The creator of upcoming life sim Inzoi says he was "recklessly brave to even think about creating a game of this scale"
-
Here's an idea: Just make Conway's Game of Life but with absurdly good graphics.
I'd buy that.
-
You have to understand that telling other people how brave and cool you are makes them think you’re an idiot though, right?
Am I the only one that interpreted it as him calling himself foolish?
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Now, I understand why so few companies have attempted to develop a life simulation game. The challenge isn't just additive the more you try to build—it's exponential. At a certain point, finding bugs in this vast world we've created feels like playing tag with invisible ghosts."
He's not bragging; it's honesty. I'm thankful he is sharing the experience. I know totally what he's talking about. I remember trying to make a simulation of reality in the wc3 map editor in elementary school. Add the weather so the plants grow. Tie growth variables also in to deer eating them. wolves eat the deer. So everything needs hunger variables. But already we start having the 'exponential growth' he is talking about: because what about the Weather and the Deer? And the Weather and Wolves? Add aspect of the world for one type of object (weather for plants), and suddenly you have to figure out how or whether it relates to everything else you have (Deer and Wolves). Now let's say we add villagers and Structures. Every time we add something, we have more nodes to consider the interrelations of.
It's easy when there are few systems and few types of things (like a cardgame of creatures with atk and def), but it escalates quick and does exactly what he's saying the more systems you try to accurately include and farther toward 'full life sim'.
So im just a noob, but I see clearly this is what he is conveying to us. (probably cuz i tried a similar path in elementary school. if i remember correctly i ran in to this same issue, scale was too big too big project and i switched to something else. it exponentialed quick; just like he says)
edit: i bet he wasnt brave as much as did not forsee the exponentialness aspect and wanting to aim high caused him to fall in to it
-
I believe it's supposed to be more of a spiritual successor to The Sims.
Depending on the monetization scheme that might be a nice change of pace.
I wonder which game mechanics of the sims titles are patented as of today.
-
You don’t understand this is No Man’s Sky meets Spore with a touch of Daikatana.
To be fair, at least No Man's Sky followed thru with all the updates down the line. Should've launched like that, but at least they added it all for free after the terrible launch
-
You have to understand that telling other people how brave and cool you are makes them think you’re an idiot though, right?
You have to have a certain amount of bravery and humility to program because failure is with you at every step of the way. I know. I do this shit as a hobby.
-
Is it gonna be similar to second life or something?
Seems more like Sims 3-style, but if you cranked up the graphics up to 11.
-
"Now, I understand why so few companies have attempted to develop a life simulation game. The challenge isn't just additive the more you try to build—it's exponential. At a certain point, finding bugs in this vast world we've created feels like playing tag with invisible ghosts."
He's not bragging; it's honesty. I'm thankful he is sharing the experience. I know totally what he's talking about. I remember trying to make a simulation of reality in the wc3 map editor in elementary school. Add the weather so the plants grow. Tie growth variables also in to deer eating them. wolves eat the deer. So everything needs hunger variables. But already we start having the 'exponential growth' he is talking about: because what about the Weather and the Deer? And the Weather and Wolves? Add aspect of the world for one type of object (weather for plants), and suddenly you have to figure out how or whether it relates to everything else you have (Deer and Wolves). Now let's say we add villagers and Structures. Every time we add something, we have more nodes to consider the interrelations of.
It's easy when there are few systems and few types of things (like a cardgame of creatures with atk and def), but it escalates quick and does exactly what he's saying the more systems you try to accurately include and farther toward 'full life sim'.
