ascottk on 20/9/2009 at 04:49
I thought body awareness in T3 was in regard to the physics (does Garrett or other AI stumble on bodies or do they jump walk through them? Or something like that).
I'd laugh my ass off if that were the case :ebil:
Bakerman on 20/9/2009 at 05:24
Hoorah multiquote! :p
Quote Posted by jtr7
Better to err on the side that promotes integrity than the side that guarantees SOMEthing will be compromised
Okay, fair enough. That shouldn't stop us discussing the merits of body awareness, though.
Quote Posted by jtr7
and you are focused on watching the body interact with the environment rather than the flow of the player through the environment with no regard for resources.
Quote Posted by theBlackman
As stated earlier, you/me/all healthy humans do not look at thier hands or feet when engaged in normal activities. We are "aware" of our spacial requirements.
I don't want to focus on the body. I just want it to be there. Healthy humans do not need to look at their hand to pick things up, but the fact is that when you pick something up,
you can see your own hand. I'm not saying I need body awareness to know what I'm doing or where I'm standing - I just want it so I can be more immersed in the experience of the game!
Quote Posted by theBlackman
You develop the skill and then, as Garrett, you DO IT because YOU BECAME SKILLED. Not because the "gods of gaming" gave you the magic "cheat" to allow you to.
Again, I don't think I've ever argued in favour of taking control away from the player or magically doing things for them. Good body awareness doesn't need to affect the controls at all.
Quote Posted by jtr7
"Sucked in
[to the game and ethos]". I don't know if you thought I meant something else. Anyway, the obvious shouldn't have to be stated. Interesting you perceive that as a jab.
I read it as implying I had been sucked into the TDS paradigm of consoleism, clunky body and third-person. I see what you mean now - sorry!
jtr7 on 20/9/2009 at 05:42
Body physics:
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Nzl02a5N8)
Bakerman, I never said not to discuss it but to couch it in knowledge and reason or make it clear it's a flight of fancy. Go for it!:angel:
You know, don't make light of what it takes to build these things in, or ignore the math of time spent here is time not spent there.
I'm sorry you are disadvantaged by such a need. I cannot relate. I certainly cannot relate to a body that is merely there and pre-animated, and doesn't do everything I want it to, like move so I can see what I'm looking at--not an elbow, my torso, a leg, a foot. It cannot be done yet, and not for a long time. If I look down, it's not to see my feet. If I look down and 90-degrees to one side, it's usually not to see my shoulder, chest, and arm (unless something is on my body that needs my attention). Without taking a step I can swivel at the waist to move my body out of my way. Without walking, I can move a leg back to see below me. This is why I will never feel immersed for just having a model on camera. I'll get frustrated instead. No fun. Not worth the trouble.
The earlier titles commanded deep respect from us without missing a body, or 3rd-person, or thinking about it much if at all. The
world held us in rapt attention enough to spoil us against other games, and the elements of the game that did that for us are what needs to be the priority, taken to a higher level. Body-awareness is still touted as a marketing point and a tech showcase when it's not a genre's standard. Listening to the devs speak about why their game's body-awareness is an improvement reveals the very caveats we bemoan. Any development company that shows off their animation and tech almost always have crappy games they ship with them. Everytime a company hypes story and characters, they're usually lying and it's really a visual show-off game. It may be interesting, notable, a breakthrough in tech, even, but the popularity often spikes hard at the beginning and fades away very quickly. The sales numbers never account for the players who didn't like it much after it was purchased, nor how many were gifts received poorly, or how many were sold as used rather than refunded or substituted. The company makes a quick profit, but
Thief can be expected to have reasonably well initial sales followed by years of trickling new sales and repeat purchases. If the majority of gamers are not interested in
Thief, then that should be accepted in the business before making another
Thief game, and it should not be hybridized to appease those who still won't have the patience, nor care for the characters and story. It's not for them.
Thief 4 done right could either really leave the established fanbase boxed away from the new fans for its new heights, or it could revitalize sales of the trilogy, keeping that money coming in, keeping the games on the market, and acquiring the few that appreciate what came before.
Namdrol on 20/9/2009 at 06:53
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
It stops where it conflicts with fun. There, was that so hard?
Exactly.
Quote Posted by theBlackman
I play a guitar. Initially I did need to look at my hands and the neck of the instrument. Now I only need know: I have a guitar in my hands, I am going to play in the key of XXX.
And now, when you stop and think about how you use your hands, I bet it gets in the way.?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Jesus Christ people! I think we just found the number 1 candidate for Official Thread Flow Commentator Extraordinaire.
Yes, I'm a pompous dick. And I deserved that!! Just some of the bitch slapping got a bit dumb. And I ain't used to watching trolls feed ;)
jtr7 on 20/9/2009 at 07:57
Getting around to these questions:
Quote Posted by Ostriig
As if there were any further need, you prove once again that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You wouldn't have to write additional code to
prevent the camera from moving with the animation, but precisely the other way around. Why can't you understand this? There is no inherent connection between animation of the player mesh and the camera or control.
