Beleg Cúthalion on 19/10/2009 at 07:34
Speaking of vents and dirty sewers, I think a body model would allow to have a really muddy looking Garrett in a mansion, just to show people how great this thieving job is.
The Shroud on 13/11/2009 at 22:08
Body-awareness is one of the things I always desired in Thief, for the many reasons which others have already brought up. I'd also really like to finally see Garrett's cloak. What do you all think about having a visible quiver of arrows at your side, rather than a separate inventory screen?
Beleg Cúthalion on 14/11/2009 at 10:35
I think it would seem artificial unless it could be implemented in a very subtle and quickly-accessible way, because you usually feel your gear more than looking at it I think. It's like the cuts in movie dialogues: The direct cut is artificial but minimal. Making the camera swing between the speakers might be more natural but in a movie the way of execution is more prominent than what it's supposed to show. So in the end the usual direct cut is subtle enough to throw you not out of immersion.
Speaking of showing, although seeing more of Garrett's gear would be pretty, I wouldn't like to see his bow and quiver in 3rd perspective since it would point out very clearly that you cannot do everything Garrett does (including swimming and climbing ventilation shafts etc.) with that amount of weaponry.
The Shroud on 14/11/2009 at 19:16
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
I think it would seem artificial unless it could be implemented in a very subtle and quickly-accessible way, because you usually feel your gear more than looking at it I think.
How about this - when hitting the hotkey for a particular arrow, instead of seeing a representation of said arrow at the bottom of your screen with the number in your inventory, you'd simply draw a single arrow (and I mean Garrett's right hand would literally draw that arrow from his right hip-quiver). Simultaneously, Garrett's left hand would draw his bow from his left side.
Now if you're not looking down, you won't see anything happen, although you'll hear the sound of readying your bow and of the arrow being slid out. But if you should happen to glance down at your side while hitting said hotkey, you'd see your hand extract the arrow from your quiver - and see plainly that you have one less arrow-shaft protruding from there. The arrow would stay in Garrett's hand until fired.
After firing the first arrow, Garrett would automatically draw subsequent arrows of that type when aiming more shots (per the usual gameplay procedure), and continue that way until you select a different arrow type or put away your currently drawn arrow. If you switch to another arrow type, you'll slide the current arrow back in your quiver and draw one of the type you selected.
With this process, you wouldn't know exactly how many arrows you've got left unless you periodically glance down at your quiver (which I don't really see as a problem). The arrows' feathers could be color-coded so that the player (and Garrett himself) could easily tell them apart at a glance.
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Speaking of showing, although seeing more of Garrett's gear would be pretty, I wouldn't like to see his bow and quiver in 3rd perspective since it would point out very clearly that you cannot do everything Garrett does (including swimming and climbing ventilation shafts etc.) with that amount of weaponry.
Well, he could still swim and climb through shafts with a bow and quiver. He'd need to put his bow away when swimming of course, so he'd have his hands free (it's not as if the player can currently use the bow while floating in water anyway). And perhaps when crawling through tight spaces, he'd do the opposite - draw his bow and hold it length-wise until he exits the shaft or tunnel or whatever. In both of these cases, the player would not be able to use their bow (much like the way you can't presently fire arrows while swimming or airborne).
Another idea for crawling through shafts is that instead of the current process (where Garrett is really just stepping forward while crouched), you would be forced to literally go prone and
crawl. This would mean the bow could remain on your back without running into the ceiling or walls. The player could activate crawling by first crouching and then leaning forward while walking. They could then deactivate crawling by hitting the crouch key to get back into a crouch - or hit the crouch key twice to stand up.
jtr7 on 15/11/2009 at 05:00
Quote:
Crawling through a vent on your belly isn't a comfortable position, and without body awareness, you don't get as much of a sense of that.
IMO.
