Flower's Dev Diary (Week of July 22nd)

[jorgebonafe]

IMO, in minecraft its meaningless to say anything is non-renewable, because the world is basically infinite... But if that wasn't the case, at least in a game like minecraft, I can't see how having a limited resource could be a good idea... I mean, one of the most fun things about minecraft is that you can keep developing your world as much as you want, and suddenly running out on something permanently means you wouldn't be able to do that anymore...

[FlowerChild]

Well, your game obviously has to be designed for it.

In the 7 Days example, it would basically amount to two distinct gameplay phases: early game where guns are readily available, and later game when they're not. It would mean that you'd basically have to have no gameplay dependencies on guns in the late game, with survival being perfectly viable with homemade crossbows or other improvised weapons.

This doesn't prevent ongoing player expansion or what have you, and is basically the equivalent in the late game of guns never having existed in the first place. Obviously, if a feature was never built into the game to begin with, it's not going to interfere with your ongoing play :P

I'm not talking about doing this with *all* resources or what have you. What I'm saying is that doing it in limited amounts can provide otherwise absent gameplay diversity instead of the all or nothing approach in which *everything* is renewable. In the case of the 7 Days example it would provide for an ongoing evolution to the world, and a "naturally" increasing difficulty progression where the weapons you have access to in the early game are more effective than those in the late.

[Zhil]

I do make a difference between non-renewable and non-craftable. I also make a difference between complex items with actual game-play uses and basic resources.

Diamonds are non-renewable basic resources, which is still different from getting to do stuff with non-craftable complex items. We're getting into theoretic wankery territory here though, so I'll have to collect my mind a bit more :p

[PatriotBob]

I have to pop in a say a few things. :P
I have been programming for a very long time now. I do everything I can to be as proficient and professional in my craft as possible. I think that like a lot a programmers, I learned my chosen profession in a desire to "make" video games. Being at the time young, naive and completely ignorant of just what went into making a game.
Fast forward nearing somewhere between 15 to 20 years later. (Depending on when you consider the beginning of actual programming) I still love programming and would love to do game development, but for now I just work for a business in the financial industry. :P

Now coming from Minecraft's other mod packs prior to Better Than Wolves I have noticed a few things. FlowerChild is generally considered a not-nice guy. So when I came to check out this mod, I expected to be greeted with a pile of wolf poo and sent packing. But what I found instead was an amazingly well designed mod. This is frankly something I have not really seen any other Minecraft's mods do. But even when my desire for Minecraft is waning a bit and I take a break, I still visit the forums near daily. The reason I found I do this has little to do with Minecraft, I'm here to see if FlowerChild has left and more design gems to be collected. Now I'm a programmer, and likely always will be, but getting the glimpse of the process and thought behind good game design is invaluable to me.

I can write the frameworks for games till I'm old and grey, and I've iterated on my current projects for longer than I want to think about. But getting to the point of game design was something I've never really done. So anything I can learn from watching your process in BTW and RTH is worth it's weight in gold.

So dev diaries please. :)

Oh right, and as to FlowerChild being "not-nice"... this I don't understand. What I see is the community being butt-hurt because he says "Fuck off" and does what he, the game designer, has determined to be in the best interest of the game. Aside from the actual phrase "fuck off" being somewhat abrasive at times, to say anything not along the same meaning would be unprofessional wouldn't it? I am a programmer and when someone comes along with an idea, that is generally not a good one, isn't it my place as a professional to say "No, we aren't doing that." Regardless of whether is the CEO or some guy in sales, it's my job as the person being paid to know how software works, to say no to bad ideas.

So you keep telling people to "fuck off", because it's awesome.
(Sorry for the long, random, rambling post. I read the past few pages and had to say something. It was longer than I expected.)

[FlowerChild]

Well, the thing is, people are not used to hearing "fuck off" (or variations thereof) from modern businesses or particularly from game developers.

Like we were saying above, "community driven" is the current fashionable game design trend, so people have expectations there both with regards to their opinions being treated as valuable, and with regards to that being a generally accepted "good thing". The MC community in particular is so inclined to a larger degree than most IMO, because those are largely the principles the community has operated on for a very long time now.

Beyond that though, businesses in general have trained people to believe that their opinions are valuable. Even when corporations don't give a shit what you have to say, they generally have departments setup to specifically handle consumer feedback and *give the impression* that you are being listened to. Thus, while having someone tell you to "fuck off" may be far more honest, it's also something people really aren't used to hearing. I think they've come to expect that people will at least pretend they're interested.

And going even further than that, I also believe that kids are being brought up to believe that every random thought running through their head is somehow valid, that people actually want to listen to that garbage, and that it is effectively impossible to say anything wrong. Heck, I could even rant about the modern trend of viewing popularity or celebrity as the be all and end all of everything and thus the will and opinions of the masses somehow automagically being right in all circumstances, or how the increased popularity of the philosophy of moral relativism has left people with a poor sense of the relative value of statements about anything at all.

So yeah, given all that, while it may be annoying that people react to someone willing to tell them like it is and stick to their guns regardless of public sentiment in such a negative way, it really doesn't surprise me :)

[Rianaru]

soooooooo...awkward subject change:

It sounds to me like what you intend to do with the 'pre-releases' is somewhat similar to the vMC beta, is that sort of near the target?

