the Puerto Rican smugglers all through North America. same deal with the Japanacorps--yes, the PPG has been rocking the boat, but the corporate world is still very much Japan-run. that's true even in 2070, and isn't likely to change.

and there is a rigorous technical pace, if you use the SOTA rules.

SR is a product of its time. it should be updated, i agree, but completely supplanting its basic assumptions is not required, nor is it necessarily desirable.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 5 2006, 01:59 AM

The SotA rules hardly reflected the rise of a technological overlord.

What are the basic assumptions we're discussing? I'm not sure I see any of them missing from my end.

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 02:18 AM

well, the low place wireless technology occupies in the world, for one. i suppose some others might be the dominance of megacorps over traditional nation-states, the population density of the midwest, the number of american indians in the world, the rate of advancement in cybernetic, the type of advancements in cybernetics (the preeminence of plastic and metal over more natural construction materials, for instance)... those are all i can come up with off the top of my head.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 5 2006, 02:24 AM

Wow, and I thought we would be talking about the willingness of humans to trade flesh for tech. The willingness to trade freedom for security. The willingness to measure success by wealth and power. And that information is power above all.

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 02:28 AM

those are underlying assumptions of cyberpunk in general, applicable whether you're talking about Gibson or SR or Rudy Rucker. i'm talking about concepts that are largely specific to SR. not that SR is the only fictional universe to make those assumptions, but they are the assumptions that define the SR universe.

i mean, seriously, let's talk about suspension of disbelief as it applies to the NAN. that there is some hardcore suspension.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 5 2006, 02:34 AM

Exactly, which is why I don't understand technomancer hate. But that's not about ability, is it? It's about desire. Same for me I guess. I desire an SR world where technology invades every single moment, where information overdose causes death on a daily basis...

Personally, I never held your assumptions about the SR universe other than with megacorps and number of natives still clinging to tradition. The rest was always in flux to my mind.

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 02:46 AM

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 02:49 AM

because even the NAN is easier to explain than technomancers. you can simply say "well, the vast majority of the NAN population is filled out by 'white reservations'". technomancers... i haven't seen an explanation that fits.

the assumptions i listed are some of the assumptions the SR universe is built on. cybernetics are made from metal and plastic, rather than being sheathed in, say, cloned bone; implanted computers are not specialized brain tissue, they're chips and wiring. implanted cybernetic interfaces are vastly more advanced than non-implanted versions. these are basic facts that make up the SR world, and they're quite different from both where reality is headed and where other cyberpunk fictional worlds have taken things. if you suddenly change those assumptions, it's no longer SR. it's a world that resembles SR.

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 03:03 AM

You're willing to accept trash science in the form of implanted cybernetics being better than non-implanted versions, implanted cyberware being metal and plastic instead of cloned bone, and the innumerable other things that SR does with tech that can't really be done, but you won't accept it with technomancers? Double standard much?

The Crash wiped it all out, so why wouldn't they replace it with something better?

Byt he way, a lack of capitalization worked for e. e. cummings because he was able to convince people he was smart and artistic enough it didn't matter. I'm not sure you've done that.

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 03:09 AM

i'm willing to accept it because it wasn't trash science at the time it was written. radio brains, though? that's always been retarded. as for why they wouldn't replace the intarwebs with something 'better' (ie, feature-rich), there are innumerable reasons. the primary one was probably a strong focus on security and stability over user-friendliness.

i like how you pooh-pooh insults all the time, but never miss the chance to slip one in when it suits you. that's class. say what you like about me, at least i'm honest.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 5 2006, 03:14 AM

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 03:16 AM

you can agree with them or disagree with them, but they're right there in all the books. i'm not even sure what you mean by 'disagree'--are you arguing that these things are not in the material? are you arguing that they're there, but mutable in individual games? what does that mean?

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 5 2006, 03:20 AM

As if that means anything to me. Perhaps what I mean to say is: the way Shadowrun is now, is more how I've always envsisioned it. It is more Shadowrun to me than it ever was. I think the original authors failed to actually depict the Shadowrun world in a huge and egregious way. The current book is closer to the "real" Shadowrun than ever for me.

