mouselook & view perspective (was Re: Metal Gear Solid PC?)
Eep²
atholbrose wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:16:50 -0500,
> M. <mike...@nospam-cox-internet.com> wrote:
> >So it does't use the typical mouse/keyboard control?
>
> MGS is not a first-person shooter. It is a third-person game with a
> first-person look-around mode. The first-person game mode just means that
> you can now move while you're looking around. It would be near impossible
> to play the game entirely in the first-person view.
>
> >Can it only be played via a gamepad?
>
> I really think that a gamepad is the best bet for this game.
>
> >I heard/read that there is no mouselook at all, is this true?
>
> See above about it not being a FPS. Yeah, there's no mouselook because
> there's no need for it.
>
> > I never played the PSX version (don't care for console FPS) so I'm a bit
> >clueless as to how the controls work...
>
> Not really an FPS. 3d person top-down viewpoint (well, at an angle). You
> run around with the pad, when you press up against a wall the angle swings
> down closer. (Very hard to describe, but it works really well.)
>
> I would love to see a Thief-style game with a MGS-style engine... maybe
> based on the Stainless Steel Rat books?
--
http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!
sswift
>Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is most definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it shouldn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK² are 3rd-person action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all have mouselook.
Unless you have played the game, you will not understand why mouselook
is not neccessary.
MGS doesn't have the same viewpoint as Heretic II or Tomb Raider. It
has a high overhead view. And you never have to aim at enemies above
or below you, and they can't aim at you either, so the 2D control
scheme works great.
Think of grand theft auto. Woudl mouselook have helped that any? No,
of course not, because of the overhead view and the primarily 2D
nature of the game.
Metal Gear is not somehting to be scoffed at. It's a hugely sucessful
title, and people were waiting years for a sequel to the original NES
title which to this day is still a great game.
Mike
>MGS doesn't have the same viewpoint as Heretic II or Tomb Raider. It
>has a high overhead view. And you never have to aim at enemies above
>or below you, and they can't aim at you either, so the 2D control
>scheme works great.
>Think of grand theft auto. Would mouselook have helped that any? No,
>of course not, because of the overhead view and the primarily 2D
>nature of the game.
>Metal Gear is not somehting to be scoffed at. It's a hugely sucessful
>title, and people were waiting years for a sequel to the original NES
>title which to this day is still a great game.
>
Hmm..I may rent it for the PSX just for kicks. Doesn't sound all that
exciting, guess I shouldn't expect to much, since it's coming from a
console. <grin>
M.
Eep²
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is most definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it shouldn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK² are 3rd-person action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all have mouselook.
>
> Unless you have played the game, you will not understand why mouselook
> is not neccessary.
>
> MGS doesn't have the same viewpoint as Heretic II or Tomb Raider. It
> has a high overhead view. And you never have to aim at enemies above
> or below you, and they can't aim at you either, so the 2D control
> scheme works great.
Mouselook and 1st-person view isn't necessarily about aiming but feeling immersed. Do you go through life with a camera over your shoulder? No. Mouselook is smoother, more natural, and easier to use for most people (obvious by the amount of games that have mouselook vs those that don't) than keyboard control is--period. Any game developer who refuses to include is simply not keeping up with what's standard in 3D game control.
> Think of grand theft auto. Woudl mouselook have helped that any? No,
> of course not, because of the overhead view and the primarily 2D
> nature of the game.
>
> Metal Gear is not somehting to be scoffed at. It's a hugely sucessful
> title, and people were waiting years for a sequel to the original NES
> title which to this day is still a great game.
<shrug> I played it on the Playstation a couple years ago and wasn't that impressed. It's not an isometric 2D real-time strategy game, and it's not as lame as Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace's game with its annoyingly high camera. Mouselook would serve both it and Metal Gear Solid just fine, as would an option to toggle between 1st and 3rd-person whenever the player wishes, like in Outcast and some FPSes that have console commands to do so (Quake, Unreal, and games based off their engines).
sgri...@carolina.rr.com
wrote:
>=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is most definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it shouldn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK² are 3rd-person action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all have mouselook.
>
>Unless you have played the game, you will not understand why mouselook
>is not neccessary.
Sorry, unless you are me, you don't know what I understand. I don't
have a gamepad, and I don't like using the keyboard as it is too
"inexact". Now perhaps you'll understand why a mouse option would
have been nice :)
Grifman
>
>MGS doesn't have the same viewpoint as Heretic II or Tomb Raider. It
>has a high overhead view. And you never have to aim at enemies above
>or below you, and they can't aim at you either, so the 2D control
>scheme works great.
>
Quatoria
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is mos=
>t definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it shoul=
>dn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK=B2 are 3rd-pe=
>rson action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all h=
>ave mouselook.
What the hell could you possibly do with a mouselook? Drakan and
Outcast and FAKK are all behind-camera 3rd person shooters. This is
3rd person isometric, like X-Com was. Demanding that MGS have
mouselook is just like demanding X-Com Apocalypse should have had
mouselook. Neither one would benefit from the addition. It's
senseless, and to demand it indicates that you know nothing about the
gameplay.
-Quatoria
--
In this unpredictable, oftentimes contentious world,
sometimes you just have to sit back, take a moment to
reflect, and say "Well, I'll be a greased Jesus!"
sswift
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:12:31 GMT, ssw...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net (sswift)
>wrote:
>
>>=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>>Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is most definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it shouldn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK² are 3rd-person action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all have mouselook.
>>
>>Unless you have played the game, you will not understand why mouselook
>>is not neccessary.
>
>Sorry, unless you are me, you don't know what I understand. I don't
>have a gamepad, and I don't like using the keyboard as it is too
>"inexact". Now perhaps you'll understand why a mouse option would
>have been nice :)
The game was MADE for a digital pad. You can run up down, left right,
and diagonal. And that's all you need to.
Yeah, it's a little contraining not to be able to run in any of 360
diffrent directions, especially when you're trying to aim at guards
(Then the game goes into an "I'm a turret and left and right turn me
smoothly" mode.) but a mouse wouldn't SOLVE that. It's an overhad
view.
How in the hell would you use a mouse to control the direction the
player goes in that kind of view? Slide it left and right to turn the
chracter? Then you can't turn around instantly like you can with the
keyboard. That would make it MUCH harder to walk around actually.
The corridors are even designed with the "limited" control scheme in
mind. They go up down, left and right, and 45 degrees diagonally.
Nothing that would be annoying to run down.
The only control problem I had with the game was when I alerted the
guards (which you're not supposed to do) and I was in an open area and
I had them coming at me from all directions. The sudden switch from
run-around mode to turret-shoot mode when I pulled out my gun was hard
to get the hang of.
But I wouldn't ignore this game because of that one minor flaw. The
rest of the game is perfect.
sswift
>sswift wrote:
>
>> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>> >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is most definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it shouldn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK² are 3rd-person action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all have mouselook.
>>
>> Unless you have played the game, you will not understand why mouselook
>> is not neccessary.
>>
>> has a high overhead view. And you never have to aim at enemies above
>> or below you, and they can't aim at you either, so the 2D control
>> scheme works great.
>
MGS is not first person!
Have you ever played an overhead view game? I'm talking almost
DIRECTLY overhead. There is no "up or down" to aim. And the view is
such that the player may actually be facing towards the BOTTOM of the
screen.
Mouse control simply would not WORK.
Have you ever played a 2D space shooter? Would a mouse control work
with that? No of course not. It's the wrong type of game.
>> Think of grand theft auto. Woudl mouselook have helped that any? No,
>> of course not, because of the overhead view and the primarily 2D
>> nature of the game.
>>
>> Metal Gear is not somehting to be scoffed at. It's a hugely sucessful
>> title, and people were waiting years for a sequel to the original NES
>> title which to this day is still a great game.
>
><shrug> I played it on the Playstation a couple years ago and wasn't that impressed. It's not an isometric 2D real-time strategy game, and it's not as lame as Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace's game with its annoyingly high camera. Mouselook would serve both it and Metal Gear Solid just fine, as would an option to toggle between 1st and 3rd-person whenever the player wishes, like in Outcast and some FPSes that have console commands to do so (Quake, Unreal, and games based off their engines).
So you HAVE played it. And you do know what kind of view it has but
you STILL think mouselook would work from the voaerhead view?
Or do you want a first person view?
When I read that the game was going to have a first person mode on the
PC, I was appalled. I thought "Well, that's it for MGS on the PC...
The game wasn't designed to be played form a first person view. It
will be impossibly difficult... now all the PC gamers are going to
hate it because they'll insist on playing it from that view."
I guess I should have been more worried about it NOT having a first
person mode with mouselook. Because that's your big gripe with the
game now... no mouselook or real first person view. Even though the
game would suffer from that kind of view.
Why the hell does every action game have to be the same for you guys!
God... the action games these days are getting boring all being alike.
M.
> Eep² wrote:
>
> >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is mos
> >t definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it
shoul=
> >dn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK=B2 are
3rd-pe=
> >rson action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all
h=
> >ave mouselook.
>
> What the hell could you possibly do with a mouselook? Drakan and
> Outcast and FAKK are all behind-camera 3rd person shooters. This is
> 3rd person isometric, like X-Com was. Demanding that MGS have
> mouselook is just like demanding X-Com Apocalypse should have had
> mouselook. Neither one would benefit from the addition. It's
> senseless, and to demand it indicates that you know nothing about the
> gameplay.
Well, it's "advertised" as a 3D third person game not as an isometric
game...We PC gamers aren't used to being constrained to diagonals. The
freedom we have from mouse-look is hard to give up.
M.
David Long
Quatoria <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
> In the swirling mists of history, on Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:34:32 -0700,
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS
is mos=
> >t definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it
shoul=
> >dn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK=B2 are
3rd-pe=
> >rson action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY
all h=
> >ave mouselook.
>
> What the hell could you possibly do with a mouselook? Drakan and
> Outcast and FAKK are all behind-camera 3rd person shooters. This is
> 3rd person isometric, like X-Com was. Demanding that MGS have
> mouselook is just like demanding X-Com Apocalypse should have had
> mouselook. Neither one would benefit from the addition. It's
> senseless, and to demand it indicates that you know nothing about the
> gameplay.
>
Uh oh, Hell must be a cold place right now because Quatoria is agreeing
with Shawn Swift.
--Dave
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
atholbrose
>Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is
>shouldn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK² are
>3rd-person action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY
>all have mouselook.
MGS is a stealth game with shooting as an option -- the last option. In
the normal course of gameplay, you shouldn't shoot anyone or anything. You
never have to look up or down, and pressing and holding the weapon button
will automatically train your laser sight on an enemy.
MGS doesn't have mouselook. It doesn't *need* mouselook.
sswift
>"Quatoria" <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
>>
>> >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is mos
>shoul=
>> >dn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK=B2 are
>3rd-pe=
>> >rson action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all
>h=
>> >ave mouselook.
>>
>> What the hell could you possibly do with a mouselook? Drakan and
>> Outcast and FAKK are all behind-camera 3rd person shooters. This is
>> 3rd person isometric, like X-Com was. Demanding that MGS have
>> mouselook is just like demanding X-Com Apocalypse should have had
>> mouselook. Neither one would benefit from the addition. It's
>> senseless, and to demand it indicates that you know nothing about the
>> gameplay.
>
>game...
That's because it IS a third person game. So was XCOM. Third person
only means that you can see teh chracter onscreen.
And "isometric" means "2d that looks 3d but without perspective".
So MGS is not isometric, though the original Metal Gear was.
It's not the game developer's fault that you haven't looked at any
screenshots. You seriously don't know what you're missing if you
haven't played this game. You know how Half-Life was considered a
revolutiionary title because you could talk to people, and how Thief
was considered revolutionary because you could sneak around? Well
Metal Gear featured those things before either of those games, and it
features even cooler stuff like laser beams you have to highlight with
your cigarette smoke to avoid detection, and all sorts of cool
weapons. But because it's not first person you're not going to give
it a chance? If this game was in first person on the PC, it would be
hailed as revolutionary, and a Half-Life killer. But just because
it's not in first person doesn't mean it's not a great game. Yeah,
the fight with the stealth ninja looked kick ass in the old E3 videos
from first person, and I wish the game had had that kind of a view,
just because it looks so much cooler, but the gameplay is still all
there, and a lot of annoying stuff like avoiding guards isn't so
annoying when you have an overhead view so you know where they are.
sswift
>In article <zf=POWTOtplINSk...@4ax.com>,
> Quatoria <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS
>is mos=
>> >t definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it
>shoul=
>> >dn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK=B2 are
>3rd-pe=
>> >rson action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY
>all h=
>> >ave mouselook.
>>
>> What the hell could you possibly do with a mouselook? Drakan and
>> Outcast and FAKK are all behind-camera 3rd person shooters. This is
>> 3rd person isometric, like X-Com was. Demanding that MGS have
>> mouselook is just like demanding X-Com Apocalypse should have had
>> mouselook. Neither one would benefit from the addition. It's
>> senseless, and to demand it indicates that you know nothing about the
>> gameplay.
>>
>
>with Shawn Swift.
I'm as surprised as you are! :P
M.
> It's not the game developer's fault that you haven't looked at any
> screenshots. You seriously don't know what you're missing if you
> haven't played this game.
I did play the VR mission on my PSX, thought they were okay, nothing earth
shattering...I can't _STAND_ using a control/game pad for a 3D game (even
though people keep saying MGS isn't a 3D game).
>You know how Half-Life was considered a
> revolutiionary title because you could talk to people, and how Thief
> was considered revolutionary because you could sneak around? Well
> Metal Gear featured those things before either of those games, and it
> features even cooler stuff like laser beams you have to highlight with
> your cigarette smoke to avoid detection, and all sorts of cool
> weapons. But because it's not first person you're not going to give
> it a chance? If this game was in first person on the PC, it would be
> hailed as revolutionary, and a Half-Life killer.
It's not the first person viewpoint that I have a problem with it's the lack
of control, i.e. being constrained to only move in straightlines. I don't
mind it being a 3rd person viewpoint, I just want to use the controller I'm
used to using. A mouse and a keyboard, much more freedom than a couple of
buttons on a game-pad. (not to mention I don't even own a gamepad <grin>).
> But just because
> it's not in first person doesn't mean it's not a great game. Yeah,
> the fight with the stealth ninja looked kick ass in the old E3 videos
> from first person, and I wish the game had had that kind of a view,
> just because it looks so much cooler, but the gameplay is still all
> there, and a lot of annoying stuff like avoiding guards isn't so
> annoying when you have an overhead view so you know where they are.
I suppose...but even so...why couldn't they include a mouse-look (yeah, I
know it's not designed for it, but hey, this is the PC not a console, we're
not constrained to the gamepad controller)
Just my opinion...
M.
M.
> MGS is a stealth game with shooting as an option -- the last option. In
> the normal course of gameplay, you shouldn't shoot anyone or anything. You
> never have to look up or down, and pressing and holding the weapon button
> will automatically train your laser sight on an enemy.
>
> MGS doesn't have mouselook. It doesn't *need* mouselook.
Okay, that's your opinion...IMO a 3D game today needs mouselook, unless of
course it's not 3D...which as I'm finding out MGS isn't 3D and isn't worth
my money...but as I said I'll check out the PSX version just for grins.
(although I thought the VR missions was a waste of time).
M.
Quatoria
"M." <mike...@nospam-cox-internet.com> wrote:
>It's not the first person viewpoint that I have a problem with it's the lack
>of control, i.e. being constrained to only move in straightlines. I don't
>mind it being a 3rd person viewpoint, I just want to use the controller I'm
>used to using. A mouse and a keyboard, much more freedom than a couple of
>buttons on a game-pad. (not to mention I don't even own a gamepad <grin>).