[FlowerChild]

soooooooo...awkward subject change:

Not at all awkward or even a subject change as I already said above that I wouldn't be providing any more details.

[Zhil]

soooooooo...awkward subject change:

Will Drew Barrymore continue to inspire new features in RTH?

Fixed.

[FlowerChild]

Fixed.

But still not awkward. I totally own my Drew Barrymore fetish man :)

[Zhil]

But still not awkward. I totally own my Drew Barrymore fetish man :)

Stop ruining my jokes :(

[Folrig]

FC, forgive me if you have already answered this (or don't want to). Reading that Steam Console Controller-thing thread reminded me of a question I have been wondering about for a long time:

What is your opinion on making RTH cross platform, assuming the opportunity presented itself? (As an aside, do you think Minecraft hadto be dumbed down for the 360, iOS, and Android ports?)

[Rianaru]

Not at all awkward or even a subject change as I already said above that I wouldn't be providing any more details.

Must have missed that, sorry

[FlowerChild]

FC, forgive me if you have already answered this (or don't want to). Reading that Steam Console Controller-thing thread reminded me of a question I have been wondering about for a long time:

What is your opinion on making RTH cross platform, assuming the opportunity presented itself? (As an aside, do you think Minecraft hadto be dumbed down for the 360, iOS, and Android ports?)

It's a maybe. One of the things I've been doing is cutting down the design to bare minimum with regards to what I want to accomplish, minimizing the amount of auxiliary bullshit I'll be dealing with so I can focus on core design.

So, in other words, if it doesn't slow me down, it's all good. If it does, it gets axed. More info will be coming down the road, but just to say, it's not the kind of thing that's a priority for me. If I can move faster designing for a single platform, that's the way I'll go.

[FlowerChild]

You know really, the above comes down to what I said about "Fuck y'all".

The standard in the industry at present is to promise the sky. I'm not doing that. What I am doing from the get go is trimming down my project to the bare bones so that any promises I can make, I can actually deliver.

Anyways, just to say: when you ask the question "will you support foo?" The default answer is "no". If it's a question worth asking, then it's likely one I've asked myself, and the question mark itself will likely determine the answer for a single guy striking out on his own with a determination to actually make things happen.

[Fret]

Incremental releases sound great. (I'm assuming like how you've been doing BTW) But I'm guessing there will be quite some time before there's anything resembling a playable game and I was just looking forward to hearing something in the mean time. I enjoy reading your thoughts on game design. :)

Well, when I'm talking about incremental releases here, I'm not talking about once the game is fully playable or in many months time. What I'm talking about more is incrementally releasing builds from a very early stage that I've planned out so that they are playable in their own right, even if they don't resemble the final game.

I'll be doing this both for the sake of the community so that I don't just disappear from sight for an extended period, and also for my own sanity as it will allow me to alternate between infrastructure and gameplay development in bits and pieces while working towards both for the final game (the stuff I'll be implementing gameplay wise will likely be used in the main game as well and will give me a little wiggle room for experimentation).

I'll get into more details on this as we get closer, but the long and the short of it is that no, one way or another, I won't be disappearing for a prolonged period.

Actually, we're getting close enough that I don't mind sharing one little detail here: I'll be referring to these incremental development releases as "Dreams Of Home", and in terms of the "story-line", they'll take place between the events in BTW, and those in RTH.

As an aside, I really like the acronym "DOH!" for these kinds of dev builds as I think it representative of the many trials and tribulations of early development ;)

You might be considered a hardass and you seem to pride yourself with your 'fuck off' mentality, but your DOH plans are actually really generous and show a big love for the community. I don't know jack about the world of game development, but this seems truely special.

[FlowerChild]

You might be considered a hardass and you seem to pride yourself with your 'fuck off' mentality, but your DOH plans are actually really generous and show a big love for the community. I don't know jack about the world of game development, but this seems truely special.

Well, my "fuck off" is meant in the best possible way :)

Look, when it comes down to it, I'm a guy that makes toys. I do take pleasure from other people enjoying my work, and there's no doubt about that. The thing is, constraints are crucial. I am ultimately limited by the amount of time and energy that I have at my disposal and everything I say "no" to affords me the opportunity to say "yes" to something else.

If you're truly dedicated to making something fun, then like with anything else that you're determined to do, tough choices must be made. Nothing can really be accomplished in life without sacrificing something else, and the earlier on in the process that's acknowledged, the more advantageous those sacrifices become.

I'll say up front that there's going to be a whole lot of "no" within RTH so that I have the opportunity to achieve the things I really consider important.

[Zhil]

So, basically, for everything we ask and get negative reply, you promise to deliver something even greater? I can live with that :)

[Mason11987]

So, basically, for everything we ask and get negative reply, you promise to deliver something even greater? I can live with that :)

First example:

"Can you continue adding new features to BTW"

"No I'm making my own game after I wrap it up" (even greater)

It's actually great that you decided to not update to vMC versions, it makes it even easier to support bugs/fixes in BTW and develop your new game without the extremely tedious process of updating to vMC versions.

