ZEQ2 Lite

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

and I would like to add I mean no disrespect towards you in anyway , and lets just end this debate

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

najeeb wrote : and I would like to add I mean no disrespect towards you in anyway , and lets just end this debate

Nah, this is getting good.

If you really want to know if his facts are backed up, research his claims, learn the true meaning of words in the dictionary, and like Brad said, you should respond to every point if you want any discussion to advance progressively.

From what I see here, Brad INTENDS ZEQ2-Lite (or ZEQ2) to be a game, but based on standards in the gaming industry, these two projects are not games (yet).

And my point throughout the entire conversation is that I don't see a good reason to get everyone with intellect to understand how it isn't a game. First of all, it's got no relevance to the development of ZEQ2(-Lite), and actually hinders progress.

Second, what does the understanding of a few individuals matter when the majority of players use the program as a game? Sure, there may be friendships created, but overall, the fact that so many people "play" it overwhelms any impression of it as a sort of basis for future development.

(By the way, I would like to request this argument to be moved to a new topic, since it changed from comparing ZEQ2(-Lite) and Earth Special Forces to whether or not ZEQ2(-Lite) is accurately defined as a game.)

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

From what I see here, Brad INTENDS ZEQ2-Lite (or ZEQ2) to be a game, but based on standards in the gaming industry, these two projects are not games (yet).

It's not so much a matter of standards as much as what attributes qualify and separate what a game is. The end-goal is the most important thing I'm trying to address though.

And my point throughout the entire conversation is that I don't see a good reason to get everyone with intellect to understand how it isn't a game. First of all, it's got no relevance to the development of ZEQ2(-Lite), and actually hinders progress.

Again. End-goals. If everyone believes it to already be a game then it can not truly succeed in actually becoming one. People need to see and understand that it's an incomplete project that needs contributions and work to be patched up and become something whole.

Second, what does the understanding of a few individuals matter when the majority of players use the program as a game? Sure, there may be friendships created, but overall, the fact that so many people "play" it overwhelms any impression of it as a sort of basis for future development.

The people who play and those who encourage such people are the precise reason the project's development has stagnated. It's why clans were pushed out of this forum. The more people there are content with slopping in the mud pit, the less there is the realization that it was supposed to eventually be a swimming pool.

If people see ZEQ2-lite's state as "good enough", then they'll never come to terms with the potential for growth that it was intended for and needs.

(By the way, I would like to request this argument to be moved to a new topic, since it changed from comparing ZEQ2(-Lite) and Earth Special Forces to whether or not ZEQ2(-Lite) is accurately defined as a game.)

Done. Honestly, I was so sporadic with posting, I didn't even realize the actual thread that was being posted in.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

It's not so much a matter of standards as much as what attributes qualify and separate what a game is. The end-goal is the most important thing I'm trying to address though.

I see.

Again. End-goals. If everyone believes it to already be a game then it can not truly succeed in actually becoming one. People need to see and understand that it's an incomplete project that needs contributions and work to be patched up and become something whole.

Yes, people need to understand this, but when most of them are players, they tend to not be computer-savvy. And while a few individuals would certainly be able to progress the development of ZEQ2-Lite, they won't have the motivation to continue if the progress is not as good as it could be if more people were to help (in any small way they can).

The people who play and those who encourage such people are the precise reason the project's development has stagnated. It's why clans were pushed out of this forum. The more people there are content with slopping in the mud pit, the less there is the realization that it was supposed to eventually be a swimming pool.

If people see ZEQ2-lite's state as "good enough", then they'll never come to terms with the potential for growth that it was intended for and needs.

So why focus on individuals? People would naturally hear about ZEQ2-Lite being a game more often than they would hear that it needs MANY necessary improvements, and I don't see how a few individuals are going to change the overall perception of the game for the entire community.

Done. Honestly, I was so sporadic with posting, I didn't even realize the actual thread that was being posted in.

Heh, I just realized that today that it looked like half of the thread was all about ZEQ2(-Lite)'s status as a game, even though it's title was referring to Earth Special Forces alone.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Yes, people need to understand this, but when most of them are players, they tend to not be computer-savvy. And while a few individuals would certainly be able to progress the development of ZEQ2-Lite, they won't have the motivation to continue if the progress is not as good as it could be if more people were to help (in any small way they can).

We've provided the means via configs and learning forums along with a rough Dragon Ball Z framework to get started. Motivation to push beyond that has to come from other outlets.

So why focus on individuals? People would naturally hear about ZEQ2-Lite being a game more often than they would hear that it needs MANY necessary improvements, and I don't see how a few individuals are going to change the overall perception of the game for the entire community.

The masses will hear about it that way, sure, but the smart individual will actually look INTO the project for what it is and not just grab a random download link and dive in without research. That's the distinction between the two and the exact reason we appeal to the latter and not the former.

A couple of inspired individuals are what created this project originally. It doesn't take an army to move a mountain. A few dedicated people can make tremendous waves in terms of progress.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Oh my, what has this turned into.

Never expected this to end up as a new thread. Anyway, I'll add my views in here(not opinions, but views I believe to be backed up by actual facts).