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 03:23 AM

Security is still easily available. If something isn't secure enough for the wireless web you leave it unwired. There hasn't been that big of a difference in security between the two. With either one, if something is available from outside of your facility in a wired world, it's available from outside your facility in an unwired world. You don't have to put everything out on the airwaves any more than you have to put everything on the internet.

Take for example cell phones. Cell phones are vastly less secure than land lines, and less stable as well. However, America (and many other countries) are rapidly becoming addicted to them. Commlinks are like cell phones to the power of 1,000 and therefore vastly more addictive. The smart businessman recognizes addictions and moves to fill them for a price. Switching to a mostly wired world was a good business decision from a consumer / supplier standpoint.

Commlinks and the wireless world that holds them is like cell phones with the ability to play WoW in 3D while you sit on the toilet. If someone can make one, it'll rapidly take over the world.

Most trash science in older editions of SR was trash science even then. For example, the idea that something implanted in someone (and therefore vastly more complex) works better than something you sit on your desk, has always been crapola. But it works in the SR world, so it's ok.

Radio brains are no more retarded than the idea of "psychics" able to read minds. Lots of futuristic games have those, and because they fit, suspension of disbelief is maintained. Psychics don't really fit in SR (without being awakened) but technomancers (IMO) do. For that reason I suspend my disbelief when dealing wth them. Obviously you don't, and that's ok. It doesn't make sense to me, but it doesn't have to as long as it makes sense to you.

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 03:24 AM

*shrug* technomancers are the only real problem i have with the SR4 setting. there are other oddities, like Los Angeles, but technomancers are the only part i outright reject. the wireless thing, while moving a bit too fast for my tastes, is cool with me in large part because the capacity was already there. all the WMI was, basically, was taking rigger networking technology and applying it to Matrix stuff. i have to admit that i'm mildly put out; all the badass tricks my rigger/deckers used to pull are SOP for every rigger/decker, now.

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 03:29 AM

That puts you into group one. The group who can (and should) ignore technomancers.

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 03:35 AM

sure. i'll ignore them. i won't be bitter about it, because i haven't worked my ass off towards the goal of contributing to SR officially, and came goddamn close to doing so. nor will i be upset because the game has gone from something i enjoyed playing to something i don't.

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 03:39 AM

So you like the things that SR4 did (for the most part), except TMs? Why then, when you can simply delete TMs from your world, is Shadowrun something you no longer enjoy?

Or was that not sarcasm, and you really aren't upset about that?

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 03:42 AM

you could at least do me the favor of reading what i write before you reply to it.

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 03:46 AM

Do you mean I should go back and find every post you've made so I can sift through for the anti-SR4 ones, or that I missed something in that post?

If it's the former, Id' rather not, and the anti-SR commentary from the 3 or 4 truly vocal people all tends to bleed together into one large whine fest. If it's the latter, then you said you wouldn't be bitter and you wouldn't be upset. I assumed you were being sarcastic.

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 04:04 AM

you're apparently too dim to get it, and i'm tired of talking to you. this is as good a place to stop doing so as any.

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 04:24 AM

That's ok. People generally give up when they realize that there's no "blinding undeniable truth" to their beliefs that makes them as blatantly obvious to others as they are to themselves. It's human nature.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Posted by: eralston May 5 2006, 06:16 AM

Wow, 8 pages of this...

So what you're trying to say is that you want 4th edition, but want 3rd ed decker?

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 5 2006, 06:47 AM

To begin to respond to your question would first require that you please, for the love of god, clarify that vague pronoun.

~J

Posted by: Skip May 12 2006, 05:25 PM

I actually liked the variable staging of SR1, which is something much easier to work into a computer game. There's too much math for relatively fast game-play, if you've played SR1 you know what I mean. Yes, most of the rest of SR1 is best left for dead, but variable staging made for a much more varied game.

