Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Another Proposal for a Living Breathing World
Consuetudo
Member UncommonPosts: 191
As a player who is waiting for a game that lives up to being a "living, breathing, virtual world," I require:
- Player-driven economy, in which nothing exists unless created by players, or by the tools/machines created by players, which is subject to depressions, recessions, booms, fluctuations, and which realistically impacts the entire world and all its inhabitants to the degree a real economy does
- Player-driven government, in which every minister, leader, and diplomat is a player; where there are no factions except those created by and populated by players; where wars are declared, conducted, and resolved by players; where urban/social planning is undertaken by players
- Collective progression
- In which each player acquiring gear or personal wealth provides them with minimal to no benefit, such to the extent that there are no statistical benefits to owning a certain piece of gear, but it is largely aesthetic, or realistic, in that naturally metal armor provides you a concrete level of more protection than leather or cloth
- In which if you die, it has no real impact on you, as you will simply enter the world as a new character, and continue your contribution to the collective
- in which you fundamentally depend upon other players, and societal-level interrelationships are key
- in which the joy in playing the game comes from the unique cooperation you have shared with other players and the world-changing feats you have individually helped to accomplish or erect
- Environmental manipulation, in which if a forest is entirely removed, it will take a scaled proportion of game time in order to grow back, or where the eruption of a volcano will devastate the nearby village and really change the surrounding environment, etc. In this way, Minecraft will serve as direct inspiration (if it can be done in x game, it can be done in any game).
- Mount and Blade-like combat, in which fanciful abilities are reduced and players must rely on pure skill and reflex in order to better their human-controlled opponents (if it can be done in x game, it can be done in any game)
- Modern graphics and smooth gameplay, as technology is always pushing its own limits, except exclusively when it comes to MMORPGs for some reason
- Elimination of the growing single-player trend, in which the player is a unique hero whose quest completion apparently crucially saves the world countless times, even though all the other players do the same quest, and the world is changed not at all: the player could have never done the quests at all, and the world would know no difference. Finally, anything having to do with cutscenes, scripted dialogue, etc must be eliminated, none of which having a place in an MMORPG
- Worldwide lack of instanced zones, in which there are no battlegrounds except the very world itself, no dungeons that exist in vacuums which have no bearing on the world itself
- Huge, explorable world, in which, if there are 15 servers, the layout of civilizations can be absolutely different, some areas having been capitalized upon on one server, other areas seeing nothing of the kind on another server, in this way being like the Civilization series (if x game can do it, it can be done in any game)
But none of these are your concern. Your concerns are the following:
- But rampant player killers who will spoil the fun for everyone!
- Good, let this be the case. You will quit the game, along with everyone sharing your mentality, and the world will be shared by murderous killers. No doubt they will eventually develop into their own factions, and their warfare will become increasingly sophisticated as they realize the potential the world offers them. Cities will arise not from romanticism but necessity, players will organize not due to repeating human history but out of necessity, and a fascinating world will inadvertently arise anyway
- Just develop the game yourself! I don't want to play it!
- I'm not a game developer, but a consumer who is very conscious of what he wants to play. I want to go to space, but I let the astronomers and astronauts, people devoting their whole lives to this pursuit, to work it out for the rest of us--why am I uniquely required to be the developer and consumer in the case of MMORPGs? Finally, I am forcing you to play nothing: if you enjoy these shallow single-player games disguised as MMORPGs, then enjoy them unbothered: I however desire something different.
- But that's boring and sounds too much like the real world! Just go play Second Life!
- No, as no game like I am proposing has been developed. My desired game arises not out of just playing MMORPGs but a wide host of games, like Paradox, Total War, Mount and Blade, Civilization, as well as history and the real world. There is no game that is what I have proposed, only individual games with small chips to add to the pot.
- But this means the player will be even less important!
- That's actually the point. With less stated importance, the player actually becomes important. In the present games, the character has a degree of stated importance in that he is told he is the savior who consistently saves the whole world and is a hero to everyone. However, if this player never made a character and did those quests, the world would show nothing for it: in fact, every other player did the same thing. Since everyone playing the game is a hero who has saved the whole world, in reality nobody is a hero and they accomplish nothing. But if it takes an entire society to build a city, to wage war against others, and to depopulate forests, then you are leaving lasting changes on the world and your small contribution is necessary, albeit still small, in order for any of this to happen: small importance is of more value than none.
