Bakerman on 16/11/2009 at 10:41
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.
Quote Posted by Tim Schafer
Does it really block your enjoyment of Goldeneye that 'dang, I just can't project
my personality onto this suave MF in a tuxeudo'? I think it provides a fantasy and it's
better in that way.
Sorry for the paraphrasing, but I just love that quote. And I'm aware that it's not totally what you were talking about, but I just love that quote ;).
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
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.
Thin end of the wedge here. And it's a totally ridiculous thin end at that. Apart from anything else, the bodily functions of blinking, breathing and heartbeating (which is not consciously controlled anyway, so ha :P) are not critical to a stealth experience. If they were, then I would welcome having them. For example, some military themed games (and not even hardcore sims) allow you to hold your breath to steady your weapon. This is an element of real life that has been added because it enhances the game somehow. Which I believe is the case with a visible body.
I totally agree that I don't have to think about my body in real life, and I sometimes don't notice my own shadow. But I find that in games, I do notice their
absence. Like if you're sleeping in a car and you wake up when it stops. Or if you suddenly notice that a crowd has
stopped making noise. I don't usually find it distracting to have weapon-hands on-screen; just like with my real hands, I learn to ignore them. I just don;t understand the disconnect people have between weapon hands and the rest of the body.
Lica Samadau on 16/11/2009 at 12:04
Well, full body awareness hasn't bothered me much in games like Crysis, Turok and CoD, but for some reason, in the stealth-oriented Thief DS, it really bothered me. And it's not about nostalgia, either. I'm a relatively new Thief fan, having played first DS, then DP and MA. I just enjoy the floating box camera more. Much more.
But that's just me.
Bakerman on 16/11/2009 at 12:29
Quote:
but for some reason, in the stealth-oriented Thief DS, it really bothered me.
I know why: because it was crap. And it bothered me, too, and I wouldn't want it to be done like that if it were in T4. IMO, it wasn't to do with the stealth gameplay, it was just... crap.
The Shroud on 16/11/2009 at 18:02
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
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.
Having a body below the camera really isn't going to block your view. It's not even going to be
visible most of the time unless you're looking straight down, so I think this concern is pretty baseless.
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
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.
That's just silly. Whether you're paying attention to your arms and shadow or not, you still
see them. And seeing your shadow is pretty important, since it's something that could give you away if someone catches sight of it.
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
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.
More silliness. No one is suggesting you should be able to see your nose. It's also not a relevant argument, because in a game like Thief, your
feet (for example) are something you really would focus on when stepping carefully or balancing on a narrow surface. There are numerous situations in a stealth game in which it would behoove a person to pay attention to their own body, much as they'd want to pay attention to their own footsteps, shadow, etc. The main point, other than realism, is to
see how hidden or not hidden you really are - a much more intuitive substitute for the light-gem. This is the reason we don't need a light-gem to tell how visible we are in real life - we can plainly see how darkened or well lit we are, and whether we're concealed enough behind some cover.
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
@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?
That's ridiculous. This has no relevance whatsoever to the advocacy of a visible body. You're talking about
manual control of involuntary bodily functions that have no
role in the game. No one is advocating that. This continued attempt at reductio ad absurdum is actually backfiring quite severely and covering over any valid and legitimate concerns regarding body-awareness.
Namdrol on 16/11/2009 at 18:49
It's a long thread but people coming in later should read through.
There's lots to see.
Lica Samadau on 16/11/2009 at 20:16
Quote Posted by The Shroud
<snap>
First off, calm down. No one is taking your life. We're just debating. You're calling Platinumoxicity's opinions and mine ridiculous and silly just because we don't agree with you while your statements don't fare better themselves.
Secondly, I wasn't talking about body awareness in particular. If you'd actually take the time to read my post again before bashing it, you'd see that I was supporting the idea that a game like Thief can be immersive, realistic, and in the same time, fun and enjoyable by it's story, visuals, gameplay, etc, while still leaving out the little details that can be easily replaced involuntarily by the player's imagination (what I talked about in "projecting my body into the game's", which was, of course, not meant to be taken ad literam).
Oh, and the introduction of the light gem had something to do with how the AI reacts to you. It was easier this way rather than introducing more lines of script that slowed down gameplay and added the possibility of more glitches appearing. (someone who knows more about this should correct me if I'm wrong.)
Bakerman on 16/11/2009 at 21:20
Quote:
If you have visible legs, they'd either require a broader path or pass right through the boxes.
Or, the devs would have to put a little effort into making them move sensibly. Which is apparently not worth the catastrophic impact it would have on the storytelling, gameplay, and level design, and probably cause the game to ship with no editor. (Okay, sorry, couldn't resist that one :P.) I do see the point, though.
The Shroud on 16/11/2009 at 21:53
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
First off, calm down. No one is taking your life. We're just debating.
