3D first-person adventure ?
Max
perspective and you move into a full 3d world (like Quake...) ?
I mean, like Quake but without guns ? :-)
StarEye
"Jarno Kaarinen" <ja...@remotel.com> skrev i melding
news:FyFcPByYSpLvNY...@131.228.6.98...
>
And Normality... great game. Wish I had it...
Lori
"StarEye" <sta...@online.no> wrote in message
news:LpV68.6948$pd5.1...@news2.ulv.nextra.no...
Jackie
Dietmar Logoz
Gabriel Knight 3
Dietmar
Paul Carrington
>Does anyone know a real adventure game in which you have a first person
>perspective and you move into a full 3d world (like Quake...) ?
>I mean, like Quake but without guns ? :-)
Know if one in the making...
http://www.valhalla-online.co.uk/
Paul Carrington
Vulcan Software Ltd
http://www.vulcan.co.uk
http://www.vulcan-portal.co.uk
http://www.valhalla-online.co.uk
http://www.mother3d.co.uk
Raj
> Gabriel Knight 3 can be run in that perspective.
>
Do you mean absolute first person? I tried to get that in GK3, after you said
you did it, and the best I could find was an over the shoulder camera angle
(with Gabe's (or Grace's) shoulder in view). What did I miss?
~Raj
billand...@hotmail.com
Normality is an adventure game with 3-D graphics, graphics are very
dated, but the game is fun.
Azraels Tear and Redguard are hybrid adventure/action
Bill Anderson
Ross
"Max" wrote:
There was a Playstation adventure called 'sentient' that was done from
a first person perspective using a 3D engine. The environment is very
repetitive though.
You're a medical specialist brought to a space-station to contain a
plague. Something goes wrong, the station starts falling into the sun,
and it's up to you to save the day. You're essentially a detective.
--
Ross
(remove chaff to reply)
Raj
Isn't an upcoming Valhalla game supposed to be of just this sort?
Paul Carrington
>adventure game first person perspective like Quake but without guns
>Isn't an upcoming Valhalla game supposed to be of just this sort?
Indeed :) http://www.valhalla-online.co.uk
Unknown
wrote:
... Thank you, Raj...
Your reply about a singular First-Person view-point,,,
gave me a Smile,,, thinking about all those NICE Quake mods in our,
soon to become LOST, "distant past"...
Of course, Quake had a first person view...
But also,,, had a VERY simple game-key third-person view...
And another patch had an ALMOST fully adjustable third person view.
( It is a REAL SHAME that the current "Game Designers or Programmers"
don't view the Past, just a little bit, for some interesting Clues for
our possible "Game Futures"... :-)
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Raj
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:58:48 -0500, Raj <hsa...@acer-access.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Do you mean absolute first person? I tried to get that in GK3, after you said
> >you did it, and the best I could find was an over the shoulder camera angle
> >(with Gabe's (or Grace's) shoulder in view). What did I miss?
> >~Raj
> >>
> >> "StarEye" <sta...@online.no> wrote in message
> >> news:LpV68.6948$pd5.1...@news2.ulv.nextra.no...
> >> >
>
> ... Thank you, Raj...
> Your reply about a singular First-Person view-point,,,
> gave me a Smile,,, thinking about all those NICE Quake mods in our,
> soon to become LOST, "distant past"...
>
> Of course, Quake had a first person view...
> But also,,, had a VERY simple game-key third-person view...
> And another patch had an ALMOST fully adjustable third person view.
>
> ( It is a REAL SHAME that the current "Game Designers or Programmers"
> don't view the Past, just a little bit, for some interesting Clues for
> our possible "Game Futures"... :-)
>
This is a little off topic because, if I understand the general opinion around here,
the game isn't a true adventure game. But in Thief 2 there's a funny little quirk in
that when you use the "scouting orb" (a little ball that you throw and to which your
perspective moves so you can see around corners, etc.) you can actually turn it around
and see your caracter in the distance in the shadows.
Hey! I never tried it when the caracter is supposed to be in plain view in full
light. It is interesting to see what "you" look like, but you can't act in the third
person. It's like nothing I've seen in any other game but I find it interesting that
it's not just an anonymous camera angle. It'd probably be neat to get a gaurd's
perspective as you sneak by.