While I myself "play" the "game", I can't help but realize that I use the words "play" and "game" simply because no better terms come to mind at the moment. It's like when I say "oh my lloyd" even though I do not believe in any deity.

The thing is, we have to look at what ZEQ2-Lite is presently. You can load up a map, play as a Dragon Ball Z character and attack others.

Most of the "gameplay", including the mentioned "kill and survive" and even the "hone your skills and become number one" that I prefer are simply made up by the community. They are unwritten rules, followed by everyone simply to keep this interactive experience enjoyable for most people.

Close-minded individuals and/or fearsome creatures can and Do abuse all of these "rules" because none of the real gameplay actually forces anyone to follow them.

So yeah, I'm still looking for a good term for this, but it's not "game".

Thursday, November 22, 2012

So yeah, I'm still looking for a good term for this, but it's not "game".

Interactive sandbox as stated here.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Zeth wrote : Interactive sandbox as stated here.

For the sake of understanding, how would you define "interactive sandbox" as a term from the dictionary if there ever would be one?

What I saw BlackHawkGT state was that there are Sandbox games that never really end, and the same goes for ZEQ2-Lite: there is no way to end a session other than taking down the server.

How would you define an "interactive sandbox" as opposed to a "sandbox game?"

I also noticed that our views from that thread to this have changed dramatically (meaning Maszek and myself only, so far).

Friday, November 23, 2012

For the sake of understanding, how would you define "interactive sandbox" as a term from the dictionary if there ever would be one?

What, like a single word term? There doesn't have be one word to describe everything. Playground would come close even though the word itself isn't normally associated with such things.

How would you define an "interactive sandbox" as opposed to a "sandbox game?"

Grand Theft Auto 3+ would be a sandbox game as while it does allow open sorts of activities, there is a central set of objectives and way to complete the experience. ZEQ2-lite would merely be an interactive sandbox (or just a sandbox) as it misses any core goals or completion factors.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Zeth wrote :

How would you define an "interactive sandbox" as opposed to a "sandbox game?"

Grand Theft Auto 3+ would be a sandbox game as while it does allow open sorts of activities, there is a central set of objectives and way to complete the experience. ZEQ2-lite would merely be an interactive sandbox (or just a sandbox) as it misses any core goals or completion factors.

I thought GTF was considered Free-Roam, along with games like the Fable series, The Elder Scrolls series, the overworld in more recent Zelda games, and I've even found that Halo 3: ODST has sort of a Free-Roam objectived-based map.

I do believe a game requires an objective. However, ZEQ2-Lite maps are surrounded by an invisible wall, much like multiplayer maps in shooters and certain kinds of competitive mini-games that require you to take out other players. Where these games have solid objectives in a multiplayer map, ZEQ2-Lite has no objective or rule-run way to end the activity.

I think that's how I'd define the difference between a sandbox game and an interactive sandbox.

ZEQ2-Lite is currently dominated by multiplayer activity, much like shooter games like Halo and Call of Duty. The ONLY difference I see that couldn't possibly be accurately refuted is that there is no programmed scoreboard, which is the only way to know if you've won points.

Unless the objective is to be creative, I don't see how anything can be considered a game if it has no scoreboard. Even then, games that require creative thinking sometimes have scores.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Linkxp500 wrote :

Zeth wrote : Interactive sandbox as stated here.

I also noticed that our views from that thread to this have changed dramatically (meaning Maszek and myself only, so far).

For my part, it's mostly me maturing up a little.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

I thought GTF was considered Free-Roam, along with games like the Fable series, The Elder Scrolls series, the overworld in more recent Zelda games, and I've even found that Halo 3: ODST has sort of a Free-Roam objectived-based map.

Free roam, open world, and sandbox are generally interchangeable terms made by the public. In reality, there are technical distinctions between each, but Grand Theft Auto III is often considered the staple of a sandbox game (mainly due to mis-classifications). I primarily identified it as one so you would comprehend a concrete example when I differentiate it. Had I used something like Minecraft, I would not be able to further break down the game and simulation criteria.

The most critical aspect of sandbox constructions is non-linear gameplay. The premise is that the player doesn't HAVE to go from or perform point A to point B to have some measure of progress (although they may be required to do this to advance the main plot/story/completion factor). Typically sandbox gameplay takes it a step farther and encourages emergent gameplay via players coming up with their own unique sets of boundaries using existing (and often limited) game mechanics. Without established qualities of victory/loss and/or advancement (only relying on emergent gameplay), you remove the 'game' quality and end up with simply an interactive sandbox simulation/experience/tool/utility/editor.

I do believe a game requires an objective. However, ZEQ2-Lite maps are surrounded by an invisible wall, much like multiplayer maps in shooters and certain kinds of competitive mini-games that require you to take out other players. Where these games have solid objectives in a multiplayer map, ZEQ2-Lite has no objective or rule-run way to end the activity.

The invisible boundaries in ZEQ2-lite are not design-related, they are based on technical limitations. It's not so much designed to keep the players in an "arena"-like setup as much as to not cause performance hiccups. If you check out the ZEQ2 plans on the old forum, you'll see that even this was going to be worked around with segment/world servers.