You're always constrained to move in straight lines. There's no motion
I know of (though I'm sure some fucking helpful physics major will
chirp in here) that can't be reduced to straight lines. What are you
doing in Drakan? You're moving in straight lines. What are you doing
in Quake? Moving in straight lines. What are you doing in MGS? Moving
in straight lines. So fucking what?
Quatoria
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Mouselook and 1st-person view isn't necessarily about aiming but feeling =
>immersed. Do you go through life with a camera over your shoulder? No. Mo=
>uselook is smoother, more natural, and easier to use for most people (obv=
>ious by the amount of games that have mouselook vs those that don't) than=
> keyboard control is--period. Any game developer who refuses to include i=
>s simply not keeping up with what's standard in 3D game control.
MGS is a 3d game in the same way that Final Fantasy 8 is a 3D game.
It's strictly to enhance the graphics, and has virtually no effect on
gameplay. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, CrEep, 3D does not mean
first person shooter, and not every game that uses 3D graphics needs
to fit into your needlessly constrained little boxes. You really need
to evolve.
Quatoria
David Long <poo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Uh oh, Hell must be a cold place right now because Quatoria is agreeing
>with Shawn Swift.
Unfortunately, even though he's a dipshit, he has halfway decent taste
in console games. MGS isn't the second coming he makes it out to be,
but it was certainly an excellent game, as all Hideo Kojima's games
have been.
sswift
MGS IS 3D. But it's an overhead view. And since you can't look up
and down, (because you're always looking down on the character) or aim
up and down, (because it's just not neccessarry to do so) the concept
of "mouse look" would be foreign to this game.
And yes, the VR missions are kinda a waste of time. I played a few,
but I like to feel like I'm accomplishing something, and the VR
missions just didn't feel like that.
sswift
>In the swirling mists of history, on Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:41:32 GMT,
>David Long <poo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>Uh oh, Hell must be a cold place right now because Quatoria is agreeing
>>with Shawn Swift.
>
>Unfortunately, even though he's a dipshit, he has halfway decent taste
>in console games. MGS isn't the second coming he makes it out to be,
>but it was certainly an excellent game, as all Hideo Kojima's games
>have been.
Can't you ever write a single post without namecalling? What are you,
five years old? Let's see a little more maturity. God knows Usenet
could use some.
sswift
>In the swirling mists of history, on Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:48:36 -0500,
>"M." <mike...@nospam-cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
>>It's not the first person viewpoint that I have a problem with it's the lack
>>of control, i.e. being constrained to only move in straightlines. I don't
>>mind it being a 3rd person viewpoint, I just want to use the controller I'm
>>used to using. A mouse and a keyboard, much more freedom than a couple of
>>buttons on a game-pad. (not to mention I don't even own a gamepad <grin>).
>
>You're always constrained to move in straight lines. There's no motion
>I know of (though I'm sure some fucking helpful physics major will
>chirp in here)
What, did someone call me?
Okay I'm not a physics major, but hell, how could I possibly AVOID
this opportunity to irritate you? I do love physics. :)
>that can't be reduced to straight lines.
Ever hear of a little concept call gravity? The majority of motion in
the universe is actually NOt in straight lines, but in curves, due to
gravity. And stuff which you THINK is moving in a stright line is
actually moving in a curve through the universe. Lush your pencil
acorss the table, and it seems to move in a straight line, but when
you take the rotation of the earth into account, and the orbit of the
earth around the sun, and the sun's motion through the galaxy and the
galaxy's motion though the universe... well, hell, you just don't
have a straight line anymore. :)
>What are you doing in Drakan? You're moving in straight lines. What are you doing
>in Quake? Moving in straight lines. What are you doing in MGS? Moving
>in straight lines. So fucking what?
>
>-Quatoria
You're just being an idiot with semantics here. (Just as I was above,
but that was on purpouse)
What this person is really saying is he doesn't like being contrained
to moving only in the 8 compass directions. He wants to be able to
walk at a 22.5 degree angle or a 67.235 degree angle on the screen.
And to do be able to do that, he needs analog control.
I admit, that would be nice to have in MGS, but I don't think the
mouse is the answer to that problem. An analog stick is the solution
to that. But is the game not worth playing just because it lacks
analog control? Of course not. It's still a lot of fun, and the lack
of analog doesn't hurt the gameplay much if at all.
M.
> You're always constrained to move in straight lines. There's no motion
> I know of (though I'm sure some fucking helpful physics major will
> chirp in here) that can't be reduced to straight lines. What are you
> doing in Drakan? You're moving in straight lines. What are you doing
> in Quake? Moving in straight lines. What are you doing in MGS? Moving
> in straight lines. So fucking what?
Gee, aren't we hostile...
Not a physics major, do have a couple of engineering degrees...
Okay, Mr. Genius...you are constrained to only move in left/right/diagonal
lines. NO FREEDOM of movement outside of those three "vectors". That isn't
cool in my opinion...but hey that's just me.
No looking in a vertical plane, i.e. the "3rd" dimension, so it's just a
fake-3D game, confined to move in defined directions, no freedom allowed to
the player to move in his/her own path...that kinda seems a bit, uhh,
"console-like" to me...but hey maybe you're a console player who hangs out
in a pc game ng...
Hey, you obviously love the game, and that's great...but it seems kinda weak
to me..(and I have tried the PSX VR version). So you're entitled to your
opinion...just remember that you're wrong. <jk>.
M.
Eep²
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >sswift wrote:
> >
> >> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >> >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is most definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it shouldn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK² are 3rd-person action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all have mouselook.
> >>
> >> Unless you have played the game, you will not understand why mouselook
> >> is not neccessary.
> >>
> >> MGS doesn't have the same viewpoint as Heretic II or Tomb Raider. It
> >> has a high overhead view. And you never have to aim at enemies above
> >> or below you, and they can't aim at you either, so the 2D control
> >> scheme works great.
> >
> >Mouselook and 1st-person view isn't necessarily about aiming but feeling immersed. Do you go through life with a camera over your shoulder? No. Mouselook is smoother, more natural, and easier to use for most people (obvious by the amount of games that have mouselook vs those that don't) than keyboard control is--period. Any game developer who refuses to include is simply not keeping up with what's standard in 3D game control.
>
> MGS is not first person!
Duh, and that's one of its problems: not having the OPTION to switch to 1st-person whenever the player wants to.
> Have you ever played an overhead view game?
Yup, WarCraft 2 comes to mind.
> I'm talking almost
> DIRECTLY overhead. There is no "up or down" to aim. And the view is
> such that the player may actually be facing towards the BOTTOM of the
> screen.
>
> Mouse control simply would not WORK.
>
> Have you ever played a 2D space shooter? Would a mouse control work
> with that? No of course not. It's the wrong type of game.
Sure it would if the mouse controlled left, right, back, and forward--just like a keyboard. <shrug> You don't think much, do you? Regardless, MGS isn't a top-down game--at least not when I played it on the Playstation.
> >> Think of grand theft auto. Woudl mouselook have helped that any? No,
> >> of course not, because of the overhead view and the primarily 2D
> >> nature of the game.
> >>
> >> Metal Gear is not somehting to be scoffed at. It's a hugely sucessful
> >> title, and people were waiting years for a sequel to the original NES
> >> title which to this day is still a great game.
> >
> ><shrug> I played it on the Playstation a couple years ago and wasn't that impressed. It's not an isometric 2D real-time strategy game, and it's not as lame as Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace's game with its annoyingly high camera. Mouselook would serve both it and Metal Gear Solid just fine, as would an option to toggle between 1st and 3rd-person whenever the player wishes, like in Outcast and some FPSes that have console commands to do so (Quake, Unreal, and games based off their engines).
>
> So you HAVE played it. And you do know what kind of view it has but
> you STILL think mouselook would work from the voaerhead view?
>
> Or do you want a first person view?
See above.
> When I read that the game was going to have a first person mode on the
> PC, I was appalled. I thought "Well, that's it for MGS on the PC...
> The game wasn't designed to be played form a first person view. It
> will be impossibly difficult... now all the PC gamers are going to
> hate it because they'll insist on playing it from that view."
>
> I guess I should have been more worried about it NOT having a first
> person mode with mouselook. Because that's your big gripe with the
> game now... no mouselook or real first person view. Even though the
> game would suffer from that kind of view.
>
> Why the hell does every action game have to be the same for you guys!
> God... the action games these days are getting boring all being alike.
Uh, just because a game has an (optional) 1st-person mode and mouselook doesn't make it the same as every other game with a 1st-person mode and mouselook. You're not thinking again, Swift (or should you be renamed to Slow?). Stop limiting your game classifications and possibilities simply by how the character is controlled and what kind of view perspectives are available.
Weren't you the twit who claimed to've worked for Looking Glass on Thief or some such bullshit? You're ineptness towards game design isn't helping your case any, sport. Drive through.
Eep²
"M." wrote:
> "Quatoria" <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> > Eep² wrote:
> >
> > >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is mos
> > >t definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it shoul=
> > >dn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK=B2 are 3rd-pe=
> > >rson action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY all h=
> > >ave mouselook.
> >
> > What the hell could you possibly do with a mouselook? Drakan and
> > Outcast and FAKK are all behind-camera 3rd person shooters. This is
> > 3rd person isometric, like X-Com was. Demanding that MGS have
> > mouselook is just like demanding X-Com Apocalypse should have had
> > mouselook. Neither one would benefit from the addition. It's
> > senseless, and to demand it indicates that you know nothing about the
> > gameplay.
>
> Well, it's "advertised" as a 3D third person game not as an isometric
> game...We PC gamers aren't used to being constrained to diagonals. The
> freedom we have from mouse-look is hard to give up.
--
Eep²
atholbrose wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:34:32 -0700, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS is
> >most definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it
> >shouldn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK² are
> >3rd-person action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY
> >all have mouselook.
>
> MGS is a stealth game with shooting as an option -- the last option. In
> the normal course of gameplay, you shouldn't shoot anyone or anything. You
> never have to look up or down, and pressing and holding the weapon button
> will automatically train your laser sight on an enemy.
>
> MGS doesn't have mouselook. It doesn't *need* mouselook.
--
Eep²
> In article <zf=POWTOtplINSk...@4ax.com>,
> Quatoria <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
> > In the swirling mists of history, on Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:34:32 -0700,
> > Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Just because a game is in 3rd-person and not PRIMARILY an FPS (MGS
> is mos=
> > >t definitely an action game with shooting elements) doesn't mean it
> shoul=
> > >dn't have mouselook. Drakan, Outcast, and Heavy Metal: FAKK=B2 are
> 3rd-pe=
> > >rson action (and other genre) games with shooting elements and THEY
> all h=
> > >ave mouselook.
> >
> > What the hell could you possibly do with a mouselook? Drakan and
> > Outcast and FAKK are all behind-camera 3rd person shooters. This is
> > 3rd person isometric, like X-Com was. Demanding that MGS have
> > mouselook is just like demanding X-Com Apocalypse should have had
> > mouselook. Neither one would benefit from the addition. It's
> > senseless, and to demand it indicates that you know nothing about the
> > gameplay.
>
> Uh oh, Hell must be a cold place right now because Quatoria is agreeing
> with Shawn Swift.
A futile point Twitoria agrees with (as usual), considering Drakan has 1st-person when shooting a bow, Outcast allows switching between 1st- and 3rd-person at will, and there is a console command to toggle between both perspectives in FAKK² as well. The benefit is a better sense of immersion (you don't go through life looking at yourself with a camera hovering a few feet in the air above and behind your head), and a more realistic gaming experience, not to mention better aiming and more area to look around for clues, etc, in (3rd-person always has your character blocking some part of the screen).
Jason Kozak
> I still don't understand how MGS became a supposed top-down (or is it
> isometric now?) game that only allows limited horizontal directional
> movement when on the Playstation using a force feedback controller I
> could move Solid in complete circles and the control was VERY smooth.
> You sure you people are all talking about the same game?
Yep. I've only played the playstation version myself, but perhaps the
PC version doesn't support analog-stick style control.
Jason Kozak
_
<insert sig here>
sswift
>> Have you ever played a 2D space shooter? Would a mouse control work
>> with that? No of course not. It's the wrong type of game.
>
>Sure it would if the mouse controlled left, right, back, and forward--just like a keyboard. <shrug> You don't think much, do you? Regardless, MGS isn't a top-down game--at least not when I played it on the Playstation.
Actually I DO think. And I thought of that before I posted and
realized that that would be a stupid ass control scheme which would be
hard to use, or feel like you're moving a mouse cursor around if you
didn't have to constantly push the mouse in one direction over and
over to move.
>Weren't you the twit who claimed to've worked for Looking Glass on Thief or some such bullshit? You're ineptness towards game design isn't helping your case any, sport. Drive through.
No, I did not claim to work at Looking Glass on Thief.
Jason Kozak
<mike...@nospam-cox-internet.com> wrote:
>"atholbrose" <cinn...@shell.one.net> wrote in message
>
>> MGS is a stealth game with shooting as an option -- the last option. In
>> the normal course of gameplay, you shouldn't shoot anyone or anything. You
>> never have to look up or down, and pressing and holding the weapon button
>> will automatically train your laser sight on an enemy.
>>
>> MGS doesn't have mouselook. It doesn't *need* mouselook.
>
>Okay, that's your opinion...IMO a 3D game today needs mouselook, unless of
>course it's not 3D...which as I'm finding out MGS isn't 3D and isn't worth
>my money...but as I said I'll check out the PSX version just for grins.
>(although I thought the VR missions was a waste of time).
I'm just curious, but why exactly does a 3D game need mouselook?
I've got MGS for the psx, and I've enjoyed it greatly, not once
wishing there was a mouselook. My only complaint control-wise is the
lack of strafing. Other than that, the current camera is much better
than a mouselook would be.
1st person isn't the magical control solution for every game. In MGS,
your primary concern is stealth, not aim, so a 3rd person perspective
is ideal. MGS pits you against unlimited enemies, so stealth is your
only hope for survival. To get the positional awareness you get with
3rd person, you'd have to be swinging your mouse around in 1st. A task
that I somehow don't see many people enjoying... especially when you'd
have to do it constantly.
Oh, and Eep, 1st person != immersion. Actually, I find 1st person
quite unimmersive... no peripheral vision, lackluster 3d sound....
nothing beats the real thing I'm afraid.
Immersion isn't about the view. It's all about suspending belief, and
you don't need 1st person to do it. You do need a unified look and
feel, and a game universe with solid laws. If anything rips me back
into reality, it's an out of place texture, or some physics defying
trick in a game that attempts to obey real-world laws.
cox
> I'm just curious, but why exactly does a 3D game need mouselook?
Well, since MGS isn't a 3D game, guess it doesn't matter...but
it could be all these past years I've spent playing "3D" games using
mouselook...and have become accustomed to the freedome of movement provided
by the utilization of mouselook and a keyboard...but that's just my
opinion...
> I've got MGS for the psx, and I've enjoyed it greatly, not once
> wishing there was a mouselook.
That's good because, it would be a PITA using a mouse and keyboard while
sitting on your couch playing MGS on a console.
>My only complaint control-wise is the
> lack of strafing. Other than that, the current camera is much better
> than a mouselook would be.
Your opinion...mine differs...
> 1st person isn't the magical control solution for every game. In MGS,
> your primary concern is stealth, not aim, so a 3rd person perspective
> is ideal. MGS pits you against unlimited enemies, so stealth is your
> only hope for survival. To get the positional awareness you get with
> 3rd person, you'd have to be swinging your mouse around in 1st. A task
> that I somehow don't see many people enjoying... especially when you'd
> have to do it constantly.
Uhh...heard of Thief??? DeusEx...stealth oriented games...on a PC, perhaps
to be ported to a console...don't see any third person view on the above
mentioned games...Hitman Code 47 is third person, "3D" game that also relies
more on stealth, and, get this, it allows you to use a mouse! imagine that!