There's also a "cheat" in No One Lives Forever (named "ass cam" or something) that
switches you to an overhead angle (obviously) from the back. The view is humurously
unflattering and my guess is that is why the didn't include it in the game proper. In
this case it's not so neat.
King's Quest 8 (The Mask of Eternity) had true first and third person perspectives.
I've always wondered about mult-player games. I've never played one. System Shock
two has such an option but I wonder if your partners can see you (and when you get
hurt or get better or start attacking your partners, etc.)
I would think it takes a great deal of extra programming to include another
perspective for a whole game, and I wonder (in this budget/profit conscious era) why
companies go to the trouble it's really unnecessary to game play. Don't get me wrong,
given the option I would always choose first person for the immersion, so I'm glad
when the option is included.
Interesting to ponder why designers do what they do, sometimes.
~Raj
Mike Ching
> "Ga...@the.Cave" wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:58:48 -0500, Raj <hsa...@acer-access.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Do you mean absolute first person? I tried to get that in GK3, after you said
>> >you did it, and the best I could find was an over the shoulder camera angle
>> >(with Gabe's (or Grace's) shoulder in view). What did I miss?
>> >~Raj
>> >>
>> >> "StarEye" <sta...@online.no> wrote in message
>> >> news:LpV68.6948$pd5.1...@news2.ulv.nextra.no...
>> >> >
>>
>> ... Thank you, Raj...
>> Your reply about a singular First-Person view-point,,,
>> gave me a Smile,,, thinking about all those NICE Quake mods in our,
>> soon to become LOST, "distant past"...
>>
>> don't view the Past, just a little bit, for some interesting Clues for
>> our possible "Game Futures"... :-)
>>
>
> I've always wondered about mult-player games. I've never played one. System Shock
> two has such an option but I wonder if your partners can see you (and when you get
> hurt or get better or start attacking your partners, etc.)
In multiplayer first person shooter games everybody is visible. Characters
are computer controlled or human controlled with similar appearance and
range of motion. They change the "skin" so that you look bloody when you get
hurt the same way the enemies do.
> I would think it takes a great deal of extra programming to include another
> perspective for a whole game, and I wonder (in this budget/profit conscious era) why
> companies go to the trouble it's really unnecessary to game play. Don't get me wrong,
> given the option I would always choose first person for the immersion, so I'm glad
> when the option is included.
Third person takes more programming than first person since it's first
person with an additional character in the picture (you). I frequently see
comments by developers that lead me to believe that the third person is used
so that they can program the character to do "cool" things on screen. In
first person, only the characters who are visible do anything interesting
to watch and you're a boring observer, more immersive but apparantly less
fun for some people.
Eternal Vigilance
Raj
> > two has such an option but I wonder if your partners can see you (and when you get
> > hurt or get better or start attacking your partners, etc.)
>
> In multiplayer first person shooter games everybody is visible. Characters
> are computer controlled or human controlled with similar appearance and
> range of motion. They change the "skin" so that you look bloody when you get
> hurt the same way the enemies do.
>
> > I would think it takes a great deal of extra programming to include another
> > perspective for a whole game, and I wonder (in this budget/profit conscious era) why
> > companies go to the trouble it's really unnecessary to game play. Don't get me wrong,
> > given the option I would always choose first person for the immersion, so I'm glad
> > when the option is included.
>
> Third person takes more programming than first person since it's first
> person with an additional character in the picture (you). I frequently see
> comments by developers that lead me to believe that the third person is used
> so that they can program the character to do "cool" things on screen. In
> first person, only the characters who are visible do anything interesting
> to watch and you're a boring observer, more immersive but apparantly less
> fun for some people.
Thanks for the lowdown on multiplayers. They seem like they would be fun. As long as you
don't kill your friends! ;-)
Raj
first and third person where you're seveal people on a team. I wonder what that would be
like in multiplayer mode. It's another shooter, though.
And I just remembered that Alone in the Dark 4 is designed so two people can play different
characters, one at a time though.
I really wonder what it would be like to be able to play adventure games, like Schizm or
something, in multplayer mode; especially since I sometimes get to play adventure games with
friends over the internet. It's quite fun to have company in adventure games.
Come to think of it, didn't Just Adventure (+) used to have a games club in which something
like that was possible. Apparently a whole bunch of people would play a game, all beginning
at the same time. I never joined though. It seems like it would be like a newsgroup for
just one game.
