Body awareness - TTLG Forums

The Shroud on 24/11/2009 at 17:27

Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity

Thief 4 should have a body awareness system similar to F.E.A.R. where the movement is determined by the player's input, and the body follows the player.

Yes.

Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity

TDS did the exact opposite, made a body awareness system and couldn't care less about the movement.

Quote Posted by The Shroud

Frankly, TDS has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. Why? Because (as has been said over...and over...and over...and over...) TDS's implementation of body-awareness is not what we want.

Do I have to start quoting my own previous posts for this point to sink in?

"My name is Inigo Montoya. TDS body-awareness sucked. Prepare to die."
"We agree. That's not what we want."
"My name is Inigo Montoya! TDS body-awareness sucked! Prepare to die!"
"We know! But that's not what we're talking about!"
"My name is Inigo Montoya!! TDS body-awareness sucked!! Prepare to die!!"
"Stop saying that!!"

Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity

When you make a body awareness system that doesn't interfere with the movement in any way, you need to remember that it can't be made to look perfect.

If the appearance bothers you, turn it off?

Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity

If you spend all your time looking at how the arms and legs move in the environment, you'll notice things like: One foot standing on thin air

I seriously doubt the players with BA turned on (like me) are going to riot over these sorts of nitpicky details. If I don't want my foot to be off the edge, I (gasp!) won't step off the edge.

Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity

a foot or an arm clipping into the geometry

That can be prevented by making the player's collision-model the same physical dimensions as the rendered (or non-rendered) body-model.

Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity

and all the other little visual bugs that are really hard to fix when maintaining the perfect 1st person movement system.

Name one important visual bug that's really hard to fix?

Quote Posted by New Horizon

It's a gimmick.

In your opinion. Which is fine. Others disagree. Which is also fine. Right?

Quote Posted by New Horizon

If it's going to be in T4...they had better create a hybrid system that allows turning it off and using the classic 1st person system.

In other words...what I suggested?

Quote Posted by Wormrat

These claims of "disorientation" are frankly absurd.

That's right! Shame on you, driver and all you other pro guys, for feeling like something's missing. Can't you see that your opinions don't matter as much as the con guys'?

Quote Posted by Wormrat

This is where the focus should be, instead of the question of immersion. What role will the player model play? Are actions constrained by the animations?

No.

There, see? That wasn't so hard. Next topic.

The Shroud on 24/11/2009 at 19:11

Quote Posted by Wormrat

Hint: "disorienting" does not mean the same as "not as immersive."

I never actually used the word disorienting. I spoke about a break in immersion. I mean, sure, I agree, the invisible box doesn't make me feel lost and give me vertigo. But it does constantly give me the feeling that something is missing - because something is missing, literally.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

Unless you are hallucinating and start to believe that a video game is real life, the lack of visible limbs is in no way going to disorient you.

You tell em, Wormrat! All us pro guys must be hallucinating. Or maybe we're all just making up complaints for the sake of complaining, because complaining is fun and we don't want to admit that we really like things just the way they are, eh? I mean, yeah, maybe you're right, maybe we all do prefer invisible limbs after all, just like you... Or... Maybe we actually disagree?

Quote Posted by Wormrat

Also, your keyhole and door threads made it clear that you think some movement should be tied to the animations/player model.

I think if you're going to open a door, you should have to stand close enough to reach it with your arm, yeah. I know, I know, ridiculous. And leaning forward against a door to see through the keyhole? Yeah I agree, bad idea, you should be able to see through it without moving at all. You see how absurd this is?

Quote Posted by Wormrat

Body awareness that you can toggle on and off is either going to require amazing future animations from space

:laff: It's called Inverse Kinematics.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

Consider: object handling

You mean I should actually have to crouch down to pick something up off the floor - with my hand? My hand that I only see if I want to see it, because I can turn off my body's rendering anytime I want? That ruins my gameplay!

