to Ion Storm: suggestions for Thief 3 & and Deus Ex 2
Eep²
I'm sick of the floating camera 1st-person view in most games!
Oh and when opening doors/windows, picking locks, etc, show the hands reaching out and doing these things. I tire of everything magically happening too.
Barney Gumble
"Eep˛" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
news:3C2DBC62...@tnlc.com...
> Make the player character visible in 1st-person view. Meaning, go play
Severance: Blade of Darkness and note the character's body rendered in
1st-person view (complete with shadows). Or if you have Max Payne get my
1st-person view mod at http://tnlc.com/eep/mp/ to see what I mean.
Surprise, surprise - Eep manages to get another plug in for his dreadful
website.
> Oh and when opening doors/windows, picking locks, etc, show the hands
reaching out and doing these things. I tire of everything magically
happening too.
>
____
Boy, there's some constructive criticism that will surely be a bedrock of
any successful game.
To Ion Storm: Ignore what this dysfunctional reject says. Give Thief3 and
Deus Ex 2 the same level of interaction that the originals had - such as
involving plot, character development, and immersive level architecture.
Worry about small minutiae like visible hands if you have time.
Big Bad Joe
I'm guessing this is the kind of guy that doesn't care about ANYTHING
about a woman except her body...not that it matters much in his case.
Big Bad Joe
marius
i dont think so
"Eep˛" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
news:3C2DBC62...@tnlc.com...
Speedway
"marius" <mar...@blue.net> schreef in bericht
news:5FnX7.314548$W8.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> do we really need a thief 3?
>
> i dont think so
KILLKILLKILLKILLKILL!
Sorry......got taken away by that stupeed remark :-/
SpammersDie
Barney Gumble <nos...@issaidnospam.net> wrote in message
news:10mX7.134368$KT.35...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
And let's not worry about the fact that Deus Ex already animates your hand
for lockpicking and multitool infiltration and other tasks where the added
delay is trivial compared to the expected real-world duration of the task.
On the other hand, DeX understands that players rightfully want to push
buttons and open doors instantly, not to wait for a hand to do it for them.
But heavens, let's not let facts interfere...
Erik Max Francis
> Make the player character visible in 1st-person view. Meaning, go play
> Severance: Blade of Darkness and note the character's body rendered in
> 1st-person view (complete with shadows). Or if you have Max Payne get
> my 1st-person view mod at http://tnlc.com/eep/mp/ to see what I mean.
Why do you think the game developers actually listen to what you have to
say?
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Laws are silent in time of war.
\__/ Cicero
Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
An Esperanto reference for English speakers.
stoic
>do we really need a thief 3?
>
>i dont think so
>
Hell yes, we need a thief 3. Or do you prefer playing an
endless stream of FPS twitch games that revolve around killing
everything that moves?
The thief and system shock games are a welcome change, IMO.
redsniper7000
R. Mast
Not funny, because YES he does.
--
-R. Mast
Devo
sounds to me like you just want pretty graphics. Thief isn't about
the graphics.
Warren, keep the same winning formula and give us a new thief game :)
--------------
Devo
Devo
>do we really need a thief 3?
>
>i dont think so
>
>
>
let's put it this way......I would rather have Thief 3 in my hands
right now instead of Doom 3.
--------------
Devo
Eep²
Eep²
Eep²
Memnoch
excellent. Give me more of the same please!
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 18:09:05 GMT, "marius" <mar...@blue.net> wrote:
Memnoch
Yep, I'd agree with that.
Einstine
Pleeze hookj me up wit him or stank julia. Wutz her name? Gash candy?
Anway, thanks , from me und me trued memburs. Testiclees 4evur!!!!!
"Eep²" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3C2DBC62...@tnlc.com...
stoic
<eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
>Oh and when opening doors/windows, picking locks, etc,
>show the hands reaching out and doing these things.
A possible problem with that is 'skin color.' It would feel kinda
weird if 'my' hands belonged to a dainty black women with lurid purple
fingernails. Kinky, but weird. ;-)
And before anyone starts flaming, this has to do with relating to your
onscreen character which helps immerse you in the game.
And let's not talk about in-game mirrors. ;-)
Mark Blunden
news:3c2f6522...@news.atl.attbroadband.com...
In Deus Ex that's not a huge problem, since you're playing a particular
character, and do get to choose from a few available models - the choice of
which should be wider in Deus Ex 2. There's also the option - seen in, e.g.,
Half-Life - of having your on-screen arms wearing long sleeves and gloves:
no flesh to see.
--
Mark.
mark.b...@ntlworld.com
* That many?!
SpammersDie
Mark Blunden <mark.blun...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:a0nrlf$k5aiq$1...@ID-36588.news.dfncis.de...
> "stoic" <f...@foo.com> wrote in message
> news:3c2f6522...@news.atl.attbroadband.com...
> > On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 13:03:04 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> > <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Oh and when opening doors/windows, picking locks, etc,
> > >show the hands reaching out and doing these things.
> >
> > A possible problem with that is 'skin color.' It would feel kinda
> > weird if 'my' hands belonged to a dainty black women with lurid purple
> > fingernails. Kinky, but weird. ;-)
> >
> > And before anyone starts flaming, this has to do with relating to your
> > onscreen character which helps immerse you in the game.
> >
> > And let's not talk about in-game mirrors. ;-)
>
> In Deus Ex that's not a huge problem, since you're playing a particular
> character,
Either way, you have to immerse yourself in a particular role or personality
in most games. Even in Deus Ex with its supposed morality choices, the game
is still weighed heavily towards playing a guy who spouts Boy Scout
platitudes about democracy and law while he's going around robbing ATM's,
plundering people's homes and reading his coworkers email. (Seriously, I
hope DeX2 is a little more balanced so players can play a non-two-faced
character without feeling penalized.)
Getting used to the character's appearance shouldn't be a big deal compared
to that.
Alai
news:5FnX7.314548$W8.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> do we really need a thief 3?
>
> i dont think so
>
what
Luke Winikates
> Eep^2 wrote:
> >Oh and when opening doors/windows, picking locks, etc,
> >show the hands reaching out and doing these things.
>
> A possible problem with that is 'skin color.' It would feel kinda
> weird if 'my' hands belonged to a dainty black women with lurid
> purple fingernails. Kinky, but weird. ;-)
>
> And before anyone starts flaming, this has to do with relating to
> your onscreen character which helps immerse you in the game.
>
> And let's not talk about in-game mirrors. ;-)
I don't really care if the in game character doesn't look like me.
The idea that I'm supposed to pretend that the guy inside the game is
me has always struck me as pretty dumb, and 'immersion' seems to me to
be most often employed as a buzzword, much like 'realism'.
I'd rather pretend during the time that I'm playing a game to be a
different person (i.e. a fictional character) who exists with in a
world with a different set of rules than my own. Even when developers
try to simulate reality with absolute fidelity, something shows up
that completely ruins the effect, and even if the game world is
otherwise a flawless facsimile of reality, the subtlety of the flaw
only makes it more jarring. Wonky AI behavior, and inventory glitch,
cheesy textures, anything like that can break this sacred immersion
that everybody seems to be striving for.
Rather than trying to make the rules of the gameworld understandable
by just lazily copying over the rules of the real world, why not just
try to create a gameworld with its own limited set of rules. Rather
than a self-contradictory failed attempt at copying reality, make an
internally consistent reality of your own and give the player some
toys to play with while he/she is there.
Screw the visible arms and legs and whatnot. Waste of valuable
polygons, and in no first-person game where you can see your feet have
they ever failed to look weird.
-L
Dibbler
ignore minor plot holes as long as I'm having fun.
Robert Tweed
news:a0o0pt$ksto5$1...@ID-115775.news.dfncis.de...
> I don't really care if the in game character doesn't look like me.
> The idea that I'm supposed to pretend that the guy inside the game is
> me has always struck me as pretty dumb, and 'immersion' seems to me to
> be most often employed as a buzzword, much like 'realism'.
It may be a buzzword, but it has it's roots in some truths about game
genres. I don't think immersion has anything to do with believing that you
actually are in the game. It's about forming empathy with characters in the
game, and believing that what you do actually counts for more than adding a
few numbers in RAM. Immersion is about where games become less abstract, and
more like movies.
As a comparison, take two classics from my own gaming history: Space
Invaders, and Hexen Space Invaders is involving and addictive, but it's not
immersive. If you get blown up you check your score to see if it's a new
high, are either disappointed or elated, and move on. You don't care that
you lost your ship. It's obvious that you are looking at a collection of
pixels and incrementing a memory address every time you hit an enemy. You
don't care: it's a simple, fun game.
Now, I picked Hexen because it was the first game that I genuinely
considered to be immersive. All the little background sounds and atmosphere
give you a decent sense of fear, like you would get from a tense thriller.
You genuinely do not want to get killed, the idea scares you, in a very
different way from space invaders. Not that you are going to get so immersed
that you will crap yourself when you get killed or anything like that, but
there is a clear and marked difference in the style of game and the effect
of immersion that is present in one but not the other.
All games are designed to get your adrenaline flowing and activate various
areas in your brain; but the exact stimuli are very different between
genres.
I specifically categorise all first-person games (and some other genres too)
as "immersive games" even though some may not actually be very immersive
(Doom or Quake for instance). But there is a clear cut difference between
these and games that do not try to form any emotional or subconscious
attachment between the player and the game-world. I call these other games
non-immersive games, simply because I haven't come up with a better name
yet. I would call them abstract games, but I use that term for games like
Tetris that have no real-world point-of-reference whatsoever.
Incidentally, there is another form of immersion that I have skipped over
because it doesn't affect me very often: that of taking it away with you.
Some games will have you thinking about the game when you are not actually
playing them. This only really tends to happen with RPG and strategy games
as far as I know, and a few puzzle games too. That sort of immersion is
probably more akin to reading a book than watching a movie.
> be most often employed as a buzzword, much like 'realism'.
Realism may also be a bit of a buzzword, but it's mostly just that Eep²
keeps going on about it like it's the holy grail of game-design. Nothing
wrong with a bit of realism, ie. realistic physics, realistic bullet damage,
being able to shoot through walls (which I believe you can do in MGS2),
etc., etc. However, to expect that games can ever be completely realistic,
or totally immersive is to not understand what games are about.
- Robert
Luke Winikates
> Luke Winikates wrote:
>
> > I don't really care if the in game character doesn't look like me.
> > The idea that I'm supposed to pretend that the guy inside the
> > game is me has always struck me as pretty dumb, and
> > 'immersion' seems to me to be most often employed as a
> > buzzword, much like 'realism'.