Oh well, I guess the time for multiplayer adventures has not yet come.
Eep²
Raj wrote:
> "Ga...@the.Cave" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:58:48 -0500, Raj <hsa...@acer-access.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Do you mean absolute first person? I tried to get that in GK3, after you said
> > >you did it, and the best I could find was an over the shoulder camera angle
> > >(with Gabe's (or Grace's) shoulder in view). What did I miss?
> >
Eep²
So developers need to start rendering the character in 1st-person view AND giving the option of switching between 1st- and 3rd-person views in REAL-TIME.
Mike Matloff
I conceived a design spec for this over a year ago. I still have the
complete, workable specs. The question is, is a big name willing to
gamble on this? They should be. It's an untapped market with a lot
of possibilities, I think.
It's an idea whose time has come. Think about it: Instead of going
online to "frag" another person to bits, one could work cooperatively
with one or more other players to do something _constructive_. We
could join together to make a "brain trust" rather than a "reflex
network." And while one cannot deny the pleasure in blowing things
up, there is also a great pleasure in solving puzzles and, yes, even
_learning_ something.
But there are several tricky issues that have to be resolved to make
it work, but I believed I have solved these in my design specs. If
anyone wants further info, send me an e-mail.
If I had the money and the manpower, I would create a multiplayer
adventure myself. But, alas, I have neither.
But one can dream. ;)
Mike
L. Ross Raszewski
One of the most amazing examples of this recently was a promotion for
the film 'AI'; posters for the film showed various markings, which,
when interpreted as a phone number, led "players" into a wild chase
through the internet, mail, fax and phones to solve the mystery
surrounding a murder in the twenty-second century. The on-line
community, known as "cloudmakers", worked together to solve a variety
of puzzles left by inhabitants of the game world. What was
interesting, in the first place, was that the game wasn't structured
as a traditional internet multiplayer; the game platform was primarily
the internet, but also involved puzzles secreted in telephone
messages, real-world meetings (One important clue was scrawled on a
men's room mirror), newspapers, and TV commercials. And, because the
game was being written as it was played, what the players did really
*did* have an effect on the game-world. Truely amazing. And not 3d
at all; sorry Eep.
I understand there's something new going on now, though I haven't had
a chance to look into it closely.
Raj
> Uh, never played Outcast, eh? Go play it; it has both 1st- AND 3rd-person perspectives. Max Payne (with a mod), Rune, and Severence do too. Gothic does but its 1st-person view is only when running (and backwards). There's no reason all 3D action, adventure, and hybrids (action-adventure, action-adventure-RPG, etc) can't have both perspectives.
Hey, Thank you! I was playing Outcast a while ago, but then other games got my attention and I forgot about it. You're right about the perspective, although it is action-adventure and the "puzzles" (at least as far as I got) weren't really like most adventure games. Puzzles aside, though, I did really like riding a Tonwa in first person. ;-)
~Raj
iExplore
What do you mean?
Eep²
Raj
"L. Ross Raszewski" wrote:
>
> One of the most amazing examples of this recently was a promotion for
> the film 'AI'; posters for the film showed various markings, which,
> when interpreted as a phone number, led "players" into a wild chase
> through the internet, mail, fax and phones to solve the mystery
> surrounding a murder in the twenty-second century. The on-line
> community, known as "cloudmakers", worked together to solve a variety
> of puzzles left by inhabitants of the game world. What was
> interesting, in the first place, was that the game wasn't structured
> as a traditional internet multiplayer; the game platform was primarily
> the internet, but also involved puzzles secreted in telephone
> messages, real-world meetings (One important clue was scrawled on a
> men's room mirror), newspapers, and TV commercials. And, because the
> game was being written as it was played, what the players did really
> *did* have an effect on the game-world. Truely amazing. And not 3d
> at all; sorry Eep.
>
> I understand there's something new going on now, though I haven't had
> a chance to look into it closely.
Do you possibly mean Majestic?
All I know about this is what I have read at Just Adventure + and a little a
friend (who stopped playing) has told me.