Quote Posted by Wormrat

ladders

Ladders have been addressed to death. One of many old topics that have already been resolved.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

doors

Addressed.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

narrow beams

Addressed.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

or the many other problematic situations mentioned on the same pages that you are so keen to point others toward.

Addressed.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

You are hand-waving all of this

Damn straight I am. All the work has already been done for me. If you want to tackle one of the countless answers/solutions to these issues that you're dredging up again, go for it.

New Horizon on 24/11/2009 at 19:27

Quote Posted by driver

I get the impression that there are people in this thread that will only be satisfied if T4 is released on the Dark Engine.

An oversimplification, and a complete glossing over of the truth.

Personally, I want quality and substance over pizazz and eye candy.

Bakerman on 24/11/2009 at 21:07

For the record, if a solid body-awareness system was designed that did truly follow the player's inputs instead of fighting them, removing the feature for people who didn't want it would be as simple as not rendering the player. The mesh and collision geometry could still be there, just invisible.

The Shroud on 24/11/2009 at 21:46

Quote Posted by Wormrat

The Shroud, you clearly have capable English skills so I can only assume you're being purposefully obtuse.

I would say the same about a lot of the con arguments in this thread (for instance, the constant disregard for important points the pro side has made when discussing old topics). But no, it's not that I don't get the con perspective, or pretend not to understand your point of view. It's just that I see it differently.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

"Object handling" is about holding and manipulating objects, not scooping them up into your inventory. I look forward to your explanation of how inverse kinematics can magic away the problems of animating that.

Okay, shoot. Let's be specific though. Mention an example of a particular object which Garrett needs to hold and manipulate, and we'll talk about it.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

This ignores the fact that Mirror's Edge glues the player's feet to the beam (restricts movement for the sake of accurate animation).

And I'd propose that, should the player try to move left or right (i.e. step off the beam - because that's what's realistically going to happen if they do that), the game allow them to do so, at which point they'd fall.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

"Be narrow by default" doesn't even make sense

It makes sense to me. In other words, Garrett's feet can be animated to step forward and back in a relatively narrow path, rather than in a wide path.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

and animation switching is another hand-wave.

What's wrong with animation-switching? It doesn't interfere with the player's movement, it just changes what's rendered.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

The point is that it's hard to animate correctly. Have you considered what realistic foot placement is like for a railing or thin ledge?

Actually, yes.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

Have you considered the implications of rotating on the spot?

Absolutely. And I, for one, believe in being able to rotate the camera without necessarily rotating the rest of the body. If the player rotates the camera more than 90 degrees left or right, then the body should start turning - and that only matters if you have the body-rendering turned on. If it's turned off, you're not going to notice any difference.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

Um, because that's exactly what you want to avoid? The player's body knocking things about because you can't control where your legs are flailing?

Oh for crying out loud. "Legs flailing"? What kind of ridiculous animations are you imagining here? Your legs are going to go where you go - nowhere else. If you move forward, your legs will walk forward with you as they should. Same for every other type of movement. Your legs are not going to be flailing about chaotically. And yes, if you deliberately walk right into something on the floor, your feet should collide with it.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

You are trivializing the debate in this thread

No. The debate in this thread is already trivial.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

by pretending that all these issues are settled

They are settled. I'm not pretending.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

and it's just matter of visuals and player preference.

It is.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

I mean, sure, if you just want some sloppy, tacked-on hands and feet that rarely sync with anything

Nope.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

But that is not what this thread is about. It is about the amount of syncing and the implications of that syncing--something absolutely critical to how the game controls.

Agreed.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

Your suggestion of the player's in-game arm as a physics tether for opening doors was a perfect example of this. That is a mechanic that cannot be toggled.

Agreed. However, I also don't see that as a problem. As Bakerman pointed out (in that thread), IK could be used to handle this sort of thing, which would allow the player to stand wherever they want as long as they're within frobbing range.