Comments
The poorly implemented game design of gear progression is simply a Blizzard and others fault not the actual fault of gear with stats.
You do NOT need progression but merely choice with varied mechanics based around those choices.Having gear be simply aesthetic is not realistic and does not help a game in any way.If i had large steel armor i would EXPECT to be well protected but slow and cumbersome.If i had light gear like perhaps leather i would expect to be slightly protected but much more agile.If i had a large weapon like a Pole-arm again i would expect to swing it slowly and be less agile when compared to a dagger or short sword.If i had a shield i would be MUCH more protected than without one.
As to your um ideals of what players want,sure there is a lot of superficial whining but i am also certain that even those who whine of little things also look at an entire game's design and want a well rounded game and are not JUST worried about playing Sims or worried about ganking.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
By "realistic" I mean exactly what you're saying: it is inherent to the armor itself that these variables apply, but any focus on stats or any focus on acquiring particular items is nonexistent as gear serves no purpose other than what the materials you're using confer.
I require that you get some idea of what is possible and not demand a bunch of contradictory things.
-every game developer ever
Don't you think it's a bit aggressive to demand (or in your word, "require") such a long combination of things? You don't seem to realize that game development is a creative thing, and that makes it very unlike basic services where everyone wants basically the same thing and it's just a question of how to implement it. It's kind of like demanding that someone write a novel or create a movie with some long combination of characteristics that you like. For creative endeavors like that, if you want it so badly, do it yourself.
So let's go back to my first point, that you're demanding a bunch of contradictory things. The killer problem is that you're demanding "modern graphics and smooth gameplay" along with a bunch of other things that necessarily require reduced graphical quality. If by "modern graphics", all that you mean is using DirectX 11 or OpenGL 4 to make a game with screenshots that look far worse than your typical $50 million game, then that's doable. But if you expect screenshots that look just as good as the best single-player games, it's not.
One thing that you need to understand about 3D graphics is that it's all fake. There are massive amounts of optimizations where you say, we're going to do this because it's fast and the ways in which it would look totally broken will be covered up by other things. If it runs fast and looks good, that's a complete justification for drawing something in some particular way, even if it has no relation to how things actually work in real life.
If you know that only one side of a wall will ever be visible, then there's no need to consider what the other side of the wall ought to look like. Think of a set on a TV show where the back could be unpainted plywood, but so long as it's never on camera, that's fine. A ton of stuff like that goes on in 3D graphics.
If you know that it will always be some fixed time of day in the game world, and all terrain will always look some particular way, then you can pre-render lighting effects. Making it so that players can change the world arbitrarily completely breaks this, which means you basically are forced to have simpler lighting effects that don't look as good in screenshots.
In a single-player game, you know exactly what needs to be loaded in which places ahead of time and can do all sorts of optimizations for this. In a multi-player game, you don't know which other players you'll need to load, so you need to leave a lot of leeway everywhere to load players as needed.
If you have artists assemble portions of terrain by hand, they can make it look really good. But that's expensive per amount of terrain, so you have to have a fairly small game world to do that. For a huge world, you're going to have to have either a lot of obvious repeats (e.g., games that make this entire cave exactly identical to twelve others scattered through the world, except that you'd use a much larger number than twelve) or go with procedurally generated stuff that looks much, much worse than what a good artist can create by hand.
You mention Civilization, but all that does is to have 20-30 or so fixed, small tiles and then assemble a bunch of copies of them randomly. Somehow I suspect that you'd be very unhappy with an MMORPG world that tried that, claim that it's not at all what you wanted, and never actually play the game.
No. It doesn't work like that. Trust me.
You don't need to be a game developer to figure out why.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
This is probably what you're getting at, but if feature A can be done in game X, then it can be done in any game that is willing to build itself around feature A and has developers with the appropriate expertise--which is far from saying that any set of competent programmers can do it. If feature B can be done in game Y, then it can be done in any game with the same set of caveats.
But it does not follow that if feature A is done in game X and feature B is done in game Y, then features A and B can both be done well in the same game. Sometimes there are mutually exclusive things that you have to choose between, and the original poster wants both sides at once. To take a trivial example, one can build a good PVP-only game and one can build a good PVE-only game, but one cannot build a good game that is simultaneously PVP-only and PVE-only.