~Raj
Raj
>
> One of the most amazing examples of this recently was a promotion for
> the film 'AI'; posters for the film showed various markings, which,
> when interpreted as a phone number, led "players" into a wild chase
> through the internet, mail, fax and phones to solve the mystery
> surrounding a murder in the twenty-second century. The on-line
> community, known as "cloudmakers", worked together to solve a variety
> of puzzles left by inhabitants of the game world. What was
> interesting, in the first place, was that the game wasn't structured
> as a traditional internet multiplayer; the game platform was primarily
> the internet, but also involved puzzles secreted in telephone
> messages, real-world meetings (One important clue was scrawled on a
> men's room mirror), newspapers, and TV commercials. And, because the
> game was being written as it was played, what the players did really
> *did* have an effect on the game-world. Truely amazing. And not 3d
> at all; sorry Eep.
>
> I understand there's something new going on now, though I haven't had
> a chance to look into it closely.
Do you possilbly mean Majestic?
All I know about this game is what I have read at Just Adventure + and a
Raj
Alex Waterston
was designed and the designers probably thought long and hard about whether
to use a 1st or 3rd person view. The film Schindler's List was filmed in
black and white, Steven Spielberg gave no option of colour, why should games
designer do the same? Max Payne is a perfect example of a game being like a
movie, shot in the 3rd person, watching your character as he moves around,
just as you would in a film.
It is artistic license. Game Design is an art form, and the games we play
are artistic (in some cases), don't take the design away from the game and
make them all the same?
Alex
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3C66AB2F...@tnlc.com...
Eep²
All Max Payne needs/ed is an option to switch between 1st- and 3rd-person view in-game whenever the player wants to at will (made redundant to make sure you get it this time). My 1st-person Max Payne mod is proof MP's "artistic design" is maintained in either perspective--in fact, some, including MP's developers, have said MP is better in 1st-person view, so perhaps they did NOT think as long and hard as you assume.
Alex Waterston wrote:
> Max Payne was written to be played in the 3rd person, that was how the game
> was designed and the designers probably thought long and hard about whether
> to use a 1st or 3rd person view. The film Schindler's List was filmed in
> black and white, Steven Spielberg gave no option of colour, why should games
> designer do the same? Max Payne is a perfect example of a game being like a
> movie, shot in the 3rd person, watching your character as he moves around,
> just as you would in a film.
> It is artistic license. Game Design is an art form, and the games we play
> are artistic (in some cases), don't take the design away from the game and
> make them all the same?
>
Alex Waterston
being played. That is part of the design process. If everything in life was
about realism we wouldn't have beautiful abstract art, or science fiction
films, and we certainly wouldn't have "Bullet Time".
Design is design whether it is for a film, work of art, computer game or
industrial size copper kettle. Designers design for a reason, a car is
shaped like a car for a reason - it has to be aerodynamic, Schindler's List
is in black and white for a reason - it is a much more compelling and moving
film and Spielberg wanted to convey the horror and depression with a lack of
colour, Max Payne is in the 3rd person for a reason - the designers wanted
the game to be like a movie, with slow motion, clever camera angles and
panning and a well scripted story line and character interaction. Max Payne
had a true cinematic feel to it, and I think it was excellent as such.
Alex
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:3C6C38DD...@tnlc.com...
Eep²
Alex Waterston wrote:
> As a game designer I want you, the player, to play the game as I see it
> being played. That is part of the design process. If everything in life was
> about realism we wouldn't have beautiful abstract art, or science fiction
> films, and we certainly wouldn't have "Bullet Time".
> Design is design whether it is for a film, work of art, computer game or
> industrial size copper kettle. Designers design for a reason, a car is
> shaped like a car for a reason - it has to be aerodynamic, Schindler's List
> is in black and white for a reason - it is a much more compelling and moving
> film and Spielberg wanted to convey the horror and depression with a lack of
> colour, Max Payne is in the 3rd person for a reason - the designers wanted
> the game to be like a movie, with slow motion, clever camera angles and
> panning and a well scripted story line and character interaction. Max Payne
> had a true cinematic feel to it, and I think it was excellent as such.
>
Taren Durbank
found the 3rd p. view in Max Payne annoying and restrictive to the gameplay,
particularly in targeting enemies which is the most common and fundamental
task.
Just because it's artistic or because the so called "artists" at Rockstar
Games wanted me to play it that way doesn't mean I have to like it. And I
didn't.
"Alex Waterston" <a.m.wa...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a4j5vk$795$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Brandon J. Van Every
"Taren Durbank" <tare...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4qajo$7u8$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> Are you making a game for yourself or for others? I'd make it for others.