>
> It may be a buzzword, but it has it's roots in some truths about
> game genres. I don't think immersion has anything to do with
> believing that you actually are in the game. It's about forming
> empathy with characters in the game, and believing that what you
> do actually counts for more than adding a few numbers in RAM.
> Immersion is about where games become less abstract, and
> more like movies.
I understand full well that immersion is an actual word with a genuine
meaning in certain contexts. In the context of the previous
discussion, however, it means nothing, a problem which somewhat vague
generalizations about feeling that what you do in a game matters do
little to address.
(Apologies for the tone of the preceeding sentence; no offense is
intended. Attempts at making it sound less pissy just made it more
tangled and difficult to decipher.)
I concede that the damnation of immersion with which I began my post
was a bit hasty, but if you look at the original text of my response,
I believe it softens with respect to that as it progresses.
> I specifically categorise all first-person games (and some other
> genres too) as "immersive games" even though some may not
> actually be very immersive (Doom or Quake for instance). But
> there is a clear cut difference between these and games that do
> not try to form any emotional or subconscious attachment
> between the player and the game-world. I call these other games
> non-immersive games, simply because I haven't come up with a
> better name yet. I would call them abstract games, but I use that
> term for games like Tetris that have no real-world point-of-
> reference whatsoever.
Your genre classifications are interesting, but I don't find the
argument that a first person game makes a stronger connection between
the player and the game world than a third person or 'abstract' game
especially compelling. Perhaps it's easier to be emotionally attached
to a player character if you see things through his eyes, but in
practice I have found myself to feel less of an emotional connection
to the typically vaguely defined characters of first person games than
to the Manny Calaveras and ICOs of gamedom.
Your simultaneous claim that all first person games attempt immersion
and admission that not all are successful is perfectly reasonable but
makes this a difficult point to argue, no? If I make a similar claim
about immersive aspects of third-person games, is there any way for
you to counter it? Moreover, could you counter a similar claim about
'abstract' games if I put forth the notion that abstract games do in
fact immerse you in a world, but that it is one that shares no common
features with your own?
(actually, Tetris does have gravity...)
> > be most often employed as a buzzword, much like 'realism'.
>
> Realism may also be a bit of a buzzword, but it's mostly just that
> Eep² keeps going on about it like it's the holy grail of game-
> design.
Not simply Eep, but others as well. My categorization of it as a
buzzword certainly isn't primarly based on Eep's comments. My
comments are based on a lot of reading and pondering, as well as my
own personal experience with finding some things fun or compelling and
others less so.
> Nothing wrong with a bit of realism, ie. realistic physics,
> realistic bullet damage, being able to shoot through walls (which I
> believe you can do in MGS2), etc., etc.
> However, to expect that games can ever be completely realistic,
> or totally immersive is to not understand what games are about.
I wrote a fairly long response to this before noticing that you say
'ever' not 'never', which more or less makes what I wrote irrelevant.
It seems we largely agree, which is heartening.
-L
Eep²
Thief won't allow you to change your character; Deus Ex 2 will, so if you choose a black female that's your problem.
> And let's not talk about in-game mirrors. ;-)
Yes, Deus Ex's mirrors failed to show Denton's movements correctly: particularly when holding objects.
Eep²
This is already done, Luke. Because games can't be ABSOLUTELY realistic they ARE creating their own set of "gameworld rules". If you want wonky fantasy rules go play Spiderman or one of those rehashed, overdone fantasy RPGs (Diablo et al). However, if you're shooting for realism, don't do it half-assed.
> Screw the visible arms and legs and whatnot. Waste of valuable
> polygons, and in no first-person game where you can see your feet have
> they ever failed to look weird.
Play Severance: Blade of Darkness and I think you'll have a different opinion about this. Max Payne's modified 1st-person view would look perfect if it weren't for camera not moving with the head when it lurches forward when jumping and shooting some weapons (shotgun, etc), but it's damn realistic as it is (now if only it had Severence's shadows...).
Luke Winikates
> Luke Winikates wrote:
> > Rather than trying to make the rules of the gameworld
> > understandable by just lazily copying over the rules of the real
> > world, why not just try to create a gameworld with its own
> > limited set of rules. Rather than a self-contradictory failed
> > attempt at copying reality, make an internally consistent reality
> > of your own and give the player some
> > toys to play with while he/she is there.
>
> This is already done, Luke. Because games can't be
> ABSOLUTELY realistic they ARE creating their own set of
> "gameworld rules".
This is in fact a large part of my argument. The _specific_ statement
of the paragraph that you quote is that attempting to create your game
world by copying reality as ints and floats until the machine can't
take it anymore is going to leave the game design incomplete, broken,
and full of behaviors that don't mesh well together. The offered
solution is to intend from the beginning for the game world to have a
limited set of specific rules, despite the possibility that these
rules will not be shared features of the game and reality. Whether or
not the rules of the game resemble reality, and the extent to which
they do so, is not the issue so much as the cohesiveness of the final
product.
> If you want wonky fantasy rules go play Spiderman or one of
> those rehashed, overdone fantasy RPGs (Diablo et al).
Eep, surely I've at least made it clear that I know what I'm talking
about well enough to make my gaming purchases without your
suggestions.
> However, if you're shooting for realism, don't do it half-assed.
God forbid.
-L
DemilinX
news:l5fs2u00k8ujb2ivu...@4ax.com...
Woah! I'm sorry but DOOM was the first computer game to blow me away.
Sure, the Bard's Tale, Zork, Castle Wolfenstein, Sim City, Tetris, etc. etc.
were all amazing but DOOM was the first one to make me feel a close
connection to the game character. I felt like *I* was really struggling to
survive and escape the captured space station. It was the first game to
actually have shadows as dark as those found in real life (I played the
shareware episode on default gamma setting <g>) and to make me lean away
from my monitor in an attempt to elude approaching fireballs.
It was also the very first game to completely startle me. There's nothing
like the first time wandering through a dark room with the speakers turned
up loud and suddenly the screen flashes red while you hear the tearing of
flesh. Wow, that game really got to me at times. Very few games have
immersed me so greatly.
Yes, Thief is amazing and wonderful but very few game series can ever
measure up to that of the DOOM series IMHO.
--
xM錞 W。！錗
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
np: The Anniversary - Heart is a Lonely Hunter
Alternative PDX Music
*meep*
"I hate when lanes end."
Eep²
> Eep˛ wrote:
> > Luke Winikates wrote:
> > > Rather than trying to make the rules of the gameworld
> > > understandable by just lazily copying over the rules of the real
> > > world, why not just try to create a gameworld with its own
> > > limited set of rules. Rather than a self-contradictory failed
> > > attempt at copying reality, make an internally consistent reality
> > > of your own and give the player some
> > > toys to play with while he/she is there.
> >
> > This is already done, Luke. Because games can't be
> > ABSOLUTELY realistic they ARE creating their own set of
> > "gameworld rules".
>
> This is in fact a large part of my argument. The _specific_ statement
> of the paragraph that you quote is that attempting to create your game
> world by copying reality as ints and floats until the machine can't
> take it anymore is going to leave the game design incomplete, broken,
> and full of behaviors that don't mesh well together. The offered
> solution is to intend from the beginning for the game world to have a
> limited set of specific rules, despite the possibility that these
> rules will not be shared features of the game and reality. Whether or
> not the rules of the game resemble reality, and the extent to which
> they do so, is not the issue so much as the cohesiveness of the final
> product.
Games are already designed with this principle.
Devo
wrote:
so you believe that you will get as much fun and exhiliration out of
doom 3? Somehow I don't think id will ever top Doom. It's a very
different team, it's many years later and there won't be as big a leap
in game engines as their was in 1993 when Doom came out.
As for Thief 3, I feel safe that Warren and team will do an excellent
job. It doesn't need to be an awesome engine it just needs to feel
like it's an updated Thief game.
--------------
Devo
Revok
> I haven't for a couple months or so but it's still one of the most
realistic games ever--including actually having to extend the arm to grab
things to pick them up. Amazing, eh? While I'm not suggesting THAT level of
interactivity for Thief 3 and Deus Ex 2, it would just be nice to see the
hand come out to push buttons (like Max Payne, although his could use some
work since it's the same animation for everything), pickup bodies, etc.
>
But then presumably they would have to devise some way of having a camera
seperate from the way the body is actually facing?
Eep²
Anyway, with the correct camera FOV (field of view) there's no real reason to have a separate "3rd-person" view for actions anyway.
SirBlade
"DemilinX" <demi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:NUUX7.24715$7p6.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
When doom appeared there was nothing really like it. (I know I'm forgetting
Wolfenstein). For me too Doom was the first game to really scare the hell
out of me. But then came along Doom II, Quake (I,II&III), Halflife, Sin,
Duke Nukem and a truckload of other titles. But those brought nothing really
new. Oh, they looked better, and the controls became better, and the AI
smarter. But it wasn't something new. And I doubt Doom III will bring
something new other then great graphics. But Thief did bring something new,
and after all these years it still is an unique game (only Deus Ex comes
close IMHO (never played systemshock2))
SirBlade
Robert Tweed
news:oc0Y7.60372$NW6.5...@amsnews03.chello.com...
> > etc.
> > were all amazing but DOOM was the first one to make me feel a close
> > connection to the game character. I felt like *I* was really struggling
> When doom appeared there was nothing really like it. (I know I'm
forgetting
> Wolfenstein).
I never got the great appeal that Doom had. I was working in PC hardware at
the time, so I know first-hand that Doom singlehangedly caused the PC
revolution; almost entirely bringing about Bills vision of a PC in every
home. PCs weren't doing all that well until Doom came out and suddenly
everyone wanted one because they wanted to play Doom. The probably sounds
like an exaggeration to anyone who wasn't selling PCs at the time, but
believe me it's true: if it hadn't been for Id, M$ might not have the
monopoly they have today!
Anyway, at the time I was a far more hardcore, jaded gamer than I am these
days. I have just come back from about 5 years of not playing any games
because I was so jaded. That being so, I was not overly impressed by Doom.
It was exactly the same underlying game as everything else Id have ever
done: Kill monster, find keys, open doors, kill more monsters, etc. Does
anyone else find that sort of thing very repetitive?
Don't get me wrong, I liked the commander Keen series (esp the pogo stick),
and I liked how Id was innovating in first-person rendering (I was even more
impressed that they got Michael Abrash (aka god) to write the graphics
engine for Quake) but mostly they didn't seem to have much inspiration in
terms of conceptual game design.