So without hands and elbows on the screen, and grunting noises, you assume Garrett's shrunk? Oy... With already
very little room to move sideways or vertically at all, you think it could be more claustrophobic somehow? Urg... By staring at your character's hind quarters as you follow him through?
The Shroud on 15/11/2009 at 08:55
Why would you have to stare at Garrett's rear? That's only if you stay in 3rd person view. What's so bad about wanting to have an actual body, as in Arma 2? Sometimes I find it hard to believe how much opposition there can be to something that seems like a no-brainer.
Lica Samadau on 15/11/2009 at 12:11
Quote:
I've heard complaints about T3's 'body awareness' and people who want to return to the old floaty-camera style of control.
Why? In the Builder's name, why?
Thief 1/2 were so great and immersive that you mentally projected your own body into the 'floating box' camera. Therefore, a first person body awareness would, ironically, harm the immersion and realism of natural movement.
The Shroud on 16/11/2009 at 06:24
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
Thief 1/2 were so great and immersive that you mentally projected your own body into the 'floating box' camera. Therefore, a first person body awareness would, ironically, harm the immersion and realism of natural movement.
I have to disagree. Yes, Thief 1/2 were wonderfully immersing - but no, that wasn't due to the lack of a body. It was largely due to the sound propagation, ambiance, and other environmental factors
around the player, rather than the player's invisible body. At best, it would be fair to say that the lack of visible arms and legs did not significantly
harm the immersion (since the player simply imagines what isn't seen) - but at least in my case, it didn't help the experience either.
This really isn't that different in principle to seeing your arms while using your weapons. If that were to be removed from the gameplay, you can bet you'd feel something vital was missing. I felt this way about lockpicking in the first two games, and I honestly have to say TDS brought an improvement to it. I want to see what my hands are doing, whether it's holding a bow, picking a lock, or opening a door. It adds to my experience. I really think the reason some people dislike body-awareness has to do with their having grown so
used to the invisible box method over the years that they find it hard to leave it behind. And that's really a shame.
Platinumoxicity on 16/11/2009 at 08:00
Quote Posted by The Shroud
This really isn't that different in principle to seeing your arms while using your weapons. If that were to be removed from the gameplay, you can bet you'd feel something vital was missing. I felt this way about lockpicking in the first two games, and I honestly have to say TDS brought an improvement to it. I want to see what my hands are doing, whether it's holding a bow, picking a lock, or opening a door. It adds to my experience. I really think the reason some people dislike body-awareness has to do with their having grown so
used to the invisible box method over the years that they find it hard to leave it behind. And that's really a shame.
No, they have grown used to playing a game where the movement is fluid and responsive, and the screen isn't blocked by things you don't need to see. The reason why you can't see the arms is simple. In real life, you don't pay attention to seeing them. Same with the shadow, in most games you can't see your own shadow because in real life you wouldn't pay attention to it. There's no reason to implement any weird little details that you don't pay attention to. Imagine if all the FPS games would have a nose in the screen because you can see your nose in real life if you really try. But you don't have to look at it when you don't want to.
Adding these useless details might improve the outlook of the game, but keeping the interface as clean and empty as possible improves the gameplay.
So... it is actually more immersive to have the "walking box" -type of player model. It emphasized what's really important, your surroundings, and puts all the irrelevant factors, that are really controlled by reflexes and muscle memory, to the back where you don't need to pay attention to them. When you're walking, do you constantly need to think about swinging your arms in rythm with your pace? Of course not.
Lica Samadau on 16/11/2009 at 08:18
@Platinumoxicity: Exactly. That's the beauty of the human mind/body. All the little details work seamlessly into the background. Think of breathing, or heart-beating, or blinking. What if you had three buttons for these in-game and if you didn't breathe in time you'd suffocate. Realism, right? Wrong. Realism, at least, how I see it, is getting as close as possible to a real-life experience, which doesn't mean the little details that work without conscious interaction, but the immersion, the sounds, the visuals, the story, the feelings, et cetera.