Sounds itemization is going to be too "realistic" to be fun.
You've focused majorly on the technical aspect of developing a game like this, and I admit that's what I place the least emphasis upon. What I mostly mean is that the game should not look like it was made a decade ago. Often, this new MMORPGs look exactly like what we've been getting since 2004 and it disappoints me upon immediately entering the world. It feels cartoony and less than what I expect.
Furthermore, if the current technology is unable to produce the game that I desire, then I will continue to deliver the same idea until technology catches up to the level of ideas. I refuse to compromise what I know I want to play when it is completely feasible. Why would I force myself to want to think I want to play something other than what I know I want deep down? No, I will continue articulating my pure idea until it becomes a thing.
Yes it does. If game x can do something, then any game can do it: it has been shown that it is possible to do this thing in the context of game development. If not, then you have introduced a superlogical addition to a logical concept, and you do in fact have to make your argument, and can't just leave out your reasoning.
While it does not follow that if feature x can be done in game y and feature w can be done in game z that features x and w will be done well in game T, it is possible that they can. Furthermore, without any additional variables, it seems to be apparent that game x and w can be done in a game, and, if this is so, it means they can be done in any game, because a game is a game. x and w can perfectly well coincide, unless what it means to be x necessarily excludes what it means to be w. And none of the concepts that I've presented are exclusionary in this way; on the contrary, they are compatible.
I disagree that a game must focus everything into being a small niche. Indeed, a game like this will fail in the terms we judge MMO success by. A great game is one that does several things well, just like a great artist is one that excels in many forms and continuously innovates and expands.
That's actually the intent. Unlike these games with a capitalist focus upon showing off your possessions and wealth, the game I am proposing de-emphasizes the individual, possessions, gear stats, and really everything that the modern single-player MMORPGs favor. Instead, we are creating a truly multiplayer, societal-level experience.
I fundamentally view all modern MMOs as being nothing more than a rudimentary first step in what MMORPGs will become. The next step is to purge all of these single-player elements, purge the elements in which the player is erroneously thought to be a hero, purge all cutscenes and NPCs, and construct an entire world that revolves around and is affected by players.
Selfishness has no place here.
In that case, i will pass.
What you are describing sounds more like a realistic world, and not fun at all. I don't want a "truly multiplayer societal-level" experience. I would much rather play a single player game.
It seems that you forget the last G in MMORPG is for "GAME". I suppose it is your prerogative to want whatever you like, but i won't touch such a "game" with a ten foot pole.
Good luck in a) raising millions for such a software project, and b) find enough players who actually like this and are willing to pay for it.
I've actually already countered your objections in my original post.
The technical aspect is only the thing that separates vaporware from a launched, polished game. If you'd be perfectly happy with an amateur development team putting a game on Kickstarter that tries to do what you want but fails miserably, then you don't need to worry too much about the technical aspect. If you want your game to actually launch, then the technical aspect matters. A lot.
You insist that you're not demanding mutually exclusive things, but you're clearly demanding a bunch of things that require greatly reduced graphics quality while also wanting modern graphics. If the goal is only that a game look different from what was typical a decade ago but not any better and probably significantly worse, then that's probably doable. But you can't reasonably insist that a game simultaneously deliver the latest and greatest graphics while also abandoning many of the optimizations that make the latest graphics possible.
Now, perhaps your demands aren't contradictory in some abstract, tautological sense. But they're certainly not simultaneously possible on any hardware that will exist in the foreseeable future.
Then necessarily my idea is one for the future, and I really won't be satisfied until it's realized. This is the level that MMORPGs ought to be at.
You didn't (and cannot) counter that fact that none of what you talk about is fun for me.
Nah .. there is no such thing what MMORPGs ought to be. It is just what you prefer it to be.
And no devs have an obligation to provide you with that game. However, feel free to raise enough money to make it for yourself.
That's false. I explicitly said that for people who enjoy single player games designed as MMORPGs, then you can keep playing them unfettered, and that it doesn't affect me in the least.
Strawman. I never said what MMORPGs ought to be, I said the level they ought to be at, in response to a poster telling me that apparently my ideas are "contradictory" because MMORPGs can't sustain what I'm saying. Even while, if I have this idea, which results from nothing other than experience in playing MMORPGs, it must certainly not be very far off or unfeasable.