Looking back, Doom was probably the most influential game since Space
Invaders or Pacman, but I still didn't think it was very good.
- Robert
PS: I liked Hexen; it was *far* more immersive than Doom and was a slightly
more involving game.
Mark Blunden
news:a0q860$mdl43$1...@ID-99544.news.dfncis.de...
I think it probably is from today's perspective, but bear in mind that, for
those people who bought a PC as a result of the Doom Boom, it was their
first experience of a first-person 3D game (it was mine), and also of a game
that was so atmospheric that it could actually scare them (I too remember
the fright of turning a corner in a dark room and having one of those
fire-breathing wookiee things leap out snarling). To anyone who hadn't
played, e.g., Wolfenstein 3D, it was a totally new experience.
Come to think of it, I still haven't played Wolfenstein 3D.
Add to that the fact that you could play it - at least the first part - for
free, and it was an instant hit.
I think I'd still enjoy it today, but I've got frustrated a couple of times
with trying to set up the controls in a modern FPS style (mouse to turn left
and right, but not to move back and forward, ASWD keys for movement). I'd
give it another try, but I'm not sure where the floppies are.
--
Mark.
mark.b...@ntlworld.com
* Initiating "getting the hell out of here" manoeuvre
Luke Winikates
> Luke Winikates wrote:
> > > This is already done, Luke. Because games can't be
> > > ABSOLUTELY realistic they ARE creating their own set of
> > > "gameworld rules".
> >
> > This is in fact a large part of my argument. The _specific_
> > statement of the paragraph that you quote is that attempting to
> > create your game world by copying reality as ints and floats
> > until the machine can't take it anymore is going to leave the
> > game design incomplete, broken, and full of behaviors that
> > don't mesh well together. The offered solution is to intend from
> > the beginning for the game world to have a limited set of
> > specific rules, despite the possibility that these rules will not
be
> > shared features of the game and reality. Whether or
> > not the rules of the game resemble reality, and the extent to
> > which they do so, is not the issue so much as the cohesiveness
> > of the final product.
>
> Games are already designed with this principle.
Obviously many are, and many are not, otherwise I would not have had
any evidence to lead me to my opinion, would I? However much you may
disagree with or think trivial my statements, they are prompted by
actual experience, and are not random mutterings from a cave.
I find your condemnation of my statement as obvious somewhat
disingenuous, given that it is directly contrary to your own
relentlessly-voiced opinion that all first person games would be
better served if they were more realistic.
AuXY
<rob...@killingmoon.com> wrote:
>"Luke Winikates" <LukeWi...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
>news:a0o0pt$ksto5$1...@ID-115775.news.dfncis.de...
>
>> I don't really care if the in game character doesn't look like me.
>> The idea that I'm supposed to pretend that the guy inside the game is
>> me has always struck me as pretty dumb, and 'immersion' seems to me to
>> be most often employed as a buzzword, much like 'realism'.
>
>It may be a buzzword, but it has it's roots in some truths about game
>genres. I don't think immersion has anything to do with believing that you
>actually are in the game. It's about forming empathy with characters in the
>game, and believing that what you do actually counts for more than adding a
>few numbers in RAM. Immersion is about where games become less abstract, and
>more like movies.
It seems what's immersive varies from player to player. I tend to
consider myself "immersed" in a game if someone walking into the room
and saying something causes me to fly out of my chair. :) (Sometimes
they can have been in the room all along and suddenly say something
and that'll still happen--that's REALLY immersed.) That's happened to
me in games ranging from Quake to Age of Empires to The Incredible
Machine. It's happened to my fiancee while playing Pharaoh and Zeus.
Based on personal experience and observing others play, I'd go as far
as to say immersion has little to do with the game, and lots to do
with players' tuning out the real world in favor of what's going on in
their minds--realistic or not.
That's probably not going to be a popular opinion, because people want
to believe it's the game's job to immerse them, instead of their job
to immerse themselves (if that's what they want). Hell, I've been
deeply immersed in chess games before, and lemme tell ya, it's not
because I'm imagining a beautiful 4D battlefield with knights, kings,
and rooks duking it out. It has nothing to do with realism or
empathy, and everything to do with focus--focusing more on what's
going on in your mind than what's going on outside your body.
Maybe for some, empathy with characters is what gets them there
fastest. Maybe others need bad graphics to do it, or good graphics.
Maybe other people just have to see that pixelated hand reaching out
and touching stuff before they let themselves become fully immersed in
the game. If immersion is drop-dead important to any of those people,
though, they'd serve themselves greatly by learning to immerse
themselves at will, rather than relying on others to do it for them.
Just MHO. :)
>As a comparison, take two classics from my own gaming history: Space
>Invaders, and Hexen Space Invaders is involving and addictive, but it's not
>immersive. If you get blown up you check your score to see if it's a new
>high, are either disappointed or elated, and move on. You don't care that
>you lost your ship. It's obvious that you are looking at a collection of
>pixels and incrementing a memory address every time you hit an enemy. You
>don't care: it's a simple, fun game.
>
>Now, I picked Hexen because it was the first game that I genuinely
>considered to be immersive. All the little background sounds and atmosphere
>give you a decent sense of fear, like you would get from a tense thriller.
>You genuinely do not want to get killed, the idea scares you, in a very
>different way from space invaders. Not that you are going to get so immersed
>that you will crap yourself when you get killed or anything like that, but
>there is a clear and marked difference in the style of game and the effect
>of immersion that is present in one but not the other.
>
>All games are designed to get your adrenaline flowing and activate various
>areas in your brain; but the exact stimuli are very different between
>genres.
>
>I specifically categorise all first-person games (and some other genres too)
>as "immersive games" even though some may not actually be very immersive
>(Doom or Quake for instance). But there is a clear cut difference between
I found Doom and Quake to be extremely immersive, personally.
Interestingly, I've even had a couple of dreams about being in those
game worlds, although they're far more fleshed out and "realistic"
than the actual games were.
>these and games that do not try to form any emotional or subconscious
>attachment between the player and the game-world. I call these other games
>non-immersive games, simply because I haven't come up with a better name
>yet. I would call them abstract games, but I use that term for games like
>Tetris that have no real-world point-of-reference whatsoever.
>
>Incidentally, there is another form of immersion that I have skipped over
>because it doesn't affect me very often: that of taking it away with you.
>Some games will have you thinking about the game when you are not actually
>playing them. This only really tends to happen with RPG and strategy games
>as far as I know, and a few puzzle games too. That sort of immersion is
>probably more akin to reading a book than watching a movie.
Heh. I usually take good games with me for several minutes after I
leave. In my mind, I'm still playing. :)
>> be most often employed as a buzzword, much like 'realism'.
>
>Realism may also be a bit of a buzzword, but it's mostly just that Eep²
>keeps going on about it like it's the holy grail of game-design. Nothing
>wrong with a bit of realism, ie. realistic physics, realistic bullet damage,
>being able to shoot through walls (which I believe you can do in MGS2),
>etc., etc. However, to expect that games can ever be completely realistic,
>or totally immersive is to not understand what games are about.
From what I've read, Eep seems to want a virtual world, rather than a
video game. Consequently, I think he'll continue to be disappointed
as long as he looks for what he wants in video games. But then, maybe
that's the idea--to be disappointed forever so he can be pissy
forever.
SirBlade
> Heh. I usually take good games with me for several minutes after I
> leave. In my mind, I'm still playing. :)
I know that feeling, that's why I stopped playing Need for Speed before
getting into my car.....
SirBlade
Peter Cowderoy
> I think I'd still enjoy it today, but I've got frustrated a couple of times
> with trying to set up the controls in a modern FPS style
Try some of the source ports - www.doomworld.com has a bunch of links.
Personally I use a different control scheme for Doom anyway - WASD
movement, JL turn left and right, I fires, K as use and the space bar as
run. I wouldn't want to DM with it, but something about Doom works well
with that style of input rather than mouseflicking.
'In Ankh-Morpork even the shit have a street to itself...
Truly this is a land of opportunity.' - Detritus, Men at Arms
Tim Gwinnett
> Make the player character visible in 1st-person view. Meaning, go play
1st-person view (complete with shadows). Or if you have Max Payne get my
1st-person view mod at http://tnlc.com/eep/mp/ to see what I mean.
>
> I'm sick of the floating camera 1st-person view in most games!
>
reaching out and doing these things. I tire of everything magically
happening too.
I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few seconds to
simulate the character blinking? How about after a few minutes of running,
the character automatically stops, huffing and puffing, because you made
them run for too long?
Mark Morrison
wrote:
There was a game that did the latter - spec ops ? A first person
soldier sim, anyway. In the colder missions, when you run too long
you actully produce more vapour when breathing out, making your
character easier to spot from a distance.
--
Bunnies aren't cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Barney Gumble
>> I find your condemnation of my statement as obvious somewhat
> disingenuous, given that it is directly contrary to your own
> relentlessly-voiced opinion that all first person games would be
> better served if they were more realistic.
I'll say you the suspense and give you Eep's response:
<shrug>
Eep²
> Said "Eep²":
> > Make the player character visible in 1st-person view. Meaning, go play
> Severance: Blade of Darkness and note the character's body rendered in
> 1st-person view (complete with shadows). Or if you have Max Payne get my
> 1st-person view mod at http://tnlc.com/eep/mp/ to see what I mean.
> >
> > I'm sick of the floating camera 1st-person view in most games!
> >
> > Oh and when opening doors/windows, picking locks, etc, show the hands
> reaching out and doing these things. I tire of everything magically
> happening too.
> >
> I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few seconds to
> simulate the character blinking?
Neat idea! But it could be really fast and hardly noticeable, but noticeable if one paid attention!
> How about after a few minutes of running,
> the character automatically stops, huffing and puffing, because you made
> them run for too long?
Yes, there have already been games like that. :)
OK, who else has nifty realism ideas? :D
Robert Tweed
> > I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few seconds to
> > simulate the character blinking?
>
> Neat idea! But it could be really fast and hardly noticeable, but
noticeable if one paid attention!
But why would you want to do that? You'd have to stop the player blinking or
you'd be simulating a person who blinks twice as much as normal. That's not
realistic at all.
> > How about after a few minutes of running,
> > the character automatically stops, huffing and puffing, because you made
> > them run for too long?
>
> Yes, there have already been games like that. :)
It's not such a bad idea. It depends on whether you want a character with
realistic physical attributes or not. If so then they should not be able to
run forever any more than they should be able to keep shooting without
changing clips. On the other hand, sometimes it's nice to be able to keep
shooting without reloading...