Reengaging my lurking field,

Skip

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 May 12 2006, 05:28 PM

I think SR4 would be best, personally. AR would look so awesome in fully-realized 3d... Plus, if you made it a first-person role-playing-game, you'd finally have an excuse for the all-pervasive HUD and interface.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 12 2006, 05:29 PM

I disagree, precisely because I think a game like this is a perfect opportunity to throw the HUD out the window.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 12 2006, 06:19 PM

Even with SR3 you could have a HUD.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 12 2006, 06:34 PM

You can indeed. That's personally what I'd be shooting for—no HUD whatsoever, and certain pieces of 'Ware (Smartlink, imagelink, retinal clock, biomonitor, etc. etc. etc.) fill one in if someone gets them. With AR, there's no reason not to have a HUD, which I'm not too keen on.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 12 2006, 06:42 PM

You still need sensor packages for your HUD. Just having AR goggles isn't enough. It would be no different then giving everyone in a SR3 setting the ability to buy a HUD.

Why are you so opposed to a HUD if it makes sense within the game world?

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 12 2006, 06:52 PM

Because we've had HUDs in almost every game since Quake II at the latest (and health/ammo displays since Wolfenstein 3D). I'd like building a HUD to be a tradeoff, which it is using SR3 (mostly requiring cyberware) and isn't in SR4 (most things, especially the key things like smartlinks, can be effectively done without 'ware). Sure with SR4 you can at least explain the HUD (which, don't get me wrong, I do appreciate), but it would pretty much be default-present.

~J

Posted by: Laser May 12 2006, 07:29 PM

In SR3 goggles could do almost anything eye augs could do... LL, Thermo, magnification, smartlink, even smartlink 2, if memory serves.

Posted by: James McMurray May 12 2006, 07:33 PM

You can get noncyberware displays in SR3, as well as noncyberware smartlinks. The only real difference between SR3 and SR4 in that area is AR, which in and of itself is not a HUD any more than an image link by itself is a HUD.

There is no reason to assume that a default HUD in SR4 would have anything at all. For an ammo count and health readout you'd need wireless enabled guns and a biomonitor respectively. For enemy targetting you'd need a smartlink or laser sight. For enemy tracking you'd need some sort of sensor device or they'd be undetectable outside your field of view.

Posted by: Shadow May 12 2006, 07:35 PM

I think a HUD could be great. But I agree wit Kage, it should not be automatic. That would also be a clever way to diguise customizing your games appearence.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 12 2006, 07:35 PM

Correct, but that's a tradeoff as well—goggles aren't appropriate for social situations, say, or walking around on the street. Contact lenses or similarly-sized items are.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 12 2006, 07:37 PM

"Goggles" have always been available as just sunglasses. I do agree that it shouldn't be free, but instead should eb built from the ground up by purchasing various packages for it. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that a HUD is a bad idea for a game and that for some reason SR4 is worse than SR3 in this regard because of AR (which has little to nothing to do with HUDs).

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 12 2006, 07:43 PM

The problem being that AR makes the capabilities that allow a HUD critical rather than optional.

~J

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 12 2006, 09:45 PM

You could actually screw with the HUD in SR4 more than 3 using Spam Zones (you'd be shutting off the damn thing most often in public places) or Jammer Zones (activated inside corporate complexes and secure areas when an alarm is tripped), not to mention Dead Zones.

Honestly, a HUD is a basic function of AR, but we could also argue that AR would replace a lot of the HUD with other sensations or ques besides visual. Many of these could be turned into voice alerts (not to mention your pop-up secretary) or more subtle visual effects (which would take time to grasp, I know) for a video game format.

[e] Random ideas: Miracle Shooter as the training section of the game. 3D HUD system, rather than flat face. Have different features "off to the side" or in the "rear view" - especially things like nano healing and inventory (which would be delt with in real time, rather than a pause screen).

Posted by: James McMurray May 12 2006, 11:14 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 12 2006, 11:20 PM

Brain ear leaking melted.

Tomorrow post.

~J