Quote Posted by Wormrat

Those kinds of design choices are where the heart of the body awareness debate lies.

Fair enough. So let's hash it out, shall we? Identify the scenarios which you believe a convincing body-animation has to negatively hinder the player's movement, and we'll cover them on a case-by-case basis.

Platinumoxicity on 24/11/2009 at 22:19

What does a good enough body awareness system require:

-A 3rd person body model without a head.
-And animation system that allows the use of weapons in all movement modes smoothly, including crouch-walking and jumping in all directions.
-Collision detection in limbs that keeps the legs at correct heights when walking on uneven surfaces or in stairs.
-An animation system that allows aiming the bow even straight up without making the aiming uncomfortable for the player or looking weird compared to the rest of the animations.
-An animation system that allows rope climbing without making it extremely uncomfortable for players because they can't see where they're going when their arms are holding the rope.

A perfect body awareness system additionally needs:
-An animation system that rotates the lower body to a correct position smoothly when the head (camera) is rotated enough to the side.
-Geometry-analyzing system that prevents the model's legs from falling off ledges, and makes the walk animation change according to the width of the surface that's being walked on.
-Collision detection system that smoothly moves the model's legs out from near objects so that he doesn't bang into them when walking.
-Collison detection system that works like a smooth "wall hug" that positions the model's arms and torso next to the wall automatically when being near enough. The arms act according to any geometry changes, including moving into a corner.

In order for a Thief game to be comfortable enough to play, the game requires:
-Geometry-based collision detection that prevents the player from going through walls, objects or falling through the floor.
-2 stances, standing and crouching, both with a different movement speed modifier and 2 speed modifiers, walk and run. These are used in combination with the stances to give more choices.
-3-dimensional movement using 4 directional keys, jump, gravity and mouse for turning (And complete directional navigation underwater)

New Horizon on 24/11/2009 at 22:21

Obviously The Shroud knows everything there is to know about animation, having said that, I wish he would come on over to Dark Mod and show us all how it's done. Sadly, it seems so many experts spend more time posting on internet forums than doing anything productive.

driver on 24/11/2009 at 23:14

Quote Posted by New Horizon

An oversimplification, and a complete glossing over of the truth.

Personally, I want quality and substance over pizazz and eye candy.

Since when is accurately portraying objects within your field of view 'pizazz and eye candy'?

I'm rather hope the naysayers of this thread aren't employed by any game developers because I'd hate for the future of the industry to be in the hands of a bunch of unimaginative pessimists intent on clinging to the past.

Just because you don't think it can be done doesn't mean it can't, and because it might be implemented doesn't mean it will break the game or divert important time away from other elements.

Christ, brighten up, will you?

Bakerman on 25/11/2009 at 03:44

Quote Posted by New Horizon

Interesting point. How much control over Doom 3 do you guys have? For example, can you mod the source code? If not, how in-depth does the engine's scripting take you? I obviously have an agenda behind these questions ;), but I'm genuinely interested in an unbiased look at the situation.

New Horizon on 25/11/2009 at 04:10

Quote Posted by driver

I didn't say it can't be done...but because something can be done is no case for doing it. With each passing year, game design adds layer upon layer of shit to get in the way of the what matters most, the core gameplay. I don't know if it's the chicken or the egg, but at some point it has to stop. Developers have to concentrate on making good 'games' again, and stop trying to build god damned holodecks. There is plenty of room for innovation within the games industry, and I don't see plugging a visible body into first person and having to come up with a bunch of extra work arounds to make it run as smoothly as a simple, classic, first person interface as particularly original.

Saying it won't take time away from other programming and design tasks is pure ignorance. Of course it will take time away from something else, developers having nothing but time constraints.

The penumbra games are a fine example of first person done right....adding plenty of innovation, without the need or hindrance of a physical body to assure people they're not just a floating clip box model. Talk about lack of imagination.