So im just a noob, but I see clearly this is what he is conveying to us. (probably cuz i tried a similar path in elementary school. if i remember correctly i ran in to this same issue, scale was too big too big project and i switched to something else. it exponentialed quick; just like he says)
edit: i bet he wasnt brave as much as did not forsee the exponentialness aspect and wanting to aim high caused him to fall in to it
So everything needs hunger variables
T̸h̶e̴ ̷f̵o̶g̴ ̷w̴a̷s̴ ̸h̸u̵n̵g̴r̸y̸,̸ ̶i̴t̷ ̵a̸t̶e̵ ̵t̷h̵e̶ ̸w̴o̸l̷v̷e̸s̴
-
So everything needs hunger variables
T̸h̶e̴ ̷f̵o̶g̴ ̷w̴a̷s̴ ̸h̸u̵n̵g̴r̸y̸,̸ ̶i̴t̷ ̵a̸t̶e̵ ̵t̷h̵e̶ ̸w̴o̸l̷v̷e̸s̴
that would be a super cool touch in a game
Secret of the Haunted Forest
Player eventually realizes the reason for the unexplained corpses is the hunger mechanic applies to the fog too.
-
So everything needs hunger variables
T̸h̶e̴ ̷f̵o̶g̴ ̷w̴a̷s̴ ̸h̸u̵n̵g̴r̸y̸,̸ ̶i̴t̷ ̵a̸t̶e̵ ̵t̷h̵e̶ ̸w̴o̸l̷v̷e̸s̴
Dwarf Fortress goes that deep. They once had to fix a problem where cats died from alcohol poisoning. Dwarfs in a bar would spill their drinks, the cats would walk through the puddles and subsequently lick their paws to clean themselves. It's crazy!
-
You don’t understand this is No Man’s Sky meets Spore with a touch of Daikatana.
What do giant radishes have to do with anything?
-
"Now, I understand why so few companies have attempted to develop a life simulation game. The challenge isn't just additive the more you try to build—it's exponential. At a certain point, finding bugs in this vast world we've created feels like playing tag with invisible ghosts."
He's not bragging; it's honesty. I'm thankful he is sharing the experience. I know totally what he's talking about. I remember trying to make a simulation of reality in the wc3 map editor in elementary school. Add the weather so the plants grow. Tie growth variables also in to deer eating them. wolves eat the deer. So everything needs hunger variables. But already we start having the 'exponential growth' he is talking about: because what about the Weather and the Deer? And the Weather and Wolves? Add aspect of the world for one type of object (weather for plants), and suddenly you have to figure out how or whether it relates to everything else you have (Deer and Wolves). Now let's say we add villagers and Structures. Every time we add something, we have more nodes to consider the interrelations of.
It's easy when there are few systems and few types of things (like a cardgame of creatures with atk and def), but it escalates quick and does exactly what he's saying the more systems you try to accurately include and farther toward 'full life sim'.
So im just a noob, but I see clearly this is what he is conveying to us. (probably cuz i tried a similar path in elementary school. if i remember correctly i ran in to this same issue, scale was too big too big project and i switched to something else. it exponentialed quick; just like he says)
edit: i bet he wasnt brave as much as did not forsee the exponentialness aspect and wanting to aim high caused him to fall in to it
Making a system like this one day is my dream. I'm not in game dev and I'm probably never going to make a playable game but I naively believe that if you organize this well enough in advance, the moment it starts clicking together would be amazing. If you define all the individual actors in a flexible enough way, eventually the simulation should just 'click' and start functioning on its own, right?
For example, you dont need to code the specific wolves+rain interaction - you just need to code "if vulnerable/tired - find shelter" and have rain affect the living creatures in that way. It doesn't matter if there are deer or sheep in the area, "if wolf hungry" logic should just say "find something with meat to eat nearby".
Then again I know enough about programming to know this is extremely naive and it'd probably be a million times more difficult if I ever got around to doing it. I don't even know where I fall on the dunner-kruger graph yet, but it's an interesting thing to think about for me.
-
Seems more like Sims 3-style, but if you cranked up the graphics up to 11.
And that everyone is a kpop star with high fashion.
-
Dwarf Fortress goes that deep. They once had to fix a problem where cats died from alcohol poisoning. Dwarfs in a bar would spill their drinks, the cats would walk through the puddles and subsequently lick their paws to clean themselves. It's crazy!