And stating that, generally, dev time should not be put into this is a classic cop-out of an argument. Following that line of thinking, the rooms in T4 might as well have single, large polygons for walls, and contain just loot, guards, lights and crates to hide behind.
jtr7's statements are perfectly clueless and counterproductive. They're born of technical ignorance, lack of imagination and stubbornness. He doesn't understand the technical implications (or lack of thereof) of body awareness as a feature, the way in which it could genuinely add to the game, if done right, and refuses to even consider these things when they are presented to him. With fear and disdain for any feature that could be associated the term "modern", he makes passive-aggressive comments about consoletards and posts vague rhetoric about the "true spirit of Thief", refusing to understand that
some changes or additions, such as this one, need not entail any compromise to the core design principles of the franchise.
And so he chooses to go "WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?!" on those who disagree with him. Literally in this case, funnily enough.
Okay, now this is bizarrely exactly wrong. How did you do that?:erm: First, no sense of humor and then, apparently, maybe, the obviously intentional over-the-top delivery is taken as literal. Also, this is Ostriig speaking. Since you are over-the-top and frothy-dumb here, I will assume you are being silly. Compared to what I've learned I can't take any of that seriously.
Is it false to say you aren't really thinking of
Thief, but of generic body-awareness for any game? Is it wrong to cherish Thief's uniqueness for never needing this visual aid?
"If done right". When has it been done right, and why isn't that example being held up as the way to go? It
hasn't been done right, and you have no taffin' clue about
why that is.:sly: Give me examples of games that have done most of what you want to see in
Thief, meaning, it's not pre-animated, so I can inform myself and see how you know this is possible today for a game. The examples I can give you would be dev interviews, and post-mortems, and behind-the-scenes/making-of videos/articles, and dev diaries, and forum posts, and Game Developers Conference videos/transcripts, and the like. I'm not uninformed except for the lack of hands-on and not being in the studio to see things go down. I take correction, but it has to be a correct interpretation of what I said first. LOL.
If...done...right. And you mock my illogical logic? Poorly, by the way. Flat-out misinterpreting.:laff: You can always see it from another point of view and try again.
By the way, I won't take credit for crap made up in my name.:angel:
I'm not stating cop-outs in any way. My intent is to be constructive by being destructive to your ignorance. Dig up real world examples from the industry if I'm half as wrong as you say. Look at the games being produced and even released this year. They still don't get what we can easily conceive of as "basics" right. You are envisioning an idealism that as far as I've seen does not exist in a game, not in the real gaming world. Name a game and I'll have a look. Sure, the tech exists to make these movements very well, but not in games, not in real time for an avatar.
I'm convinced I have more of a grasp on this than you, from what I've studied of the industry and what I've seen; HOWEVER, I am constantly correcting myself and my knowledge-base when I find that I am wrong.
Why can't I get your concepts through my head? 'Cause I'm not addressing those, dumbass! :laff: I'm addressing the concepts I'm addressing! Should be simple. Change your perspective. Sorry, I don't come with a decoder ring.:(
Allll riiiiiight!! Fresh popcorn and Jujubes. Jujubes gotta be fresh or they pull out yer fillins'.
Vae on 20/9/2009 at 08:32
Quote Posted by theBlackman
Just to throw a little shit in the comments. Are TDP, TGOLD, TMA unimmersive, unplayable and distasteful because the original graphics are archaic? Nooo.
Are they all of the above because the player has to learn the limits of Garrett's (ne themselves) in terms of "how close Garrett can get to an edge, how wide he is, how tall he is"? Nooo.
If one plays enough and develops the same spacial awareness that one needs to ride a bicycle, walk through a room, drive a car, then one does become aware of Garrett's body in relationship to the game setting.
As stated earlier, you/me/all healthy humans do not look at thier hands or feet when engaged in normal activities. We are "aware" of our spacial requirements.
I play a guitar. Initially I did need to look at my hands and the neck of the instrument. Now I only need know: I have a guitar in my hands, I am going to play in the key of XXX.
That's it. And as Garrett. I have developed that same "body awareness" IN GAME.
We don't need the extra "Eye candy" to be in the game development. Unless you are a rank amatuer, "body awareness" as "wished" for is like the automatic receiving of the BFG and Magic what-ever-the-hell-it-is, because you did XYZ.
If you really play the game and concentrate on being Garrett and developing his skills, you don't need the magic bow to shoot the push button to lower the elevator, or draw bridge, or light switch, or gate switch.
You develop the skill and then, as Garrett, you DO IT because YOU BECAME SKILLED. Not because the "gods of gaming" gave you the magic "cheat" to allow you to.
Exactly. I would like to add that not having an automaton allows one to fill in the vacuum of that space with themselves, not visually of course, but with that feeling of being within that space without directly thinking about it. This provides a more integrated connection between the mind and the game resulting in a more natural, immersive experience.
Even in first person view when an automaton is present, it feels like "hey, here I am looking out of a puppet playing a game, rather than "I am here" with no puppet to remind me that it's not me. The level of satisfaction I get when I feel that "I am there" is simply priceless.
Vae on 20/9/2009 at 08:55
Looks like someone is having a floppin' bad time...;)
jtr7 on 20/9/2009 at 08:56
Now that's how the zombies should move!
Vae on 20/9/2009 at 09:06
Yeah, they should just flop after you...perhaps they could be called flopbies.
Actually, that would probably scare the shit out of me...:eek:...or make me fall out of my chair laughing.
jtr7 on 20/9/2009 at 09:10
Vigor Mortis!
(Yikes! That looks like 'Viggo Mortensen' at a glimpse!) :p