- Robert
Mark Morrison
Imagine the scene - you're playing Thief 4.
You're perched on a doorway, with a guard standing below you (there's
nowhere to hide in the room) - you've observed his patterns and have
counted up to 40, and in another 84 seconds he'll turn and leave.
You're counting off in your head, when suddenly the worst happens -
the 'Urinate' icon is flashing !
Those healing potioons you drank earlier (after a bad fall when your
rope arrow snapped) are making their presence felt, and you need to
find a quiet place to urinate within 30 seconds, or else you'll be
smelly for the rest of the mission (Thief 3 introduced the 'Smell Gem'
- going through the sewers. as opposed to the rooftops, is now a
tactical decision).
I think it's a winner.
SpammersDie
> > > How about after a few minutes of running,
> > > the character automatically stops, huffing and puffing, because you
made
> > > them run for too long?
> >
> > Yes, there have already been games like that. :)
>
> It's not such a bad idea. It depends on whether you want a character with
> realistic physical attributes or not. If so then they should not be able
to
> run forever any more than they should be able to keep shooting without
> changing clips.
System Shock had a feature like this and it was a perfect example of
"realism" that added nothing of value to the game. Your character never got
fatigued in combat (if you were in a situation where you had to run that
long, you were dead.) Instead, it just slowed things down when you'd already
killed everything and was running back and forth doing your FedEx duties.
All it did was add delay and no gameplay challenge.
The sequel wisely tossed this feature, but alas, the 30-second map
transitions put it right back :)
Mel C
<mark.mo...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Those healing potioons you drank earlier (after a bad fall when your
>rope arrow snapped) are making their presence felt, and you need to
>find a quiet place to urinate within 30 seconds, or else you'll be
>smelly for the rest of the mission
30 seconds? If that's how long it takes for you from noticing to
bursting, I think you should see a doctor - that's not normal.
Or maybe rapid bladder flooding is an undesirable side-effect of a
dodgy batch of healing potions?! :-)
Bursting Spice
AuXY
<mark.mo...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Imagine the scene - you're playing Thief 4.
>
>You're perched on a doorway, with a guard standing below you (there's
>nowhere to hide in the room) - you've observed his patterns and have
>counted up to 40, and in another 84 seconds he'll turn and leave.
>
>You're counting off in your head, when suddenly the worst happens -
>the 'Urinate' icon is flashing !
>
>Those healing potioons you drank earlier (after a bad fall when your
>rope arrow snapped) are making their presence felt, and you need to
>find a quiet place to urinate within 30 seconds, or else you'll be
>smelly for the rest of the mission (Thief 3 introduced the 'Smell Gem'
>- going through the sewers. as opposed to the rooftops, is now a
>tactical decision).
>
>I think it's a winner.
I can just see the back of the box now. "It's realistic! It's
tension building! And quenching torches has never been so easy!"
One Taffer
"AuXY" wrote in message ...
You also need to eat something every couple of hours or your stomach growls
will give you away.
And don't forget the sleeping part. Garrett needs to get home before he
passes out from sleep deprivation, then you get to watch a black screen for
8 hours. When you awaken, you are greeted with a really bright white screen
which hurts your eyes.
Don't forget to pay your alimony and child support or Sheriff Truart will be
knocking!
Sounds like fun! Can't wait!
--
One Taffer
Robert Tweed
news:M5wY7.14934$ok6.5...@news.webusenet.com...
>
> You also need to eat something every couple of hours or your stomach
growls
> will give you away.
And stay away from the beans too :-)
- Robert
Eep²
> "Eep²" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> news:3C3247A1...@tnlc.com...
> > > I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few seconds to
> > > simulate the character blinking?
> >
> > Neat idea! But it could be really fast and hardly noticeable, but
> noticeable if one paid attention!
>
> But why would you want to do that?
Because it's realistic!
> You'd have to stop the player blinking or
> you'd be simulating a person who blinks twice as much as normal. That's not
> realistic at all.
True, same-spaced "flicker blinks" wouldn't be realistic, but a simple random interval (like say between 1-10 seconds) between "flicker blink" would probably be sufficient.
> > > How about after a few minutes of running,
> > > the character automatically stops, huffing and puffing, because you made
> > > them run for too long?
> >
> > Yes, there have already been games like that. :)
>
> It's not such a bad idea. It depends on whether you want a character with
> realistic physical attributes or not. If so then they should not be able to
> run forever any more than they should be able to keep shooting without
> changing clips. On the other hand, sometimes it's nice to be able to keep
> shooting without reloading...
Yes, but it's not realistic. All depends if you want mindless Quake or intelligent Ghost Recon...
Eep²
I know you're being sarcastic but that would be so fucking cool! hahahaha...realism rules in gameplay! Sure, it can be annoying at times but good god damn can it be funny and entertaining too! See, that's the thing about "game realism"--it lets you play and experiment with it so that it ISN'T annoying most of the time, but actually fun! It's just too bad most people don't have the patience to really PLAY with games (sounds weird, eh?) like that, unfortunately.
Eep²
Eep²
> "AuXY" wrote in message ...
> > Mark Morrison wrote:
> >
> > >Imagine the scene - you're playing Thief 4.
> > >
> > >You're perched on a doorway, with a guard standing below you (there's
> > >nowhere to hide in the room) - you've observed his patterns and have
> > >counted up to 40, and in another 84 seconds he'll turn and leave.
> > >
> > >You're counting off in your head, when suddenly the worst happens -
> > >the 'Urinate' icon is flashing !
> > >
> > >Those healing potioons you drank earlier (after a bad fall when your
> > >rope arrow snapped) are making their presence felt, and you need to
> > >find a quiet place to urinate within 30 seconds, or else you'll be
> > >smelly for the rest of the mission (Thief 3 introduced the 'Smell Gem'
> > >- going through the sewers. as opposed to the rooftops, is now a
> > >tactical decision).
> > >
> > >I think it's a winner.
> >
> > I can just see the back of the box now. "It's realistic! It's
> > tension building! And quenching torches has never been so easy!"
>
> You also need to eat something every couple of hours or your stomach growls
> will give you away.
While most stomach growls won't give you away, it is certainly feasible to have to eat something every few hours or you start losing SOME health or something--or perhaps you can't run/fight as fast/long before getting tired, etc--there are LOTS of possibilities.
> And don't forget the sleeping part. Garrett needs to get home before he
> passes out from sleep deprivation, then you get to watch a black screen for
> 8 hours. When you awaken, you are greeted with a really bright white screen
> which hurts your eyes.
Gothic handles sleep rather well. You pick the time you want to wake up (next morning, that midnight, etc) and the screen flashes right afterwards, the lighting/sound change, etc, and that's it.
> Sounds like fun! Can't wait!
Try to see the gameplay possibilities. I know it hurts to think, but just try...
For example John Smith
I don't know how many of you actually leave your PCs but a moderatly fit
person can jog for a considerable amount of time. Depending upon what your
definition of 'run' and 'jog' are. I think carrying shitloads of equipment
are probably more unrealistic.
In Shogun:Total War (not fps I know) the samurai had fatigue and moral
factors which was cool. In games like Thief you are far more likely to be
killed outright than get into a lengthy duel or long distance foot race with
anyone.
The programmers would just counter this with arenaline pills or something
similar.
"Eep˛" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
news:3C32D770...@tnlc.com...
For example John Smith
growls
> > will give you away.
>
> While most stomach growls won't give you away, it is certainly feasible to
have to eat something every few hours or you start losing SOME health or
something--or perhaps you can't run/fight as fast/long before getting tired,
etc--there are LOTS of possibilities.
>
> > And don't forget the sleeping part. Garrett needs to get home before he
> > passes out from sleep deprivation, then you get to watch a black screen
for
> > 8 hours. When you awaken, you are greeted with a really bright white
screen
> > which hurts your eyes.
>
> Gothic handles sleep rather well. You pick the time you want to wake up
(next morning, that midnight, etc) and the screen flashes right afterwards,
the lighting/sound change, etc, and that's it.
>
> > Sounds like fun! Can't wait!
>
> Try to see the gameplay possibilities. I know it hurts to think, but just
try...
But that sleeping cycle you described, isn't very realistic is it?
Surely we should see the character find a resting place, pull back the
covers, brush his teeth, set the alarm clock, yawn (hand to mouth
animation), put out the light - be woken up by noisy dogs/neighbours, get up
to go to toilet, lie awake for 2 hours etc..
You would also have to do away with savegames. Once you die the game
uninstalls itself, then refuses to let you re-install, since realistically
you aren't going to come back from the dead are you?
I suppose the gist is 'realism' in games can go to far. If someone want's
things to be that real, maybe they should really do it (in the real world)?
Eep²
mtkafka
> Make the player character visible in 1st-person view. Meaning, go play Severance: Blade of Darkness and note the character's body rendered in 1st-person view (complete with shadows). Or if you have Max Payne get my 1st-person view mod at http://tnlc.com/eep/mp/ to see what I mean.
>
> I'm sick of the floating camera 1st-person view in most games!
>
> Oh and when opening doors/windows, picking locks, etc, show the hands reaching out and doing these things. I tire of everything magically happening too.
Would want a game like Daggerfall with the gameplay (and graphics) of a shooter. The idea of morrowind is close, but id like the game to be random and quest based and skill/level based ala SS2/Diablo2 but as deep as Daggerfalls char development. Mostly a game that is open ended and
has the graphics to match it with the replayability of a Daggerfall.
etc
Robert Tweed
> Robert Tweed wrote:
>
> > "Eep˛" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C3247A1...@tnlc.com...
> > > > I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few seconds to
> > > > simulate the character blinking?
> > >
> > > Neat idea! But it could be really fast and hardly noticeable, but
> > noticeable if one paid attention!
> >
> > But why would you want to do that?
>
> Because it's realistic!
No it's not. It's overkill.
> > You'd have to stop the player blinking or
> > you'd be simulating a person who blinks twice as much as normal. That's
not
> > realistic at all.
>
> True, same-spaced "flicker blinks" wouldn't be realistic, but a simple
random interval (like say between 1-10 seconds) between "flicker blink"
would probably be sufficient.
Still pointless, counterproductive, unrealistic eye-candy that you'd get
pissed off with after about 30 seconds. First-off you'd go "wooo, isn't it
/realistic/ ..?" then you'd go "that bloody flashing is getting right on my
tits now f--ing stop it!!"
> > > > How about after a few minutes of running,
> > > > the character automatically stops, huffing and puffing, because you
made
> > > > them run for too long?
