Sonic Adventure 2: major disappointment
BigBenHealey
it has let me down. First major letdown has to be the Knuckles/Rouge stages.
These levels are so boring and frustrating! I have completed all 5 of Knuckles
stages and I must say those 5 levels were the most boring hours I've ever spent
with my Dreamcast, yes they took hours! They take a long time to finish the
first time through. One level (the red, green, blue room one) took me as long
as 2 hrs to finish as I tried 2 different times at an hour each time. I WILL
not replay these levels for sure, NEVER. They simply bore and the rap music is
just annoying on these levels. They took so long to complete that I got motion
sickness and was considering returning the entire game. The thing that sucks
most is that YOU HAVE TO PLAY THESE LEVELS as adventures are not separated by
character, they are separated by good guy/bad guy adventure. So to unlock all
5 sonic stages you have to go through all 5 of Knuckles stages. THEY REALLY
SUCK HARD! Next time on Gamecube, NO MORE OF THESE BORING LEVELS! They
totally slow down the pace of the game which should be fast from beginning to
end! They took out the adventure part of the game to speed up gameplay, I
would have rather had them take out knuckles/rouge stages instead.
Tails/Eggman levels are fun shooting levels and well designed, no complaints
here. Good action stages.
Another complaint is that each character has 5 stages each. That means Sonic
only has 5 stages! If you wanted to play a Sonic game where you would get
plenty of speedy stages you are getting 5 sonic, 5 shadow. Not enough sonic
stages! But they should have gotten rid of the 10 BORING Knuckles/Rouge stages
and added more speedy stages. IGNDC is pretty lame for showing movies of the
Green Forest level before the game was out, they pretty much showed you the
best sequences in the game and after seeing those movies I expected more of the
game to be that thrilling. As a result of IGN spoiling that level before
release, there were no major jaw dropping sequences for me like the sequences
in SA1. What really sucks is that they gave us 5 sonic stages and 3 of which
are pretty long(over 3 minutes). Instead I would have preferred a wider
variety of short (1-2 minute) levels. the metal harbor level is pretty cool
and only 2 minutes long. But the last two sonic stages are a dissapointment
for me, they are too long and one even involves finding keys to unlock doors.
Metal harbor and the green forest rule it. The san fransisco stage is cool but
most of you already played it enough. Also in SA1 some stages were separated
into 2 or 3 sequences. In SA2 most of the sonic stages are one long sequence
meaning the same music plays and no variety in landscape either.
I think IGNDC also stated that these stages would remind you of the thrilling
16 bit sonic levels. It didn't do it for me. If you recall sonic the hedgehog
2 on genesis there was the incredible 2nd level in the game that let you speed
through the entire level within a minute leading you to the first boss after
you found that first speed up. In that sequence you went through triple loops
and two incredible corkscrews all at super high speed. Or how about the level
on 16 bit sonic 2 that had sonic run so fast through multiple loops the screen
almost couldn't even catch up to him. Nothing in sonic adventure 2 was that
thrilling. There is a cool new move in sonic adventure 2 that lets you hit the
b button when there is a sequence of rings that is like a homing device that
makes sonic speed through the rings. If they created a sequence or rings that
used this feature that involved nonstop multiple corkscrews and loops it
would've been awesome.
Overall the music is not as good as sonic adventure 1 or the 16 bit sonic
games. The rap music for knuckles is lame. But i do like the music for Tails
stages. Sonic music is decent but not as good as SA1. The music in SA1 was so
much better and featured more classic videogame music over rock and rap.
The most thrilling sonic game is still sonic 2 on genesis which I dont believe
was made by sonic team. Sonic Adv 2 on Dreamcast is a letdown! Next time,
dont make sonic adventure 3. Make sonic the hedgehog 4 and include sonic,
tails, and knuckles but have everyone share the same stages, all fast sonic
style stages! Next time make the stages shorter and include more variety. Go
back to 16 bit style sonic where all of the stages were fast! better yet, make
another 2d sonic game on sega saturn!
I'M GONNA HOOK UP MY MEGA DRIVE AND PLAY SONIC 2 AND SONIC 3/KNUCKLES. THAT
IS MORE FUN than sonic adventure 2!
I wish there were more 16 bit sonic games.
Scott X
"BigBenHealey" <bigben...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010623051455...@ng-md1.aol.com...
Awe, come on, we all know the real reason people are bitching about
these levels. They're hard, they're very hard, and everyone gets an E
rating on most of them first off. Well everybody quite your bitching! You
all know who your daddy is. Sonic Adventure 2 is your daddy, and you love
it!
Phillip Roncoroni
The Knuckles/Rouge levels at first are a big annoyance, I'll admit that.
However there are three clues per item, and once you beat a level, you get
to know where things might be the next time you replay it. The red, green,
blue, level in particular was a breeze for me thanks to the clues. Heck, the
clues even told me which room it was in. (red, green, blue) The Rouge, Mad
Space, level though, I don't think I'll ever replay.
There are six Sonic stages, and four Shadow stages. Shadow plays exactly the
same as Sonic, so just consider his stages as Sonic stages. In total then,
there are ten Sonic stages, the same as in Sonic Adventure 1, however this
time all of levels are great, with flawless level design. (also I won't
really spoil it, but after you beat the game as Hero and Dark... well, some
new levels open up...)
Sonic's last two stages are "Crazy Gadget" and "Final Rush" both of which
take place in space, and hark back to the 16-bit Genesis days of S&K. The
item collecting level, Pyramid Cave, isn't even really item collecting. It
simply taking an item and moving it somewhere to open a door. Things like
that were similarly done in S&K, in the Sandopolis stages.
Final Rush in particular is just grinding in space, and that's it. The level
design is simply superb. There's literally dozens of paths to take in this
level, and in all there must be over three-hundred seperate grinding rails.
Mid-grind the rail might end, forcing you to side hop to another rail. The
level is simply intense.
All of Sonic's levels (and Shadow's) just blow Sonic Adventure 1's stages
away. (of which there were also ten) Plus out of those ten, Ice Cap was
boring, the Casino Zone wasn't really a stage, and Sky Deck was a pain. In
SA2, all of Sonic's stages are built for speed, and skill. They actually
have tons of multiple paths are replay value up the wazoo. I know getting
A's on all five missions, of all ten stages is going to be quite
challanging.
> I think IGNDC also stated that these stages would remind you of the
thrilling
> 16 bit sonic levels. It didn't do it for me. If you recall sonic the
hedgehog
> 2 on genesis there was the incredible 2nd level in the game that let you
speed
> through the entire level within a minute leading you to the first boss
after
> you found that first speed up. In that sequence you went through triple
loops
> and two incredible corkscrews all at super high speed. Or how about the
level
> on 16 bit sonic 2 that had sonic run so fast through multiple loops the
screen
> almost couldn't even catch up to him. Nothing in sonic adventure 2 was
that
> thrilling. There is a cool new move in sonic adventure 2 that lets you
hit the
> b button when there is a sequence of rings that is like a homing device
that
> makes sonic speed through the rings. If they created a sequence or rings
that
> used this feature that involved nonstop multiple corkscrews and loops it
> would've been awesome.
>
The game definitley harks back to its 16-bit days. City Escape, just the
idea of those pulleys that lift you up, is one example. Pyramid Cave, is
just like the ruins stages in S&K, but in glorious 3D, and it works
extremely well. From the timed doors, to the ghosts, it gave me fond
memories. Crazy Gadget, and the anti-gravity walking on ceilings is just
like S&K again. Final Chase, with it's anti-gravity rotating barrels, is
also like S&K. The game definitley borrows heavily from S&K.
> Overall the music is not as good as sonic adventure 1 or the 16 bit sonic
> games. The rap music for knuckles is lame. But i do like the music for
Tails
> stages. Sonic music is decent but not as good as SA1. The music in SA1
was so
> much better and featured more classic videogame music over rock and rap.
>
The rap music, even though I don't like rap, fits Knuckle's personality, and
stages. The rock music for all of Sonic's levels also fit the mood. His
levels are a thrilling rollercoaster ride.
> The most thrilling sonic game is still sonic 2 on genesis which I dont
believe
> was made by sonic team.
Sonic 2 Genesis, as well as Sonic 3, and S&K, were made in America by STI,
the Sega Technical Institute. (they also made Bug, Comix Zone, and some
other things) All of tese Genesis Sonic games were overseen by Naka, and
probably co-developed by Sonic Team Japan. Sonic Adventure 2 was made in
America again, but by Sonic Team USA. (Naka's team is just busy making PSO
things)
> Sonic Adv 2 on Dreamcast is a letdown!
For you, maybe. Did you like NiGHTS? If so, the sheer replayability of 180
emblems, with grades of A-E on each will keep one busy for a LONG time.
> Next time,
> dont make sonic adventure 3. Make sonic the hedgehog 4 and include sonic,
> tails, and knuckles but have everyone share the same stages, all fast
sonic
> style stages! Next time make the stages shorter and include more variety.
Go
> back to 16 bit style sonic where all of the stages were fast! better yet,
make
> another 2d sonic game on sega saturn!
> I'M GONNA HOOK UP MY MEGA DRIVE AND PLAY SONIC 2 AND SONIC 3/KNUCKLES.
THAT
> IS MORE FUN than sonic adventure 2!
>
> I wish there were more 16 bit sonic games.
*sigh*
So far I think Sonic Adventure 2 is my favorite Sonic game, on any system.
(unless I can count Sonic Jam ^_^)
--
GoodCow =)
- "GoodCow2K" on AIM
GoodCow's Farm: http://www.sapphirewired.com/goodcow/
PSO Username: GoodCow (Force / FOnewm)
--
diritol
Too much reading. Am I right in assuming that Sonic Adventure 2
dissapointed you...in a major way?
Stephen Preston
> The Knuckles/Rouge levels at first are a big annoyance, I'll admit that.
> However there are three clues per item, and once you beat a level, you get
> to know where things might be the next time you replay it. The red, green,
> blue, level in particular was a breeze for me thanks to the clues. Heck, the
> clues even told me which room it was in. (red, green, blue) The Rouge, Mad
> Space, level though, I don't think I'll ever replay.
Haven't gotten to it yet. I hope it's not as bad as you say (the RGB
level was the one that made me post my original Knuckles rant). But it's
true, they can seem really bad sometimes and really easy (sometimes even
fun) other times... It basically depends how lucky you get (RGB is
probably the only one you really have to think about).
>
> There are six Sonic stages, and four Shadow stages.
I keep hearing different numbers of Sonic levels. Wish I'd counted...
Five levels, six levels, seven levels... <tries to get Phish's "Weigh"
out of head>
> Final Rush in particular is just grinding in space, and that's it. The level
> design is simply superb. There's literally dozens of paths to take in this
> level, and in all there must be over three-hundred seperate grinding rails.
> Mid-grind the rail might end, forcing you to side hop to another rail. The
> level is simply intense.
I agree totally. I couldn't get the smile off my face playing it, even
while plummeting to my death so many times. It's hard, but it's exactly
what a Sonic level should be. What Click-Clock Wood was for
Banjo-Kazooie, Final Rush is for SA2.
> The rap music, even though I don't like rap, fits Knuckle's personality, and
> stages. The rock music for all of Sonic's levels also fit the mood. His
> levels are a thrilling rollercoaster ride.
I prefer the electronic techno music (whatever it's called) in the Shadow
stages.
--Steve
Sweet Zombie Jesus
>Sonic 2 Genesis, as well as Sonic 3, and S&K, were made in America by STI,
>the Sega Technical Institute. (they also made Bug, Comix Zone, and some
>other things)
Bug was made by Realtime Associates...that piece of crap. :)
--Greg
==============================================
"Alcohol and cigarettes go together like porn and nachos"
-Pickles Oblong, "The Oblongs"
==============================================
Nick Zitzmann
"Scott X" <weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Awe, come on, we all know the real reason people are bitching about
> these levels. They're hard, they're very hard, and everyone gets an E
> rating on most of them first off. Well everybody quite your bitching! You
> all know who your daddy is. Sonic Adventure 2 is your daddy, and you love
> it!
Well, actually, there are a few reasons why I'm not going to be getting
this game:
1. They took out the adventure fields, which were my favorite part from
the first game. That's 1/3 of the game taken out in one sweep of the axe.
2. I've heard the game still has the same camera-with-a-mind-of-its-own
that plagued the first game. Why can't they make the camera always stay
right behind the character and never move except when the user wants it
to move? The cameras in Shenmue and PSO did this, and I had no problem
with them.
3. They axed Amy and Big. So you can play as the antagonists now - whoop
de do, their games are identical to the protagonist's games. At least in
the first game, everyone's missions were different.
4. Tails doesn't run, jump, or hover; he supposedly spends the entire
game in some Egg-mobile. When I play as Tails, I expect to have some
high-flying, racing action. Not this time around, I guess.
5. Could they have made the voice acting worse?!
I liked the first game, except for the English voice acting and the
stupid camera, but this game sounds like it's even worse...
Nick Zitzmann
ICQ: 22305512
"WHY DID U MAKE THIS NEW PATCH PLZ EXPALIN...U SHOULD OF ATLEAST GIVEN A WARNING MY LVL 76 LANCE BARB THAT ONLY USE WHIRLWIND NOW SUX!!!! U KNOW HOW HARD I WORKED FOR THAT CHAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...AND ALSO MY ICE SORC NOW IS REALLY REALLY BAD!!!" - Anonymous Battle.net user, on the release of Diablo II 1.08, which intentionally lowers the power of the once-mighty (and unbalancing) Whirlwind technique
Charles Perry
Nick Zitzmann wrote in message ...
>In article <9h1s44$bp9u9$1...@ID-54280.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Scott X" <weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Awe, come on, we all know the real reason people are bitching about
>> these levels. They're hard, they're very hard, and everyone gets an E
>> rating on most of them first off. Well everybody quite your bitching!
You
>> all know who your daddy is. Sonic Adventure 2 is your daddy, and you
love
>> it!
>
>Well, actually, there are a few reasons why I'm not going to be getting
>this game:
>
>1. They took out the adventure fields, which were my favorite part from
>the first game. That's 1/3 of the game taken out in one sweep of the axe.
Why are you missing these? No really, I don't understand...I just like
playing the levels in the game...but maybe that's just me.
>
>2. I've heard the game still has the same camera-with-a-mind-of-its-own
>that plagued the first game. Why can't they make the camera always stay
>right behind the character and never move except when the user wants it
>to move? The cameras in Shenmue and PSO did this, and I had no problem
>with them.
Yup, they are still fairly bad, but not unplayable by any means, they don't
really take anything away from your enjoyment of the game.
>
>3. They axed Amy and Big. So you can play as the antagonists now - whoop
>de do, their games are identical to the protagonist's games. At least in
>the first game, everyone's missions were different.
You're complaining that they took big out?! Also, Amy was pretty weak too.
Here we have 2 Sonics pretty much (best part of game), and then 2 E102s, and
2 Knuckles (not much fun here).
>
>4. Tails doesn't run, jump, or hover; he supposedly spends the entire
>game in some Egg-mobile. When I play as Tails, I expect to have some
>high-flying, racing action. Not this time around, I guess.
Agreed, I don't like this either.
>
>5. Could they have made the voice acting worse?!
>
The voice acting is fine by me, I don't really care- it didn't spoil
House/Typing of the Dead for me either though and it doesn't get any worse
than in those two games. If it really bothers you though, turn it on
Japanese w/ English subs.
>I liked the first game, except for the English voice acting and the
>stupid camera, but this game sounds like it's even worse...
>
>Nick Zitzmann
>ICQ: 22305512
>
The game is very much worth buying, don't hesitate, it is a lot of fun.
Happy gaming :)
-steven perry
Charles Perry
Sweet Zombie Jesus wrote in message
<9h2tnj$buc30$1...@ID-59490.news.dfncis.de>...
>Phillip Roncoroni wrote in message ...
>>Sonic 2 Genesis, as well as Sonic 3, and S&K, were made in America by STI,
>>the Sega Technical Institute. (they also made Bug, Comix Zone, and some
>>other things)
>
>Bug was made by Realtime Associates...that piece of crap. :)
>
Bug! wasn't that bad, I enjoyed it :) It was far from great though!
>--Greg
>==============================================
> "Alcohol and cigarettes go together like porn and nachos"
> -Pickles Oblong, "The Oblongs"
>==============================================
>
>
>
Happy gaming :)
-steven perry
Stephen Preston
> Well, actually, there are a few reasons why I'm not going to be getting
> this game:
>
> 1. They took out the adventure fields, which were my favorite part from
> the first game. That's 1/3 of the game taken out in one sweep of the axe.
Fair enough. I enjoyed them too; it's disorienting to simply jump from
level to level.
> 2. I've heard the game still has the same camera-with-a-mind-of-its-own
> that plagued the first game. Why can't they make the camera always stay
> right behind the character and never move except when the user wants it
> to move? The cameras in Shenmue and PSO did this, and I had no problem
> with them.
People always complain about cameras. The camera is really drastically
improved in this game. I have never had to fight with the camera like I
had to in SA1. It always points in the direction you're supposed to go,
and I've never seen any of the blind jumps people complained about.
>
> 3. They axed Amy and Big. So you can play as the antagonists now - whoop
> de do, their games are identical to the protagonist's games. At least in
> the first game, everyone's missions were different.
Yes, but on the other hand there were only about 10-12 different levels,
and each character played through parts of the same level. Here there are
a lot more (although some are sort of repeated).
>
> 4. Tails doesn't run, jump, or hover; he supposedly spends the entire
> game in some Egg-mobile. When I play as Tails, I expect to have some
> high-flying, racing action. Not this time around, I guess.
In pt. 3 you complain that there isn't enough gameplay variety, but now
you want Tails to have pretty much the same game as Sonic? I think this
was a good decision.
>
> 5. Could they have made the voice acting worse?!
They could have and they did.
> I liked the first game, except for the English voice acting and the
> stupid camera, but this game sounds like it's even worse...
As I recall the Japanese voice acting wasn't any better. Or if it's
Japanese, do you simply not notice whether it's good or bad?
--Steve
Phillip Roncoroni
news:rg8Z6.4167$Ge.3...@ralph.vnet.net...
>
> Nick Zitzmann wrote in message ...
> >In article <9h1s44$bp9u9$1...@ID-54280.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Scott X" <weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Awe, come on, we all know the real reason people are bitching about
> >> these levels. They're hard, they're very hard, and everyone gets an E
> >> rating on most of them first off. Well everybody quite your bitching!
> You
> >> all know who your daddy is. Sonic Adventure 2 is your daddy, and you
> love
> >> it!
> >
> >Well, actually, there are a few reasons why I'm not going to be getting
> >this game:
> >
> >1. They took out the adventure fields, which were my favorite part from
> >the first game. That's 1/3 of the game taken out in one sweep of the axe.
>
> Why are you missing these? No really, I don't understand...I just like
> playing the levels in the game...but maybe that's just me.
>
I liked the Adventure fields... not to say that level to level is bad, but
after SA1, it just feels like a huge chunk is missing. Plus the Adventure
fields had secret things like Chao Eggs.
> >
> >2. I've heard the game still has the same camera-with-a-mind-of-its-own
> >that plagued the first game. Why can't they make the camera always stay
> >right behind the character and never move except when the user wants it
> >to move? The cameras in Shenmue and PSO did this, and I had no problem
> >with them.
>
> Yup, they are still fairly bad, but not unplayable by any means, they
don't
> really take anything away from your enjoyment of the game.
>
>
> >
> >3. They axed Amy and Big. So you can play as the antagonists now - whoop
> >de do, their games are identical to the protagonist's games. At least in
> >the first game, everyone's missions were different.
>
>
> You're complaining that they took big out?! Also, Amy was pretty weak
too.
> Here we have 2 Sonics pretty much (best part of game), and then 2 E102s,
and
> 2 Knuckles (not much fun here).
>
He's complaining that in Sonic Adventure 1, there were six distinctly
different gameplay types. In Sonic Adventure 2 however, they cut that in
half to three. Personally I'm glad Big is gone. Tails as well, I didn't
really enjoy flying around due to the buggy camera, engine, etc. Amy's game
is missed though. I liked the slower paced puzzle solving of it, but it also
had action, unlike Knuckles/Rouge.
Knuckles/Rouge, they really screwed up with. The levels are football field
sized, and the radar only detects the first item. You can be directly over
item #2, and it won't beep until you find the first one.
The flawless level design of Sonic and Shadow though make up for these, as
does the NiGHTS-esque grading system, and 180 emblems. It's going to take me
quite a while to get A's in every level, if I can even do it at all.
--
GoodCow =)
- "GoodCow2K" on AIM
GoodCow's Farm: http://www.sapphirewired.com/goodcow/
PSO Username: GoodCow (Force / FOnewm)
--
> >
Phillip Roncoroni
news:9h2tnj$buc30$1...@ID-59490.news.dfncis.de...
> Phillip Roncoroni wrote in message ...
> >Sonic 2 Genesis, as well as Sonic 3, and S&K, were made in America by
STI,
> >the Sega Technical Institute. (they also made Bug, Comix Zone, and some
> >other things)
>
> Bug was made by Realtime Associates...that piece of crap. :)
>
In Sega Visions they interviewed the Bug team and it was made internally by
Sega/STI. The "Sega Away Team."
--
GoodCow =)
- "GoodCow2K" on AIM
GoodCow's Farm: http://www.sapphirewired.com/goodcow/
PSO Username: GoodCow (Force / FOnewm)
--
> --Greg
Scott X
"Nick Zitzmann" <nick...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:nickzman-3125DA...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> In article <9h1s44$bp9u9$1...@ID-54280.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Scott X" <weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Awe, come on, we all know the real reason people are bitching about
> > these levels. They're hard, they're very hard, and everyone gets an E
> > rating on most of them first off. Well everybody quite your bitching!
You
> > all know who your daddy is. Sonic Adventure 2 is your daddy, and you
love
> > it!
>
> Well, actually, there are a few reasons why I'm not going to be getting
> this game:
>
> 1. They took out the adventure fields, which were my favorite part from
> the first game. That's 1/3 of the game taken out in one sweep of the axe.
While I liked the adventure field as well, this game appears to have
more levels, which I'd think are the meat of the game. Besides that,
playing the different characters doesn't just put you in Sonic's levels with
different gameplay, like in SA, they all have their own levels. That is a
big improvement in my opinion.
> 2. I've heard the game still has the same camera-with-a-mind-of-its-own
> that plagued the first game. Why can't they make the camera always stay
> right behind the character and never move except when the user wants it
> to move? The cameras in Shenmue and PSO did this, and I had no problem
> with them.
The camera is not worse, people just suck at this game because it's too
fast for them. Of course that's just my opinion, but I don't have any
trouble with the camera killing me, I know exactly what I did every time I
die or get hit. It's only a matter of playing to prevent those things from
happening again.
> 3. They axed Amy and Big. So you can play as the antagonists now - whoop
> de do, their games are identical to the protagonist's games. At least in
> the first game, everyone's missions were different.
That's not true for the second. They each have their own levels and have
something to add to the story.
> 4. Tails doesn't run, jump, or hover; he supposedly spends the entire
> game in some Egg-mobile. When I play as Tails, I expect to have some
> high-flying, racing action. Not this time around, I guess.
He and Robotnik kind of expand on the E101 levels of SA. At least one
of tails level's is a cart racing level, they are not all the same, some are
better than others depending on your taste. But all are completely
challenging, the only levels you really need to be patient and pace yourself
with is the Treasure hunting levels with Knuckles and Rouge, which are
extremely well done compared to anything else I've played.
> 5. Could they have made the voice acting worse?!
No, it's a bit better, but I still listen to it in Japanese.
> I liked the first game, except for the English voice acting and the
> stupid camera, but this game sounds like it's even worse...
The camera was overcomeable in the first game, and it's hardly an issue
comparitively in the second.
John Kitchar
"Nick Zitzmann" <nick...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:nickzman-3125DA...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> the first game. That's 1/3 of the game taken out in one sweep of the axe.
>
> 2. I've heard the game still has the same camera-with-a-mind-of-its-own
> that plagued the first game. Why can't they make the camera always stay
> right behind the character and never move except when the user wants it
> to move? The cameras in Shenmue and PSO did this, and I had no problem
> with them.
>
I disagree here. And also, the PSO camera does not stay behind you. A fixed
behind camera never allows you to see your character from a different
perspective. Spawn has a non-fixed camera too--is so cool to run away from
an enemy and then turn around blasting while your character is facing the
screen. Yes it's harder, but I like to see the different views! Games where
the camera is always rigidly fixed behind are boring.
Maybe for *platformers* in areas that require perfect jumps yes, but not in
most action games--let the camera float around with the option to center
behind with the trigger. PSO is like this.
JMK
Sweet Zombie Jesus
>Sega/STI. The "Sega Away Team."
No, sorry...the Realtime Associates logo is right there when you turn it
on...they're a crappy company that did lots of shitty licensed games like
"AAAH Real Monsters" and "Beavis and Butthead".
-- Greg
Raymond McKeithen II
"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote in message
news:9h3d3...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Agreed. If they're going to stick it fixed right behind your character, they
might as well remove your character from the screen and make it like an
FPS...
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email
Phillip Roncoroni
> Phillip Roncoroni wrote in message ...
> >In Sega Visions they interviewed the Bug team and it was made internally
by
> >Sega/STI. The "Sega Away Team."
>
> No, sorry...the Realtime Associates logo is right there when you turn it
> on...they're a crappy company that did lots of shitty licensed games like
> "AAAH Real Monsters" and "Beavis and Butthead".
>
I'm just going by what I read in Sega Visions. They was even an interview
with them.
--
GoodCow =)
- "GoodCow2K" on AIM
GoodCow's Farm: http://www.sapphirewired.com/goodcow/
PSO Username: GoodCow (Force / FOnewm)
--
> -- Greg
John Kitchar
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:1UbZ6.190$5d.8...@newshog.newsread.com...
Exactly.
JMK
Sweet Zombie Jesus
>with them.
Realtime was just acting as Sega's "poor-man's Rare" ....if they wanted to
call it "Away Team", whatever.
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Phillip Roncoroni <goo...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>"Charles Perry" <cpe...@vnet.net> wrote in message
>news:rg8Z6.4167$Ge.3...@ralph.vnet.net...
>> Nick Zitzmann wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >this game:
>> >
>> >1. They took out the adventure fields, which were my favorite part from
>> >the first game. That's 1/3 of the game taken out in one sweep of the axe.
>>
>> Why are you missing these? No really, I don't understand...I just like
>> playing the levels in the game...but maybe that's just me.
>
>I liked the Adventure fields... not to say that level to level is bad, but
>after SA1, it just feels like a huge chunk is missing. Plus the Adventure
>fields had secret things like Chao Eggs.
Remember that in the beginning, Sega's working title for SA was originally
"Sonic RPG." The adventure fields primarily contained NPCs that you had to
talk to in order to figure out what to do next, and this game element made
it into the final release of the game.
I personally liked that feature, but I can fully understand why they
removed it... One of the big criticisms of Sonic Adventure was that it
wasn't enough like a true platform game, what with a lot of extra game
features that not everybody enjoyed. On the other hand, after completing a
tough level in SA2, you don't have a chance to just wander around and
enjoy the scenery unless you've picked up the Chao world key.
>Knuckles/Rouge, they really screwed up with. The levels are football field
>sized, and the radar only detects the first item. You can be directly over
>item #2, and it won't beep until you find the first one.
I wondered about this... Knuckle's levels are beautiful, but the execution
seems way buggy. They also left in a lot of Japanese-language exclamations
("Ora ora ora!") which makes me think that the localization was rushed and
sloppy. I still enjoy those levels, more than everybody else seems to. :)
-KKC, wonders what happens if you link a Chao Adventure 2 VMU to an
original Chao Adventure VMU...
--
Do you know what colitas smells like? Do even your old friends | kendrick
treat you like you're something new? What do you do when your | @io.com
dreams come true and they're not quite like you had planned? Does a |
room full of noise and dangerous boys still make you thirsty and hot? |
Nick Zitzmann
Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Nick Zitzmann wrote:
> > 2. I've heard the game still has the same camera-with-a-mind-of-its-own
> > that plagued the first game. Why can't they make the camera always stay
> > right behind the character and never move except when the user wants it
> > to move? The cameras in Shenmue and PSO did this, and I had no problem
> > with them.
>
> People always complain about cameras. The camera is really drastically
> improved in this game. I have never had to fight with the camera like I
> had to in SA1. It always points in the direction you're supposed to go,
> and I've never seen any of the blind jumps people complained about.
That's the problem I had with the camera in SA: It always points in the
direction you're supposed to go. I was once playing the Twinkle Park
stage with Sonic and acquired 700 (!) rings. Then, in the section where
Sonic has to jump across a few towers, I started to move a little and
the camera suddenly changed angles on me. Since controls are tied to the
camera, this caught me off guard, sent Sonic sailing down the cliff, and
I was so disgusted that I was about ready to smash a controller.
To me, the perfect 3D camera is one that is fixed and only moves when
the player instructs it to move, and the controls are absolute and not
tied to the camera (unless the camera is isometric). Examples of this
include PSO, Shenmue, (gasp) the Tomb Raider games, Ecco: Defender of
the Future, Super Mario 64 (with the Mario-cam, not the Lakitu-cam), FPS
games, most racing games, and free-movement games (ie. Descent and
Forsaken).
It's possible to rotate the camera in Sonic Adventure, but why bother?
The thing had a mind of its own, and would always revert to the way it
wanted to be instead of the way I want it to be. Unless Sonic Adventure
II fixed this problem, I'll pass on it.
> > 4. Tails doesn't run, jump, or hover; he supposedly spends the entire
> > game in some Egg-mobile. When I play as Tails, I expect to have some
> > high-flying, racing action. Not this time around, I guess.
>
> In pt. 3 you complain that there isn't enough gameplay variety, but now
> you want Tails to have pretty much the same game as Sonic? I think this
> was a good decision.
Tails's game the first time around wasn't like Sonic's. Sonic always ran
around solo (except in the stages which Tails also participates, but
Tails was just a bit character in Sonic's game), but Tails had to
drag-race to the end of each level. Except for the arctic level (which
was the same), Tails's levels ended up being different from Sonic's
because he could hover and Sonic couldn't, opening up some new parts and
shortcuts in each level.
> > I liked the first game, except for the English voice acting and the
> > stupid camera, but this game sounds like it's even worse...
>
> As I recall the Japanese voice acting wasn't any better. Or if it's
> Japanese, do you simply not notice whether it's good or bad?
I can; in the first game, the Japanese voice actors seemed to be far
more into the character than the English voice actors were. There was
one cutscene in particular I remember where Sonic was about to pounce
E-102 on board the Egg Carrier, then Amy stepped in the way. Sonic's
response (in English) was "Step aside, Amy! Out of my way!" and the
English voice actor sounded like he read this off of a cue card,
completely out of character. The Japanese voice actor did a better job
of reciting the line in character...
Nick Zitzmann
"Charles Perry" <cpe...@vnet.net> wrote:
> Nick Zitzmann wrote in message ...
> >1. They took out the adventure fields, which were my favorite part from
> >the first game. That's 1/3 of the game taken out in one sweep of the axe.
>
> Why are you missing these? No really, I don't understand...I just like
> playing the levels in the game...but maybe that's just me.
Have you ever played Galerians on the PSX? Every time you completed a
building in that game, it just whisked you to the next building
automatically, rather than letting Rion fight his way across
Michaelangelo City. It was a rather poor showing compared to a similar
game released at a similar time, Resident Evil III, where Jill went into
a number of buildings, and you got to see every moment of it.
That, and I liked finding the power-ups that they hid across every
adventure field...
> >3. They axed Amy and Big. So you can play as the antagonists now - whoop
> >de do, their games are identical to the protagonist's games. At least in
> >the first game, everyone's missions were different.
>
>
> You're complaining that they took big out?! Also, Amy was pretty weak too.
> Here we have 2 Sonics pretty much (best part of game), and then 2 E102s, and
> 2 Knuckles (not much fun here).
Amy was one of my favorite characters from the first game. Big's game
would have been perfect if it wasn't so easy to snap lines.
Actually, my least favorite character from the first game was Sonic,
simply because some of the third objectives Sonic had to fulfill were
sadistic. I've never been able to finish the Sky Deck in less than ten
minutes; how in the world am I supposed to complete it in less than
four?!
> The game is very much worth buying, don't hesitate, it is a lot of fun.
The camera took a lot of fun out of the first game for me (see my
previous article). If the camera in SA II is the same, why should I
bother?
Phillip Roncoroni
You ... can't beat Sky Deck in under ten minutes?
--
GoodCow =)
- "GoodCow2K" on AIM
GoodCow's Farm: http://www.sapphirewired.com/goodcow/
PSO Username: GoodCow (Force / FOnewm)
--
> > The game is very much worth buying, don't hesitate, it is a lot of fun.
Nick Zitzmann
"Phillip Roncoroni" <goo...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> You ... can't beat Sky Deck in under ten minutes?
No. I think my best time is around 12-13 minutes or so on the Sky Deck.
I still don't get how some people got a 1:03 timing on the Emerald Coast
when my best time was 1:40 or so and I can't seem to get any faster than
that.
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Nick Zitzmann <nick...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.1010623180508.12164A-100000@math>,
> Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Nick Zitzmann wrote:
>> > 2. I've heard the game still has the same camera-with-a-mind-of-its-own
>> > that plagued the first game. Why can't they make the camera always stay
>> > right behind the character and never move except when the user wants it
>> > to move? The cameras in Shenmue and PSO did this, and I had no problem
>>
>> improved in this game. I have never had to fight with the camera like I
>> had to in SA1. It always points in the direction you're supposed to go,
>> and I've never seen any of the blind jumps people complained about.
>
>That's the problem I had with the camera in SA: It always points in the
>direction you're supposed to go. I was once playing the Twinkle Park
>stage with Sonic and acquired 700 (!) rings. Then, in the section where
>Sonic has to jump across a few towers, I started to move a little and
>the camera suddenly changed angles on me. Since controls are tied to the
>camera, this caught me off guard, sent Sonic sailing down the cliff, and
Not to read too much into it, but I think that the reason for the
"automatic" camera is to encourage the high-speed style of playing over
the exploration style. If the game rewards you for finishing a stage as
quickly as possible (emblems, A-levels, etc.) then this makes sense. For
me, it would be maddening if I had to remember to rotate the camera as I
was performing rapid gluteal transport down Speed Highway. And note that
there's no automatic camera in Knuckles' or Big's stages, since their
levels are supposed to be primarily for exploration and not quick
finishes.
All the same, there were points in the original SA where I wished the
camera would let me see behind where it wanted me to go. But I'll
acknowledge that not everybody digs that system, and if I were a
completist it would drive me nuts too.
-KKC, notes that "rapid gluteal transport" is another way to say "hauling
ass." :)
Phillip Roncoroni
> In article <6PtZ6.15052$h27.8...@typhoon1.gnilink.net>,
> "Phillip Roncoroni" <goo...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> > You ... can't beat Sky Deck in under ten minutes?
>
> No. I think my best time is around 12-13 minutes or so on the Sky Deck.
>
> I still don't get how some people got a 1:03 timing on the Emerald Coast
> when my best time was 1:40 or so and I can't seem to get any faster than
> that.
>
1:03 seems funny/hacked... unless they took advanced of glitches in the
game. I got 1:31 I believe. If you can get 1:40 in Emerald Coast, you can
surely do better in Sky Deck.
--
GoodCow =)
- "GoodCow2K" on AIM
GoodCow's Farm: http://www.sapphirewired.com/goodcow/
PSO Username: GoodCow (Force / FOnewm)
--
Jordan Lund
at kend...@fnord.io.com wrote on 6/24/01 8:50 AM:
> I wondered about this... Knuckle's levels are beautiful, but the execution
> seems way buggy. They also left in a lot of Japanese-language exclamations
> ("Ora ora ora!") which makes me think that the localization was rushed and
> sloppy. I still enjoy those levels, more than everybody else seems to. :)
Try this: Go to the Extra Menu, Then Tutorial, then Basic Controls. The last
screen-shot in Basic Controls is of the Japanese 1 player menu. They didn't
even get an updated screen-shot.
- Jordan
lu...@earthlink.net
********************************************************************
* "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the *
* man who cannot read them." - Mark Twain *
********************************************************************
Jordan Lund
Zitzmann at nick...@eskimo.com wrote on 6/24/01 12:53 PM:
> It's possible to rotate the camera in Sonic Adventure, but why bother?
> The thing had a mind of its own, and would always revert to the way it
> wanted to be instead of the way I want it to be. Unless Sonic Adventure
> II fixed this problem, I'll pass on it.
In Sonic Adventure I had the camera get stuck behind something on the second
level. Sonic ran off into the background and I couldn't see what I was doing
because he was out of range of the camera. It took about 5 minutes of
playing blind to get the camera to catch up.
BTW this was on the second level, the hidden ruins or whatever it was
called. Really turned me off the game.
- Jordan
lu...@earthlink.net
********************************************************************
* "I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. *
* I am large, I contain multitudes..." - Walt Whitman *
********************************************************************
Stephen Preston
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.1010623180508.12164A-100000@math>,
> Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Nick Zitzmann wrote:
> > > 2. I've heard the game still has the same camera-with-a-mind-of-its-own
> > > that plagued the first game. Why can't they make the camera always stay
> > > right behind the character and never move except when the user wants it
> > > to move? The cameras in Shenmue and PSO did this, and I had no problem
> > > with them.
> >
> > People always complain about cameras. The camera is really drastically
> > improved in this game. I have never had to fight with the camera like I
> > had to in SA1. It always points in the direction you're supposed to go,
> > and I've never seen any of the blind jumps people complained about.
>
> That's the problem I had with the camera in SA: It always points in the
> direction you're supposed to go. I was once playing the Twinkle Park
> stage with Sonic and acquired 700 (!) rings. Then, in the section where
> Sonic has to jump across a few towers, I started to move a little and
> the camera suddenly changed angles on me. Since controls are tied to the
> camera, this caught me off guard, sent Sonic sailing down the cliff, and
> I was so disgusted that I was about ready to smash a controller.
In SA1 the camera did not point where you were supposed to go. It was
kind of glitchy, it sometimes wouldn't follow you, and sometimes it would
just point in the completely wrong direction (e.g. in the Ruins level,
after you hit the third button to open the door, the camera positions
itself UNDER the platform you're standing on and looks up at you).
I don't recall the camera in SA2 changing position much while you're
standing on a platform; it generally waits until you land on a new one to
give you a new view.
> To me, the perfect 3D camera is one that is fixed and only moves when
> the player instructs it to move, and the controls are absolute and not
> tied to the camera (unless the camera is isometric). Examples of this
> include PSO, Shenmue, (gasp) the Tomb Raider games, Ecco: Defender of
> the Future, Super Mario 64 (with the Mario-cam, not the Lakitu-cam), FPS
> games, most racing games, and free-movement games (ie. Descent and
> Forsaken).
SM64 had a terrible camera, which would often get stuck in places you
didn't want it. I remember lots of times when I would try to hammer the
C-buttons to move the camera, only to see it change back to its crappy
default view. The Mario-cam seemed pretty useless to me, as you
could hardly see any of the level if you were using it. Ecco had a very
good camera, which still followed you. With PSO and Shenmue, you're never
moving all that fast so it's easy to make the camera work well. (Plus,
you're always in fairly open areas.)
With Sonic, the camera really is pretty much the way it has to be for that
style of game.
> It's possible to rotate the camera in Sonic Adventure, but why bother?
> The thing had a mind of its own, and would always revert to the way it
> wanted to be instead of the way I want it to be. Unless Sonic Adventure
> II fixed this problem, I'll pass on it.
>
> > > 4. Tails doesn't run, jump, or hover; he supposedly spends the entire
> > > game in some Egg-mobile. When I play as Tails, I expect to have some
> > > high-flying, racing action. Not this time around, I guess.
> >
> > In pt. 3 you complain that there isn't enough gameplay variety, but now
> > you want Tails to have pretty much the same game as Sonic? I think this
> > was a good decision.
>
> Tails's game the first time around wasn't like Sonic's. Sonic always ran
> around solo (except in the stages which Tails also participates, but
> Tails was just a bit character in Sonic's game), but Tails had to
> drag-race to the end of each level. Except for the arctic level (which
> was the same), Tails's levels ended up being different from Sonic's
> because he could hover and Sonic couldn't, opening up some new parts and
> shortcuts in each level.
The differences were slight, though.
> > > I liked the first game, except for the English voice acting and the
> > > stupid camera, but this game sounds like it's even worse...
> >
> > As I recall the Japanese voice acting wasn't any better. Or if it's
> > Japanese, do you simply not notice whether it's good or bad?
>
> I can; in the first game, the Japanese voice actors seemed to be far
> more into the character than the English voice actors were. There was
> one cutscene in particular I remember where Sonic was about to pounce
> E-102 on board the Egg Carrier, then Amy stepped in the way. Sonic's
> response (in English) was "Step aside, Amy! Out of my way!" and the
> English voice actor sounded like he read this off of a cue card,
> completely out of character. The Japanese voice actor did a better job
> of reciting the line in character...
I didn't think it was that bad, although occasionally there were moments
when they just seemed to be reading. In SA2 you won't notice the voice
acting problems, because you can rarely hear the dialogue over the
music...
--Steve
Stephen Preston
> In article <lY8Z6.543$1T5....@typhoon2.gnilink.net>,
> Phillip Roncoroni <goo...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >"Charles Perry" <cpe...@vnet.net> wrote in message
> >news:rg8Z6.4167$Ge.3...@ralph.vnet.net...
> >> Nick Zitzmann wrote in message ...
>
> I personally liked that feature, but I can fully understand why they
> removed it... One of the big criticisms of Sonic Adventure was that it
> wasn't enough like a true platform game, what with a lot of extra game
> features that not everybody enjoyed. On the other hand, after completing a
> tough level in SA2, you don't have a chance to just wander around and
> enjoy the scenery unless you've picked up the Chao world key.
This feature is kind of irritating. You go into the Chao world after a
level and then completely forget what the story was, so the next cinema
doesn't really help you. I'm not sure how else they could have
incorporated the Chao into the game, but I wish it hadn't been this way.
>
> >Knuckles/Rouge, they really screwed up with. The levels are football field
> >sized, and the radar only detects the first item. You can be directly over
> >item #2, and it won't beep until you find the first one.
>
> I wondered about this... Knuckle's levels are beautiful, but the execution
> seems way buggy.
Yeah, it's awkward. Although you can get used to it, and once you do,
it's not so bad. (I actually found myself enjoying Rouge's space level a
lot, mainly because of the interesting premise that the planets' gravity
can actually capture you and make you orbit the planet...)
> They also left in a lot of Japanese-language exclamations
> ("Ora ora ora!") which makes me think that the localization was rushed and
> sloppy.
This was in the first game too, though. It might just sound better than
whatever the alternative is in English. If you switch to Japanese
dialogue, you'll notice they actually say various things in English anyway
("Yes," "OK," I think "Let's go!" and some others).
> I still enjoy those levels, more than everybody else seems to. :)
They show the least level of polish, I think. There are a lot of things
that could have been tweaked to make them better, so it seems like they
probably didn't do enough play-testing of them. They should have been
smaller, you should have been able to get the gems in any order, the radar
should have been more helpful (in a lot of places, there's a large area
where the radar flashes red, so you have to try digging 15 times to
actually find the gem), etc. The Knuckles levels are frustrating because
there's a lot of missed potential there.
I'm not sure why, but I enjoyed Rouge's levels a lot more. Could be just
because I played them after Knuckles' levels.
--Steve
Andrew Ryan Chang
>To me, the perfect 3D camera is one that is fixed and only moves when
>the player instructs it to move, and the controls are absolute and not
>tied to the camera (unless the camera is isometric). Examples of this
>include PSO, Shenmue, (gasp) the Tomb Raider games, Ecco: Defender of
>the Future, Super Mario 64 (with the Mario-cam, not the Lakitu-cam), FPS
>games, most racing games, and free-movement games (ie. Descent and
>Forsaken).
Ick! Character-relative movement systems are the tool of the devil!
Seriously, the reason camera-relative fans like myself can handle
Shenmue is because the camera is fixed behind Ryo at all times. It's
effectively both camera-relative and character-relative for the most part,
as are FPSes. You'll note that it goes more camera-relative during free
battles. Tomb Raider drove me nuts.
PSO is *not* absolute; it's camera-relative.
I handled the JGR camera fine, though I wish they wouldn't switch
cameras for small tags... Still, it seems that that highlight camera is not
active for the purposes of determining movement, so your best bet with it is
just to ignore that the camera has temporarily changed. Aside from that, I
thought it was a decent camera, though there's certainly the need to
recenter it a fair bit.
--
And let's pretend that work isn't as boring and tiring and humiliating
as we all know it really is. Even then, work would _still_ make a mockery
of all humanistic and democratic aspirations, just because it usurps so
much of our time. -- "THE ABOLITION OF WORK" by Bob Black
Raymond McKeithen II
"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:9h9eo6$sa$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> Nick Zitzmann <nick...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >To me, the perfect 3D camera is one that is fixed and only moves when
> >the player instructs it to move, and the controls are absolute and not
> >tied to the camera (unless the camera is isometric). Examples of this
> >include PSO, Shenmue, (gasp) the Tomb Raider games, Ecco: Defender of
> >the Future, Super Mario 64 (with the Mario-cam, not the Lakitu-cam), FPS
> >games, most racing games, and free-movement games (ie. Descent and
> >Forsaken).
>
> Ick! Character-relative movement systems are the tool of the devil!
I'd say that about camera-relative.
> Seriously, the reason camera-relative fans like myself can handle
> Shenmue is because the camera is fixed behind Ryo at all times. It's
> effectively both camera-relative and character-relative for the most part,
> as are FPSes. You'll note that it goes more camera-relative during free
> battles. Tomb Raider drove me nuts.
It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when you're
moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are going
changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
Andrew Ryan Chang
[Re character-relative]
>It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when you're
>moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are going
>changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
It's more natural. FWIW, MGS attempts to fix this problem: when
you're moving, if the camera cuts to a new opsition but you haven't
altered your joystick direction, you continue moving in the same world
direction. It strikes me as a decent fix to camera-relative's only major
flaw.