If people wish to play single player-like MMORPGs, that's fine. I'm merely describing what game I on the other hand want to play.
hey! hey! oji-san! o/
koko ni, watashi wa anata-ni tsutaeru koto ga dekimasu-ka?
the difference between a guy with an idea of a game and a game designer is that the latter, if really worthy his name, posses a degree of competence so much highter that is able to spot flaws in a system with ease and know exactly is viability.
while the guy with just an idea of a game is still bound to that human common trait where while we fantasizing about something we overloking the negative aspects of it, only when it is too late, realize they exist.
hence the saying goes, "be careful what you wish for, you might get it"
the subjects of the gaming community that could be included in the last phrases are symply countles.
in this thread there is a classical sandbox mmog tipo design that many wish too see alive and play with, but to be honest is bunch of unapplicable features.
many gamers have difficulties abandoning the concept that "everything is not in games today, must be off course better!" thererefore they conclude that game designers are a bunch of lazy and greedy figures unable to create better games.
an easy word.
if its was true, the ultrasaturated korea's market would justify one AAA sandobox mmo each year. the truth is sandbox mmos are a so complex creature (actually one of the most complex thing humankind can produce) that put 10 features in it with less that 3 gamebreaking collateral flaws is a big thing.
the example in this thread there is really vague and there are much more than 3 withing just the first point.
-----------fast demonstration:
how player create things?
*by gathering resources and crafting?
**how these resources are spreads?
***random appear on the world?
****frequency and algorithm
***in nodes?
****does nodes appear random?
****are they persistent?
****deplete over time or use?
**how to prevent my army of bots to depauperate the entire world resources?
***population server limit?
***stamina, fatigue sistem?
****how stamina deplete?
****how stamina recover?
***locked gathering options?
****how unlock gatering options ?
*****throught time spent in game?
*****throught actions?
******can I macro it like a shameless duck?
*******yes?
********how to prevent it?
*******no?
*******don't care?
***what plan is planned to stop a group of people who got an advantages by such unfair mechanism?
****hammerban?
****freeze resources?
****more?
*just by crafting?
**but crafting what?
***see above
**does crafting skill require progression?
***yes?
***no?("if you die, it has no real impact on you, as you will simply enter the world as a new character")
****is more convenient fight back or just let me die? and why?
*****the attackers will steal your belongings then?
******may this kind of approach result prevalent instead of trading? (robbing stealing)
*******no. why?
*******yes maybe?
********how to stop it?
*******don't really matter?
*****does this mechanic grant enough "thrill for the hunt"?
*******no?
********how to solve?
*******yes?
*******don't care?
*another system?
what the purpose to create thing?
* they are necessary to progress in the game?
**to progress in what?
*characters need to eat, drink, and rest to live?
**is more convenient let my pg die and get one new? istead of feed and let him survive?
***no, why?
***yes?
****how to stop it?
*to get better equipment? ("there are no statistical benefits to owning a certain piece of gear, but it is largely aesthetic")
*to craft structures?
**what structure are used for?
***to store materials?
****which kind of materials?
****materials such food can spoil?
*****yes and faster whitout a proper structure?
*****no?
***to live in?
****why players had to live inside a structure?
*****to survive the weather?
*****to recover stamina or whatever?
******is more convenient let my pg die and get one new? istead of feed and let him survive?
*******see above
***just to decoration?
***can players use structture placing strategically to grief, nerf, gain unfair advantages?
****yes?
*****how to prevent it?
*****how to remedy after?
*****gm intervention is considered?
******yes?
*******for which situations?
******no in any situation?
****no?
what make the items craftet so good that players have to trade between them?
something prevent the players to get the stuff their want whitout trading at all?
*yes?
*no?
something hinder the player to get the stuff they want whitout trading at all?
*yes
**does this obstacle rely on game population?
***algorithm?
*no
**what if the player don't trade at all then?
how the economy of the the game can fall into depression? how for stagnation? etc?
how the player get out of such economic crisis?