"For others" doesn't mean "for everyone."
> I
> found the 3rd p. view in Max Payne annoying and restrictive to the
gameplay,
> particularly in targeting enemies which is the most common and fundamental
> task.
I played the demo only. I did find targetting much more difficult than a
FPS. However, I played the demo because a friend of mine loved it and oohed
and aaahed about it. I decided that clearly, I'd have to learn some extra
coordination skills if I was to play this game successfully. The game's
approach didn't strike me as particularly invalid. I *did* get more of a
feeling like I was bursting into a room and initiating a firefight with grim
consequences. I thought the game could be fun if I was able to master the
controls.
Have I looked at it since then? Nope. Shooter games aren't my priority in
life right now, and there was a skill barrier to me absorbing this
particular one.
> Just because it's artistic or because the so called "artists" at Rockstar
> Games wanted me to play it that way doesn't mean I have to like it. And I
> didn't.
Did you even consider learning the manual dexterity skills necessary for the
game, or did you immediately dismiss them out of hand? I'm not going to
gainsay you for saying you don't like something and don't want to consume
it. People don't have to like everything shown to them. But to say that
the game design is invalid, or not fun for someone else, or even a lot of
people besides yourself, is shortsighted.
For this reason I only trust game demos, and I don't trust most people's
opinions of movies. Even amongst my closest friends that I know the best, I
don't necessarily trust them, because they can get ideological / personal
about what they do / don't like. I'll never forget my screenwriting friend
Bob condemning "Fight Club" because it had Brad Pitt in it. He hadn't even
seen the movie! From this I realized that the opinions even rational,
otherwise well-constructed people cannot be trusted at face value. *Always*
inquire as to someone's reasons why they say they don't like something, and
reserve judgement.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Taren Durbank
So what. You're point is? I said others as in "not just yourself."
> > Just because it's artistic or because the so called "artists" at
Rockstar
> > Games wanted me to play it that way doesn't mean I have to like it. And
I
> > didn't.
>
> Did you even consider learning the manual dexterity skills necessary for
the
> game, or did you immediately dismiss them out of hand? I'm not going to
> gainsay you for saying you don't like something and don't want to consume
> it. People don't have to like everything shown to them. But to say that
> the game design is invalid, or not fun for someone else, or even a lot of
> people besides yourself, is shortsighted.
Show me where I said the game design was "invalid" or "not fun for someone
else." I did not. I simply said that I didn't like it.
Having Max Payne standing in front of me obscures my view of the world, and
makes it harder to target things because the line-of-fire traces out from
his body not mine (i.e. the screen).
> For this reason I only trust game demos, and I don't trust most people's
> opinions of movies. Even amongst my closest friends that I know the best,
I
> don't necessarily trust them, because they can get ideological / personal
> about what they do / don't like. I'll never forget my screenwriting
friend
> Bob condemning "Fight Club" because it had Brad Pitt in it. He hadn't
even
> seen the movie! From this I realized that the opinions even rational,
> otherwise well-constructed people cannot be trusted at face value.
*Always*
> inquire as to someone's reasons why they say they don't like something,
and
> reserve judgement.
That's some wise advice that you should consider yourself.
Brandon Van Every
> > "For others" doesn't mean "for everyone."
>
> So what. You're point is? I said others as in "not just yourself."
But every game designer who ships a commercial product is making their game
"for others." Only hobbyists have the financial independence and lack of
common sense to make a game for themselves alone. The designer is trying to
reach an audience of like-minded people, those that will appreciate his
vision. Just because you don't like elements of Max Payne doesn't mean it
wasn't designed "for others." Those "others" just don't include you.
Similarly, commercial films are designed "for others." That doesn't mean
you will like a given film, or that the film was designed for someone like
you. Nor does it mean the game designer worries primarily about what you
want, rather he worries primarily about what *he* wants. Is the power
inequitable? Is the game designer selfish? You bet! He's the one fronting
the time and resources, you're not. He doesn't work for you, he works for
his own career. As long as he can write to a sufficiently large group of
"others" that appreciate his work, he can make money and do what he likes.
Taren Durbank
> wasn't designed "for others." Those "others" just don't include you.
No shit. And it's shortsighted because there are a lot of "others" out there
like me who wanted to play it in 1st p.
