Body awareness - TTLG Forums

jtr7 on 21/9/2009 at 03:45

I'm not hysterical, nor have I been. I can write tirades with comic book illustrations without actually being in that mood, as can you.

Please stop acting like I haven't already explained anything or addressed any of this. It's cruel to pretend you've read my words and to pretend to be oblivious to demonstrating you have not read them.

What was my response to Sulphur? What did he say? The answer shouldn't be muddled for you. The same parroted gripes against the "veteran" and "old" Thief players are usually myths and have been addressed point by point for over 5 years. The people I've called out were here back then and have been told, either directly or by proxy, many times over the years that they are incorrect and precisely why. The myths are so tired they have the repugnance of the undead.:eww: Someone has to smite the heathens before they spread their plague further.

What is hard to understand that we don't want complex body-awareness nor care for any in Thief? How can that possibly be misinterpreted? ZylonBane put it succinctly and it's at the core of what all of your opposition want. The main concern derived from the TDS experience is not that body-awareness today will be similar, but that it detracts from good Thief...period...and also brings in a lot of fans that think it's better, never knowing what they are missing, and cluttering the boards with myths against us.

No, I do not imply that you tagged the thread. Don't worry 'bout that. It was someone else who did the same thing before, who for some reason has been less than himself for a couple of years. But calling me hysterical isn't much better.

Ignoring all the bulleted points is baffling, and ironically contrarian for any of you calling for constructive discussion. You're shooting yourselves in the foot by acting like we aren't stating our opinion in a score of ways. This is begging for backlash, and it is cruel. Ignore or accept the fact that there is opposition and why, and simply disagree or maybe learn something, not act like your points haven't been addressed or are too unclear to consider, or that things have not been said.:confused:

Sulphur on 21/9/2009 at 04:39

And in this week's issue of Posting With Style - tips on how not to seem like an arguant pussbilly gone bobbins: jtr, have you ever heard of the term 'purple prose'? It's one of the things that detracts from the message of your post. Also, prolixity. And assumptions. I hadn't a clue until now that you'd even read my post. Thanks for the non-answer, at any rate. Or was it an answer? I haven't a clue. You might be the only one who does. So here's a question:

[pp]Should I peel back the self-important shadows in your posts, sniff around for the elusive meaning in each word, cull the important bits and pieces together and wring them with pale hands in the moonlight to squeeze a meaningful message out?[/pp]

For the record, I've played TMA, TDP, and TDS. They're the other half of the reason I'm here (the first being SS2). I've been playing TMA since 2002. And I'm of the opinion that body awareness done well would not detract from the core Thief experience. It's a fundamentally minor point, to begin with: I don't really care if the next Thief game has it or doesn't, but if it does, I want it done well. To wit, unobtrusive and natural. Which isn't an unrealistic expectation as it's something which has been done in other games already.

This is the defining point between what you want and what the others do: the entire argument is based on 'let's not change what wasn't broken', but that's not forward-thinking or forward-looking. In this context it appears to mean: 'make sure it's the Thief experience like it used to be by not changing any part of it from the first two titles that I feel was important'.

And, in an issue as minor as body awareness, exactly how is that forward-looking? Or open-minded? Or even realistic, considering we have a completely different developer continuing the series? Good heavens, what if Eidos decide to make really major changes to the franchise? Would you, and the collective weight of everything truly Thief-related collapse in on itself and implode?

Fafhrd on 21/9/2009 at 04:53

Quote Posted by jtr7

The main concern derived from the TDS experience is not that body-awareness today will be similar, but that it detracts from good Thief...period...

Except you have no logical basis for this argument. Chronicles of Riddick was really good stealth game that used full body awareness. Arx Fatalis and Dark Messiah both had very well implemented stealth mechanics and full body awareness. The argument that you keep using is 'It didn't work in Deadly Shadows, therefore it will never work in a Thief game ever ever NYAH NYAH NOT LISTENING CONSOLEITIS TAFFER TAFFER HERESY LIES MYTHS SHUT UP SHUT SHUT UP SHUT UP'

Quote:

Does Mirror's Edge have even one example of hands doing anything delicate? No? It's irrelevant to what THIEF is, then

Disarms aren't delicate at all, clearly. But why do the hands have to do anything delicate? Frobbing and lockpicking could work exactly how they do in Thief 1 and 2, nobody is demanding unique animations for picking up objects and opening doors and picking pockets and picking locks. It's purely about movement and giving the player a better idea of their relationship to the environment, not simulating everything that you're body does, because that would be ridiculous, and impossible to design a control scheme for.

Quote:

but I believe the focus needs to be on preserving Thief's strengths.

First a consensus needs to be reached on what the strengths are, and then the focus needs to be on IMPROVING them. Making Thief 4: Thief 1 and 2 Again shouldn't be the developers' goal. For the record, imo, Thief's strengths, from strongest to weakest, are: Sound Design, Level Design (both size and architecture), AI, Player Movement, and Lighting.

Quote:

This is a Thief forum, I'm a geek, and this is the culture.

This isn't what the culture used to be, and it sickens me that it's been dragged down to this. Looking Glass was about pushing the boundaries of world creation and character interaction, not about finding a formula that worked and sticking to it. If they or ISA were still around do you really think they would've looked at DS, said 'well, that didn't work. We won't try anything like that again' or do you think they'd look at all the other games that used a first person body well, evaluated where their design went wrong, and tried it again until they got it right?