> Oh, and Eep, 1st person != immersion. Actually, I find 1st person
> quite unimmersive... no peripheral vision, lackluster 3d sound....
> nothing beats the real thing I'm afraid.
Yeah...real life is pretty immersive...so is viewing a from a camera 3 feet
behind and 3 feet above my head...that's pretty realistic, right??? <grin>
> Immersion isn't about the view. It's all about suspending belief, and
> you don't need 1st person to do it. You do need a unified look and
> feel, and a game universe with solid laws. If anything rips me back
> into reality, it's an out of place texture, or some physics defying
> trick in a game that attempts to obey real-world laws.
>
True...can't debate this...
M.
(perhaps I'll buy MGS just to see how great it is...)
sswift
>Uhh...heard of Thief??? DeusEx...stealth oriented games...on a PC, perhaps
>to be ported to a console...don't see any third person view on the above
>mentioned games...Hitman Code 47 is third person, "3D" game that also relies
>more on stealth, and, get this, it allows you to use a mouse! imagine that!
I haven't played much of Thief, and I didn't see any areas where you
needed to be stealthy in Deus Ex, but I played NOLF as a stealthy
game, and I fount it to be exremely irritating that I could hear a
guard and have no idea where he was. I would hear a guard walking,
and his walking sound wouldn't cue me in on if he was close or far.
And as soon as I strafed around the corner, invariably, there he was,
standing right there facing me, so he saw me and came after me.
There was never any problem with that in MGS, except when you ducked
under a tank and the game went into a first person mode. Then you
couldn't see the enemy, and you also lost your radar so you couldn't
see them on that either. And basically like in NOLF, you were screwed
because the sound alone wasn't good enough to tell you how close they
were, and you couldn't really peek out to take a look very well.
First person in sneaking games REALLY sucks if the sound isn't done
extremely well. Thief is the only game I can think of which actualy
had a halfway decent sound propogation system. Most develoeprs don't
bother spending the time to put that in, even in big budget games like
Deus Ex. So until develoeprs get their acts together, first person
for sneaking games will suck.
And even if you do get a decent sound system, you still don't have
peripheral vision and using a lean key to look around corners is a
pain in the ass. Too many keys to control your chracter.
A third person view alleviates all these problems.
Eep²
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >> Have you ever played a 2D space shooter? Would a mouse control work
> >> with that? No of course not. It's the wrong type of game.
> >
> >Sure it would if the mouse controlled left, right, back, and forward--just like a keyboard. <shrug> You don't think much, do you? Regardless, MGS isn't a top-down game--at least not when I played it on the Playstation.
>
> Actually I DO think. And I thought of that before I posted and
> realized that that would be a stupid ass control scheme which would be
> hard to use, or feel like you're moving a mouse cursor around if you
> didn't have to constantly push the mouse in one direction over and
> over to move.
You must've never played Wolfenstein 3D or Doom, then, because you can use the mouse to move in it and it's not THAT annoying. Besides, you were talking about simple 2D scrollers (ala Space Invaders, Subspace, etc). Mouse control in those games would be simple compared to 3D. <shrug>
> >Weren't you the twit who claimed to've worked for Looking Glass on Thief or some such bullshit? You're ineptness towards game design isn't helping your case any, sport. Drive through.
>
> No, I did not claim to work at Looking Glass on Thief.
What DID you claim, then (if anything)?
Eep²
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:50:49 -0500, "M."
> <mike...@nospam-cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
> >"atholbrose" <cinn...@shell.one.net> wrote in message
> >
> >> MGS is a stealth game with shooting as an option -- the last option. In
> >> the normal course of gameplay, you shouldn't shoot anyone or anything. You
> >> never have to look up or down, and pressing and holding the weapon button
> >> will automatically train your laser sight on an enemy.
> >>
> >> MGS doesn't have mouselook. It doesn't *need* mouselook.
> >
> >Okay, that's your opinion...IMO a 3D game today needs mouselook, unless of
> >course it's not 3D...which as I'm finding out MGS isn't 3D and isn't worth
> >my money...but as I said I'll check out the PSX version just for grins.
> >(although I thought the VR missions was a waste of time).
>
> I'm just curious, but why exactly does a 3D game need mouselook?
>
> I've got MGS for the psx, and I've enjoyed it greatly, not once
> wishing there was a mouselook. My only complaint control-wise is the
> lack of strafing. Other than that, the current camera is much better
> than a mouselook would be.
>
> 1st person isn't the magical control solution for every game. In MGS,
> your primary concern is stealth, not aim, so a 3rd person perspective
> is ideal. MGS pits you against unlimited enemies, so stealth is your
> only hope for survival. To get the positional awareness you get with
> 3rd person, you'd have to be swinging your mouse around in 1st. A task
> that I somehow don't see many people enjoying... especially when you'd
> have to do it constantly.
>
> Oh, and Eep, 1st person != immersion. Actually, I find 1st person
> quite unimmersive... no peripheral vision,
So move the camera around more like you move your head and eyes around in real life! Quit acting so helpless. Stealth is important in Thief, too, yet it's ONLY in 1st-person. Your argument is futile; give it up. Just because YOU can't handle 1st-person doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't. I am simply asking for BOTH 1st- AND 3rd-person views in 3D games--the best of BOTH worlds. Stop thinking only one OR the other, eh? God damn...
> lackluster 3d sound....
> nothing beats the real thing I'm afraid.
What does 3D sound have to do with 1st-person? If a game supports 3D sound the perspective won't matter. Duh.
> Immersion isn't about the view. It's all about suspending belief, and
> you don't need 1st person to do it. You do need a unified look and
> feel, and a game universe with solid laws. If anything rips me back
> into reality, it's an out of place texture, or some physics defying
> trick in a game that attempts to obey real-world laws.
While those things DO help in immersion, again, I repeat, do you go through life with a camera behind and above your head? No. You see from a 1st-person view; this view should be STANDARD in ALL 3D games, with 3rd-person secondary (yet either view easily togglable in-game with a single key). Seeing my character's back/ass is what kills the immersion for me the most.
Eep²
Awwww, cry me a fucking river, Swifty. Just because YOU can't handle 2 more keys (or 1 modifier key + a strafe key) to lean doesn't mean 3D games shouldn't start having lean keys AND 1st-person mouselook as STANDARD control options. And just because you can't be bothered to look around more (in mouselook mode, of course)--oh poo, Swifty wants everything spoonfed into his wittle mouthy wouthy wike a wittle baby. I guess you haven't played Tomb Raider with its keyboard camera control, eh? It sucks compared to mouselook!
And you obviously haven't played Thief enough to enjoy just how damn good its 3D sound is, and you must REALLY suck at Deus Ex to not appreciate its stealth abilities either. Go back to your obsolete, outdated console and leave REAL gaming to people who know how to appreciate good game design. It's peons like you that allow most game developers to continue releasing rehashed, unoriginal games with the same old interface/control instead of actually trying something new ala Looking Glass' last few games, Deus Ex, etc. Attempt to evolve to the next level, chump; your YEARS behind...
Eep²
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:34:58 -0700, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Jason Kozak wrote:
> >> 1st person isn't the magical control solution for every game. In MGS,
> >> your primary concern is stealth, not aim, so a 3rd person perspective
> >> is ideal. MGS pits you against unlimited enemies, so stealth is your
> >> only hope for survival. To get the positional awareness you get with
> >> 3rd person, you'd have to be swinging your mouse around in 1st. A task
> >> that I somehow don't see many people enjoying... especially when you'd
> >> have to do it constantly.
> >>
> >> Oh, and Eep, 1st person != immersion. Actually, I find 1st person
> >> quite unimmersive... no peripheral vision,
> >
> > So move the camera around more like you move your head and eyes around
> > in real life! Quit acting so helpless. Stealth is important in Thief,
> > too, yet it's ONLY in 1st-person. Your argument is futile; give it
> > up. Just because YOU can't handle 1st-person doesn't mean everyone
> > else shouldn't. I am simply asking for BOTH 1st- AND 3rd-person views
> > in 3D games--the best of BOTH worlds. Stop thinking only one OR the
> > other, eh? God damn...
>
> Lets make this quick since you can't be bothered to respect the fact
> that not everyone uses a newsgroup browser that linewraps incoming
> posts.
You do that.
> Now, why do I have to go on and restate things? I made it a point in
> saying that swinging your mouse around in 1st person to see what's
> around you, when you could see it all instantly in 3rd is pointless.
And I rebutted your point saying that 3rd-person isn't a realistic perspective for immersive gameplay. <shrug>
> In Theif you at least had a good sound-propagation system. Most games
> don't (including MGS), as it takes a bit of processor power, and that makes being stealth harder.
Hardly; even with my old SoundBlaster Pro (8-bit, no 3D hardware support) I could tell where the guards were coming from in Thief 1 & 2...playing on a P233/MMX, 64MB RAM, no less. There you are acting helpless again...
> Not to mention, Theif doesn't have
> regenerating enemies like MGS.
A feature of Thief's design.
> Attempting to clear a level of enemies
> is pointless... and best avoided.
A limitation of MGS' design.
> Eep, why don't you understand that sometimes games are played best one
> way, rather than another.
Because what's "best" to YOU may be "shit" to ME. Think relatively. Note that I never said ONLY 1st-person or ONLY mouselook, but I would simply like the OPTION to use them whenever I want. THINK, Jason, THINK...and try reading more carefully.
> 3rd person offers sight advantages that 1st
> doesn't, and 1st offers aiming that 3rd doesn't. Designers should
> choose the mode that best suits the game. If both perform equally,
> then include them both, by all means.
Again, what's "best" to a game designer might not be best to a game PLAYER. This is why there is such a thing as play (beta) testing, where real world (in theory anyway) gamers test out the designer's design and critique and comment on it. Ideally, I think it should become STANDARD for ALL 3D games to include 1st- and 3rd-person perspectives and mouselook, among other things I won't bother going into now.
> Oh, and I can easily handle 1st person. I've been playing FPSs since
> Wolf3D, and I greatly enjoy them. I'm just not so narrow minded as to
> think more features is more fun.
So stop playing current FPSes if you enjoyed Wolf3D so much; I sure don't enjoy Wolf3D after playing current FPSes...
> Not to mention... since when does turning my head to look around in
> real life change my direction of movement?
It doesn't HAVE to, but I'm sure you'd bitch about that if a game implemented looking and moving separately...
> >> lackluster 3d sound....
> >> nothing beats the real thing I'm afraid.
> >
> >What does 3D sound have to do with 1st-person? If a game supports 3D
> >sound the perspective won't matter. Duh.
>
> 3d sound has everything to do with situational awareness. If awareness
> is important, and you don't have good 3d sound, you're going to have
> to make up for it somehow. 3rd person is a good way to do that.
So is looking around in 1st-person. Duh. YOU are the narrow-minded one here, sport; I KNOW the benefits of 3rd-person, but you obviously don't know the benefits of 1st-person. Take a seat.
> >> Immersion isn't about the view. It's all about suspending belief, and
> >> you don't need 1st person to do it. You do need a unified look and
> >> feel, and a game universe with solid laws. If anything rips me back
> >> into reality, it's an out of place texture, or some physics defying
> >> trick in a game that attempts to obey real-world laws.
> >
> >While those things DO help in immersion, again, I repeat, do you go
> >through life with a camera behind and above your head? No. You see
> >from a 1st-person view; this view should be STANDARD in ALL 3D games,
> >with 3rd-person secondary (yet either view easily togglable in-game
> >with a single key). Seeing my character's back/ass is what kills the
> >immersion for me the most.
>
> No, I'd be pretty scared if I did, but the current 1st person view is
> a far cry from anything in real life. Not seeing my feet does the same
> thing for me... since when I am a floating hand with a gun?
I agree, which is why Trespasser was a nice change of pace from 1st-person games of the day (and to this day for the most part). I've been pushing for more visible body parts in 1st-person view for years. However, 1st-person is still more realistic than 3rd-person for my aformentioned points.
Quatoria
ssw...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net (sswift) wrote:
>No, I did not claim to work at Looking Glass on Thief.
Right. You made a metal grating and some carpet for System Shock 2,
didn't you?
Jason Kozak
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:18:54 GMT, sec...@idirect.removeme.ca (Jason Kozak) wrote:
>
>>I'm just curious, but why exactly does a 3D game need mouselook?
>>
>
>Because in FPS's, you're dead meat if you can't instantly identify
>and target and enemy. Try Q3A, with the cursor keys, and no
>mouselook, online, and I'm sure you'll understand.
>
>Quickly.
>
> ;)
Oh I know that, I play UT regularly myself, and I'm a great fan of FPS
games.
>>I've got MGS for the psx, and I've enjoyed it greatly, not once
>>wishing there was a mouselook.
>
>There is no online on a PSX, and the AI enemies are a bunch slower
>than AI or human enemies in PC FPS's.
No online for the PC MGS as far as I've heard, so it's not a big deal
either.
Mouselook isn't really necessary for MGS, and as I explained in my
post, it'd be harder to get by in, because the style of play puts more
precedence on situational awareness than skill in conflict; a key
factor in FPSs.
Jason Kozak
>Jason Kozak wrote:
>> 1st person isn't the magical control solution for every game. In MGS,
>> your primary concern is stealth, not aim, so a 3rd person perspective
>> is ideal. MGS pits you against unlimited enemies, so stealth is your
>> only hope for survival. To get the positional awareness you get with
>> 3rd person, you'd have to be swinging your mouse around in 1st. A task
>> that I somehow don't see many people enjoying... especially when you'd
>> have to do it constantly.
>>
>> Oh, and Eep, 1st person != immersion. Actually, I find 1st person
>> quite unimmersive... no peripheral vision,
>
> So move the camera around more like you move your head and eyes around
> in real life! Quit acting so helpless. Stealth is important in Thief,
> too, yet it's ONLY in 1st-person. Your argument is futile; give it
> up. Just because YOU can't handle 1st-person doesn't mean everyone
> else shouldn't. I am simply asking for BOTH 1st- AND 3rd-person views
> in 3D games--the best of BOTH worlds. Stop thinking only one OR the
> other, eh? God damn...
Lets make this quick since you can't be bothered to respect the fact
that not everyone uses a newsgroup browser that linewraps incoming
posts.
Now, why do I have to go on and restate things? I made it a point in
saying that swinging your mouse around in 1st person to see what's
around you, when you could see it all instantly in 3rd is pointless.
In Theif you at least had a good sound-propagation system. Most games
don't (including MGS), as it takes a bit of processor power, and that
makes being stealth harder. Not to mention, Theif doesn't have
regenerating enemies like MGS. Attempting to clear a level of enemies
is pointless... and best avoided.
Eep, why don't you understand that sometimes games are played best one
way, rather than another. 3rd person offers sight advantages that 1st
doesn't, and 1st offers aiming that 3rd doesn't. Designers should
choose the mode that best suits the game. If both perform equally,
then include them both, by all means.
Oh, and I can easily handle 1st person. I've been playing FPSs since
Wolf3D, and I greatly enjoy them. I'm just not so narrow minded as to
think more features is more fun.
Not to mention... since when does turning my head to look around in
real life change my direction of movement?
>> lackluster 3d sound....
>> nothing beats the real thing I'm afraid.
>
>What does 3D sound have to do with 1st-person? If a game supports 3D
>sound the perspective won't matter. Duh.
3d sound has everything to do with situational awareness. If awareness
is important, and you don't have good 3d sound, you're going to have
to make up for it somehow. 3rd person is a good way to do that.
>> Immersion isn't about the view. It's all about suspending belief, and
>> you don't need 1st person to do it. You do need a unified look and
>> feel, and a game universe with solid laws. If anything rips me back
>> into reality, it's an out of place texture, or some physics defying
>> trick in a game that attempts to obey real-world laws.
