Lica Samadau on 18/11/2009 at 23:15
I see it like this: there comes a time when too much realism can hurt. For example, there was talk about this work in progress mod for Oblivion that created 2 cameras for the first person view. One of the head (as was in the vanilla game) and one for the eyes. After all, in real-life, you can move your eyes without actually turning your head. The project never worked out. Why? Because in a video game, it'd be just silly. In real-life it is essential to be able to move your eyes with some freedom, but in a game it's just useless. Turning the camera with the mouse/keyboard is enough.
That's exactly how I see body awareness. It might add a dose of realism, and it can be enjoyable to some players, but all in all, it's just not worth it. And Thief 1/2 proved that a stealth-game can be very good without it.
Again, this is just my opinion, I don't really care what others think, therefore I don't argue with anyone for anything. Everyone has the right to an opinion. I respect other's, and really don't want to intervene in them.
Last post here. This debate is getting to a dead-end.
The Shroud on 19/11/2009 at 01:01
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
I see it like this: there comes a time when
too much realism can hurt. For example, there was talk about this work in progress mod for Oblivion that created 2 cameras for the first person view. One of the head (as was in the vanilla game) and one for the eyes. After all, in real-life, you can move your eyes without actually turning your head. The project never worked out. Why? Because in a video game, it'd be just silly. In real-life it is essential to be able to move your eyes with some freedom, but in a game it's just useless. Turning the camera with the mouse/keyboard is enough.
I completely agree - wanting a separate camera for eyes and head is really absurd. Beyond being tricky to implement, it serves absolutely no purpose. I don't think this is a good comparison to a visible body though.
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
That's exactly how I see body awareness. It might add a dose of realism, and it can be enjoyable to some players, but all in all, it's just not worth it. And Thief 1/2 proved that a stealth-game can be very good without it.
Sure, it can be very good without it. But then again, Thief 1 and 2 were so great by default that they probably still would have been very good without
lots of good things that were included. For instance, I think we all still would have enjoyed the earlier games without lock-picking, pickpocketing, blackjacking, rope-climbing, and swimming. Those are all really great things that improved our gameplay experience, but Thief probably still would have been fun without them. In fact, if the earlier games
hadn't included those things, we might all be arguing right now over whether they should be introduced to an already fantastic game that was fun without them, whether they're worth the development time, whether they'll add significantly more enjoyment to gameplay, etc, etc. Thank heavens the devs already went ahead and did them from the outset, or we might never agree how much they belong in the game.
My point is this - just because a game might still be very good without something
doesn't mean that that something couldn't make it even better. And that's what a development team should strive to do - improve, improve, improve. The old addage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" really applies to tampering with things that are already perfect just the way they are (like the "sneaker" theme, atmosphere, and other things that nobody ever argues about) and can't possibly be improved beyond their present condition - not to things which, at least in several fans' perspectives, can and should be improved in some fashion.
Quote Posted by Lica Samadau
Again, this is just my opinion, I don't really care what others think, therefore I don't argue with anyone for anything. Everyone has the right to an opinion. I respect other's, and really don't want to intervene in them.
I respect your opinion, and others' desire to keep the invisible box. Obviously that adds to your personal enjoyment of the game, and when all is said and done, that's more important than the reasons behind it. For others like myself, having a visible body in-game would add to our enjoyment. No matter which way the game leans, someone is bound to be dissatisfied -
unless players have the option to turn on/off the rendering of the Garrett model. And I think in the end, that is the most sensible solution.
Platinumoxicity on 22/11/2009 at 18:59
The immersion of a simplified player-game world interface comes from the fact that your vision and hearing work just like in the real world. You can freely look everywhere around you and you hear the sounds around you. When you can't see your shoulders or legs ingame, and only your weapons and arms when you're using them, you are more "one with your surroundings", you focus on what's around you instead of what are you.
In a simplified inteface, every single action you could ever imagine the game character to do, it's always the player who's controlling the moves. You are only limited by the laws of physics. In body awareness, you have no control over the swinging of your newly visible arms as you're running, they just swing there as if they're not attached to your body. You can't move your newly visible leg closer to the other in order to keep balance on a narrow plank. It's all out of your control.