> > >
> > > Yes, there have already been games like that. :)
> >
> > It's not such a bad idea. It depends on whether you want a character
with
> > realistic physical attributes or not. If so then they should not be able
to
> > run forever any more than they should be able to keep shooting without
> > changing clips. On the other hand, sometimes it's nice to be able to
keep
> > shooting without reloading...
>
> Yes, but it's not realistic.
Who (apart from you ;-) ) say's that realism is /that/ important? Games are
supposed to be fun first; realistic comes in down the line somewhere down
the list, after some other things. I personally like a nice brainless game
now and then, so I don't have to think about anything. I get paid to think
all day, so when I go home I don't generally want to think for fun!
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Just different styles of game is all.
> All depends if you want mindless Quake or intelligent Ghost Recon...
I am wondering if the implication that unrealistic games are inherently
uninteligent is intentional? If that is indeed what you are implying, then
you are hugely mistaken. Anyway, realism is for simulators. There's no
reason why a game can't be realistic and there is equally no reason that a
game should be realistic.
- Robert
Robert Tweed
> > You also need to eat something every couple of hours or your stomach
growls
> > will give you away.
>
> While most stomach growls won't give you away, it is certainly feasible to
have to eat something every few hours or you start losing SOME health or
something--or perhaps you can't run/fight as fast/long before getting tired,
etc--there are LOTS of possibilities.
>
You should probably track down a copy of Midwinter. In case you don't know,
it was a very early (1989) first-person shooter/stratedy game that
concentrated heavily on realism. It was also incredibly tedious. Yes you had
to eat and sleep, at the right times, and all that other stuff you seem to
want. It basically screwed an otherwise promising game.
- Robert
Jess Heinig
1/2/02 7:44 AM:
> Well duh, but you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE, but there's no reason that
> line can't be drawn closer to reality. Just wait until we LIVE the game,
> holodeck style or something. Woo! Can't wait...
>
http://www.chimera-interactive.com/si/
J.H.
Eep²
> "Eep²" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> news:3C32D63C...@tnlc.com...
> > Robert Tweed wrote:
> >
> > > "Eep²" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C3247A1...@tnlc.com...
> > > > > I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few seconds to
> > > > > simulate the character blinking?
> > > >
> > > > Neat idea! But it could be really fast and hardly noticeable, but
> > > noticeable if one paid attention!
> > >
> > > But why would you want to do that?
> >
> > Because it's realistic!
>
> No it's not. It's overkill.
To YOU, Rob, to YOU. Simply disable the realism if you want a dumbed-down gaming experience. Enjoy.
> > > You'd have to stop the player blinking or
> > > you'd be simulating a person who blinks twice as much as normal. That's
> not
> > > realistic at all.
> >
> > True, same-spaced "flicker blinks" wouldn't be realistic, but a simple
> random interval (like say between 1-10 seconds) between "flicker blink"
> would probably be sufficient.
>
> Still pointless, counterproductive, unrealistic eye-candy that you'd get
> pissed off with after about 30 seconds. First-off you'd go "wooo, isn't it
> /realistic/ ..?" then you'd go "that bloody flashing is getting right on my
> tits now f--ing stop it!!"
Tits? Uh...yea. First of all, something like that "eye blinking" should be optional (as should practically everything). Second, it should be so fast you wouldn't even notice it most of the time--just like in real life. Third, if the game also allowed lying down, or ULTRA stealth, having control over eyelids would be cool to make the screen get covered like a slit with fading or something so the whites of your character's eyes (assuming it's human) wouldn't be noticed yet still see slightly out of them.
> > > > > How about after a few minutes of running,
> > > > > the character automatically stops, huffing and puffing, because you
> made
> > > > > them run for too long?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there have already been games like that. :)
> > >
> > > It's not such a bad idea. It depends on whether you want a character
> with
> > > realistic physical attributes or not. If so then they should not be able
> to
> > > run forever any more than they should be able to keep shooting without
> > > changing clips. On the other hand, sometimes it's nice to be able to
> keep
> > > shooting without reloading...
> >
> > Yes, but it's not realistic.
>
> Who (apart from you ;-) ) say's that realism is /that/ important?
Every developer that includes anything realistic in their games. Oops, that's most (if not all) of them. Looks like you lose, bub. :)
> Games are supposed to be fun first; realistic comes in down the line somewhere down
> the list, after some other things. I personally like a nice brainless game
> now and then, so I don't have to think about anything. I get paid to think
> all day, so when I go home I don't generally want to think for fun!
> Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Just different styles of game is all.
Then go play them. For the game styles/genres I'm referring to (not puzzle or simple games) realism is COMPLETELY justified and reasonable to include and want to strive for a greater depth of.
> > All depends if you want mindless Quake or intelligent Ghost Recon...
>
> I am wondering if the implication that unrealistic games are inherently
> uninteligent is intentional? If that is indeed what you are implying, then
> you are hugely mistaken. Anyway, realism is for simulators. There's no
> reason why a game can't be realistic and there is equally no reason that a
> game should be realistic.
See above. There are PLENTY of reasons why a game should be realistic.
DemilinX
>
> > Said "Eep²":
> > > Make the player character visible in 1st-person view. Meaning, go play
> > Severance: Blade of Darkness and note the character's body rendered in
> > 1st-person view (complete with shadows). Or if you have Max Payne get my
> > 1st-person view mod at http://tnlc.com/eep/mp/ to see what I mean.
> > >
> > > I'm sick of the floating camera 1st-person view in most games!
> > >
> > > Oh and when opening doors/windows, picking locks, etc, show the hands
> > reaching out and doing these things. I tire of everything magically
> > happening too.
> > >
> > I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few seconds to
> > simulate the character blinking?
>
> Neat idea! But it could be really fast and hardly noticeable, but
noticeable if one paid attention!
lol I feel the blinking of my own eyes is all I need. Having the game
blink too would cause the effect of having two sets of eyes and I'm fine
with the set I have already. :) This sounds like an idea that would be
better implemented in a mod rather than being an option (heaven forbid it be
default) in a game.
--
xMåT W¡££¡åM§x
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
np: Zero Zero - True Zero
Alternative PDX Music
*meep*
"I hate when lanes end."
Eep²
Oo, I just thought of another cool thing: stuff (dust, etc) getting in your character's eye so you have to blink to get it out. SimDustAttack™)$#@_ "When dust attacks!" Dude! Hell, it'd be fun enough to be able to control a spec of dust, riding wind currents and stuff, trying to land on people (in eyes, up noses, in ears, etc)--see how many times you can make them itch before they squash you! Woo!
Typing of obscure things to simulate, I've always wanted to be a cloud (or fog), building up, filling in areas, etc. Hell, SimWeather would be neat!
Mark Morrison
LOL !
I was always running out of water arrows, too...
Mark Morrison
The problem with this, for me, is you'll soon reach a point where the
realism overides the fun factor. You could make it so that a wound
takes days or weeks to heal - get stabbed in the leg early in the
mission, and you'll be limping for the rest of it.
If realism's so much fun, you might as well turn your computer off and
go and play outside.
Eep²
Luke Winikates
> Well duh, but you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE, but there's
> no reason that line can't be drawn closer to reality. Just wait
until
> we LIVE the game, holodeck style or something. Woo! Can't
> wait...
I don't get this holodeck thing. Most videogame characters do things
I can't- sword fighting, firing guns, wearing a black trenchcoat and
sunglasses but still being taken seriously.
If I'm in a simulation where I'm asked to, say, kill somebody with a
sword, the fact that I have no training in using this sword means that
I'm going to totally suck. I'll probably cut my toes off, pull a
muscle, and get decapitated my Musashi the Samurai in about three
seconds.
In contrast, I'm pretty good at fighting with the sword in Thief,
which is just a matter of combining the right movements with the right
attack timing.
Isn't the abstraction of the interface the only thing that makes it
possible for us to do these things in games? Moreover, isn't it the
only thing that makes it a game rather than a simulation? If we lose
that, aren't we limited in the game to the same capabilities that we
have in real life? Doesn't that defeat the whole damn purpose?
Luke Winikates
> Robert Tweed wrote:
> > Eep˛ wrote:
> > > Robert Tweed wrote:
> > > > It's not such a bad idea. It depends on whether you want a
> > > > character with realistic physical attributes or not. If so
then
> > > > they should not be able to run forever any more than they
> > > > should be able to keep shooting without changing clips. On
> > > > the other hand, sometimes it's nice to be able to keep
> > > > shooting without reloading...
> > >
> > > Yes, but it's not realistic.
> >
> > Who (apart from you ;-) ) say's that realism is /that/ important?
>
> Every developer that includes anything realistic in their games.
> Oops, that's most (if not all) of them. Looks like you lose, bub. :)
But every developer also includes something unrealistic in their game.
Does this similarly prove the importance of things that are
unrealistic.
> > > All depends if you want mindless Quake or intelligent Ghost
> > > Recon...
> >
> > I am wondering if the implication that unrealistic games are
> > inherently uninteligent is intentional? If that is indeed what you
> > are implying, then you are hugely mistaken. Anyway, realism is
> > for simulators. There's no reason why a game can't be realistic
> > and there is equally no reason that a game should be realistic.
>
> See above. There are PLENTY of reasons why a game should
> be realistic.
You didn't give any reasons.
Your statements were as follows:
-Mr. Tweed's opinion is subjective
-disabling realism = dumbed-down gaming experience
-realism should be optional
-every developer includes something realistic
-inclusion of realism is justified for x set of game genres
The First is a feeble attempt to parry a comment that you disagree
with.
The Third actually weakens your own claim about how hard realism
rocks.
The Fourth is the least stupid, and the only one worth a direct
response. The fact that it is true is unfortunately of no
consequence, as you are merely saying _that_ games include some degree
of realism, not giving reasons why this is desirable.
The Second and Fifth are claims that you treat as if already proven,
despite the fact that they are repeatedly disputed. They are not
arguments that demonstrate why a game should be realistic so much as
claims themselves that games should be realistic.
Luke Winikates
> It's really sad you don't have the vision to see all the
possibilities
> playing with reality can bring.
Conversely, it's a pity that you don't have the vision to see any of
the possibilities that playing with un-reality can bring.
> Hell, one look at what science has achieved in the past few
> hundred years should be sufficient evidence to anyone with half a
> brain. The point is you'll NEVER be able to outdo reality.