> Similarly, commercial films are designed "for others." That doesn't mean
> you will like a given film, or that the film was designed for someone like
> you. Nor does it mean the game designer worries primarily about what you
> want, rather he worries primarily about what *he* wants.
A movie is not analogous to a video game. The player can customise a video
game to a certain extent in order to play it how s/he wants to play it.
> Is the power
> inequitable? Is the game designer selfish? You bet! He's the one
fronting
> the time and resources, you're not. He doesn't work for you, he works for
> his own career. As long as he can write to a sufficiently large group of
> "others" that appreciate his work, he can make money and do what he likes.
If the designer wants to be selfish narrow the potential fan-base, that's
fine with me. S/he is the one who'll suffer for it.
But for what? Because s/he may think it's more artistic or immersive to look
over someone's shoulder instead of through their eyes? Yeaaaah... That's
some hardcore "artistic design." Dealing with the big artistic issues they
are...
Robert Tweed
>
> A movie is not analogous to a video game. The player can customise a video
> game to a certain extent in order to play it how s/he wants to play it.
>
There have to be limits though. If a game a allows a player to play it any
way they want, then the game designer might as well just give the player a
pack of cards and tell them to get on with it. In this instance however, it
probably would be good to have the 1st person option, but if the game
designer donesn't want that option then ultimately it's up to them. Perhaps
they didn't want it to become "just another" 1st person shooter?
- Robert
Brandon Van Every
> > Just because you don't like elements of Max Payne doesn't mean it
> > wasn't designed "for others." Those "others" just don't include you.
>
> No shit. And it's shortsighted because there are a lot of "others" out
there
> like me who wanted to play it in 1st p.
Well, how are sales doing? That would be the metric of "shortsighted."
> > Similarly, commercial films are designed "for others." That doesn't
mean
> > you will like a given film, or that the film was designed for someone
like
> > you. Nor does it mean the game designer worries primarily about what
you
> > want, rather he worries primarily about what *he* wants.
>
> A movie is not analogous to a video game. The player can customise a video
> game to a certain extent in order to play it how s/he wants to play it.
So what? The customization is quite limited compared to the game production
team's workload. You're stuck with a lot of things, designers do make
hardwired decisions. Infinite reconfiguration wouldn't be a game, but a
SDK.
> If the designer wants to be selfish narrow the potential fan-base, that's
> fine with me. S/he is the one who'll suffer for it.
Prove that Max Payne is suffering because you don't happen to like it. I'd
hazard a guess that they won that gamble, that you're irrelevant now.
> But for what? Because s/he may think it's more artistic or immersive to
look
> over someone's shoulder instead of through their eyes? Yeaaaah... That's
> some hardcore "artistic design." Dealing with the big artistic issues they
> are...
Yes, actually they are. Camerawork and drama are completely different when
the visual representation of the main character is missing from the scene.
Taren Durbank
I dunno, 75% of what it could be selling? Nah, I don't know, it's a tricky
question.
> So what? The customization is quite limited compared to the game
production
> team's workload. You're stuck with a lot of things, designers do make
> hardwired decisions. Infinite reconfiguration wouldn't be a game, but a
> SDK.
Hence why I said customisation "to a certain extent." More reading, less
skimming! (You too Robert!)
A 1st p. to 3rd p. viewing switch option is so easy to implement. Many games
have it, it's no big SDK-like customisation.
> > But for what? Because s/he may think it's more artistic or immersive to
> look
> > over someone's shoulder instead of through their eyes? Yeaaaah... That's
> > some hardcore "artistic design." Dealing with the big artistic issues
they
> > are...
>
> Yes, actually they are. Camerawork and drama are completely different
when
> the visual representation of the main character is missing from the scene.
Oh my god...
Taren Durbank
> look
> > over someone's shoulder instead of through their eyes? Yeaaaah... That's
> > some hardcore "artistic design." Dealing with the big artistic issues
they
> > are...
>
> Yes, actually they are. Camerawork and drama are completely different
when
> the visual representation of the main character is missing from the scene.
BTW, Deus Ex only went to 3rd p. for cut-scenes, and it was about 10x better
in terms of drama.
(Better "visual representation" aswell because J.C. didn't look like he had
a carrot stuck up his ass the whole time.)
Brandon Van Every
> >
> > Yes, actually they are. Camerawork and drama are completely different
> > when
> > the visual representation of the main character is missing from the
scene.
>
> Oh my god...
It's true. Are you going to challenge my claim or pray to your deity?
Brandon Van Every
> >
> > Yes, actually they are. Camerawork and drama are completely different
> > when
> > the visual representation of the main character is missing from the
scene.
>
> BTW, Deus Ex only went to 3rd p. for cut-scenes, and it was about 10x
better
> in terms of drama.
Not sure I buy your sales pitch. I played both the Deus Ex and the Max
Payne demo contemporaneously. Deus Ex left me flat because the graphics
were dated and the sneaking wasn't as good as Thief. What I recall liking
about Deus Ex, were the 3rd person cutscenes. Now admittedly, the Deus Ex
training mission was just that, a training mission. I can't even remember
if the demo had a 1st level mission, if it did I didn't play it, 'cuz the
game wasn't dramatic enough to suck me in. Max Payne, on the other hand,
was dramatic enough to make me swallow the training mission and the 1st
level mission, even though I really never got how to aim properly with the
time freezing thing. For drama in the demos, Deus Ex can't hold a candle to
Max Payne.
You really think the full games are that different than what their demos
implied? I'm doubtful, but if enough Deus Ex fans and detractors scream
that it was quite dramatic, I might reconsider my position.
> (Better "visual representation" aswell because J.C. didn't look like he
had
> a carrot stuck up his ass the whole time.)
No visual representation isn't a better visual representation. If I offer
you the choice between a movie and a blank screen, which is the better
storytelling device? You'd have to comment on something other than absence.
Raj
> BTW, Deus Ex only went to 3rd p. for cut-scenes, and it was about 10x better
> in terms of drama.
>
And whenever JCD went by a mirror. ;-)
I actually recall putting him through his paces, even with all his equipment,
just to see what he looked like.
>
> (Better "visual representation" aswell because J.C. didn't look like he had
> a carrot stuck up his ass the whole time.)
HAHAHAHA!
Raj
> You really think the full games are that different than what their demos
> implied? I'm doubtful, but if enough Deus Ex fans and detractors scream
> that it was quite dramatic, I might reconsider my position.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!
IT WAS MORE DRAMATIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Taren Durbank
> Payne demo contemporaneously. Deus Ex left me flat because the graphics
> were dated and the sneaking wasn't as good as Thief. What I recall liking
> about Deus Ex, were the 3rd person cutscenes. Now admittedly, the Deus Ex
> training mission was just that, a training mission. I can't even remember
> if the demo had a 1st level mission, if it did I didn't play it, 'cuz the
> game wasn't dramatic enough to suck me in. Max Payne, on the other hand,
> was dramatic enough to make me swallow the training mission and the 1st
> level mission, even though I really never got how to aim properly with the
> time freezing thing. For drama in the demos, Deus Ex can't hold a candle
to
> Max Payne.
You're judging a game by its demo, and you're telling me I'm shortsighted...
Try playing both games from start to finish, then you can make proper
judgements about its plot and level of drama. After playing both demos you
can only compare the demos. After playing both games fully, then you can
compare both games as a whole.
> You really think the full games are that different than what their demos
> implied? I'm doubtful, but if enough Deus Ex fans and detractors scream
> that it was quite dramatic, I might reconsider my position.
Damn straight they're different. Demos get released months before the game
is even finished and are generally more of a technology showcase.
> No visual representation isn't a better visual representation. If I offer
> you the choice between a movie and a blank screen, which is the better
> storytelling device? You'd have to comment on something other than
absence.
J.C. wasn't blank, you get to see him in cut-scenes. And like I said,
there's no carrots involved...
Brandon Van Every
>
> > You really think the full games are that different than what their demos
> > implied? I'm doubtful, but if enough Deus Ex fans and detractors scream
> > that it was quite dramatic, I might reconsider my position.
>
> Damn straight they're different. Demos get released months before the game
> is even finished and are generally more of a technology showcase.
You haven't answered whether it matters in this particular case. Where's
your primal scream?
Taren Durbank
Yes, of course it does.
Do you seriously think you could do a proper review of a movie from its 5
minute preview? Or a book after reading only its first chapter? You could,
but it would be unfair and inaccurate.
(Note that such a judgement is very different to having the *whole* movie or
book, getting bored at some points, and fast-forwarding or skimming through
those points boring bits. In a game demo you usually only have access to a
small, unpolished part of the game.)