>
>While those things DO help in immersion, again, I repeat, do you go
>through life with a camera behind and above your head? No. You see
>from a 1st-person view; this view should be STANDARD in ALL 3D games,
>with 3rd-person secondary (yet either view easily togglable in-game
>with a single key). Seeing my character's back/ass is what kills the
>immersion for me the most.
No, I'd be pretty scared if I did, but the current 1st person view is
a far cry from anything in real life. Not seeing my feet does the same
thing for me... since when I am a floating hand with a gun?
Jason Kozak
_
<insert sig here>
Jason Kozak
wrote:
>"Jason Kozak" <sec...@idirect.removeme.ca> wrote in message
>
>> I'm just curious, but why exactly does a 3D game need mouselook?
>
>Well, since MGS isn't a 3D game, guess it doesn't matter...but
>it could be all these past years I've spent playing "3D" games using
>mouselook...and have become accustomed to the freedome of movement provided
>by the utilization of mouselook and a keyboard...but that's just my
>opinion...
Okay, I think we need to compare definitions of 3D. Certainly looks
just as 3D as any FPS I've played...
Since when does mouselook provide freedom of movement? It's great for
looking around, but very restrictive as far as moving in one
direction, looking in another goes.
>>My only complaint control-wise is the
>> lack of strafing. Other than that, the current camera is much better
>> than a mouselook would be.
>
>Your opinion...mine differs...
Okay, can't argue that.
>> 1st person isn't the magical control solution for every game. In MGS,
>> your primary concern is stealth, not aim, so a 3rd person perspective
>> is ideal. MGS pits you against unlimited enemies, so stealth is your
>> only hope for survival. To get the positional awareness you get with
>> 3rd person, you'd have to be swinging your mouse around in 1st. A task
>> that I somehow don't see many people enjoying... especially when you'd
>> have to do it constantly.
>
>Uhh...heard of Thief??? DeusEx...stealth oriented games...on a PC, perhaps
>to be ported to a console...don't see any third person view on the above
>mentioned games...Hitman Code 47 is third person, "3D" game that also relies
>more on stealth, and, get this, it allows you to use a mouse! imagine that!
I've played Theif, heard of DeusEx, don't know shit about Hitman.
Thief has realistic sound propagation, which helps a lot. None of them
have unlimited enemies to my knowledge, a key part of MGS... you can't
win by force alone, no matter how hard you try.
I didn't know control methods were in discussion. I see no reason why
mouse control shouldn't be offered for 3rd person. If it's a better
method of control, by all means, I'd rather use it.
> > Oh, and Eep, 1st person != immersion. Actually, I find 1st person
>> quite unimmersive... no peripheral vision, lackluster 3d sound....
>> nothing beats the real thing I'm afraid.
>
>Yeah...real life is pretty immersive...so is viewing a from a camera 3 feet
>behind and 3 feet above my head...that's pretty realistic, right??? <grin>
Just as realistic as looking down at my invisible feet :)
sswift
>You must've never played Wolfenstein 3D or Doom, then, because you can use the mouse to move in it and it's not THAT annoying.
I did play those. And I never used the mouse to move. I don't
remember using a mouse at all in Wolf, but in Doom I always used the
arrow keys to move, and the mosue to look around. Using the mosue to
move would be very annoying, and I don't know anyone in their right
mind who would play like that.
>Besides, you were talking about simple 2D scrollers (ala Space Invaders, Subspace, etc). Mouse control in those games would be simple compared to 3D. <shrug>
Yes, I thought of schemes whcih would work for those, but I was trying
to make a point, and I didn't want to get into all sorts of various
schemes.
Abuse used the mouse to display a crosshair which the chracter
onscreen aimed at. I suppose in metal gear you could have the
character run towards whatever you point at. But then the game would
become a simple point at the enemy and hit the fire button to kill
him. That works in first person because it's hard to point at the
enemy. But it wouldn't work in an overhead view game like MGS,
because it would just be too damn easy and boring.
>> No, I did not claim to work at Looking Glass on Thief.
>
>What DID you claim, then (if anything)?
I worked on System Shock 2, Deer Hunter, some Duke 3D and Blood
addons, and a bunch of budget games. And I've worked as a level
designer, texture artist (I really sucked at making textures at the
time, which is how I became a level designer), and I've done beta
testing, written documentation, done sound design, programmed, ...
heck, I've even composed music. (Though the only games which have used
my music so far that I know of are ones which I've written myself.)
My webpage has all the details you'd ever want to know about what I've
worked on:
http://home.earthlink.net/~sswift
I did work alongside the LG people, and in the same offices as them...
but I was working for Irrational Games, and not LG.
Hydra
> Duh, and that's one of its problems: not having the OPTION to switch to 1=
> st-person whenever the player wants to.
Diablo sucks big a**, no mouselook! Damn! And not even an option to
switch to first person!
Niels
--
Mail: hydra1m...@wxs.ONIONnl (Eat your veggies)
Page: http://home.conceptsfa.nl/~hydra/
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring Them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."
Lucian Wischik
>[mouselook would be good in lots of games, as would a 1st persion view]
I agree that mouselook would be a neat addition to lots of 3/4 or
top-down-view games, and that it would add to the immersiveness. Even in a
game like X-COM or Ultima7.
But actually the technology is no way near ready for unconstrained
1st-person-view looking at horizons. The only two games that make an even
half-decent attempt are Halo and Black and White; neither game is out yet,
and both games have to dramatically reduce the amount of detail to just
plain rolling hills. Thief had very low poly counts on all the
external buildings -- MGS would be a worse game with that little detail.
Quake stays inside most of the time and doesn't have to deal with
horizons.
So while mouselook would be good for immersiveness, I don't think it's
remotely possible technologically at the moment (without sacrificing a lot
of detail).
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Jarno Kaarinen
>First person in sneaking games REALLY sucks if the sound isn't done
>extremely well. Thief is the only game I can think of which actualy
>had a halfway decent sound propogation system. Most develoeprs don't
>bother spending the time to put that in, even in big budget games like
>Deus Ex. So until develoeprs get their acts together, first person
>for sneaking games will suck.
>
>And even if you do get a decent sound system, you still don't have
>peripheral vision and using a lean key to look around corners is a
>pain in the ass. Too many keys to control your chracter.
>
>A third person view alleviates all these problems.
Now we come back to the immersion factor. I found Thief to be more
immersive game than MGS exactly because it was in first person view so
that I actually had to peek around corners, and I didn't have the
automatic advantage of seeing enemies when I wasn't supposed to really
see them (like standing around the corner, yet the camera reveals that
there is a guard in the other corridor).
Sure third-person view "alleviates" this "problem" by letting you see
better around than the enemy characters can, because you have this
magical floating camera which sees around the corners.
What would alleviate the "problem" even more was that MGS screen was
divided in four and one of the screens show your character, and the
other three show the three closest enemies all the time.
Hey, that certainly gives you even better vision of the world around
you, but it just feels a bit goofy and less immersive to me. Just like
in MGS the fact I can see around the corners already when I am not
even near the corner.
Jarno Kaarinen
>Now, why do I have to go on and restate things? I made it a point in
>saying that swinging your mouse around in 1st person to see what's
>around you, when you could see it all instantly in 3rd is pointless.
Many people feel it is more immersive that I actually have to peek
around the corner (in first person view), than that I have this
magical floating camera which shows around the corner already meters
away.
How come the enemies don't have similar floating cameras around their
heads which would reveal that Snake is hiding around the corner? Just
doesn't make sense.
>Eep, why don't you understand that sometimes games are played best one
>way, rather than another. 3rd person offers sight advantages that 1st
>doesn't, and 1st offers aiming that 3rd doesn't. Designers should
True, but I personally also think first person view also adds more
"being-there" feeling too.
>>What does 3D sound have to do with 1st-person? If a game supports 3D
>>sound the perspective won't matter. Duh.
>
>3d sound has everything to do with situational awareness. If awareness
>is important, and you don't have good 3d sound, you're going to have
>to make up for it somehow. 3rd person is a good way to do that.
Funny, I don't even have 3D audio hardware, yet I could play Thief
fine. I have a regular Soundblaster 16 and stereo speakers.
Thus, 3D sound is NOT needed for first-person stealth games.
>No, I'd be pretty scared if I did, but the current 1st person view is
>a far cry from anything in real life. Not seeing my feet does the same
>thing for me... since when I am a floating hand with a gun?
"Seeing my feet" does not alter the gameplay at all, but third-person
view does by giving you advantages that shouldn't be there.
There are some first-person games though that show you your feet too.
Montezuma's Revenge was one I guess. Just in case seeing your feet is
really that important to you in a first person view game.
Jarno Kaarinen
>Thief is primarily a stealth game and IT has mouselook (and is only 1st-person, too, I might add). MGS should have an optional 1st-person mode AND mouselook--I think ALL 3D games should.
Even though I have stated that I prefer first person stealth games to
third person (immersion), I do not agree they should have altered MGS
on PC. That is simply because then it wouldn't be Metal Gear Solid
game anymore that was praised on PSX. It is supposed to be a port, not
a whole rewrite. They probably would have changed the gameplay a lot
if they had added first person view.
Red Bat
>> you don't need 1st person to do it. You do need a unified look and
>> feel, and a game universe with solid laws. If anything rips me back
>> into reality, it's an out of place texture, or some physics defying
>> trick in a game that attempts to obey real-world laws.
>
>While those things DO help in immersion, again, I repeat, do you go through
life with a camera behind and >above your head? No. You see from a
1st-person view; this view should be STANDARD in ALL 3D >games,
>with 3rd-person secondary (yet either view easily togglable in-game with a
single key). Seeing my >character's back/ass is what kills the immersion for
me the most.
Not all games are about immersion, though. Metal Gear Solid is more about
providing a cinematic experience (something you'll notice if you play the
game instead of the VR missions). Instead of immersing ourselves in the role
of Solid Snake, we are constantly aware that he is a seperate character from
us. This does not have to be a bad thing, since it sometimes can make it
easier to identify with the character. It's hard to identify with 'generic
space marine' in Quake 2, so instead we place ourselves in that role. Seeing
Snake walk, run, crawl and lean against walls helps define him as a
character, hearing him talk on the radio (where the player has no input into
what is being said) helps define him as a character. It's the difference
between using an avatar (figure that represents the player) in a game and
letting the player control a character.
I'm not going to argue for or against any of these design choices, since I
believe they are both valid. If what you're looking for is a game where you
control a 3d model that represents yourself, if you want to place yourself
in the game world, then I'd say a 1st person perspective is the best way of
doing it, but if you want a game where the player is given a cinematic
experience similar to that of a movie (not exactly like a movie, of course,
the player still has control over a particular character), then a 3rd person
perspective is a good choice.
Everything stated above is of course only my opinion....
-Red Bat, posting here for the very
first time...
M.
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:09:35 -0500, "cox" <mike...@cox-internet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Jason Kozak" <sec...@idirect.removeme.ca> wrote in message
> >
> >> I'm just curious, but why exactly does a 3D game need mouselook?
> >
> >Well, since MGS isn't a 3D game, guess it doesn't matter...but
> >it could be all these past years I've spent playing "3D" games using
> >mouselook...and have become accustomed to the freedome of movement
provided
> >by the utilization of mouselook and a keyboard...but that's just my
> >opinion...
>
> Okay, I think we need to compare definitions of 3D. Certainly looks
> just as 3D as any FPS I've played...
Well, I was being a bit "sarcastic" earlier posts were telling me it's a 3D
isometric top-down style game...
>
> Since when does mouselook provide freedom of movement? It's great for
> looking around, but very restrictive as far as moving in one
> direction, looking in another goes.
Use mouseloo to move viewpoint and movement direction, use keyboard to
strafe, ala FAKK, Hitman, Heretic II (all 3rd person 3D games).
> I didn't know control methods were in discussion. I see no reason why
> mouse control shouldn't be offered for 3rd person. If it's a better
> method of control, by all means, I'd rather use it.
Okay, cool...no arguement from me... <grin>
> >Yeah...real life is pretty immersive...so is viewing a from a camera 3
feet
> >behind and 3 feet above my head...that's pretty realistic, right???
<grin>
>
> Just as realistic as looking down at my invisible feet :)
Can't argue with that...wasn't it Trepasser where you could look down and
see your "chest" (you played as a female).
M. (aka Cox)
JvG
>> Just as realistic as looking down at my invisible feet :)
>
>Can't argue with that...wasn't it Trepasser where you could look down and
>see your "chest" (you played as a female).
Yeah, you could.
Trespasser, the game I loved and which everyone else hated. ;)
Ajay Tanwar
>Not all games are about immersion, though. Metal Gear Solid is more about
>providing a cinematic experience (something you'll notice if you play the
>game instead of the VR missions).
Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself. The whole designed is centered
around "playing a movie" rather than "you are there". People who have never even
seen it don't get this subtle, but important fact.
Ajay Tanwar - ajta...@yahoo.spam.com (You know what to do)
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
Eep²
Ever heard of fog? Go play Magic Carpet (probably 2, too), Trespasser, Outcast, Motocross Madness 2 (probably 1, too), Midtown Madness 2 (again, probably 1, too), Drakan, and any other game that has an outdoor/landscape/terrain. 1st-person view with horizons has been possible (and done) for years...
Eep²
Hydra wrote:
> In article <39D107E4...@tnlc.com>, e...@tnlc.com says...
> > Duh, and that's one of its problems: not having the OPTION to switch to 1=
> > st-person whenever the player wants to.
>
> Diablo sucks big a**, no mouselook! Damn! And not even an option to
> switch to first person!
--
Eep²
And I never said 3rd person perspective has NO immersion, but I just feel 1st-person is MORE immersive since I actually FEEL like the player I am controlling, rather than just watching him/her from some imaginary camera hovering wherever.
And Thief's 1st-person view Garrett makes comments to himself (as does Duke Nukem), which only adds to the immersion. And you'd be amazed at what mirrors do for immersion factor--go play Duke Nukem 3D, Deus Ex, SWAT3, etc.
Red Bat wrote:
> >> Immersion isn't about the view. It's all about suspending belief, and
> >> you don't need 1st person to do it. You do need a unified look and
> >> feel, and a game universe with solid laws. If anything rips me back
> >> into reality, it's an out of place texture, or some physics defying
> >> trick in a game that attempts to obey real-world laws.
> >
> >While those things DO help in immersion, again, I repeat, do you go through
> life with a camera behind and >above your head? No. You see from a
> 1st-person view; this view should be STANDARD in ALL 3D >games,
> >with 3rd-person secondary (yet either view easily togglable in-game with a
> single key). Seeing my >character's back/ass is what kills the immersion for
> me the most.
>
> Not all games are about immersion, though. Metal Gear Solid is more about
> providing a cinematic experience (something you'll notice if you play the
> game instead of the VR missions). Instead of immersing ourselves in the role
> of Solid Snake, we are constantly aware that he is a seperate character from
> us. This does not have to be a bad thing, since it sometimes can make it
> easier to identify with the character. It's hard to identify with 'generic
> space marine' in Quake 2, so instead we place ourselves in that role. Seeing
> Snake walk, run, crawl and lean against walls helps define him as a
> character, hearing him talk on the radio (where the player has no input into
> what is being said) helps define him as a character. It's the difference
> between using an avatar (figure that represents the player) in a game and
> letting the player control a character.
>
> I'm not going to argue for or against any of these design choices, since I
> believe they are both valid. If what you're looking for is a game where you
> control a 3d model that represents yourself, if you want to place yourself
> in the game world, then I'd say a 1st person perspective is the best way of
> doing it, but if you want a game where the player is given a cinematic
> experience similar to that of a movie (not exactly like a movie, of course,
> the player still has control over a particular character), then a 3rd person
> perspective is a good choice.