Vae on 21/9/2009 at 05:42

Perhaps I can shed some light on what is going on here...;)

Quote Posted by Sulphur

Should I peel back the self-important shadows in your posts, sniff around for the elusive meaning in each word, cull the important bits and pieces together and wring them with pale hands in the moonlight to squeeze a meaningful message out?

In general, the meaning being stated seems clear to me, even if overblown.

Quote Posted by Sulphur

I've been playing TMA since 2002. And I'm of the opinion that body awareness done well would not detract from the core Thief experience.

Even if done well, given the currently available tech, it would invariably detract from immersive play, which is part of the core Thief experience.

Quote Posted by Sulphur

... I want it done well. To wit, unobtrusive and natural. Which isn't an unrealistic expectation as it's something which has been done in other games already.

On the contrary...again, even if done well, we currently do not have the tech to create an automaton that is natural and integral with our will, thereby making it an unrealistic expectation. Any game so far has fallen short in this regard.

Quote Posted by Sulphur

This is the defining point between what you want and what the others do: the entire argument is based on 'let's not change what wasn't broken', but that's not forward-thinking or forward-looking. In this context it appears to mean: 'make sure it's the Thief experience like it used to be by not changing any part of it from the first two titles that I feel was important'.

That's not what I hear. Hears what I hear from jtr7:
Let's make a great Thief game that was built on a winning formula, and bring in new ideas to the game based on the core design philosophy of THIEF.

Quote Posted by Sulphur

And, in an issue as minor as body awareness, exactly how is that forward-looking? Or open-minded? Or even realistic, considering we have a completely different developer continuing the series? Good heavens, what if Eidos decide to make really major changes to the franchise? Would you, and the collective weight of everything truly Thief-related collapse in on itself and implode?

No, but it would be very sad..:(...There is nothing wrong with being passionate about something so unique and wonderful as THIEF, and directing this passion for the noble cause.

Chade on 21/9/2009 at 06:02

Quote Posted by Vae

...again, even if done well, we currently do not have the tech to create an automaton that is natural and integral with our will, thereby making it an unrealistic expectation. Any game so far has fallen short in this regard.

Plenty of people feel otherwise. This is hardly unambiguous truth.

Quote Posted by Vae

That's not what I hear. Hears what I hear from jtr7:
Let's make a great Thief game that was built on a winning formula, and bring in new ideas to the game based on the core design philosophy of thief.

Everyone wants to create a game that builds on the core design philosphy of thief. That's a meaningless statement unless everyone agrees on what exactly the core philosophy is. Of course, we don't all agree.

Unfortunately, jtr is unable to comprehend that some people have legitimately different opinions, and therefore concludes that these posters are spreading "lies" and "myths" in order to "slander" or "oppress" the "true fans" who's opinions are "pure". This, of course, is utterly ridiculous.

Vae on 21/9/2009 at 06:02

Quote Posted by Fafhrd

Arx Fatalis and Dark Messiah both had very well implemented stealth mechanics and full body awareness. The argument that you keep using is 'It didn't work in Deadly Shadows, therefore it will never work in a Thief game...

Arx Fatalis and Dark Messiah implemented stealth mechanics better than T3, but did not even come close to T1/T2.

Quote Posted by Fafhrd

On one level, I agree with you. It would be kind of nice to see hands picking and frobbing...but at what expense? This would yield diminished returns.

Quote Posted by Fafhrd

Looking Glass was about pushing the boundaries of world creation and character interaction, not about finding a formula that worked and sticking to it.

It's about building on a winning formula with new things that enhance and not detract from the THIEF experience.

Briareos H on 21/9/2009 at 06:58

Quote Posted by Fafhrd

Looking Glass was about pushing the boundaries of world creation and character interaction, not about finding a formula that worked and sticking to it.

Nice to see someone that gets it. I like to think that beyond the vocal resident(s) that do nothing but rig debate and the newcomers that only imagine a new game as a mix of tried/tired, shiny elements, there's a more mature crowd that understands what vision LGS had when developing a game and pays bigger respect to the creative force.

Vivian on 21/9/2009 at 12:05

Ok, so for full procedural IK to be realistic you are going to end up doing a full forward dynamics simulation - IE given a target activity (lift this bucket) you are going to want something that reads the current state of your joint system and moves it appropriately. This is where it gets tricky: Your joints will be simulated as a series of torques, one for each degree of freedom in each joint. In your real body, your joints are actuated by linear motors (your muscles) that will create different joint torques dependent on their leverage at a particular joint angle, and due to the way muscles work, also their length relative to their resting length and the speed of contraction they will be acting over to perform your target activity. Many (typically at least five per joint) of these linear actuator cross each joint in different ways and they all have different intrinsic properties (size, fibre length, fibre type, coactivation issues etc), so dependent on the initial state from which you want to perform your action, different actuators may be used and the changes in joint angle you will use to perform your action will subsequently also change. Add to that the effects of tendons, of energy transfer between joints (you will lift said bucket by creating joint torques all over your body, so your spine and legs will also move) and you've very quickly got a multiparameter optimisation that makes supercomputers cry.

Ostriig on 21/9/2009 at 12:19

Ok, Viv, but how is that relevant to our situation here? Or are you just making a general point? IK (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1908804#post1908804) does work to simulate the sort of model we're discussing here, and it's all in real-time on a home PC. And bear in mind that the example is with a far more complex model than what we need.

Vivian on 21/9/2009 at 12:26

Because it only works in very prescribed situations, and if you want it to be truly flexible (as some people were talking about, I think), you need to do a lot more of the more complex, lower level pissing about that gets ignored in most animation. You're probably right though, with enough tweaking it will work well enough to look pretty in a videogame. But it won't be what I would call 'realistic'.