I think the bug was that a splash of beer had the same alcohol content as a cup.
-
I think the bug was that a splash of beer had the same alcohol content as a cup.
Yes that was the bug. After all it makes sense that cats would clean their paws and get a bit of alcohol in their bodies. Kind of bizarre to think though that the system was sophisticated enough to track grooming behavior but not quantity.
It really goes to show how stupid computers actually are. They just follow your instructions regardless of how insane they may be
-
"Now, I understand why so few companies have attempted to develop a life simulation game. The challenge isn't just additive the more you try to build—it's exponential. At a certain point, finding bugs in this vast world we've created feels like playing tag with invisible ghosts."
He's not bragging; it's honesty. I'm thankful he is sharing the experience. I know totally what he's talking about. I remember trying to make a simulation of reality in the wc3 map editor in elementary school. Add the weather so the plants grow. Tie growth variables also in to deer eating them. wolves eat the deer. So everything needs hunger variables. But already we start having the 'exponential growth' he is talking about: because what about the Weather and the Deer? And the Weather and Wolves? Add aspect of the world for one type of object (weather for plants), and suddenly you have to figure out how or whether it relates to everything else you have (Deer and Wolves). Now let's say we add villagers and Structures. Every time we add something, we have more nodes to consider the interrelations of.
It's easy when there are few systems and few types of things (like a cardgame of creatures with atk and def), but it escalates quick and does exactly what he's saying the more systems you try to accurately include and farther toward 'full life sim'.
So im just a noob, but I see clearly this is what he is conveying to us. (probably cuz i tried a similar path in elementary school. if i remember correctly i ran in to this same issue, scale was too big too big project and i switched to something else. it exponentialed quick; just like he says)
edit: i bet he wasnt brave as much as did not forsee the exponentialness aspect and wanting to aim high caused him to fall in to it
I've read from a few people who've done similar sorts of things that the solution to this problem is to just have everything track everything to begin with. Hunger level, heart rate, mood, everything you can possibly think of to track, and then just have everything else inherit from that global class. A lot of the values will be zero for some objects, but that's okay, after all a storage crate doesn't need a mood, both at some point in the future maybe you want to add an emotional box, and your code will definitely handle it now. Otherwise you have to go back in and alter everything every time you make a slight change.
-
Making a system like this one day is my dream. I'm not in game dev and I'm probably never going to make a playable game but I naively believe that if you organize this well enough in advance, the moment it starts clicking together would be amazing. If you define all the individual actors in a flexible enough way, eventually the simulation should just 'click' and start functioning on its own, right?
For example, you dont need to code the specific wolves+rain interaction - you just need to code "if vulnerable/tired - find shelter" and have rain affect the living creatures in that way. It doesn't matter if there are deer or sheep in the area, "if wolf hungry" logic should just say "find something with meat to eat nearby".
Then again I know enough about programming to know this is extremely naive and it'd probably be a million times more difficult if I ever got around to doing it. I don't even know where I fall on the dunner-kruger graph yet, but it's an interesting thing to think about for me.
According to the dwarf fortress developer the hard part isn't the code exactly it's the graphics which is why he doesn't bother with them.
-
that would be a super cool touch in a game
Secret of the Haunted Forest
Player eventually realizes the reason for the unexplained corpses is the hunger mechanic applies to the fog too.
I'm just reminded of the fog men in kenshi
-
Yes that was the bug. After all it makes sense that cats would clean their paws and get a bit of alcohol in their bodies. Kind of bizarre to think though that the system was sophisticated enough to track grooming behavior but not quantity.
It really goes to show how stupid computers actually are. They just follow your instructions regardless of how insane they may be
What is amazing is how our universe and existence seems to be governed by a few physics laws (which we don't fully understand).
-
Am I the only one that interpreted it as him calling himself foolish?
No, that's how it was intended, and how most people read it.