>
> Everything stated above is of course only my opinion....
--
Tom Paris
>
>Diablo isn't a 3D game, twit, which is part of the reason I have no desire to
play it.
>
>Hydra wrote:
>
>> In article <39D107E4...@tnlc.com>, e...@tnlc.com says...
>> > Duh, and that's one of its problems: not having the OPTION to switch to
1=
>> > st-person whenever the player wants to.
>>
>> Diablo sucks big a**, no mouselook! Damn! And not even an option to
>> switch to first person!
>
Some people just don't have a sense of humor.
Jason Kozak
wrote:
>sec...@idirect.removeme.ca (Jason Kozak) wrote:
>
>>Now, why do I have to go on and restate things? I made it a point in
>>saying that swinging your mouse around in 1st person to see what's
>>around you, when you could see it all instantly in 3rd is pointless.
>
>Many people feel it is more immersive that I actually have to peek
>around the corner (in first person view), than that I have this
>magical floating camera which shows around the corner already meters
>away.
>
>How come the enemies don't have similar floating cameras around their
>heads which would reveal that Snake is hiding around the corner? Just
>doesn't make sense.
Heh, nevermind that... how come the enemies in MGS stop coming after
you when they havn't seen you for a while :)
>>>What does 3D sound have to do with 1st-person? If a game supports 3D
>>>sound the perspective won't matter. Duh.
>>
>>3d sound has everything to do with situational awareness. If awareness
>>is important, and you don't have good 3d sound, you're going to have
>>to make up for it somehow. 3rd person is a good way to do that.
>
>Funny, I don't even have 3D audio hardware, yet I could play Thief
>fine. I have a regular Soundblaster 16 and stereo speakers.
>
>Thus, 3D sound is NOT needed for first-person stealth games.
Sorry, bad word usage... I meant Theif's realistic sound system.
>>No, I'd be pretty scared if I did, but the current 1st person view is
>>a far cry from anything in real life. Not seeing my feet does the same
>>thing for me... since when I am a floating hand with a gun?
>
>"Seeing my feet" does not alter the gameplay at all, but third-person
>view does by giving you advantages that shouldn't be there.
>
>There are some first-person games though that show you your feet too.
>Montezuma's Revenge was one I guess. Just in case seeing your feet is
>really that important to you in a first person view game.
I was kidding there :)
I realize 3rd person gives advantages, but who says they shouldn't be
there? In MGS it helps give you the situational awareness you need.
It's very important to know when a baddy is chasing you around a
corner, and unlike in real life, running around the corner while
taking a quick glance back isn't that easy in 1st person. A key to
making a good game is making it easy to play (not necessarily win :),
and if that means sacrificing a little "immersion", then so be it.
Lucian Wischik
>[looking at horizon not possible, without sacrificing a lot of detail]
>Ever heard of fog? 1st-person view with horizons has been possible (and
>done) for years...
I have heard of fog. That's why I wrote "without sacrificing a lot of
detail". Fog just makes a game look cheesy. And if a game is about combat
on a clear day, then drawing it with fog is misleading as well.
Jason Kozak
>Jason Kozak wrote:
>
>> Now, why do I have to go on and restate things? I made it a point in
>> saying that swinging your mouse around in 1st person to see what's
>> around you, when you could see it all instantly in 3rd is pointless.
>
>And I rebutted your point saying that 3rd-person isn't a realistic perspective for immersive gameplay. <shrug>
So? It's no wonder we have games that are all flash and no
substance...
"This thing is better for gameplay, but that is better for immersion,
so which do we choose?"
"Immersion of course! If it's not realistic and 3d, it's obviously
crap."
>> In Theif you at least had a good sound-propagation system. Most games
>> don't (including MGS), as it takes a bit of processor power, and that makes being stealth harder.
>
>Hardly; even with my old SoundBlaster Pro (8-bit, no 3D hardware
>support) I could tell where the guards were coming from in Thief 1 &
>2...playing on a P233/MMX, 64MB RAM, no less. There you are acting
>helpless again...
I don't have 3d hardware either, but 8-bit? ouch.
I still don't understand your helpless bit... I don't have trouble
playing 2d games, so I don't see why I'm the helpless one.
>> Not to mention, Theif doesn't have
>> regenerating enemies like MGS.
>
>A feature of Thief's design.
>
>> Attempting to clear a level of enemies
>> is pointless... and best avoided.
>
>A limitation of MGS' design.
Hehe... its funny how you become the master of design to support your
argument.
How is that a limitation? Actually, it's quite more realistic than a
lot of other games, where the player is expected to take out an army.
At least in MGS, you're met with an army if you try. It need not even
be unlimited, because even the best of players will run out of ammo
before they can take out half of what you'd expect to be guarding a
mobile nuke launcher.
>> Eep, why don't you understand that sometimes games are played best one
>> way, rather than another.
>
>Because what's "best" to YOU may be "shit" to ME. Think relatively.
>Note that I never said ONLY 1st-person or ONLY mouselook, but I would
>simply like the OPTION to use them whenever I want. THINK, Jason,
>THINK...and try reading more carefully.
THINK Eep, THINK. There are technical limitations involved in
implementing another view. Levels must be designed so they work
equally well with both views. If that means alienating Eep, too bad
for Eep.
>> 3rd person offers sight advantages that 1st
>> doesn't, and 1st offers aiming that 3rd doesn't. Designers should
>> choose the mode that best suits the game. If both perform equally,
>> then include them both, by all means.
>
>Again, what's "best" to a game designer might not be best to a game
>PLAYER. This is why there is such a thing as play (beta) testing,
>where real world (in theory anyway) gamers test out the designer's
>design and critique and comment on it. Ideally, I think it should
>become STANDARD for ALL 3D games to include 1st- and 3rd-person
>perspectives and mouselook, among other things I won't bother going
>into now.
Correct, and it's the game designer's job to balance the ease of the
player vs. the ease of the developer.
Ideally, I think few games should include both perspectives. 3rd
person gives obvious advantages when it comes to knowing where someone
is. For example, In Rogue Spear you can easily "cheat" by tapping into
3rd to look around a corner. If you don't, you're forced to peak and
that leaves you open to fire. On the other hand, 1st person provides
much better aim for those with a mouse, making 3rd person the
equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.
I think gameplay should come before extra features, such as dual
perspectives, among other things.
>> Oh, and I can easily handle 1st person. I've been playing FPSs since
>> Wolf3D, and I greatly enjoy them. I'm just not so narrow minded as to
>> think more features is more fun.
>
>So stop playing current FPSes if you enjoyed Wolf3D so much; I sure
>don't enjoy Wolf3D after playing current FPSes...
Eh? Either do I, what's your point? You assumed because I'm not for
1st person in MGS I couldn't handle 1st person, I stated why you were
wrong.
>> Not to mention... since when does turning my head to look around in
>> real life change my direction of movement?
>
>It doesn't HAVE to, but I'm sure you'd bitch about that if a game
>implemented looking and moving separately...
If it was no better than the current look and move, sure... I'd say it
was a bad design decision. If it was done well, I'd have no problem
with it (actually, I'd like to see it done well).
>> 3d sound has everything to do with situational awareness. If awareness
>> is important, and you don't have good 3d sound, you're going to have
>> to make up for it somehow. 3rd person is a good way to do that.
>
>So is looking around in 1st-person. Duh. YOU are the narrow-minded one
>here, sport; I KNOW the benefits of 3rd-person, but you obviously
>don't know the benefits of 1st-person. Take a seat.
Sure I do... "immersion"
>> >While those things DO help in immersion, again, I repeat, do you go
>> >through life with a camera behind and above your head? No. You see
>> >from a 1st-person view; this view should be STANDARD in ALL 3D games,
>> >with 3rd-person secondary (yet either view easily togglable in-game
>> >with a single key). Seeing my character's back/ass is what kills the
>> >immersion for me the most.
>>
>> No, I'd be pretty scared if I did, but the current 1st person view is
>> a far cry from anything in real life. Not seeing my feet does the same
>> thing for me... since when I am a floating hand with a gun?
>
>I agree, which is why Trespasser was a nice change of pace from
>1st-person games of the day (and to this day for the most part). I've
>been pushing for more visible body parts in 1st-person view for years.
>However, 1st-person is still more realistic than 3rd-person for my
>aformentioned points.
It was a joke, but also one of the flaws with 1st person. Peripheral
vision is one. Perception of depth is another (though I just recently
read about a new monitor that simulates depth a lot better by using
two screens).
Like I said before, the view has little to do wit suspension of
belief. You seem to think immersion means being the player... it
doesn't. It means being immersed in the game world, whether you're
watching it like a movie, or playing it as the hero..
ddnguyen
sswift wrote in message <39d48d82....@news.earthlink.net>...
>sec...@idirect.removeme.ca (Jason Kozak) wrote:
>>Heh, nevermind that... how come the enemies in MGS stop coming after
>>you when they havn't seen you for a while :)
>
>
>They've been genetically engineered to have no long term memory.
>
>Keeps the soliders in line!
>
Actually it's a typo, they're not super soliders, they're stupid soliders.
-ddn
sswift
Ajay Tanwar
tom....@voyager.ssh (Tom Paris) wrote in
<8qtsad$eoa$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>:
>Some people just don't have a sense of humor.
>In article <39D26B6C...@tnlc.com>, e...@tnlc.com says...
Ajay Tanwar
>And I never said 3rd person perspective has NO immersion, but I just
>feel 1st-person is MORE immersive since I actually FEEL like the player
>I am controlling, rather than just watching him/her from some imaginary
>camera hovering wherever.
He just said that they intentionally went with a more cinematic
presentation at the expense of immersion. Not every video game is about
immersion, there are other factors that can make a game fun.
Eh, why do I bother? Maybe I should try talking to brick walls next.
Joshua E Millard
: > >"Jason Kozak" <sec...@idirect.removeme.ca> wrote in message
: > >
: > >> I'm just curious, but why exactly does a 3D game need mouselook?
: > >
: > >Well, since MGS isn't a 3D game, guess it doesn't matter...but
: > >it could be all these past years I've spent playing "3D" games using
: > >mouselook...and have become accustomed to the freedome of movement
: provided
: > >by the utilization of mouselook and a keyboard...but that's just my
: > >opinion...
Heh. Jumping into a fading flamewar. :)
I think one of the primary torches here, Mike, is that you've been arguing
your preference blindly in the face of sound and sane game design. I like
mousing too, and I love FPSes, but MGS is not an FPS and was not designed
to be. It is a meatier, pretty version of a classic couple of console
games, designed for--and very well suited to--an over head, situationally
aware perspective.
The reason mouselook in MGS strikes so many as an un-needed feature is
because they are right on the money. There is simply no motivation, from
the point of game design, to add mouseing to MGS. It was not designed for
it; the levels aren't layed out in such a way as to benefit from it. The
game is very playable, as it was *designed* to be, using only 8 directions
of movement. I've played through it with and without analog controllers
on the PSX; there is very little difference.
Your acclimation to and appreciation of mouselook control has nothing to
do with the appropriateness of mouselook for MGS. I might (say, five
years ago) prefer to play Doom and Wolf with the keyboard, but that has no
bearing on whether or not Quake ought to have been designed with
keyboarding in mind. The control interface is an aspect of the game
design, and should be respected when done properly. With MGS, it is.
Rainbow Six, on the other hand, is an absymal PSX game, precisely because
it *demands* accurate shooting control on multiple axes. (Well, that and
the scaled down gameplay in a whole lot of other areas.) R6 was not
designed for the gamepad, no matter how much gamer Foo likes gamepad
control.
</rant>
: Well, I was being a bit "sarcastic" earlier posts were telling me it's a 3D
: isometric top-down style game...
Isometric it isn't (though it's 8-bit predecessors were, or were close
enough given that there wasn't any real third dimension at work in MG or
MG2); top-down and 3D are valid descriptions.
: > I didn't know control methods were in discussion. I see no reason why
: > mouse control shouldn't be offered for 3rd person. If it's a better
: > method of control, by all means, I'd rather use it.
:
: Okay, cool...no arguement from me... <grin>
Indeed. What constitutes a better method of control is, I think, the
issue here. It may be very comforting to a habitual mouser to use the
mouse in MGS, but to implement mouse-driven control would require an
extensive redesign of the gameplay. Just tossing mousecontrol in would
create an awkward and imbalanced game.
As for first-person mode in MGS, others have put it quite well already in
agreement with my own dead horse: the design does not *remotely*
facilitate it, any more than Quake facilitates a top-down third-person,
fixed-compass view. There are design issues that transcend such
complaints; a well-designed game uses an appropriate control
interface. Play Rainbow Six with a mouse; play MGS with a gamepad
(analog, if you like). Accept that competent game designers (a class the
most definitely includes the Metal Gear Solid crew) have considered the
bursts of inspiration you're spouting and, in the case that your pet
feature is unimplemented, intentionally excluded it for a good reason
(or, of course, because they ran out of money; MGS isn't an example).
MGS may not be your thing. Fine. There isn't an inherent flaw in the
game, you just don't like it. MGS is considered by many people, myself
included, to be one of the finest console games in existence, but hey,
that's our thing. However, you seriously ought not to judge MGS on
(a) the control interface (which is suitable to the design and works quite
well in the context of the game) or on (b) the VR Missions pack, which,
frankly, was a cheap knock-off to generate cash from loyal gamers. I
certainly don't judge Tim Burton based on "Batman & Robin." ;)
And, to throw in another, off-topic tangent, is anyone else pumped about
the upcoming Darran Aronofsky/Frank Miller film adaptation of
"Batman: Year One?" Hell, to get back on topic-ish, anyone here who's
familiar with the graphic novel (one of those graphic novels that justify
the whole goddam genre and earns the title with nobility) considered what
a well-done 3-D action/adventure game on that theme would be
like? Mmm. Creepy and dark and wonderful, if it was done right.
And here, of course, I'm thinking top-down isometric 3D with 8-way
directional control.
--
Joshua Millard == pu...@wpi.edu && www.wpi.edu/~pulp
.-'-. '-.-' .-'-. '-.-'
Yo' momma's .sig is so big, she's got to use a full screen editor just to,
um, edit it. Yeah.
Mark Asher
I'll chip in with my two cents. I prefer first-person also. As to
making a game more cinematic, that's fine. Just don't sacrifice
playability to do so, like they did with Nocturne.
Hydra
> Diablo isn't a 3D game, twit, which is part of the reason I have no desire to play it.
Diablo 2 uses hardware accelleration for lightning effects, and could
also be created using a 3D engine like in MGS. But that's not the point.
The point is that MGS is much more like Diablo than like Quake gameplay-
wise, and mouse-look would be pretty useless in Diablo.
*twit*
Revok
>While those things DO help in immersion, again, I repeat, do you go through
life with a camera behind and above your head? No. You see from a 1st-person
view; this view should be STANDARD in ALL 3D games, with 3rd-person
secondary (yet either view easily togglable in-game with a single key).
Seeing my character's back/ass is what kills the immersion for me the most.
>
Do you go through life haven't to carry out actions in the direction you are
viewing all the time? You do FP games (no shooting in any direction other
than the one you are looking).
Revok
Eep² wrote in message <39D26C62...@tnlc.com>...
>Lucian Wischik wrote:
>
>> Eep^2 <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>> >[mouselook would be good in lots of games, as would a 1st persion view]
>>
>> I agree that mouselook would be a neat addition to lots of 3/4 or
>> top-down-view games, and that it would add to the immersiveness. Even in
a
>> game like X-COM or Ultima7.
>>
>> But actually the technology is no way near ready for unconstrained
>> 1st-person-view looking at horizons. The only two games that make an even
yet,
>> and both games have to dramatically reduce the amount of detail to just
>> plain rolling hills. Thief had very low poly counts on all the
>> external buildings -- MGS would be a worse game with that little detail.
>> Quake stays inside most of the time and doesn't have to deal with
>> horizons.
>>
>> So while mouselook would be good for immersiveness, I don't think it's
>> remotely possible technologically at the moment (without sacrificing a
lot
>> of detail).
>
>Ever heard of fog? Go play Magic Carpet (probably 2, too), Trespasser,
Outcast, Motocross Madness 2 (probably 1, too), Midtown Madness 2 (again,
probably 1, too), Drakan, and any other game that has an
(and done) for years...
>
And it looks shite.
James Parker
PLAYER.
> This is why there is such a thing as play (beta) testing, where real world
(in
> theory anyway) gamers test out the designer's design and critique and
comment
> on it. Ideally, I think it should become STANDARD for ALL 3D games to
> include 1st- and 3rd-person perspectives and mouselook, among other things
> I won't bother going into now.
All 3D games to onclude 1st person point of view? Have you even begun to
think beyond the realm of first person shooters and adventure titles.
What about sports games (Madden 2000, Virtua Tennis)? Beat em' ups (Soul
Calibur, Tekken 3)? Real Time Strategy games (Warzone 2100, Ground
Control)? Often you need to take an external view to have an idea of what
is going on in the game world. You talk about immersion but whats the point
in being immersed in something that simply isn't enjoyable?
JamesP
Lucian Wischik
>Lucian wrote: [technology's not ready for 1st-person looking at horizons]
>Ever heard of fog? Go play Magic Carpet (probably 2, too), ...
>1st-person view with horizons has been possible (and done) for years.
If there's fog, then you can't see the horizon. Doh!
Gerry Quinn
>I was kidding there :)
>
>I realize 3rd person gives advantages, but who says they shouldn't be
>there? In MGS it helps give you the situational awareness you need.
>It's very important to know when a baddy is chasing you around a
>corner, and unlike in real life, running around the corner while
>taking a quick glance back isn't that easy in 1st person. A key to
>making a good game is making it easy to play (not necessarily win :),
>and if that means sacrificing a little "immersion", then so be it.
>
The advantages are optional, in any case. Isometric games can implement
line-of-sight if they want.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzle / Strategy Games and Kaleidoscope for Windows
Download evaluation versions free, no time limits
Christoph Nahr
>And, to throw in another, off-topic tangent, is anyone else pumped about
>the upcoming Darran Aronofsky/Frank Miller film adaptation of
>"Batman: Year One?"
Didn't know that, who's going to play Batman and Robin? I hope it
won't be as cheesy as the other Batman flicks.
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>All 3D games to onclude 1st person point of view? Have you even begun to
>think beyond the realm of first person shooters and adventure titles.
Is there any particular reason why you people keep replying to a
certified idiot like Eep2? Are you all just bored or something?
Tony Gowland
>> is pointless... and best avoided.
>A limitation of MGS' design.
Why is it a limitation? The game is about stealth, not blatant Ramboism, so
being able to kill every guard in the base goes against the game's concept. I
put it to the jury, then, that this is an integral part of the game's design,
and not a limitation at all.
> Because what's "best" to YOU may be "shit" to ME. Think relatively. Note
that I never said
> ONLY 1st-person or ONLY mouselook, but I would simply like the OPTION to use
them
> whenever I want. THINK, Jason, THINK...and try reading more carefully.
I wish to have the option to use my expensive mind-control device (procured
for games such as Tetris) for controlling any game. I'd imagine, given the
number of people on the planet, that somewhere there's a man who wishes to use
his tacky Bigmouth Billy Bass ornament to control his games. Are you actually
suggesting that games designers include the option for every contorl system.
Ever?
> I think it should become STANDARD for ALL 3D games to include 1st- and
3rd-person
> perspectives and mouselook, among other things I won't bother going into
now.
Indeed. And why stop there? Why not include a 2nd person perspective view, for
people that want to play a whole game like that? Other than the fact, of
course, that it's an unplayable view for most games.
But anyway. I agree. 3d fighting games should also include mouselook. Because
I would feel more immersed in Tekken 3 if I didn't have any real idea what was
going on, my range from my opponent, or where my various limbs were.
> It doesn't HAVE to, but I'm sure you'd bitch about that if a game
implemented looking and
> moving separately...
*gasp* Crass generalisation by Eep? No! But yes! Codename Eagle gets a hearty
playing within my circle of friends, and that does indeed implement this
feature for tanks. I have yet to hear anybody complaining.
> I agree, which is why Trespasser was a nice change of pace from 1st-person
games of the day
Of course, it was unutterably terrible for a number of other reasons, so the
ability to see your character's chest thankfully passed by most people.
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:39D171DB...@tnlc.com...
Jason Kozak wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:34:58 -0700, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Jason Kozak wrote:
> >> 1st person isn't the magical control solution for every game. In MGS,
> >> your primary concern is stealth, not aim, so a 3rd person perspective
> >> is ideal. MGS pits you against unlimited enemies, so stealth is your
> >> only hope for survival. To get the positional awareness you get with
> >> 3rd person, you'd have to be swinging your mouse around in 1st. A task
> >> that I somehow don't see many people enjoying... especially when you'd
> >> have to do it constantly.
> >>
> >> Oh, and Eep, 1st person != immersion. Actually, I find 1st person
> >> quite unimmersive... no peripheral vision,
> >
> > So move the camera around more like you move your head and eyes around
> > in real life! Quit acting so helpless. Stealth is important in Thief,
> > too, yet it's ONLY in 1st-person. Your argument is futile; give it
> > up. Just because YOU can't handle 1st-person doesn't mean everyone
> > else shouldn't. I am simply asking for BOTH 1st- AND 3rd-person views
> > in 3D games--the best of BOTH worlds. Stop thinking only one OR the
> > other, eh? God damn...
>
> Lets make this quick since you can't be bothered to respect the fact
> that not everyone uses a newsgroup browser that linewraps incoming
> posts.
You do that.
> Now, why do I have to go on and restate things? I made it a point in
> saying that swinging your mouse around in 1st person to see what's
> around you, when you could see it all instantly in 3rd is pointless.
And I rebutted your point saying that 3rd-person isn't a realistic perspective
for immersive gameplay. <shrug>
> In Theif you at least had a good sound-propagation system. Most games
> don't (including MGS), as it takes a bit of processor power, and that makes
being stealth harder.
Hardly; even with my old SoundBlaster Pro (8-bit, no 3D hardware support) I
could tell where the guards were coming from in Thief 1 & 2...playing on a
P233/MMX, 64MB RAM, no less. There you are acting helpless again...
> Not to mention, Theif doesn't have
> regenerating enemies like MGS.
A feature of Thief's design.
> Eep, why don't you understand that sometimes games are played best one
> way, rather than another.
> 3rd person offers sight advantages that 1st
> doesn't, and 1st offers aiming that 3rd doesn't. Designers should
> choose the mode that best suits the game. If both perform equally,
> then include them both, by all means.
> Oh, and I can easily handle 1st person. I've been playing FPSs since
> Wolf3D, and I greatly enjoy them. I'm just not so narrow minded as to
> think more features is more fun.
So stop playing current FPSes if you enjoyed Wolf3D so much; I sure don't
enjoy Wolf3D after playing current FPSes...
> Not to mention... since when does turning my head to look around in
> real life change my direction of movement?
> >> lackluster 3d sound....
> >> nothing beats the real thing I'm afraid.
> >
> >What does 3D sound have to do with 1st-person? If a game supports 3D
> >sound the perspective won't matter. Duh.
>
> 3d sound has everything to do with situational awareness. If awareness
> is important, and you don't have good 3d sound, you're going to have
> to make up for it somehow. 3rd person is a good way to do that.
So is looking around in 1st-person. Duh. YOU are the narrow-minded one here,
sport; I KNOW the benefits of 3rd-person, but you obviously don't know the
benefits of 1st-person. Take a seat.
> >> Immersion isn't about the view. It's all about suspending belief, and
> >> you don't need 1st person to do it. You do need a unified look and
> >> feel, and a game universe with solid laws. If anything rips me back
> >> into reality, it's an out of place texture, or some physics defying
> >> trick in a game that attempts to obey real-world laws.
> >
> >While those things DO help in immersion, again, I repeat, do you go
> >through life with a camera behind and above your head? No. You see
> >from a 1st-person view; this view should be STANDARD in ALL 3D games,
> >with 3rd-person secondary (yet either view easily togglable in-game
> >with a single key). Seeing my character's back/ass is what kills the
> >immersion for me the most.
>
> No, I'd be pretty scared if I did, but the current 1st person view is
> a far cry from anything in real life. Not seeing my feet does the same
> thing for me... since when I am a floating hand with a gun?
(and to this day for the most part). I've been pushing for more visible body
parts in 1st-person view for years. However, 1st-person is still more
realistic than 3rd-person for my aformentioned points.
--
sswift
>And it looks shite.
Well LINEAR fog looks like shit. :)
Most games before now have used linear fog. Linear fog fogs like so:
near!----->far!
012345678999999
Where you get no fogging up close, and say, full fogging at 100 feet.
Exponential fogging is like this:
near!----->far!
011222233333333
This is like in real life. This kind of fogging allow subtle effects
like a light haze which actually makes games look kick ass, because in
real life everything off in the distance is hazed a little. Hazing
also gives you a great sense of depth that you don't get when you have
no fogging. That is why on the moon the horizon looks so close, and
distances are difficult to judge. There's no atmosphere, (and no
military) so there's no hazing. A 20 foot tall boulder in the
distance looks like it's a tiny rock up close.
This kind of fogging also allows the more traditional fogging, but it
looks a LOT nicer. Take a look at some of the screenshots from Red
Faction whcih show real fogging in action. They look very cool.
Older games only used linear fogging, and older 3D accelerators only
supported linear fogging, and since linear looks like shit, and since
it was always was placed so close to the camera because very little
detail could be displayed, that's why fogging got a bad name. Hell,
look at the orginal Turok to see linear fogging in all it's horrible
glory. Everything that's more than 10 feet away is fogged out
completely. :)
If you don't beleive me about this, well, I had an artist freind who
didn't beleive me about this either... he hated fogging too. But then
he started working with exponential fogging in the game he was working
on and he realized how cool it was and how cool it could make stuff
look.
sswift
>Eep^2 <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>Lucian wrote: [technology's not ready for 1st-person looking at horizons]
>>Ever heard of fog? Go play Magic Carpet (probably 2, too), ...
>>1st-person view with horizons has been possible (and done) for years.
>
>If there's fog, then you can't see the horizon. Doh!
That's not true.
You can have a light fog, called haze, which is ever present in real
life, and still see the horizon. Now because games don't model the
curvature of the earth, yeah, there will be some stuff in the far far
far distance you really won't be able to see, but you wouldn't be able
to see that stuff in real life either because if it wasn't over the
curvature of the earth, which it is, then it would be fogged out too.
Even on a really clear day. But with a light haze, you're still going
to see the horizon well enough to navigate.
Red Bat
Eep² wrote in message <39D26E82...@tnlc.com>...
>Why must you and some others insist on an either-or solution to this issue?
Can you not even FATHOM >the idea of having BOTH perspectives togglable at
any time? Go play Outcast, 10six, or Half-Life, Deus >Ex, Heavy Metal:
FAKK², etc (the latter 3 which have console commands to en-/disable
1st-/3rd-person).
>And I never said 3rd person perspective has NO immersion, but I just feel
1st-person is MORE immersive >since I actually FEEL like the player I am
controlling, rather than just watching him/her from some >imaginary camera
hovering wherever.
>And Thief's 1st-person view Garrett makes comments to himself (as does Duke
Nukem), which only adds >to the immersion. And you'd be amazed at what
mirrors do for immersion factor--go play Duke Nukem 3D, >Deus Ex, SWAT3,
etc.
Did you read my post, or did you just hit reply as soon as you could?
I'm saying that immersion is not the goal for all games. And the mirror
comment is silly. None of the characters in the game you mentioned have
strongly defined personalities. They may have a defined form, but their
personality is vague or broad enough to let everyone make their own
character. Sure, Duke Nukem may make snide comments about his enemies and
give money to strippers, but that's all. Not really much of a personality.
It may point in a certain direction, but he is never defined properly.
I see on your website that you think games should strive towards realism and
immersion, and that's fine with me. Not everyone agrees with you, though.
MGS has sold God knows how many copies - that should be proof enough.
If the MGS team had included a 1st person view in the game, it just would
not be the same game. Almost everything that makes MGS the game it is today
(a cinematic, character driven 3rd person sneak-em-up) would disappear.
Another thing about realism in first person shooters - have you every set
the mouse sensitivity to max and spinned your character around at the
fastest possible speed. That's one thing that always draws me out of the
game.
-Red Bat
Lucian Wischik
>Take a look at some of the screenshots from Red Faction whcih show real
>fogging in action. They look very cool.
I didn't see any horizons in their screen shots. Exponential fogging
DOESN'T reduce the workload at all, so that distant horizons are still
just as hard to render as without any fogging at all. It's only clipping,
disguised with fogging, that reduces the workload enough to make it
readily doable.
(Hence what I said earlier: that B&W and Halo are the only games I know to
render horizons okay, and they won't be out for a while yet, and they
don't have anywhere near as much detail as Thief or MGS)
Joshua E Millard
: >And, to throw in another, off-topic tangent, is anyone else pumped about
: >the upcoming Darran Aronofsky/Frank Miller film adaptation of
: >"Batman: Year One?"
: Didn't know that, who's going to play Batman and Robin? I hope it
: won't be as cheesy as the other Batman flicks.
I don't know who's intended for Batman; I'm guess that Aranofsky (and
Miller, assuming [hoping] he has a lot of influence on the project) has
ideas, but I get the impression the project is quite young and casting
hasn't been done yet. As for Robin, he ain't *in* Year One; the story is
basically just about Bruce Wayne, Lt. Jim Gordon, the Gotham police force,
and a few other minor characters (catwoman's origins are addressed, Joker
gets foreshadowed mention on the last page).
I have trouble imagining a means whereby it could be anywhere near as
cheesy as the last couple. I really enjoyed the first one, and the second
was decent as well, but the last two films were, hands down, money
vehicles put together by a committee of hacks. Blecha. ;)
Revok
sswift wrote in message <39d42c16....@news.earthlink.net>...
>"Revok" <robert...@capgemini.co.uk> wrote:
>>And it looks shite.
>
>Well LINEAR fog looks like shit. :)
>
>Most games before now have used linear fog. Linear fog fogs like so:
>
>near!----->far!
>012345678999999
>
>Where you get no fogging up close, and say, full fogging at 100 feet.
>
>Exponential fogging is like this:
>
>near!----->far!
>011222233333333
>
>
>This is like in real life. This kind of fogging allow subtle effects
>like a light haze which actually makes games look kick ass, because in
>real life everything off in the distance is hazed a little. Hazing
>also gives you a great sense of depth that you don't get when you have
>no fogging. That is why on the moon the horizon looks so close, and
>distances are difficult to judge. There's no atmosphere, (and no
>military) so there's no hazing. A 20 foot tall boulder in the
>distance looks like it's a tiny rock up close.
>
>
>This kind of fogging also allows the more traditional fogging, but it
>Faction whcih show real fogging in action. They look very cool.
>
>
>supported linear fogging, and since linear looks like shit, and since
>it was always was placed so close to the camera because very little
>detail could be displayed, that's why fogging got a bad name. Hell,
>look at the orginal Turok to see linear fogging in all it's horrible
>glory. Everything that's more than 10 feet away is fogged out
>completely. :)
>
>
>If you don't beleive me about this, well, I had an artist freind who
>didn't beleive me about this either... he hated fogging too. But then
>he started working with exponential fogging in the game he was working
>on and he realized how cool it was and how cool it could make stuff
>look.