Simplified interface is always better for gameplay, for the player who should always be the most important factor. The ingame movement in first person games like Thief 2 or Half-Life 1 or 2 does not really get better than how it is. The perfect immersion.
The Shroud on 22/11/2009 at 19:59
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
When you can't see your shoulders or legs ingame, and only your weapons and arms when you're using them, you are more "one with your surroundings"
Not me.
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
In body awareness, you have no control over the swinging of your newly visible arms as you're running, they just swing there as if they're not attached to your body.
I don't need to control the swinging of my arms while running. And I don't really imagine Garrett's arms swinging while he's dashing anyway, I think it's more likely that his left hand would be holding his bow in place against his side/back (if his bow is put away - otherwise he'd just be holding it lengthwise), and his right arm would be held a little outward and back (either with his blackjack or dagger in hand, or empty handed).
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
You can't move your newly visible leg closer to the other in order to keep balance on a narrow plank. It's all out of your control.
I addressed this situation earlier.
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
Simplified interface is always better for gameplay
Again, not for me.
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
The ingame movement in first person games like Thief 2 or Half-Life 1 or 2 does not really get better than how it is. The perfect immersion.
Not perfect for me or others who want body-awareness. It always comes back to this. Our opinions, viewpoints, and preferences are inherently different. What satisfies you doesn't satisfy someone else, and vice versa. It is
always going to be about players' personal preference, there is no absolute "right" or "wrong" way, any more than there is a perfect key-binding scheme for everyone, or a perfect playing style for everyone. You can't convince someone who's dissatisfied with the present interface that they really do enjoy that interface the same way you do - any more than I can convince you that you really
don't enjoy the invisible box as much as you think you do, and that you would enjoy body-awareness more. This is why I suggested having it be an option that players could turn on/off - the players who like it the way it is can turn off the player-model's rendering, while the players who want body-awareness can turn it on.
That is as good as it can get for everyone. It doesn't get any more perfect that that.
Platinumoxicity on 22/11/2009 at 23:14
Quote Posted by The Shroud
(Not me.) x (Many times)
This is the part that I don't get. What exactly is it in body awareness that makes the game better for you? I don't understand... I suppose you're talking about the TDS body awareness, and in that case what you're implying is like "I prefer driving a car without tyres, with only the rims." :confused:
IMHO, gameplay-wise, body awareness creates nothing but problems. How can you consider that a positive thing?
The Shroud on 23/11/2009 at 02:32
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
This is the part that I don't get. What exactly is it in body awareness that makes the game better for you?
Seeing that I have an actual body helps immerse me deeper into the game-world, instead of giving me a constant reminder that this isn't real, that this is just a game.
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
I don't understand... I suppose you're talking about the TDS body awareness
No. I thought that was poorly done.
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
and in that case what you're implying is like "I prefer driving a car without tyres, with only the rims." :confused:
I want a car with the works - tires, rims, everything. Why would I want to leave something out? That'd be senseless.
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
IMHO, gameplay-wise, body awareness creates nothing but problems. How can you consider that a positive thing?
Because in my opinion, gameplay-wise, body awareness
doesn't create problems.
Platinumoxicity on 23/11/2009 at 07:13
Quote Posted by The Shroud
Because in my opinion, gameplay-wise, body awareness
doesn't create problems.
So just because
you think that there's nothing wrong with it, it should absolutely be implemented? I'm sorry but that answer was insufficient.
The Shroud on 23/11/2009 at 17:29
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
So just because
you think that there's nothing wrong with it, it should absolutely be implemented? I'm sorry but that answer was insufficient.
I'm not the only one who thinks it should be implemented - as you already know very well.
driver on 23/11/2009 at 17:49
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
So just because
you think that there's nothing wrong with it, it should absolutely be implemented? I'm sorry but that answer was insufficient.
And because
you think there's something wrong with it means it shouldn't?
Platinumoxicity on 23/11/2009 at 21:33
Are you really that unable to provide any examples of the positive aspects of body awareness that would encourage it's implementation that you need to start strawmaning what I've said? You could at least try. :tsktsk:
