jtr7 on 19/9/2009 at 08:48
A single, calm, strictly matter-of-fact sentence is treated as ridiculous, countered with non-argument or total falsehood. Dump absurd myths on the doorstep and I will laugh and scream truths couched in absurdities to fight your wimpy fire with roiling fire... and make it hot enough to pop the kernels. Say something new and true. If you have to make crap up, or--god--recycle five-year-old garbage that could never hold water, you have no argument. And unlike poker you can't get away with bluffing.
Educated and knowledgeable people have no place burying facts so simple they can be taken for granted. People who spend a great deal of time being observant have no frikkin' excuse for not seeing the plain and common, especially when it's presented to them on a platter several times a month.
I'm here to shift the weights in the pans because you are THAT ridiculous and don't know it.
SubJeff on 19/9/2009 at 08:55
Clarity is not achieved through unnecessary and overly complex verbosity.
jtr7 on 19/9/2009 at 09:17
Less body, more awareness.
Bakerman on 19/9/2009 at 09:31
Quote Posted by Vae
Good luck, I hope it works as well as the floating camera.
Thanks... so do I :p. I'm not going to be running into the same issues of rabid conservatism with fans, so I'm not going to go to the extremes I could to make the experience closer to a floaty-eyeball. I personally like a bit of camera roughness, though I can see perfectly why people don't -
and to be absolutely clear, it doesn't have to be a consequence of body awareness :p. Just the way I feel like implementing it.
Quote Posted by Vae
Having no imperfect body to see, although not the ideal solution, is the better compromise of the two, because the mind is inherently less distracted by nothing than by an unnatural something, especially when the vast majority of conscious awareness is placed outside of one's focal presence.
That's a good perspective on it, I can definitely understand that. It probably does come down to personal preference in this regard - when I play a video game, there are constantly things that pull me out of the illusion created by the graphics, sound, whatever. And a lot of the time, floaty-eyeball cameras do this to me. I find the opposite of what you do: even if the player character is imperfectly implemented, I find it much easier to deal with that than with being invisible.
Quote Posted by jtr7
A single, calm, strictly matter-of-fact sentence is treated as ridiculous, countered with non-argument or total falsehood. Dump absurd myths on the doorstep and I will laugh and scream truths couched in absurdities to fight your wimpy fire with roiling fire... and make it hot enough to pop the kernels. Say something new and true. If you have to make crap up, or--god--recycle five-year-old garbage that could never hold water, you have no argument. And unlike poker you can't get away with bluffing.
Educated and knowledgeable people have no place burying facts so simple they can be taken for granted. People who spend a great deal of time being observant have no frikkin' excuse for not seeing the plain and common, especially when it's presented to them on a platter several times a month.
I'm here to shift the weights in the pans because you are
THAT ridiculous and
don't know it.I want to quote this so I can use it in any forum argument I ever get into. It contains absolutely nothing pertaining to the discussion at hand. Thanks for the quote, but now can we discuss what I wanted to discuss?
Quote:
Less body, more awareness.
That's more like it. But what precisely do you mean when you say that?
jtr7 on 19/9/2009 at 09:58
Less of your little bubble, more of the world around you. Less of you on camera, more focus on The City and the job. Less wishful-thinking, more what's reasonable.
I only post like that in the presence of lying bastards, the socially insensitive, the greedy parasites, and when the absurdity of real world idealism over harsh reality is so high, 'cause then I have to make fun or go sniping.
Distinguish what you'd like to see from what that means in a development cycle. I'd like to see many deceptively-simple things, but I know it's no use to expect to see them even in the next decade, and there are things that are already being used in games that have longer development cycles, more money for more staffing, and outsourcing to third parties (Dark Messiah...outsourced console port, outsourced multiplayer, PC release first, console release second). If you would actually look at the games being named as examples, you can plainly see how for every well-developed Thief-like aspect, there are telling under-developed aspects. Great dynamic movement made possible by not worrying about animating an unusually high number of variations to cover most bases, beautiful scenery in tiny maps, etc. You can't have it all, so the most critical things come first. For Thief, less is more. It really is. More world-building and better animations are absolutely welcome, but extraneous stuff that was never important to begin with shouldn't even be considered.
SubJeff on 19/9/2009 at 09:59
Quote Posted by Bakerman
But what precisely do you mean when you say that?
You shouldn't have to ask.
Most sense jtr has made all thread.
Someone list me the advantages of having body awareness over not having it please. Not expecting much of list here tbh.
242 on 19/9/2009 at 10:15
:cheeky::cheeky:
jtr7 on 19/9/2009 at 10:17
Quote Posted by Bakerman
It contains absolutely nothing pertaining to the discussion at hand.
Like I said, dishonest. Lying. It has a lot to do with the discussion and you've demonstrated my points. You have no argument so you lie. Say something that hasn't been said in this old discussion. "Less body, more awareness" has been stated several ways in this thread alone, in detail, by diverse members, and you act like it's new and ask for meaning. You also contradicted yourself by not continuing the discussion, either. Stop screwing around and you'll get the information you claim to want.
Here's how mind-blowingly insane these conversations seem to me.
"...So I took a bite and it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.":angel:
"What do you mean you 'took a bite'? Who the hell takes 'a bite?'":mad:
"?!?!?":confused::erm:
"What?":weird:
"Do I describe the physical mechanics of what you do everyday in the act of eating, tell you to sod off with your stupid-ass joke, ignore you, laugh?":sweat:
"Don't be ridiculous.":tsktsk:
"You started this shit.":nono:
Stop acting like you can't comprehend simple everyday things, taffheads, so it will even be
possible to
have a discussion, and maybe go into new territory unexplored in the last 5+ years.
Ostriig on 19/9/2009 at 13:02
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Someone list me the advantages of having body awareness over not having it please. Not expecting much of list here tbh.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
As for gameplay benefits, there's the one with knowing where you're standing, yes, and I mentioned earlier that another minor bonus might be using your body as the lightgem if you opted for a minimal HUD. Maybe I misspoke when I said "massive improvement", but between that and the added visual "realism", I still hold it's a worthwhile pursuit.
It is a short list, indeed, but I still don't buy into there being disadvantages.
Let me clarify that - I'll drop the visible, working arms part. While I'm certain it's doable, the more I think about it the more I'm coming to believe it might not be feasible in the scope of a current gen videogame, given the effort to benefits ratio.
So, given that we're only talking about an associated animated body mesh, where only the legs and feet react to the environment (ground below them) and the arms are just there, which entails no further restrictions or changes to control or the collision model, what disadvantages can you list?
New Horizon on 19/9/2009 at 13:17
Quote Posted by Ostriig
It is a short list, indeed, but I still don't buy into there being disadvantages.
Disadvantages are only going to be visible to those who are aware of the advantages in the first place.