--
John Tesh: NBC's Counselor Troi.
(e)magius
I found that method very counter-intuitive, especially when you were
trying to creep along a wall. "Remote control" based control systems
make much more sense in moving-camera games where the focus isn't
directly on action (something like Spawn: ItDH benefits from the
camera-relative controls, and such controls also work in PSO to an
extent). If the camera moves slowly/gradually, I can see camera-relative
controls working, but otherwise, they aren't a good choice.
Best,
--Imad "(e)magius" Hussain
_____________________________________________________________________
"I have put on the mask of the sorcerer to hide my true self, but I am
revealed, for the mask has become my own face." -- Darrell Schweitzer,
_The Mask of the Sorcerer_
_____________________________________________________________________
Stephen Preston
> "Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:9h9eo6$sa$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>
> > Seriously, the reason camera-relative fans like myself can handle
> > Shenmue is because the camera is fixed behind Ryo at all times. It's
> > effectively both camera-relative and character-relative for the most part,
> > as are FPSes. You'll note that it goes more camera-relative during free
> > battles. Tomb Raider drove me nuts.
>
> It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when you're
> moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are going
> changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
The camera should not suddenly change direction while you're moving. If
it does, it's a bad camera. But it's much easier to control
camera-relative, since pushing down makes the character go down the
screen, etc. Imagine playing one of those 2D platformers you love with
character-relative movement.
If you want to play 3D games, you have to learn something new. Either you
have to learn how to deal with the game's camera, or you have to learn how
to control from the character's perspective. I think most people find
camera-relative easier to control for a fast-paced game. But if you're
just walking around, character-relative is fine.
--Steve
(e)magius
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
>
> > "Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9h9eo6$sa$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >
> > > Seriously, the reason camera-relative fans like myself can handle
> > > Shenmue is because the camera is fixed behind Ryo at all times. It's
> > > effectively both camera-relative and character-relative for the most part,
> > > as are FPSes. You'll note that it goes more camera-relative during free
> > > battles. Tomb Raider drove me nuts.
> >
> > It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when you're
> > moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are going
> > changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
>
> The camera should not suddenly change direction while you're moving. If
> it does, it's a bad camera. But it's much easier to control
> camera-relative, since pushing down makes the character go down the
> screen, etc. Imagine playing one of those 2D platformers you love with
> character-relative movement.
If the camera spun around in the middle of a jump in Super Mario Bros.
3, I'd rather have character-relative movement than camera relative
movement. See Sonic Adventure 1, particularly the ruins stages, for an
example of what *not* to do when you have camera-relative controls.
> If you want to play 3D games, you have to learn something new. Either you
> have to learn how to deal with the game's camera, or you have to learn how
> to control from the character's perspective. I think most people find
> camera-relative easier to control for a fast-paced game. But if you're
> just walking around, character-relative is fine.
Camera-relative controls are easier to understand, as that's what occurs
to people naturally -- you think of things from your view, not the
character's (your alter-ego). But once you learn how to
use character-relative controls, there's no real reason to go back. The
biggest problem with most character-relative controls is the slow
turning around the y-axis. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is --
RE's quickturn overcomes much of this, but it's arbitrary -- and in some
cases, it *is* better to use a camera-relative control scheme for this
very reason in games with shifting cameras.
SecretOrigin
> In article <rg8Z6.4167$Ge.3...@ralph.vnet.net>,
> "Charles Perry" <cpe...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> > Nick Zitzmann wrote in message ...
> > >1. They took out the adventure fields, which were my favorite part from
> > >the first game. That's 1/3 of the game taken out in one sweep of the axe.
> >
> > Why are you missing these? No really, I don't understand...I just like
> > playing the levels in the game...but maybe that's just me.
>
> Have you ever played Galerians on the PSX? Every time you completed a
> building in that game, it just whisked you to the next building
> automatically, rather than letting Rion fight his way across
> Michaelangelo City. It was a rather poor showing compared to a similar
> game released at a similar time, Resident Evil III, where Jill went into
> a number of buildings, and you got to see every moment of it.
I liked Galerians a lot better than RE though.
SecretOrigin
The camera in Ecco sucks. Cameras should stay behind the character whenever
possible.
Stephen Preston
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Stephen Preston wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
> >
> > > "Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:9h9eo6$sa$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> > >
> > > > Seriously, the reason camera-relative fans like myself can handle
> > > > Shenmue is because the camera is fixed behind Ryo at all times. It's
> > > > effectively both camera-relative and character-relative for the most part,
> > > > as are FPSes. You'll note that it goes more camera-relative during free
> > > > battles. Tomb Raider drove me nuts.
> > >
> > > It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when you're
> > > moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are going
> > > changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
> >
> > The camera should not suddenly change direction while you're moving. If
> > it does, it's a bad camera. But it's much easier to control
> > camera-relative, since pushing down makes the character go down the
> > screen, etc. Imagine playing one of those 2D platformers you love with
> > character-relative movement.
>
> If the camera spun around in the middle of a jump in Super Mario Bros.
> 3, I'd rather have character-relative movement than camera relative
> movement. See Sonic Adventure 1, particularly the ruins stages, for an
> example of what *not* to do when you have camera-relative controls.
Oh, definitely. SA2 is much better, but still the camera will move around
kind of wildly. It's usually nice enough to wait until you've landed, but
part of playing the game is to realize that you have to pause momentarily
to let the camera adjust. It wouldn't work any other way, unless all the
platforms were in a straight line (and then what's the point of making it
3D?).
>
> > If you want to play 3D games, you have to learn something new. Either you
> > have to learn how to deal with the game's camera, or you have to learn how
> > to control from the character's perspective. I think most people find
> > camera-relative easier to control for a fast-paced game. But if you're
> > just walking around, character-relative is fine.
>
> Camera-relative controls are easier to understand, as that's what occurs
> to people naturally -- you think of things from your view, not the
> character's (your alter-ego). But once you learn how to
> use character-relative controls, there's no real reason to go back. The
> biggest problem with most character-relative controls is the slow
> turning around the y-axis. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is --
> RE's quickturn overcomes much of this, but it's arbitrary -- and in some
> cases, it *is* better to use a camera-relative control scheme for this
> very reason in games with shifting cameras.
Yes, it depends on the type of game. I never played RE (the closest I
came was a Carrier demo, and I found it rather difficult, especially if
you wanted to go anywhere fast). But MDK2 was character-relative, right?
(Or was it a hybrid?) Anyway, that game had a control scheme you could
get used to, which fit with the style of game because you didn't have to
move that fast and you didn't have many tight corners. Shenmue is the
same; since Ryo is always walking through thick mud, you don't need
to have drastic changes in the camera angles.
But a character-relative system means you always have to do that little
extra computation in your head to figure out where exactly your character
is facing and where this controller motion will take it. In a game where
movements have to be precise, this will just be painful...
--Steve
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
(e)magius <mag...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>On 26 Jun 2001, Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
>> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
>> [Re character-relative]
>> >It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when you're
>> >moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are going
>> >changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
>> It's more natural. FWIW, MGS attempts to fix this problem: when
>> you're moving, if the camera cuts to a new opsition but you haven't
>> altered your joystick direction, you continue moving in the same world
>> direction. It strikes me as a decent fix to camera-relative's only major
>> flaw.
>I found that method very counter-intuitive, especially when you were
>trying to creep along a wall. "Remote control" based control systems
>make much more sense in moving-camera games where the focus isn't
>directly on action (something like Spawn: ItDH benefits from the
>camera-relative controls, and such controls also work in PSO to an
>extent). If the camera moves slowly/gradually, I can see camera-relative
>controls working, but otherwise, they aren't a good choice.