Don't you think you're exaggerating my reaction just a tad? I mean, it's not as if I'm shouting in all caps and bolded text with angry smileys and name-calling and whatnot. Like you, I am also simply debating.
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
You're calling Platinumoxicity's opinions and mine ridiculous and silly just because we don't agree with you while your statements don't fare better themselves.
Okay, that's not true. What I said was raising the argument that
seeing Garrett's nose and having
three separate keys for blinking, breathing, and heartbeat as being somehow comparable to the advocacy of body-awareness is ridiculous. I'm not focusing on whether you're for or against body-awareness, I'm focusing on the points you're raising to support your arguments. As for my statements not faring better, you haven't actually addressed my statements to demonstrate how that is so.
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
Secondly, I wasn't talking about body awareness in particular. If you'd actually take the time to read my post again before bashing it, you'd see that I was supporting the idea that a game like Thief can be immersive, realistic, and in the same time, fun and enjoyable by it's story, visuals, gameplay, etc, while still leaving out the little details that can be easily replaced involuntarily by the player's imagination (what I talked about in "projecting my body into the game's", which was, of course, not meant to be taken ad literam).
I read your post before responding. I know where you stand on the issue. I'm arguing for a visible body, you're arguing against it. I don't know why you think I haven't read or understood your position.
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
Oh, and the introduction of the light gem had something to do with how the AI reacts to you. It was easier this way rather than introducing more lines of script that slowed down gameplay and added the possibility of more glitches appearing. (someone who knows more about this should correct me if I'm wrong.)
The light gem is just an indicator. My point was that this indicator becomes unnecessary if the player can see their body - since they can see how dark or lit they are.
Quote Posted by Wormrat
As was mentioned much earlier in this thread, narrow surfaces are something that visible feet are rarely well-equipped for.
Mirror's Edge, for example, makes you snap onto balance beams, because otherwise the walking animation would look silly. Precise footwork isn't something we have controls for, so beyond "how close am I to the edge of the cliff," I don't think the feedback would be useful.
Why not just have Garrett's walking animation be narrow by default? Or, if that would look too awkward, they could have the animation switch when walking on a narrow surface like in Mirror's Edge, as you mentioned.
Quote Posted by Wormrat
I also want to revisit a problematic situation I brought up earlier but didn't have time to test. I suggested a floor scattered with noisy objects that the player might want to avoid. In real life it would be easy to carefully step around them... ...I did test this, to see the extent. I went into
Thief 2 and scattered some boxes on the floor, then tried to walk through them. Although the boxes moved, they weren't pushed aside to form a path the full width of my imagined player body. In fact, they were only pushed aside slightly, as if I was sidling through. Now, I doubt this was intended, but the point remains that you can fudge this kind of "loose" collision with invisible legs and attribute it to the in-game character's footwork. If you have visible legs, they'd either require a broader path or pass right through the boxes.
Why not require a broader path then? If Garrett's feet collide with a movable object, it can be pushed aside as he walks.
The Shroud on 17/11/2009 at 04:47
As a side note, I'd like to thank Bakerman, Ostriig, Beleg Cúthalion, driver, Chade, Sulphur, Fafhrd, Briareos H, BrendaEM, Tony Ayalew, and Captain Spandex for representing the very real and valid pro-Body-Awareness side of this debate, and doing so (in most cases, not all) in a level-headed, civilized manner. There have also been several people on the con side who've been calm and constructive (again, in most cases - not all) throughout this discussion, and while I disagree with many of the points they've raised, others remain valid and worth considering.
A general request for those to whom it may pertain (if you don't think this includes you then it probably doesn't): no matter which side of an argument you find yourselves on, please do not attack other Thief fans' validity as fans simply because they disagree with your opinions of what Thief is, isn't, and should or shouldn't be. We all love the Thief series. That's why we're here debating in the first place. No one has the right to talk down to other fans as if they don't "get" Thief and somehow need to be educated on what makes the series so great and unique. They get it. If they didn't love Thief every bit as much as you, they wouldn't be here.
There is a lot of rage and downright hatred - yes, hatred - being thrown about in this thread, and it has severely muddled any constructive discussion. So I implore you:
No more personal attacks.
No more name-calling.
No more bigotry.
And no more ongoing feuds.
It's not helping. Thank you.
Namdrol on 17/11/2009 at 07:40
Isn't it odd to make a barely veiled dig at someone while asking said person/persons not to make digs at others?
This thread hasn't seen a post in a month and it is an interesting topic and as I said in it (and got bullshit from Subjeff in response) there was movement on both sides and some understanding, even from those most rigid in their views.
But it's not helping to come in and try and stir it up again, saying all these people are great, lovely, wonderful saints, (mainly, it seems, because they have a point you agree with) and those people are bad, evil muck throwers. (Old wounds maybe?)
And again, to ask for no more ongoing feuds and at the same time bringing up an argument which is gone, is a crap way of acting.