--------------
take in consideration this above is incomplete, plus require a diagram, but because I'm lazy, and because mmosite rarely apprecciate stuff, my motivation to make a better and complete one is scarce u_u
The problem with that is that we seen games where most of the PKs get bored and quit once the easy to kill people have left the game and you suddenly have an almost unpopulated game that don't earn enough money to keep the servers running.
Nah, the solution to the problem is to lower the powergap between new players and vets enough so players aren't defenseless and can fight back instead of ignoring everything. That way you get rid of the PKs with zero skill that would quit anyways once the game runs out of noobs while still being able to keep the people who enjoy a good PvP fight.
A lot of people just don't bother with spending 2 months getting killed 50 times a day without the possibility to fight back and even a living breathing world do need players to feel alive. Besides, it is also more realistic and there is no real advantage in your type of game to have a system similar to a PvE themepark anyways.
I actually think that rather few players are put off by the fact that they can be killed by other players, what do turns players off many PvP games is the fact that somebody easily can kill them and they are completely helpless.
Just look on the FPS games, they have millions of players while most PvP MMOs have very few players indeed besides Eve. So the PvP in itself surely ain't the problem.
If you want a ``living breathing world`` emphasizing realism you should have a good set of laws limiting player killing. How many societies allow unlimited murder? This also makes it so people who don`t want PVP don`t have to worry nearly as much that it will be forced on them for no reason. Lawless areas should be small pockets in your world not the whole place.
Now that's all fine and great in a PvE-only game, but how does that work in a PvP game? Short answer: It doesn't. There cannot be any roll-backs between players actions.
(If I remember correctly, DDO had a system like this at one point.)
What you should take from this, is that you should know something about how games are made before you start making claims that make you look silly. It seems the technology available is not nearly as advanced as you think.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It's the 21st century! Where's my flying car that runs on cheap, tiny, environmentally friendly energy pellets?
Stop intentionally distorting what I'm saying.
I'm saying that a game should be up to date graphically, with regard to the appearance of the models and the world, and it should also run smooth. It should naturally be a balance that the developers attempt to maintain. But naturally it is 10 years after 2004 and therefore I'd expect this to show in the quality of the game.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or clueless, but it might be the latter, so I'll lay it out for you.
Game design is about making choices. There are a bunch of things that you might like to do, but you can't do them all. If you can't do both A and B, you might decide that feature A is so important that you're going to build the game around it, and that means you discard feature B that you'd really like to implement.
It's actually a lot more complicated than that, as there are a ton of features that you might like, and how they conflict with each other can be very complicated and nuanced. And there's also the difference between what a theoretical super elite squad of developers could do and what the group actually creating a particular game can do. And the problem that you don't always know exactly what you can do until you try it, and investors aren't terribly happy to fund a game that has a 80% chance of being a complete disaster that doesn't work right at all, just because there's a 20% chance that it could be somewhat nifty.
There are a variety of reasons why things can't be done simultaneously. Sometimes it's simple logic, such as that you cannot make a game that is pure PVE and is also pure PVP unless the game has nothing at all. Sometimes it's a case of, this is simply what computers can do. If a computer can't cook pizza for you, that doesn't mean it's a bad computer; it only means that it's not what computers are for.
Sometimes it's a case of, someone theoretically could make hardware for this, but no one has because they don't think there's much of a market for it. Hardware design is about choices, too. If AMD or Intel wanted to, they could easily make a chip that was vastly better at 100-bit floating point arithmetic than any chip ever made. But they've chosen not to, and will probably continue to choose not to in the future because basically no one would care about such a chip. If your game needs hardware that theoretically could exist, but doesn't and probably never will, then your game basically can't exist.
I'm willing to dismiss your "lack of instanced zones" as being a simple case of you don't know what instances are and so botch the terminology. What you probably mean is that you don't want it to be obvious to a player when things transfer from one instance to another, but just feel smooth and continuous without having to worry about the underlying programming methods.
Now, if all you want is, this set of features is the priority, and give me the best graphics that are practical on this feature set, that's mostly doable. But the combination of heavy environmental manipulation with no loading screens to stop and synchronize with the client as to how the environment has been manipulated probably means that the best graphics practical will look worse than what some games offered a decade ago. It won't look like the graphics of a decade ago, exactly; tessellation means that the notion of a polygon count is, if not obsolete entirely, at least far less restrictive than it used to be. But precomputing a lot of stuff and including that in the initial download will be impossible.