Perhaps. But then as we established earlier, you'll never be able to
'do' reality either:
"games can't be ABSOLUTELY realistic" -you
So our recreations of reality will always be limited, just as our
creations of imagined worlds are. Maybe we can't outdo reality, but
we can surely match a limited recreation of reality, given sufficient
creativity.
> All the fantasy you can think of is nothing compared to the vast
> awe of reality.
Again, perhaps. But the same does not apply to artistic
representations of the two, as reality is held back by the limitations
of the artist or of the medium in which it is being represented. The
two have equal potential as vehicles for conveying some sort of
meaning. They differ primarily in that they typically serve to
advance different kinds of meaning.
-L
Barney Gumble
> Well duh, but you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE, but there's no reason
that line can't be drawn closer to reality. Just wait until we LIVE the
game, holodeck style or something. Woo! Can't wait...
No surprise there, I doubt the reality of Eep's present world is anything
pleasant.
AuXY
>Oo, I just thought of another cool thing: stuff (dust, etc) getting in your character's eye so you have to blink to get it out. SimDustAttack™)$#@_ "When dust attacks!" Dude! Hell, it'd be fun enough to be able to control a spec of dust, riding wind currents and stuff, trying to land on people (in eyes, up noses, in ears, etc)--see how many times you can make them itch before they squash you! Woo!
>
>Typing of obscure things to simulate, I've always wanted to be a cloud (or fog), building up, filling in areas, etc. Hell, SimWeather would be neat!
Other promising titles:
SimBill:
Play as either a 1, 5, 10, or 20 dollar bill on the journey of a
lifetime as you travel from the mint to the bank; into wallets and
cash registers; under mattresses and vending machines; between the
hands of snot-nosed brats and geeky clerks; from unscrupulous husbands
to skanky hookers; until that fateful day when you return to the mint
to be incinerated! Featuring RealWallet(TM) technology, where you
experience things from INSIDE THE WALLET! Revel in the utter
blackness, the creaking sounds of wallet leather, and the occasional
fart as you enjoy the full range of included scratch and sniff
stickers which punctuate each of those experiences!
SimPaint:
Yes, now you too can ensconce yourself in the dionysian satisfaction
of not painting, not watching paint dry, but ACTUALLY BEING PAINT!
Choose to be either Royal Burgundy, Midnight Blue, or Black, on your
voyage from the paint manufacturing facility to the bucket, where
you'll experience the next several months of your life from inside the
can, traveling from plant to store, and waiting in nail-biting tension
to be purchased. And that's only the beginning! What possibly lies
ahead?! Each copy is different! Will you be purchased by the
dysfunctional newlyweds? The homosexual interior decorator? The
recently divorced Uncle Buck as he tries desperately to cover Aunt
Martha's ghastly pinks and limes in the bathroom and kitchen? Only
you can find out!
SimRock:
Play as your choice of feldspar, granite, or limestone, as you bask in
the glory of the shoreline. Thrill to the excitement of water rushing
over you; water rushing over you; water rushing over you; the rising
and setting of the sun; and being picked up and throw into the sea by
little kids, only to be rinsed to the shore again 30 years later!
Simply THE longest, most challenging sim to date--your ultimate goal
is to be completely obliterated by the year 50,000,000 A.D.! Features
RockSense(TM) technology, where you sense things exactly the same way
a rock does! Monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse, and computer
optional.
Joel Wellington
>it was a very early (1989) first-person shooter/stratedy game that
>concentrated heavily on realism. It was also incredibly tedious. Yes you had
>to eat and sleep, at the right times, and all that other stuff you seem to
>want. It basically screwed an otherwise promising game.
It didnt screw the game, Midwinter is still regarded as an excellent
game. I liked the fact that skiing down a too steep hill will break
your leg. The only tedious part was waiting between loading screens
and swapping the three disks on the ST :)
Midwinter:
http://www.atari.st/view.php?id=1078
Joel Wellington
<eep>
Delve into quantum mechanics for a taste. And all I want is newtonian
physics in games--just wait until I start bitching about quantum
physics not being there either!
</eep>
Hahaha! Like 'if your character falls down a well of infinite depth,
what are his chances of getting out???'
Eep²
Robert Tweed
> Robert Tweed wrote:
> > > > > > I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few
seconds to
> > > > > > simulate the character blinking?
> > > > >
> > > > > Neat idea! But it could be really fast and hardly noticeable, but
> > > > noticeable if one paid attention!
> > > >
> > > > But why would you want to do that?
> > >
> > > Because it's realistic!
> >
> > No it's not. It's overkill.
>
> To YOU, Rob, to YOU. Simply disable the realism if you want a dumbed-down
gaming experience. Enjoy.
First off: Disabling the pointless screen cutout bug would not in any way
"dumb down" the game. I blink at a normal rate. Unless my character has got
pepper in his eyes (which would be a valid reaon to use such an effect) then
adding more blinks is NOT REALISTIC!!!! I cannot conprehend how anyone could
possibly believe that it adds realism. It just detracts from the game.
> > > > You'd have to stop the player blinking or
> > > > you'd be simulating a person who blinks twice as much as normal.
That's
> > not
> > > > realistic at all.
> > >
> > > True, same-spaced "flicker blinks" wouldn't be realistic, but a simple
> > random interval (like say between 1-10 seconds) between "flicker blink"
> > would probably be sufficient.
> >
> > Still pointless, counterproductive, unrealistic eye-candy that you'd get
> > pissed off with after about 30 seconds. First-off you'd go "wooo, isn't
it
> > /realistic/ ..?" then you'd go "that bloody flashing is getting right on
my
> > tits now f--ing stop it!!"
>
> Tits? Uh...yea. First of all, something like that "eye blinking" should be
optional (as should practically everything). Second, it should be so fast
you wouldn't even notice it most of the time--just like in real life. Third,
if the game also allowed lying down, or ULTRA stealth, having control over
eyelids would be cool to make the screen get covered like a slit with fading
or something so the whites of your character's eyes (assuming it's human)
wouldn't be noticed yet still see slightly out of them.
>
OK, why would you want to add an option for this? I can see an argument in
favour of the off option, but I don't see anything in favour of having it
on, except to keep a few mindless newbies gawking at the supposed "realism"
for the few seconds that their attention spans extend to. Secondly, if it's
so fast you can't notice it, surely that's the same as not doing it in the
first place? If it's there, then I'll notice it, and that makes the game
less realistic, and less immersive, so why do it in the first place?
As for the second idea, ie. changing the shape of the field of vision, this
is a perfectly good idea. I also had this idea many years ago, but I haven't
had a chance to use it yet. Certainly narrowing the vision to simulate
tiredness, or "stealth" modes, etc., are all perfectly good ideas. These are
things that are affecting the character but not the player so there is a
need to introduce some effect if you want a stronger conncection between
player and character. Incidentally such an effect is a device, nothing more;
it is not intended to be "realistic", because it isn't.
Blinking, on the other hand, is consistent between the player and the
character so there is no reason to simulate it. Adding extra blinks for no
reason is just a plain outright stupid idea. Adding extra blinks because the
character has something wrong with his/her eyes is acceptable, but during
normal conditions there is no valid reason to introduce such an effect.
> > Who (apart from you ;-) ) say's that realism is /that/ important?
>
> Every developer that includes anything realistic in their games. Oops,
that's most (if not all) of them. Looks like you lose, bub. :)
>
"I lose?" I wasn't aware this was a competition. My opinion is my opinion
and your opinion is your opinion. This statement (which is only loosely
based on the truth anyway) doesn't suddenly make your opinion into a fact
and thus you "win" the game.
The fact is that game designers do not strive to make games completely
realistic. They may add realistic elements sometimes, where it makes the
game deeper, more involving, or more fun, but they do not just add such
elements unless they add some value to the game. Similarly, unrealistic
elements are regularly added to games for the same reason. It's all about
making the game fun, whether or not what happens to be fun also happens to
be "realistic".
More often elements of realism are there to add intuitiveness to the game.
After all if things in the game world work more like they do in the real
world then that's more intuitive. However, not everything that fits the
description of realistic is in any way intuiutive. Mostly supposed realism
is just an outright hinderance on the game control system, which detracts
from the game, making it less fun and less immersive.
> > Games are supposed to be fun first; realistic comes in down the line
somewhere down
> > the list, after some other things. I personally like a nice brainless
game
> > now and then, so I don't have to think about anything. I get paid to
think
> > all day, so when I go home I don't generally want to think for fun!
> > Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Just different styles of game is all.
>
> Then go play them. For the game styles/genres I'm referring to (not puzzle
or simple games) realism is COMPLETELY justified and reasonable to include
and want to strive for a greater depth of.
>
I know exactly what genres you are referring to, and unless you want to
start specifying a very specific sub-genre in a disclaimer on your posts,
you need to widen your perspective. If you are only interested in reality
games, then you should go and write some reality games, and put the genre on
the map.
Until that time, you cannot complain because other games designers have
decided not to make their games totally realistic. Here's a clue for you:
these designers write their games that way *intentionally*, because that's
the way *they* want them. The occasional lack of realism is not some mistake
that they missed and need your help in pointing it out to them, it's the way
they want their games to be.
> > > All depends if you want mindless Quake or intelligent Ghost Recon...
> >
> > I am wondering if the implication that unrealistic games are inherently
> > uninteligent is intentional? If that is indeed what you are implying,
then
> > you are hugely mistaken. Anyway, realism is for simulators. There's no
> > reason why a game can't be realistic and there is equally no reason that
a
> > game should be realistic.
>
> See above. There are PLENTY of reasons why a game should be realistic.
>
See what? I didn't see you quote any reasons. Go on, quote some specific
reasons why realism is important in games, and why a lack of realism
adversely affects games. Give some examples of games that would have been
better as a result of greater realism, and the specific changes that would
have resulted in the improvement in gameplay. I'm waiting.
- Robert
Robert Tweed
news:a0vnbe$ndoft$1...@ID-115775.news.dfncis.de...
> Isn't the abstraction of the interface the only thing that makes it
> possible for us to do these things in games? Moreover, isn't it the
> only thing that makes it a game rather than a simulation? If we lose
> that, aren't we limited in the game to the same capabilities that we
> have in real life? Doesn't that defeat the whole damn purpose?
Well spotted. This is a fundamental principle of computer games that Eep²
seems to have missed completely. That's why nobody takes most of what he
says seriously.
- Robert
Grifman
Using Eep's "rules of realism" I predict that his next request is
giving our characters the option of pissing and crapping, along with
the further option of using toilet paper and flushing . . .
"But why would you want to do that?"
"Because it's realistic!"