ZEQ2-Lite is currently dominated by multiplayer activity, much like shooter games like Halo and Call of Duty. The ONLY difference I see that couldn't possibly be accurately refuted is that there is no programmed scoreboard, which is the only way to know if you've won points.

Any/all scoreboards existing in ZEQ2-lite are basically non-functional in setup. They are just leftovers from Quake 3. Scores can go up or down based on seemingly random reasons therefore it's not a system we have intentionally manufactured to function as a scoring device. It's just unremoved code.

Unless the objective is to be creative, I don't see how anything can be considered a game if it has no scoreboard. Even then, games that require creative thinking sometimes have scores.

You can have a game as long as you have a means of progress and victory/loss. Minecraft by itself is not a game as much as a glorified editor; however, how the players choose to interact and use it through their own perception and imagination often makes it one in their eyes.

This is very much the case that players have done with ZEQ2-lite. They want it to be a game so badly that they fill in the actual missing gaps just so they can see it as one.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Maszek wrote :

Linkxp500 wrote :

Zeth wrote : Interactive sandbox as stated here.

I also noticed that our views from that thread to this have changed dramatically (meaning Maszek and myself only, so far).

For my part, it's mostly me maturing up a little.

nothing to do with maturing up , your collection of unsupported data just changed

Monday, November 26, 2012

najeeb wrote :

Maszek wrote :

Linkxp500 wrote :

Zeth wrote : Interactive sandbox as stated here.

I also noticed that our views from that thread to this have changed dramatically (meaning Maszek and myself only, so far).

For my part, it's mostly me maturing up a little.

nothing to do with maturing up , your collection of unsupported data just changed

A lot to do with maturing up.

Also, my so called "opinion" changed simply because I have realized some facts I did not know back then.

Monday, November 26, 2012

still your collection of unsupported data

Monday, November 26, 2012

Najeeb, you keep saying "opinion", but Brad, Link, and Maszek are dealing with FACTS. You can yourself think of ZEQ2lite a game, but then don't argue when Brad says it isn't. It would be like you made a model of a simple tire, and I said "Hey, nice truck!". Imagine what would people think of me if I were to call the tire you made a truck. Even though you might model more of it and make an actual truck, it doesn't make your tire a truck.
Also, it does have to do with maturity. Just as I matured over the time I spent here, both Bucky and Maszek did too.

Monday, November 26, 2012

your example was just as confused as those facts you talk about , maturing up , sure

Monday, November 26, 2012

Guys can you give it a rest with the semantics.
The thing will be the thing regardless of what you call it.

Monday, November 26, 2012

TRL wrote : Guys can you give it a rest with the semantics.
The thing will be the thing regardless of what you call it.

Excellent argument. You should be the next president of the US.

Monday, November 26, 2012

The thing will be the thing regardless of what you call it.

Not if the thing they think it is is actually a different thing.

Semantics are important for organization and classifications. More importantly it's important for worth and progress. Opinions have no value beyond the user issuing them. Just because a view is shared or widely accepted doesn't make it anymore true.

They simply should never be used beyond a personal scope -- ESPECIALLY not in an argument for ANY reason. Anyone in a formal debate environment would annihilate you the instance you try to use an opinionated statement.

Back up your comments with references and analytic evidence if you really want it to be taken genuinely.

Monday, November 26, 2012

I don't know, but, if you classify it as a game, aren't you going to have legal problems with Funnimation, Namco and Bandai, since they own the legal rights from Dragon Ball Z series and are the only authorized companies to use, images, develop games and stuff with the content of the series?

I guess that's why Bid For Power died...

So let's secretly call it a "dead project"? what you think?

Monday, November 26, 2012

WSPRINTES wrote : I don't know, but, if you classify it as a game, aren't you going to have legal problems with Funnimation, Namco and Bandai, since they own the legal rights from Dragon Ball Z series and are the only authorized companies to use, images, develop games and stuff with the content of the series?

I guess that's why Bid For Power died...

So let's secretly call it a "dead project"? what you think?

Nope, no legal problems, because ZEQ2-Lite is not made for profit and uses no copyrighted content.

Monday, November 26, 2012

I don't know, but, if you classify it as a game, aren't you going to have legal problems with Funnimation, Namco and Bandai, since they own the legal rights from Dragon Ball Z series and are the only authorized companies to use, images, develop games and stuff with the content of the series?

The classification as a game or mod is irrelevant. They can (attempt to) take legal action regardless of what you label it is. There are certain criteria that make you less threatening and certain criteria that protect you more, but technically they can pursue litigation even if you are a 4 year old with a Dragon Ball Z drawing on your fridge. Whether they SHOULD or DO is another story.

I guess that's why Bid For Power died...

No. And that's a debatable occurrence. While some of the early Dragon Ball Z mods actually were hit with Cease and Desist, many skew the truth of the situation. Dragon Ball Quake for instance claimed a Cease & Desist, but according to their project manager, this was not a true account.

So let's secretly call it a "dead project"? what you think?

That would be a common scapegoat routine to avoid focus -- one that is unnecessary at this point due to a release this far in.