>
>
Hey I belive you. It is just whenever anyone brings up Fogging, I always
think of the king of fogged games - Ultima 9 (with the appearing castle out
of not fog....but the sky!!!). Exponential sounds very very good.
Iron Horse
news:I83QOST=ta2wVFxH727gLjv=V9...@4ax.com...
> In the swirling mists of history, on Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:22:23 -0700,
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Mouselook and 1st-person view isn't necessarily about aiming but feeling
=
> >immersed. Do you go through life with a camera over your shoulder? No.
Mo=
> >uselook is smoother, more natural, and easier to use for most people
(obv=
> >ious by the amount of games that have mouselook vs those that don't)
than=
> > keyboard control is--period. Any game developer who refuses to include
i=
> >s simply not keeping up with what's standard in 3D game control.
>
> MGS is a 3d game in the same way that Final Fantasy 8 is a 3D game.
> It's strictly to enhance the graphics, and has virtually no effect on
> gameplay. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, CrEep, 3D does not mean
> first person shooter, and not every game that uses 3D graphics needs
> to fit into your needlessly constrained little boxes. You really need
> to evolve.
Given that it took proto-monkeys a few million years, I wouldn't hold your
breath.
sswift
>sswift <ssw...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net> wrote:
>>Take a look at some of the screenshots from Red Faction whcih show real
>>fogging in action. They look very cool.
>
>DOESN'T reduce the workload at all, so that distant horizons are still
>just as hard to render as without any fogging at all.
I didn't say there were. And I didn't say it did.
>It's only clipping, disguised with fogging, that reduces the workload enough to make it
>readily doable.
I was just explaining that there are some kinds of fogging which
aren't ugly. I wasn't arguing for or against landscape rendering.
>(Hence what I said earlier: that B&W and Halo are the only games I know to
>render horizons okay, and they won't be out for a while yet, and they
>don't have anywhere near as much detail as Thief or MGS)
Well it's definitely possible to render landscapes that aren't simply
rolling hills. But obviously the makers of Halo don't want to render
simpel rolling hills. You could make valleys, plateaus, etc with a
simple heightmapped landscape.
Now if detail is the issue, dynamic level of detail can take care of
that. Instead of trying to render all the polys in the distance, the
landscape is dynamically re-tesselated so that parts of the landscape
in the distance are rendered with fewer polygons. You won't notice
the lack of smoothness because it's so far in the distance, just as
you would not notice say, a round pillar that went from 64 sides up
close to being 4 once it's a thousand feet away.
There are papers on how to do this, and I've seen a landscape rendered
with it that didn't appear to have thta many polygons once the
algorithm was run on it, but the landscape still looked a lot more
detialed than Halo's.
Oh, andother thing LOD algorithms can do is remove polys in a
landscape where they're not needed. Flat areas for instance require
fewer polys than round areas. The paper I saw also took this into
account, which helped reduce the poly count even further.
The big problem with rendering landscapes is adding details like trees
and stuff to them. But you can LOD those too... but a forest of
trees, even with LOD would require probably 50,000 polys at least.
Which isn't really that absurd, because the playstation 2 I think
could handle it, and I'm not sure but the Geforce 2 might be able to
too with it's hardware accelerated transformation and lighting.
Problem is, Carmack's not making landscape rendering engines, or we'd
see this kind of stuff already. :) I mean we did kinda see it in
trespasser, but that engine was really crappy.
Brian Upton
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Why must you and some others insist on an either-or solution to this issu=
>e? Can you not even FATHOM the idea of having BOTH perspectives togglable=
> at any time? Go play Outcast, 10six, or Half-Life, Deus Ex, Heavy Metal:=
> FAKK=B2, etc (the latter 3 which have console commands to en-/disable 1s=
>t-/3rd-person).
>
>And I never said 3rd person perspective has NO immersion, but I just feel=
> 1st-person is MORE immersive since I actually FEEL like the player I am =
>controlling, rather than just watching him/her from some imaginary camera=
> hovering wherever.
The difference between 1st and 3rd person isn't about immersion, it's
about where the player's attention is focused.
1st person puts the player's attention out in the world. That's why
it's great for shooting games (like Quake) and lousy for movement
games (like Tomb Raider).
3rd person puts the player's attention on his avatar. That's why it's
great for movement games and lousy for shooting games. It's also
better for creating a sense of character (Lara Croft, Manny Calavera).
Games that mix the two styles of gameplay usually include things like
"sniper mode" so the player can toggle gameplay focus between them.
(MDK).
Immersion is *not* the primary goal of game design. Interaction is
the primary goal. Interaction defines gameplay and interface defines
interaction -- it's that simple. 1st vs. 3rd person perspective is an
*interface* choice, which means it's an *interaction* choice, which
means it's a core gameplay choice -- not just an arbitrary bit of
chrome you can throw in for free.
If target shooting is not part of your core gameplay then a 1st person
perspective is a waste of art, engineering and testing resources. You
can put it in, but if it clashes with the basic play mechanic players
won't use it. (The first person view in Dungeon Keeper, for example
-- it's a fun piece of eye candy but it doesn't help you win the
game.) A developer is better off spending those resources on
something that *is* a part of core gameplay -- like better AI, or more
a more interactive world, or slicker character animation.
(A tangential example of how interface choices impact gameplay: Most
gamers hate jumping puzzles in 1st-person shooters. The reason why
they hate jumping puzzles is that jumping accurately requires that you
focus your attention on your avatar rather than on your target, which
the 1st-person perspective make hard to do. Jumping in traditional
shooters is a *design flaw* -- an interaction that is poorly supported
by the interface -- and players can instinctively sense it, even if
they can't explain why it bugs them.)
--
"Pithecanthropus! Iconoclast! Bashi-bazouk!"
Brian Upton brian...@redstorm.com
** Opinions expressed are my own and not those of Red Storm **
sswift
>cheesy as the last couple. I really enjoyed the first one, and the second
>was decent as well, but the last two films were, hands down, money
>vehicles put together by a committee of hacks. Blecha. ;)
I thought all the batman movies pretty much sucked myself. The
cartoon has way better characterization and writing than the live
action crap has ever had. Xmen had some cool aspects to it though,
but a lot of it was still cheesy. But since they seemed to get the
battles right in Xmen at least, maybe a new Batman movie will feature
decent fights. I don't remeber... did Batman ever actually punch
ANYONE in the Batman movies? Did he get into any real fights? It's
been so long since I've seen the movies, and I don't remember any
fighting in them. I remember lots of shots of millionaire Bruce Wayne
at parties, and seducing women, and a lot of shots of the batmobile
which always seemed to not be travelling fast enough, but other than
that, and some lame dialogue... Where was the batman that kicks ass
and demands to know where he can find the bad guys, and actually does
detective work?
The actors they've had play batman have all been relly lame too. And
the nipples on the bat-suit were the last straw.
Lucian Wischik
>Now if detail is the issue, dynamic level of detail can take care of
>rendering landscapes is adding details like trees and stuff to them. But
>you can LOD those too...
The dynamic level of detail you describe is also present in Black&White.
Although you can see a bit of popping as you move, and a craggy mountain
goes from one level of detail to the other. Everything else you say is
true in theory but hasn't yet been implemented, I'm sure, on
consumer-level hardware. I don't think that even the coming new generation
of consoles will manage it either. Hence my original answer to Eep:
although it would be nice to switch to 1st-person view in a game like MGS
or Ultima7, the technology to make it look decent isn't here yet.
sswift
But there IS a first person mode in MGS!
And it runs perfectly smooth... The only reason you can't run around
in it is because the game designers decided not to let you. There's
no technological limitations at play there. MGS doesn't really have
many polygons in view at once... it just has really nice looking
textures and clever use of masking on walkways so you can see through
them.
As for Ultima 7, I haven't seen it.
And heck, in MGS, there's even a missle you can fire which flys around
giving you a first person view. (I beleive they did that before UT
was released, so the redeemer isn't really very original)
M.
> The reason mouselook in MGS strikes so many as an un-needed feature is
> because they are right on the money. There is simply no motivation, from
> the point of game design, to add mouseing to MGS. It was not designed for
> it; the levels aren't layed out in such a way as to benefit from it. The
> game is very playable, as it was *designed* to be, using only 8 directions
> of movement. I've played through it with and without analog controllers
> on the PSX; there is very little difference.
Just a rebuttal...<grin>
Sorry to say but the FPS / Third person view control schema that I'm used to
using (being as I don't enjoy console games) is the keyboard/mouse. It
seems to me that being just a port of a limited console game (in terms of
controllability) that I wouldn't enjoy MGS (as I didn't enjoy the PS
MGS-VR). That's just my opinion...take it or leave it. But as I'm finally
beginning to understand, MGS is 3D in the present sense, i.e. no need to
look in the "Z" axis. (man I feel stupid).
> Your acclimation to and appreciation of mouselook control has nothing to
> do with the appropriateness of mouselook for MGS. I might (say, five
> years ago) prefer to play Doom and Wolf with the keyboard, but that has no
> bearing on whether or not Quake ought to have been designed with
> keyboarding in mind. The control interface is an aspect of the game
> design, and should be respected when done properly. With MGS, it is.
Well, you do have the option to play Quake w/just a keyboard, or just a
joystick, or just a mouse/keyboard, you have options, you have freedom...but
that's the PC world, whereas in the console world you are limited to the
typical gamepad...perhaps I should try out the PS version...then maybe,
perhaps (unlikely) I'll see the light <grin>.
> Rainbow Six, on the other hand, is an absymal PSX game, precisely because
> it *demands* accurate shooting control on multiple axes. (Well, that and
> the scaled down gameplay in a whole lot of other areas.) R6 was not
> designed for the gamepad, no matter how much gamer Foo likes gamepad
> control.
> Isometric it isn't (though it's 8-bit predecessors were, or were close
> enough given that there wasn't any real third dimension at work in MG or
> MG2); top-down and 3D are valid descriptions.
> Indeed. What constitutes a better method of control is, I think, the
> issue here. It may be very comforting to a habitual mouser to use the
> mouse in MGS, but to implement mouse-driven control would require an
> extensive redesign of the gameplay. Just tossing mousecontrol in would
> create an awkward and imbalanced game.
Perhaps...(see below)
> As for first-person mode in MGS, others have put it quite well already in
> agreement with my own dead horse: the design does not *remotely*
> facilitate it, any more than Quake facilitates a top-down third-person,
> fixed-compass view. There are design issues that transcend such
> complaints; a well-designed game uses an appropriate control
> interface.
Why??? It's a 3rd person view, doesn't the viewpoint move, or is it
constrained to one plane, as in the old Wolf3D, Doom/DoomII? Maybe that's
what I'm missing here??? When I hear 3D, I think in 3 planes, X, Y and Z!.
> Play Rainbow Six with a mouse; play MGS with a gamepad
> (analog, if you like). Accept that competent game designers (a class the
> most definitely includes the Metal Gear Solid crew) have considered the
> bursts of inspiration you're spouting and, in the case that your pet
> feature is unimplemented, intentionally excluded it for a good reason
> (or, of course, because they ran out of money; MGS isn't an example).
Ran out of time, more than likely...easy to do a direct port than optimize
it for the platform upon which it's being implemented (as you stated above
about R6).
> MGS may not be your thing. Fine. There isn't an inherent flaw in the
> game, you just don't like it. MGS is considered by many people, myself
> included, to be one of the finest console games in existence, but hey,
> that's our thing. However, you seriously ought not to judge MGS on
> (a) the control interface (which is suitable to the design and works quite
> well in the context of the game) or on (b) the VR Missions pack, which,
> frankly, was a cheap knock-off to generate cash from loyal gamers. I
> certainly don't judge Tim Burton based on "Batman & Robin." ;)
Nope, MGS doesn't sound like it would be for me, as I don't really want to
spend more money on a controller and then spend time learning how to use the
controller just to play a game. That being said, I may try it out, just to
give it a shot...see how it works w/just a keyboard..:-)
Thanks for the well-reasoned and sound arguements, w/no flames!
M.
Mark Asher
The problem with third-person is that the interface tends to be
clumsier than first-person. It's harder to aim. It's harder to make
precise movements. The interaction is often inferior, in other words.
I personally don't like constantly seeing the back of my avatar also.
The view is more cinematic with third-person, but that's about the
only good thing I can say about it. I can't help but think that
developers give us third person because they get excited about
presenting cool visuals.
I don't need a sense of character if the game is engrossing enough.
I'll create my own sense of character in that case.
Developers go for third person because they want a more cinematic
presentation (a lame reason in my book) or because they have their eye
on a console port. I don't think there's any compelling reason to
abandon first-person otherwise.
>If target shooting is not part of your core gameplay then a 1st person
>perspective is a waste of art, engineering and testing resources. You
>can put it in, but if it clashes with the basic play mechanic players
>won't use it. (The first person view in Dungeon Keeper, for example
>-- it's a fun piece of eye candy but it doesn't help you win the
>game.) A developer is better off spending those resources on
>something that *is* a part of core gameplay -- like better AI, or more
>a more interactive world, or slicker character animation.
Thing is, most third-person action games do have targetting, either
with ranged weapons or melee attacks. The targetting is never as
satisfying in this case as it is in first-person.
>(A tangential example of how interface choices impact gameplay: Most
>gamers hate jumping puzzles in 1st-person shooters. The reason why
>they hate jumping puzzles is that jumping accurately requires that you
>focus your attention on your avatar rather than on your target, which
>the 1st-person perspective make hard to do. Jumping in traditional
>shooters is a *design flaw* -- an interaction that is poorly supported
>by the interface -- and players can instinctively sense it, even if
>they can't explain why it bugs them.)
I hate jumping in any 3D game. I hate it. Get rid of it. Take it away
forever. It's el lamo to the extremo.
Christoph Nahr
>I don't know who's intended for Batman; I'm guess that Aranofsky (and
>Miller, assuming [hoping] he has a lot of influence on the project) has
>ideas, but I get the impression the project is quite young and casting
>hasn't been done yet. As for Robin, he ain't *in* Year One; the story is
>basically just about Bruce Wayne, Lt. Jim Gordon, the Gotham police force,
>and a few other minor characters (catwoman's origins are addressed, Joker
>gets foreshadowed mention on the last page).
Thanks, apparently I got Year One confused with Miller's Dark Knight
(where Robin's a she IIRC).
>I have trouble imagining a means whereby it could be anywhere near as
>cheesy as the last couple. I really enjoyed the first one, and the second
>was decent as well, but the last two films were, hands down, money
>vehicles put together by a committee of hacks. Blecha. ;)
I might have missed a few Batman movies but I hated basically every
single one I saw. Starts with this ridiculous bat costume. It looks
good in the comics but on a living actor it always ends up looking
silly IMO. I hope they find a way around this in Year One.
Joshua E Millard
: Sorry to say but the FPS / Third person view control schema that I'm used to
: using (being as I don't enjoy console games) is the keyboard/mouse. It
: seems to me that being just a port of a limited console game (in terms of
: controllability) that I wouldn't enjoy MGS (as I didn't enjoy the PS
: MGS-VR). That's just my opinion...take it or leave it. But as I'm finally
No argument with this: you aren't into gamepad/console control
schemes. Cool. I certainly don't want to force you to play games you
don't enjoy.
: Well, you do have the option to play Quake w/just a keyboard, or just a
: joystick, or just a mouse/keyboard, you have options, you have freedom...but
: that's the PC world, whereas in the console world you are limited to the
: typical gamepad...perhaps I should try out the PS version...then maybe,
: perhaps (unlikely) I'll see the light <grin>.