Grifman
Luke Winikates
> Luke Winikates wrote:
> > Isn't the abstraction of the interface the only thing that makes
it
> > possible for us to do these things in games? Moreover, isn't it
> > the only thing that makes it a game rather than a simulation? If
> > we lose that, aren't we limited in the game to the same
> > capabilities that we have in real life? Doesn't that defeat the
> > whole damn purpose?
> Well spotted. This is a fundamental principle of computer games
> that Eep² seems to have missed completely. That's why nobody
> takes most of what he says seriously.
Thank you, and don't worry, I'm not treating this discussion with as
much gravity as I might seem to be. An argument deserves a
counter-argument, is all, and my own opinions have a way of becoming
clearer to me when I've written them down.
I'm familiar with Eep, but I'm being civil anyway. He doesn't post on
alt.games.thief-dark-project as often as he seems to on the corner of
Usenet you're coming from, so he's more a perversely charming novelty
than a genuine annoyance.
Chris Csernica
> I'm familiar with Eep, but I'm being civil anyway. He doesn't post on
> alt.games.thief-dark-project as often as he seems to on the corner of
> Usenet you're coming from, so he's more a perversely charming novelty
> than a genuine annoyance.
Yeah. It's too bad he's got me killfiled, which is why I haven't
bothered with him this time around. I take a perverse pleasure in
demolishing him.
Probably bad for me viewed from a strictly ascetic viewpoint, but it's
still fun. So who says text-based games are obsolete, anyway? I wonder
how feasable it would be to write an Eliza style Eep-squared irrational
argument generator...
-- Chris Csernica
StreetMedic
> > > > "Eep˛" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3C3247A1...@tnlc.com...
> > > > > > I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few
seconds to
> > > > > > simulate the character blinking?
> > > > >
> > > > > Neat idea! But it could be really fast and hardly noticeable, but
> > > > noticeable if one paid attention!
> > > >
> > > > But why would you want to do that?
> > >
> > > Because it's realistic!
> >
> > No it's not. It's overkill.
>
> To YOU, Rob, to YOU. Simply disable the realism if you want a dumbed-down
gaming experience. Enjoy.
Blinking?
?!
Blinking?!
It's probably not worth the effort to trace the thread back far enough
to see who actually said that's a "neat idea," so I won't bother. Doesn't
matter.
I don't care how frickin' "realistic" it is. I don't go to the trouble
of keeping my computer near the bleeding-edge of the speed/visual technology
curve so a game-programmer can orchestrate contrived blacked-out frames or
dropped-frames in the name of "blinking," no matter how "realistic" it is.
You know what else is "realistic?" Hoofing Garrett off to the john, or
over to a tree, every few game-hours to take a piss, but I'm pretty much all
set with that "realistic" feature. Thanks, though.
That'd look great in the config menu, huh? "Would you like to enable
realistic bowel-movements? Y/N" We could put a little Garrett stool-meter
down there under the health shields. Maybe the meter could be a little turd
icon that grows in length until you squat Garrett in a bush outside, or over
one of those little empty trunks in all the mansions, to leave a nice
steaming rat for Constantine, eh? Maybe we could use the little buzzing
flies animation from the dead zombies when you're done. That's add a little
more realism, huh? And if a guard stumbles onto you while you're grunting
out a loaf, maybe you could be prevented from running away because your
knickers are down around your ankles?
Y'know, there are all kinds of things you could put into a "game" to
make it more "realistic," but let's not be psychotic, here. Does anyone
think crystal "eyes" that whisper to you from inside a haunted cathedral in
the heart of a lost city crawling with burricks and zombies is "realistic?"
?...
Anyone?
?...
So, no, it's not very "realistic" at all, is it?
But it is FUN, right?
Get it?
StreetMedic
> It's really sad you don't have the vision to see all the possibilities
playing with reality can bring. Hell, one look at what science has achieved
in the past few hundred years should be sufficient evidence to anyone with
half a brain. The point is you'll NEVER be able to outdo reality. All the
fantasy you can think of is nothing compared to the vast awe of reality.
Delve into quantum mechanics for a taste. And all I want is newtonian
physics in games--just wait until I start bitching about quantum physics not
being there either!
Quantum physics *is* in games.
OOPS! Missed it.
Wait, there it-- !!
Sh!t, it's gone again.
Whoa, there it is!!
Eep², I'm sure the "subatomic-particle" rendering instructions of
DirectX 9 on a GeForce 4 are going to look really "kEwL, dOOd" in the demos;
I'm just not sure Eidos, Blizzard, or Sierra are going to be ringing up the
next Dicky Feynman any time soon for a consulting gig.
I'm not even sure what this bizarre Michio Kaku segue has to do with the
topic at hand. Saying that "it's sad" that someone doesn't "have the vision
to see all the possibilities playing with reality can bring" is
simultaneously condescending, and a specious cop-out.
I, for one, have a very clear vision of what introducing silly levels of
sim-aholism into games would do. Problem is, while "realistic," the results
are too often totally add-odds with "fun," any notion of actual
"playability" having gone totally out the window long ago.
Besides, this is by no means a new debate. But let's face it, anyone
who is such a big fan of striving for 100% realism in computer games may as
well just shut off their machine and get back to LIFE.
StreetMedic
StreetMedic
Nicely said, Robert.
Damn fine post.
Mark Morrison
<medi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> You know what else is "realistic?" Hoofing Garrett off to the john, or
>over to a tree, every few game-hours to take a piss, but I'm pretty much all
>set with that "realistic" feature. Thanks, though.
>
> That'd look great in the config menu, huh? "Would you like to enable
>realistic bowel-movements? Y/N" We could put a little Garrett stool-meter
>down there under the health shields. Maybe the meter could be a little turd
>icon that grows in length until you squat Garrett in a bush outside, or over
>one of those little empty trunks in all the mansions, to leave a nice
>steaming rat for Constantine, eh? Maybe we could use the little buzzing
>flies animation from the dead zombies when you're done. That's add a little
>more realism, huh? And if a guard stumbles onto you while you're grunting
>out a loaf, maybe you could be prevented from running away because your
>knickers are down around your ankles?
>
LOL !
...grunting out a loaf' - that's a new one...
StreetMedic
> And all I want is newtonian
> physics in games--just wait until I start bitching about quantum physics
not
> being there either!
Y'know, I tried to get this statement out of my head, but couldn't.
So I guess I have no choice. Here goes:
Alright, Eep˛, let's heard it.
I want to hear exactly how you would implement quantum physics into a
game.
I'm serious.
Dazzle us with irresistible gaming ideas hobbled by overzealous notions
of "realism."
I'd really like to hear how the hell this is going to improve Ghsot
Recon. Or Max Payne. Or Deus Ex.
Perhaps a Quanta power-up in Quake IX?
Maybe a Quark Confinement spell in Diablo 2?
How's about an Enthalpy Ray Gun for Counter-Strike?
My gosh, the possibilities *are* obvious.
Never mind.
Ray Espiritu
Eep has to go and pick BLINKING?!?!
Here's some realism ideas I think would be awesome, and would also
contribute to the GAMEplay.
-a total object destructible environment. You can demolish anything and
everything - from the light bulbs, to lamps, to the TV, to cars and buses.
-in addition, you could use the debris as a weapon. Pick up those glass
shards and throw them at someone. Pick up that shattered vase and
use the jagged end to poke somebody really badly.
-on that note, I should be able to pick up any object that a normal person
could life, and throw it. Obviously it won't be needed in most instances,
but one could have fun trying to do zany things, like dropping TV's from the
2nd floor onto unsuspecting bad guys.
-baddies chasing you down the stairs? Get to the first floor quick enough
and you can blast that staircase from under their feet.
-coupled with this is the ability to totally and completely use your
environment as cover. Crawl under the bed to hide, blast a hole in an
abandoned car, and get inside for a few minutes to hide out, get into a
closet and be able to close the door behind you.
THAT would be cool. Much cooler than blinking.
Ray
"Robert Tweed" <rob...@killingmoon.com> wrote in message
news:a0v34d$n1gfq$1...@ID-99544.news.dfncis.de...
> "Eep˛" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> news:3C32D63C...@tnlc.com...
> > Robert Tweed wrote:
> >
> > > "Eep˛" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
Gary Cooper
> everything - from the light bulbs, to lamps, to the TV, to cars and buses.
> -in addition, you could use the debris as a weapon. Pick up those glass
> shards and throw them at someone. Pick up that shattered vase and
> use the jagged end to poke somebody really badly.
> -on that note, I should be able to pick up any object that a normal person
> could life, and throw it. Obviously it won't be needed in most instances,
> but one could have fun trying to do zany things, like dropping TV's from
the
> 2nd floor onto unsuspecting bad guys.
> -baddies chasing you down the stairs? Get to the first floor quick enough
> and you can blast that staircase from under their feet.
Every feature costs money. Everything listed above is not one, single
feature, but dozens or hundreds.
The cost for developing a product that does this sort of thing is
prohibitive, at least to the level you want.
Game Designers, whatever their product, do _not_ deal in
"realism", we deal in "smoke and mirrors". "Fake" is usually
much cheaper than "Real", and, in 99 percent of the cases, the
user can't tell the difference, provided it's designed well.
What you're asking for is not "realism", it's "reality". When
you say "Obviously it won't be needed in most instances", the
immediate reaction of any good designer is "then don't do it".
If you're playing my game, and are more worried about seeing what
you can do with the environment, then, simply, the game isn't all
it should be ;-)
-gary cooper (not the dead one)
Mark Morrison
<resp...@actgate.com> wrote:
>Of all the possible realism ideas we can come up with, that would be fun,
>Eep has to go and pick BLINKING?!?!
>
>Here's some realism ideas I think would be awesome, and would also
>contribute to the GAMEplay.
>
>-a total object destructible environment. You can demolish anything and
>everything - from the light bulbs, to lamps, to the TV, to cars and buses.
Isn't this in an upcoming PC game ?
Everything, including the walls, can be destroyed with enough
firepower.
Can't remember the title, though.
Ray Espiritu
ideas" and my point was that BLINKING was neither nifty nor realistic - and
that surely we could come up with more nifty and realistic ideas than just
BLINKING.
Ray
"Gary Cooper" <coop...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a122ad$nv0oc$1...@ID-123422.news.dfncis.de...
AuXY
<medi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> That'd look great in the config menu, huh? "Would you like to enable
>realistic bowel-movements? Y/N" We could put a little Garrett stool-meter
As opposed to unrealistic bowel-movements, where you can projectile
poopie up to 250 yards at will? :)
Eep²
> "Eep²" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> news:3C3327EE...@tnlc.com...