[FlowerChild]

So, basically, for everything we ask and get negative reply, you promise to deliver something even greater? I can live with that :)

Yup, pretty much :)

First example:

"Can you continue adding new features to BTW"

"No I'm making my own game after I wrap it up" (even greater)

Hehe...true that.

It isn't really anything new that I'm talking about here, as I've been doing this kind of thing throughout developing BTW, it's just being applied to different areas now that I'll be making my own game.

For example, it's the same kind of thing as when I say "no" to supporting various optional modes of play built into vanilla, whether that be different difficulty levels, language support, creative mode, or stuff like large biomes. It's also the same thing as when I refuse to support compatibility with other mods (which is probably the biggest time sink of all).

I think there are a certain standard set of questions that people feel compelled to ask when you're starting a new game: "Is it multiplatform?", "Is it multiplayer?" etc., and ultimately, I think they ask most of the time believing the answer will be "yes", because those things have largely become game industry norms, but feeling like they want to ask them to look smart or whatever. In my case though, the answer may very well me "no" (or "fuck off" depending on my mood).

I also know that I am heading towards some hell with that, which I think is part of why I decided to explain this at a little more length. I've been watching Klei in particular get outright plagued with requests for multiplayer in Don't Starve. They've explained quite clearly that they won't be doing it, that the game isn't architected for it, and that it was never the focus of their design, yet still, every few posts on their forums or youtube videos consists of some idiot trying to tell them how easy it would be, how much they want it, and why they should change their minds. Some of these posts are downright insulting, belittling their programming ability or what have you, when to every indication it looks like they made the same kind of early triage decision that I'm making now in order to keep the project manageable. You'll also notice that the rate of development of DS was extremely fast in comparison to many other indie titles, and it was exceedingly stable throughout most of it.

And with all this talk of multiplayer, before someone inevitably asks whether RTH will have it, I'll give the answer of "I don't know for certain yet, but I suspect not". One of the things I've been investing a lot of time into considering is how much more I can do with the game if I axe the concept of MP from the start, and focus instead on creating the best SP experience that I can. You know how every once in awhile I say things along the lines of "that really wouldn't be feasible in SMP due to the bandwidth it would consume?". Well, those things stack up on the design side, and it may very well be the case that not only would scrapping the idea of MP from the get go save me a lot of development effort (which I can then of course devote elsewhere), but it would likely also open up design possibilities that just wouldn't be feasible otherwise. Beyond being able to push more data around, and thus have more complex behaviors if I don't have to worry about bandwidth being a bottleneck, ultimately the question of what happens with a particular feature when multiple players are involved hobbles you on the design side as well and prevents you from taking certain aspects as far as you could have otherwise.

So, the question then becomes: do you want to play an exceedingly focused single player game custom designed specifically for that kind of play, or a more watered down one that supports both SP and MP, and likely contains less content because of the dev time it took to get there? Because really, you can't have both.

That's of course not to say multiplayer isn't fun or is not "a good thing". It certainly is, and I don't need to be sold on its many virtues, which is why this is a decision that demands so much thought on my part. It's also not a question of whether it's within my capabilities to make an MP game, as it's something I've done many times in the past and which I have a lot of professional experience with.

What it is a question of is scope and focus. It's a question of whether I am willing to take a very bold decision from the start that breaks industry norms, and will help further differentiate RTH from the other voxel games in development, by both providing things that just won't be feasible for a multiplayer game, and by reducing the amount of drag on my dev speed.

[userzero]

The standard in the industry at present is to promise the sky. I'm not doing that. What I am doing from the get go is trimming down my project to the bare bones so that any promises I can make, I can actually deliver.

Not to ignore you lengthy post a moment ago which I wholeheartedly agree with, but what you said there is something that has really been bothering me with the current state of the big budget games coming out lately. You see it in games like Assasins Creed 3 and Hitman absolution where the games are driven more by boardrooms and shareholder profit than making a good game. With increasing reliance on just a few big commercial engines games are starting to become cookie cutter and more and more trying to fit in everything plus 5 kitchen sinks. Why write a good interface , when we have a default one here. Why focus on a control scheme that fits with the game and provides a seamless user experience when we can just use one button and contextual presses without having to code anything. So hearing you say your focusing on the core of the game stands opposed to something I've been completely frustrated about with most of the games out there.

I also think that's one of the reasons we are seeing such an explosion of successful independent games lately. Lord British said at the latest Unity release (paraphrase) "For years and years making games kept getting harder and harder, and then just recently with these new engines it started getting easier." I would say that in some ways, especially when decisions are being made by cost and time rather than the quality of the game, that might not be a good thing. Independent developers for the most part are making games to make the games they want to play and not having to answer to a boardroom or anyone else is what is allowing so many to be so great despite the lack of HD graphics and Super Duper whatever is hot now.

I've just been completely pissed off with all of my favorite games from the last thirty years coming out with crap sequels in just the past few years. So yeah, going to drink a hard cider to that quote. In fact might make it a drinking game. We'll sit around and pull up random threads from this forum and every-time we find you telling someone to fuck off we'll drink.