One obvious problem is that you expect both heavy PVP and also smooth gameplay. There are really only two ways to do that: make the game LAN-only, and not playable over the Internet, or else make the game very strictly turn-based. There are some ways to make a game feel semi-real-time even if it's turn-based under the hood, such as what the Europa Universalis games have done. But PVP over the Internet is not compatible with the real-time combat common in PVE unless you're willing to accept constant but small amounts of rubber-banding. If you want to get around that, then at minimum, you're going to have to recreate the entire Internet to be something built for much lower latency, and that's far out of the power of any game developers.
Same thing. There is no such thing as "the level MMO ought to be". They are just games. It is what you want them to be.
Sure you describe what game you want ... i describe why that is not a game i want. Fair game on a MMO forum.
Trying to mold behavior is a fool's errand, and too much work. That is why I don't play "living breathing world emphasizing realism" games.
Actually, for the original poster, you might be interested in something that I'm working on: procedurally generated graphics. And by that, I don't mean a handful of objects created by hand and then placed randomly in the game world, which is about as far as most games go with it. I mean procedurally generated everything: textures, vertex data, animations, everything. And the reason why you might be interested in this is that it would make much of what you want in the original post much easier to implement.
With traditional 3D graphics methods, you have a bunch of fixed textures, vertex data, and animations (basically, a bunch of different sets of vertex data for something that moves) that you store on the hard drive. This creates a huge initial download, and then a lot of time loading stuff from the hard drive as you move around in the game. Loading stuff from hard drives is slow, so until games are willing to put a good SSD in the minimum required specs, this requires extensive measures to cover up the latency of loading stuff from a hard drive. Basically, your choices are reduced graphics from what it could have been or else loading screens. Or both, if you don't want the loading screens to be all that frequent.
Furthermore, it makes it basically impossible to stream new textures and models and so forth to players on the fly. You could have several fixed models and tell players on the fly to load this one instead of that one. But any destructible terrain must be at a very coarse level of granularity, such as this tree is either there or it isn't. Art assets take up so much space that you can't really have all that many of them, and an enormous game world necessarily requires massive amounts of reuse of assets.
With procedurally generated graphics, it takes only a little bit of data to generate all of your textures and animation information. There's so little vertex data that you can easily load it all into video memory at game launch and never have to worry about where to get it from as the game is running. This means scarcely having to touch a hard drive as the game runs, and not needing that much bandwidth to stream information to a player about how the game world has changed as he plays.
There are still zones and instances and so forth, because it would take an extraordinarily foolish programmer to try to make a modern 3D game without them. But they're nearly invisible to players; at most, you can zoom in really close, find seams between textures, and try to guess where the internal zone boundaries are. And the seams between textures will mostly be covered up by anti-aliasing. In particular, there are no loading screens because there's no point; not having to touch a hard drive means that loading is extremely fast. And there's no need to take further outlandish measures to try to cover up loading times.
Procedurally generated animations means that I can interpolate however many frames make sense. It also means that characters can be aware of their surroundings, rather than stabbing a fixed point in the air or standing with one foot poking through the ground and the other floating in the air when on the side of a hill. So animations can be as smooth as you care to have them. Extensive use of tessellation means that polygon counts are basically irrelevant, and the only reason things look jagged are because they're supposed to look jagged or I messed up.
It also means that a world can be arbitrarily large without having to noticeably repeat large blocks of anything. If you want exploration to be a real part of the game in an era of wikis, this is really the only way to do it, outside of having such a small player base that no one cares to fill in much of a wiki.
So is this modern graphics? Well, kind of. It uses recent graphics APIs to do things that were flatly impossible five years ago. It's certainly much smoother looking geometry than was possible a decade ago, as well as much higher resolution textures. But my procedurally generated textures really aren't as pretty as ones that a good artist can make by hand. Not even close. So while the game won't look at all like games from a decade ago, it won't really look better than them, either.
That said, I'm not making the game you want. I have no interest in griefer-friendly free-for-all PVP. And my plans for covering up latency to make combat look very smooth and lagless flatly won't work at all for PVP; indeed, watching other, friendly players near you might look a little jumpy. But if the methods catch on, it will make some things that you want much, much easier to implement than they would be under traditional graphical methods.