> > Robert Tweed wrote:
> > > > > > > I suppose you'd also like the screen to flicker every few
> seconds to
> > > > > > > simulate the character blinking?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Neat idea! But it could be really fast and hardly noticeable, but
> > > > > noticeable if one paid attention!
> > > > >
> > > > > But why would you want to do that?
> > > >
> > > > Because it's realistic!
> > >
> > > No it's not. It's overkill.
> >
> > To YOU, Rob, to YOU. Simply disable the realism if you want a dumbed-down
> gaming experience. Enjoy.
>
> First off: Disabling the pointless screen cutout bug would not in any way
> "dumb down" the game. I blink at a normal rate. Unless my character has got
> pepper in his eyes (which would be a valid reaon to use such an effect) then
> adding more blinks is NOT REALISTIC!!!! I cannot conprehend how anyone could
> possibly believe that it adds realism. It just detracts from the game.
All depends on the level of realism you're shooting for, Rob...
> > > > > You'd have to stop the player blinking or
> > > > > you'd be simulating a person who blinks twice as much as normal. That's
> > > > > not realistic at all.
> > > >
> > > > True, same-spaced "flicker blinks" wouldn't be realistic, but a simple
> > > random interval (like say between 1-10 seconds) between "flicker blink"
> > > would probably be sufficient.
> > >
> > > Still pointless, counterproductive, unrealistic eye-candy that you'd get
> > > pissed off with after about 30 seconds. First-off you'd go "wooo, isn't it
> > > /realistic/ ..?" then you'd go "that bloody flashing is getting right on my
> > > tits now f--ing stop it!!"
> >
> > Tits? Uh...yea. First of all, something like that "eye blinking" should be
> optional (as should practically everything). Second, it should be so fast
> you wouldn't even notice it most of the time--just like in real life. Third,
> if the game also allowed lying down, or ULTRA stealth, having control over
> eyelids would be cool to make the screen get covered like a slit with fading
> or something so the whites of your character's eyes (assuming it's human)
> wouldn't be noticed yet still see slightly out of them.
> >
>
> OK, why would you want to add an option for this? I can see an argument in
> favour of the off option, but I don't see anything in favour of having it
> on, except to keep a few mindless newbies gawking at the supposed "realism"
> for the few seconds that their attention spans extend to. Secondly, if it's
> so fast you can't notice it, surely that's the same as not doing it in the
> first place? If it's there, then I'll notice it, and that makes the game
> less realistic, and less immersive, so why do it in the first place?
Because it's realistic. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp (or accept)? Just disable it if it bugs you! Geez. Get over it!
> As for the second idea, ie. changing the shape of the field of vision, this
> is a perfectly good idea. I also had this idea many years ago, but I haven't
> had a chance to use it yet. Certainly narrowing the vision to simulate
> tiredness, or "stealth" modes, etc., are all perfectly good ideas. These are
> things that are affecting the character but not the player so there is a
> need to introduce some effect if you want a stronger conncection between
> player and character. Incidentally such an effect is a device, nothing more;
> it is not intended to be "realistic", because it isn't.
But it IS realistic, too. <shrug>
> Blinking, on the other hand, is consistent between the player and the
> character so there is no reason to simulate it. Adding extra blinks for no
> reason is just a plain outright stupid idea. Adding extra blinks because the
> character has something wrong with his/her eyes is acceptable, but during
> normal conditions there is no valid reason to introduce such an effect.
See above.
> > > Who (apart from you ;-) ) say's that realism is /that/ important?
> >
> > Every developer that includes anything realistic in their games. Oops,
> that's most (if not all) of them. Looks like you lose, bub. :)
> >
>
> "I lose?" I wasn't aware this was a competition. My opinion is my opinion
> and your opinion is your opinion. This statement (which is only loosely
> based on the truth anyway) doesn't suddenly make your opinion into a fact
> and thus you "win" the game.
>
> The fact is that game designers do not strive to make games completely
> realistic. They may add realistic elements sometimes, where it makes the
> game deeper, more involving, or more fun, but they do not just add such
> elements unless they add some value to the game. Similarly, unrealistic
> elements are regularly added to games for the same reason. It's all about
> making the game fun, whether or not what happens to be fun also happens to
> be "realistic".
>
> More often elements of realism are there to add intuitiveness to the game.
> After all if things in the game world work more like they do in the real
> world then that's more intuitive. However, not everything that fits the
> description of realistic is in any way intuiutive. Mostly supposed realism
> is just an outright hinderance on the game control system, which detracts
> from the game, making it less fun and less immersive.
Not always...especially if designed well enough. Most people don't care for Trespasser's arm control. I don't have that much of a problem with it. Yes it could use some tweaking, but it still works realistically enough to be usable. It's all relative.
> > > Games are supposed to be fun first; realistic comes in down the line
> somewhere down
> > > the list, after some other things. I personally like a nice brainless
> game
> > > now and then, so I don't have to think about anything. I get paid to
> think
> > > all day, so when I go home I don't generally want to think for fun!
> > > Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Just different styles of game is all.
> >
> > Then go play them. For the game styles/genres I'm referring to (not puzzle
> or simple games) realism is COMPLETELY justified and reasonable to include
> and want to strive for a greater depth of.
> >
>
> I know exactly what genres you are referring to, and unless you want to
> start specifying a very specific sub-genre in a disclaimer on your posts,
> you need to widen your perspective. If you are only interested in reality
> games, then you should go and write some reality games, and put the genre on
> the map.
>
> Until that time, you cannot complain because other games designers have
> decided not to make their games totally realistic. Here's a clue for you:
> these designers write their games that way *intentionally*, because that's
> the way *they* want them. The occasional lack of realism is not some mistake
> that they missed and need your help in pointing it out to them, it's the way
> they want their games to be.
Super. I want them to be more realistic. I may work on (a) game(s) someday and if/when I do I will strive for as much realism as possible (while still keeping it gamelike, but it won't be dumbed down). Until such time I can only attempt to motivate developers to continue to add realistic elements to their games.
> > > > All depends if you want mindless Quake or intelligent Ghost Recon...
> > >
> > > I am wondering if the implication that unrealistic games are inherently
> > > uninteligent is intentional? If that is indeed what you are implying,
> then
> > > you are hugely mistaken. Anyway, realism is for simulators. There's no
> > > reason why a game can't be realistic and there is equally no reason that
> a
> > > game should be realistic.
> >
> > See above. There are PLENTY of reasons why a game should be realistic.
>
> See what? I didn't see you quote any reasons. Go on, quote some specific
> reasons why realism is important in games, and why a lack of realism
> adversely affects games. Give some examples of games that would have been
> better as a result of greater realism, and the specific changes that would
> have resulted in the improvement in gameplay. I'm waiting.
Eh, if you can't remember all the many reasons I've given in past responses to this and other threads I'm not even going to bother. If it isn't already painfully obvious then I don't feel you're even worth discussing this with anymore since you seem fairly set in your ways against realism. I don't care.
Eep²
Eep²
Grifman wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 06:26:26 -0000, "Robert Tweed"
> <rob...@killingmoon.com> wrote:
>
> >"Luke Winikates" <LukeWi...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> >news:a0vnbe$ndoft$1...@ID-115775.news.dfncis.de...
> >> Isn't the abstraction of the interface the only thing that makes it
> >> possible for us to do these things in games? Moreover, isn't it the
> >> only thing that makes it a game rather than a simulation? If we lose
> >> that, aren't we limited in the game to the same capabilities that we
> >> have in real life? Doesn't that defeat the whole damn purpose?
> >
> >Well spotted. This is a fundamental principle of computer games that Eep²
> >seems to have missed completely. That's why nobody takes most of what he
> >says seriously.
>
Eep²
Robert Tweed
news:a11ur3$74a$1...@ra.nrl.navy.mil...
> Of all the possible realism ideas we can come up with, that would be fun,
> Eep has to go and pick BLINKING?!?!
>
> Here's some realism ideas I think would be awesome, and would also
> contribute to the GAMEplay.
>
> -a total object destructible environment. You can demolish anything and
> everything - from the light bulbs, to lamps, to the TV, to cars and buses.
AFAIK, MGS2 has this feature. I've been waiting a long time for a game that
does this, so I was stunned to hear that MGS2 does. I will hopefully be
getting a PS2 soon to find out if it's true...
> -in addition, you could use the debris as a weapon. Pick up those glass
> shards and throw them at someone. Pick up that shattered vase and
> use the jagged end to poke somebody really badly.
Another good idea that I thought of a long time ago too. I seem to remember
it being done to some extent in many games, but resources being limited it
has never been done that well (it only ever works with specific objects). I
think MGS2 does it to the extent that you describe. IIRC you can blast a
hole in a wall (any wall) and throw the pieces of brick as a makeshift
weapon.
> -on that note, I should be able to pick up any object that a normal person
> could life, and throw it. Obviously it won't be needed in most instances,
> but one could have fun trying to do zany things, like dropping TV's from
the
> 2nd floor onto unsuspecting bad guys.
That's essentially the same as the previous one. It assumes that everything
in the world environment has been modelled as a distinct object with
consistent physical characteristics. Up till now it's been pretty hard to do
anything like that, but more and more games will do in the future,
especially if MGS2 does a really good job of it and it adds a lot to the
game, without causing any big unforseen problems.
> -baddies chasing you down the stairs? Get to the first floor quick enough
> and you can blast that staircase from under their feet.
Indeed. The whole idea is to extend to depth of gameplay and non-linearity
beyond what the game designers have originally thought of. That can be a
mixed blessing, as a game-designer it's important to keep a handle on that
sort of thing. You have to stop people cheating, especially if there is any
multiplayer gameplay.
> -coupled with this is the ability to totally and completely use your
> environment as cover. Crawl under the bed to hide, blast a hole in an
> abandoned car, and get inside for a few minutes to hide out, get into a
> closet and be able to close the door behind you.
That's a question of good enemy AI. If they use realistic vision and genuine
AI then that would be possible. However, there are generally a lot of
shortcuts done with AI though in order to get something approaching
realistic performance.
- Robert
Gerry Quinn
>Super. I want them to be more realistic. I may work on (a) game(s) someday and
> if/when I do I will strive for as much realism as possible (while still
> keeping it gamelike, but it won't be dumbed down). Until such time I can only
> attempt to motivate developers to continue to add realistic elements to their
> games.
I wish you *would* work on a game - you would soon realise what nonsense
you spout.
- Gerry Quinn