But, again, MGS *works* with the "typical gamepad" controls, regardless of
whether or not *you* like that means of gameplay. People who enjoy
gamepad games don't have a problem with it. ;)
: > As for first-person mode in MGS, others have put it quite well already in
: > agreement with my own dead horse: the design does not *remotely*
: > facilitate it, any more than Quake facilitates a top-down third-person,
: > fixed-compass view. There are design issues that transcend such
: > complaints; a well-designed game uses an appropriate control
: > interface.
:
: Why??? It's a 3rd person view, doesn't the viewpoint move, or is it
: constrained to one plane, as in the old Wolf3D, Doom/DoomII? Maybe that's
: what I'm missing here??? When I hear 3D, I think in 3 planes, X, Y and Z!.
The viewpoint is 3D perspective, which is to say that a screen of the game
is drawn with x/y/z planes, with diminution toward one point of
perspective. Overhead (about 3/4) view, and the compass is fixed pointing
north, so the direction in which you move has no effect on the orientation
of the map. This is a game that could be mapped out on graph paper
without much confusion. Most interaction with the world happens on a
"level" plane with your character, so aiming freely along the up-down axis
is not a big issue; in situations where you need to deal with a diagonal,
the game facilitates those up/down diagonals.
Free mouselook (that is, being able to target any point on a
"sphere" surrounding you) would actually abuse the game design. Enemies
on a floor above you cannot target you in the game, and neither can you
target them.
This argument goes out the window with the exception of the in-game
first-person perspective, but that is used rarely and then only for a bit
of sniping and recon (binocs). While a mouse could work, it's certainly
not necessary to the game play, speaking from qualified experience.
Honestly, I think you should spend some time playing the game with an open
mind, to get a sense of what the intended gameplay is and to have a better
understanding of how the designers use the 3D and level design.
: > (or, of course, because they ran out of money; MGS isn't an example).
:
: Ran out of time, more than likely...easy to do a direct port than optimize
: it for the platform upon which it's being implemented (as you stated above
: about R6).
FPSes are simply not suited to consoles, at least until consoles come with
mice. :) I expect it wasn't even a time issue; the porters didn't care,
the original designers didn't care, and the game doesn't suffer from the
lack.
: Thanks for the well-reasoned and sound arguements, w/no flames!
Likewise. Off to class...
Iron Horse
> Diablo isn't a 3D game, twit, which is part of the reason I have no desire
to play it.
Dear Twit^2,
A) Get a sense of humor
B) Usenet is not a 3D game either. Why do you persist in playing?
> Hydra wrote:
>
> > In article <39D107E4...@tnlc.com>, e...@tnlc.com says...
> > > Duh, and that's one of its problems: not having the OPTION to switch
to 1=
> > > st-person whenever the player wants to.
> >
> > Diablo sucks big a**, no mouselook! Damn! And not even an option to
> > switch to first person!
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>The problem with third-person is that the interface tends to be
>clumsier than first-person. It's harder to aim. It's harder to make
>precise movements. The interaction is often inferior, in other words.
That's the fault of that particular interface, not of the third-person
perspective. Third person is really well suited to analogue joystick
control -- which might be the reason why this perspective is so
popular on consoles. It's hard to replicate a good gamepad control
for a 3rd person game on the PC, with keyboard & mouse only.
Aiming is a problem but it's easily fixed with auto-aiming and/or a
separate aiming mode with a first-person view. It's never quite as
precise as aiming with the mouse but developers can compensate by
giving your shots a larger "hit" radius.
>I personally don't like constantly seeing the back of my avatar also.
Depending on how fast you turn you might see the front, too. :-)
>The view is more cinematic with third-person, but that's about the
>only good thing I can say about it. I can't help but think that
>developers give us third person because they get excited about
>presenting cool visuals.
I disagree, situational awareness is *much* better in third-person
games. The monitor is just so much smaller than a real field of
vision, first-person view makes it hard to see anything that doesn't
happen straight in front of you. 3rd person doesn't have this
problem, you get a decent view of your surroundings.
Also, 3rd person view makes it easier to control other characters if
there's more than one, or at least make sure they aren't left behind
or stuck in some dangerous place.
>Thing is, most third-person action games do have targetting, either
>with ranged weapons or melee attacks. The targetting is never as
>satisfying in this case as it is in first-person.
Again I disagree, the lack of auto-aiming means that you have to keep
cool and click at the exact right spot on your monitor. Personally I
think this is counterproductive for the atmosphere in an action game.
It's much more satisfying when you can just point your weapon in the
general direction of an enemy and blast away!
For precise sniper shots, there's always the possibility of an
alternative first-person view. Works well in console games.
>I hate jumping in any 3D game. I hate it. Get rid of it. Take it away
>forever. It's el lamo to the extremo.
Not when it's done right (exact controls, not too frequent, some good
reason to jump). I want my action games to be more than just combat
simulations.
Link
I remember waiting in line for the first Batman, being so excited to see
Miller's "Dark Knight" realized on screen. All I can say is: WHAT A
LETDOWN. (Michael Keaton? What were they thinking?)
<IF I WERE IN CHARGE OF HOLLYWOOD>
Some rules for a post-1960s Batman:
- Villians are not comedic relief existing in a goofy plotline (the Adam
West episodes already covered this interpretation anyhow).
- Batman does not let himself get shot in the chest in the first 2 minutes
by some petty thug, blindly relying on a bulletproof vest.
- Somehow you've got to know that at any given moment, while considering his
opponent, Batman has at least 6 or 7 moves in mind ranging from disabling to
crippling to fatal.
- Batman's demons are far more abstract than mulling over some old newspaper
clippings about his parents death. There will be no Capra-esque,
foggy-lensed flashbacks to his youth.
- You only need a few million to make the movie, not a few 100 million, the
bulk of which goes towards stunts.
- You film Batman stories in black and white (maybe even on DV nowadays)
- Expensive sets are inferior to good locations; the here and now contains
far more otherworldly environs than some overindulgent, Hollywood
model-making set designer will come up with.
</IF I WERE IN CHARGE OF HOLLYWOOD>
IMO, the biggest problem facing the Batman series is that violent crime is
now on the decline. Batman made for an interesting character in a world
where escalating violence surrounded us, saturating the media. We didn't
know if or when it would ever taper off and to what extent it would affect
society. Now that violence has declined, and many North American urban
centres are enjoying levels of safety many of us have not seen in our
lifetime.. I just don't think the thing will have the same edge it would've
10 or 15 years ago. It would seem phony to portray modern-day or
near-future cities as being unfathomably violent that we need such a
character.
- Mike
Mark Asher
wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:38:55 -0500, Mark Asher <ma...@cdmnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The problem with third-person is that the interface tends to be
>>clumsier than first-person. It's harder to aim. It's harder to make
>>precise movements. The interaction is often inferior, in other words.
>
>That's the fault of that particular interface, not of the third-person
>perspective. Third person is really well suited to analogue joystick
>control -- which might be the reason why this perspective is so
>popular on consoles. It's hard to replicate a good gamepad control
>for a 3rd person game on the PC, with keyboard & mouse only.
Right -- it works better for console systems, in other words. I agree
with that. Console systems don't work well for FPS games, which is the
flipside.
>Aiming is a problem but it's easily fixed with auto-aiming and/or a
>separate aiming mode with a first-person view. It's never quite as
>precise as aiming with the mouse but developers can compensate by
>giving your shots a larger "hit" radius.
I dislike auto-aiming. The only time I like it is when I'm forced to
play from a third-person perspective and find that normal aiming is
clumsy.
>>I personally don't like constantly seeing the back of my avatar also.
>
>Depending on how fast you turn you might see the front, too. :-)
Heh -- a few seconds here and there still doesn't offset the
overwhelming amount of time I spend looking at the back. Games like
Nocturne try to fight this by moving the camera around, but the
controls suffer greatly as a result.
>>The view is more cinematic with third-person, but that's about the
>>only good thing I can say about it. I can't help but think that
>>developers give us third person because they get excited about
>>presenting cool visuals.
>
>I disagree, situational awareness is *much* better in third-person
>games. The monitor is just so much smaller than a real field of
>vision, first-person view makes it hard to see anything that doesn't
>happen straight in front of you. 3rd person doesn't have this
>problem, you get a decent view of your surroundings.
I'll give you that situational awareness is better, but moving,
targeting, peeking around corners, etc., is much better from a
first-person view.
>Also, 3rd person view makes it easier to control other characters if
>there's more than one, or at least make sure they aren't left behind
>or stuck in some dangerous place.
True also, but when we talk about parties we're moving away from
action games and towards RPGs and strategy titles. Now you'd better
give me turn-based combat or allow me to pause and redirect, or else
I'll be overwhelmed in real-time trying to control more than one
character.
>>Thing is, most third-person action games do have targetting, either
>>with ranged weapons or melee attacks. The targetting is never as
>>satisfying in this case as it is in first-person.
>
>Again I disagree, the lack of auto-aiming means that you have to keep
>cool and click at the exact right spot on your monitor. Personally I
>think this is counterproductive for the atmosphere in an action game.
>It's much more satisfying when you can just point your weapon in the
>general direction of an enemy and blast away!
I find it much more satisfying to move and aim well and be rewarded
for my mousemanship than to simply auto-aim and blast.
>For precise sniper shots, there's always the possibility of an
>alternative first-person view. Works well in console games.
>
>>I hate jumping in any 3D game. I hate it. Get rid of it. Take it away
>>forever. It's el lamo to the extremo.
>
>Not when it's done right (exact controls, not too frequent, some good
>reason to jump). I want my action games to be more than just combat
>simulations.
I guess the thing I hate about jumping is that it's not an option but
a roadblock, usually. The games typically come to an area where I'm
forced to make a jump or I'm not allowed to continue. At some point it
will be a series of jumps I'm forced to make.
The only jumps I ever liked were in 2D sidescrollers.
Joshua E Millard
: And heck, in MGS, there's even a missle you can fire which flys around
: giving you a first person view. (I beleive they did that before UT
: was released, so the redeemer isn't really very original)
Heck! There was a first-person guided rocket patch out for Quake *long*
before MGS came along. :)
Besides, that damn guided missle was a pain in the ass, at least in the VR
missions. Occasionally handy in the actual game, but the sudden slow/fast
speed toggle made it a bitch to maneuver through tight corridors.
sswift
>I might have missed a few Batman movies but I hated basically every
>single one I saw. Starts with this ridiculous bat costume. It looks
>good in the comics but on a living actor it always ends up looking
>silly IMO. I hope they find a way around this in Year One.
In the comics, when batman is wearing the costume, you can't see his
eyes. You see white where his eyes are. That's the first problem.
The second lesser problem is that in the comics, the mask moves with
his face. When he furrows his brow, or slants his eyes, you see it
reflected in the mask. But in the movies, they use a hard rubber
suit.
The movie guys are used to lighting an actors eyes though with special
lights and such, so they just do it out of habit, and don't think
about that it makes him look dorky. Batman conveys his emotion on
other ways than through his eyes.
Biggest problem is the actors through. The guys they've had play him
are terrible actors to portray him. They're like comedy actors, and
not serious actors.
Then there's the scripts.
"Holy rusted metal Batman!"
"Huh?"
"Theres uh... metal here... and it has holes in it."
"Oh."
???
Who the hell is the cheeseball that writes these corny lines? And Jim
Carrey was too well known to play the riddler. Find some lesser known
actors to play these roles. How can you be immersed int he story when
you're like "Oh look, there's crarey... and there's nicholson... and
there's arnold..."
That just sucks. If I want to see Arnold or Carrey, I'll go see a
movie where they're the star and they basically play themselves.
Would you see Arnold in a movie that tries to take itself serious
like Armageddon? I can only think of one serious movie Arnold was in,
and that was End of Days. It was nice to see him playing a serious
role, but Arnold as Mr. Freeze was definitley un serious, and Mr.
Freeze is a thin scientist guy with a bulky flat metal suit, not some
pumped up weightlifter with a shiny plastic suit which belongs in
American Gladiators or something.
Ajay Tanwar
>Is there any particular reason why you people keep replying to a
>certified idiot like Eep2? Are you all just bored or something?
I can't help it. He is able to form coherent sentences and construct arguments
sometimes, and puts up a good facade of normality, so you can delude yourself
into thinking you can have a discussion with him, but replying to Eeep is
generally useless. Eep still thinks I faked his identity and posted as him, and
then faked another person's identity to ask a question about my post. To quote
the Far Side, he's "just plain nuts."
Ajay Tanwar - ajta...@yahoo.spam.com (You know what to do)
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
Ajay Tanwar
says...
>And heck, in MGS, there's even a missle you can fire which flys around
>giving you a first person view. (I beleive they did that before UT
>was released, so the redeemer isn't really very original)
Actually, the first game I remember to have missles that could be guided in
first person view was Starglider.
Originality is overrated anyways :-)
Ajay Tanwar
>FPSes are simply not suited to consoles, at least until consoles come with
>mice. :)
Or put a trackball on the gamepad.
Ajay Tanwar
>Thing is, most third-person action games do have targetting, either
>with ranged weapons or melee attacks. The targetting is never as
>satisfying in this case as it is in first-person.
Speaking of melee, this is one form of combat that is actually much better in
3rd person viewpoint (IMHO). Just play Jedi Knight or Heretic 2 and compare
combat with the lightsabre/staff for the 1st and 3rd person viewpoints. For some
reason it's easier and far more satisfing in 3rd person.
Eep²
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:56:37 GMT, Jarno Kaarinen <ja...@remotel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >sec...@idirect.removeme.ca (Jason Kozak) wrote:
>
> >>No, I'd be pretty scared if I did, but the current 1st person view is
> >>a far cry from anything in real life. Not seeing my feet does the same
> >>thing for me... since when I am a floating hand with a gun?
> >
> >"Seeing my feet" does not alter the gameplay at all, but third-person
> >view does by giving you advantages that shouldn't be there.
> >
> >There are some first-person games though that show you your feet too.
> >Montezuma's Revenge was one I guess. Just in case seeing your feet is
> >really that important to you in a first person view game.
>
> I was kidding there :)
>
> I realize 3rd person gives advantages, but who says they shouldn't be
> there? In MGS it helps give you the situational awareness you need.
> It's very important to know when a baddy is chasing you around a
> corner, and unlike in real life, running around the corner while
> taking a quick glance back isn't that easy in 1st person. A key to
> making a good game is making it easy to play (not necessarily win :),
> and if that means sacrificing a little "immersion", then so be it.
Ah, but with a simple key to look behind it could be! Some racing sims (Need for Speed, Midtown/Motocross Madness, etc) have it and it wouldn't be hard to add to 1st-/3rd-person action/adventure/RPG games...
Eep²
Tom Paris wrote:
> In article <39D26B6C...@tnlc.com>, e...@tnlc.com says...
> >
> >Diablo isn't a 3D game, twit, which is part of the reason I have no desire to
> play it.
> >
> >Hydra wrote:
> >
> >> In article <39D107E4...@tnlc.com>, e...@tnlc.com says...
> >> > Duh, and that's one of its problems: not having the OPTION to switch to
> 1=
> >> > st-person whenever the player wants to.
> >>
> >> Diablo sucks big a**, no mouselook! Damn! And not even an option to
> >> switch to first person!
>
> Some people just don't have a sense of humor.
Eep²
Hmm, didn't I have you filtered at one point? You're almost reaching that point again...
And next time leave the full quote in.
Lucian Wischik wrote:
> Eep^2 <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >[looking at horizon not possible, without sacrificing a lot of detail]
> >Ever heard of fog? 1st-person view with horizons has been possible (and
> >done) for years...
>
> I have heard of fog. That's why I wrote "without sacrificing a lot of
> detail". Fog just makes a game look cheesy. And if a game is about combat
> on a clear day, then drawing it with fog is misleading as well.