You know, I always thought that the first Sonic Adventure had TWO
cameras... One for display, and one for relative control. Usually, they're
synchronized, but in places like the double loop at the bottom of Speed
Highway, the "display" camera sweeps out to the side for a cinematic view
while the "control" camera stays behind the character. So while you're
pushing forward on the pad, Sonic is still proceeding down the ramp to the
right. This thinking works for me, at any rate.
I think somebody's already said that the player is responsible for knowing
when the camera is off kilter and when it isn't, and that you have to know
when to wait for the camera to adjust. This can either be annoying, or it
can be considered part of the challenge of finding the correct "path"
through a level. I'm still on the fence about that, seeing as how I can't
beat the last Sonic level in SA2 to save my life...
-KKC, who has the skills to diagnose his own transmission problems but not
the talent to repair them. Dammit.
Stephen Preston
> The camera in Ecco sucks. Cameras should stay behind the character whenever
> possible.
There are two camera modes in Ecco. Do you dislike both? As I recall,
one was better than the other.
--Steve
Raymond McKeithen II
"Stephen Preston" <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.93.1010626135220.9153A-100000@math...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
>
> > "Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > news:9h9eo6$sa$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >
> > > Seriously, the reason camera-relative fans like myself can handle
> > > Shenmue is because the camera is fixed behind Ryo at all times. It's
> > > effectively both camera-relative and character-relative for the most
part,
> > > as are FPSes. You'll note that it goes more camera-relative during
free
> > > battles. Tomb Raider drove me nuts.
> >
> > It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when
you're
> > moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are
going
> > changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
>
> The camera should not suddenly change direction while you're moving. If
> it does, it's a bad camera.
Then _every_ "3D platformer" has a "bad camera."
Remember Sonic Adventure 1 well?
> But it's much easier to control
> camera-relative, since pushing down makes the character go down the
> screen, etc.
Perhaps it's easier for you, it's not easier for me.
> Imagine playing one of those 2D platformers you love with
> character-relative movement.
2D platformers don't have moving cameras...they don't have a "camera" at
all. Hence moving relative to the screen makes sense.
> If you want to play 3D games, you have to learn something new.
You may not have noticed, but I really *don't* want to play them...
That aside, I shouldn't have to learn something that's counterintuitive and
makes no sense from a gameplay standpoint. Why can't there be an option for
both in a game?
> Either you
> have to learn how to deal with the game's camera, or you have to learn how
> to control from the character's perspective. I think most people find
> camera-relative easier to control for a fast-paced game.
Apparently I'm not "most people." First time I tried Mario 64 in a store, it
made absolutely no sense to me that the controls weren't fixed to my
character.
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> [Re character-relative]
> >It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when
you're
> >moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are
going
> >changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
>
> It's more natural.
I don't find it natural at all. It seems perfectly natural to me that when I
press "up" my character will walk forward in the direction he's facing.
One of the other things I hear when I complain about problems with 3D games
is "But it's more immersive!!" Well, if it's so immersive, you should be so
"immersed" in your character that character based control is second-nature.
When I myself walk into a room I don't have to consider the location of a
"camera" to decide how to walk across the room after all.
> FWIW, MGS attempts to fix this problem: when
> you're moving, if the camera cuts to a new opsition but you haven't
> altered your joystick direction, you continue moving in the same world
> direction. It strikes me as a decent fix to camera-relative's only major
> flaw.
That sounds reasonable, but it doesn't fix the problem in 99% of other games
that don't bother with this. Nothing as annoying as blazing forward in a
"speed" section of Sonic to suddenly hit a wall because the camera decides
to change direction, or worse come to a stop because it spins 180 degrees so
suddenly you're going backwards.
The player should only have to change the control direction to change the
direction of movement; the camera should *not* become part of the gameplay.
I don't see anything at all natural about that.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> character-relative movement.
>
>2D platformers don't have moving cameras...they don't have a "camera" at
>all. Hence moving relative to the screen makes sense.
Suit yourself. I think of them as having a camera that moves
parallel to the character.
--
Ned: Well, I guess now we know why they call them "rapids" and not
"slowpids", huh?
Bart: [appreciative] Ha, ha!
Homer: You are not my son!
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>
>I don't find it natural at all. It seems perfectly natural to me that when I
>press "up" my character will walk forward in the direction he's facing.
As you and others have pointed out, you're hardly representative
of any large group of people.
Look, when you play with a doll/action figure, you move it
relative to _your_ camera; that is, your viewpoint through your eyes.
Similarly with 3rd person games, IMO.
>One of the other things I hear when I complain about problems with 3D games
>is "But it's more immersive!!" Well, if it's so immersive, you should be so
>"immersed" in your character that character based control is second-nature.
First-person games are more immersive... Not 100% immersive the
way a holodeck is, just more immersive. The very fact that a 3rd person
game shows you the character makes it harder for you to "become" that
character IMO.
>When I myself walk into a room I don't have to consider the location of a
>"camera" to decide how to walk across the room after all.
Right, cause you're always carrying your camera around. It's
composed from the two images your eyes get.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >> Imagine playing one of those 2D platformers you love with
> >> character-relative movement.
> >
> >2D platformers don't have moving cameras...they don't have a "camera" at
> >all. Hence moving relative to the screen makes sense.
>
> Suit yourself. I think of them as having a camera that moves
> parallel to the character.
Thinking of it as a camera seems like an attempt to somehow anchor it to the
real world. I think of a 2D game as an abstract thing (just one of the
things missing from most 3D games).
In either case, that 2D viewpoint/camera doesn't swing around while you're
playing the game (with probably some rare exception that I don't recall that
someone will no doubt point out).
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> >> It's more natural.
> >
> >I don't find it natural at all. It seems perfectly natural to me that
when I
> >press "up" my character will walk forward in the direction he's facing.
>
> As you and others have pointed out, you're hardly representative
> of any large group of people.
I don't claim to be. But then again I didn't declare that "It's more
natural" (or "it's not more natural") as if it's some sort of
incontrovertible fact.
> Look, when you play with a doll/action figure, you move it
> relative to _your_ camera; that is, your viewpoint through your eyes.
> Similarly with 3rd person games, IMO.
And if I'm doing that, I'm not wildly swinging my viewpoint around while I'm
doing that either...
> >One of the other things I hear when I complain about problems with 3D
games
> >is "But it's more immersive!!" Well, if it's so immersive, you should be
so
> >"immersed" in your character that character based control is
second-nature.
>
> First-person games are more immersive... Not 100% immersive the
> way a holodeck is, just more immersive. The very fact that a 3rd person
> game shows you the character makes it harder for you to "become" that
> character IMO.
Perhaps. Still that's the cry of those who think 3D platformers are
automatically better than "old outdated" 2D ones, because they're "more
immersive."
> >When I myself walk into a room I don't have to consider the location of a
> >"camera" to decide how to walk across the room after all.
>
> Right, cause you're always carrying your camera around. It's
> composed from the two images your eyes get.
No, it's because there is *no* detached camera.
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email.
Stephen Preston
> "Stephen Preston" <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SUN.3.93.1010626135220.9153A-100000@math...
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
> >
> > > "Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:9h9eo6$sa$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> > >
> > The camera should not suddenly change direction while you're moving. If
> > it does, it's a bad camera.
>
> Then _every_ "3D platformer" has a "bad camera."
>
> Remember Sonic Adventure 1 well?
Now you're just trolling. You know SA1 is not every 3D platformer. Most
people agree that SA1 has more camera problems than a typical game, and I
meant Sonic Adventure when I made the comment above.
> > But it's much easier to control
> > camera-relative, since pushing down makes the character go down the
> > screen, etc.
>
> Perhaps it's easier for you, it's not easier for me.
I think it's easier to make precise movements quickly with a camera
system. You don't have to figure out exactly which direction your
character is pointing in.
> > Imagine playing one of those 2D platformers you love with
> > character-relative movement.
>
> 2D platformers don't have moving cameras...they don't have a "camera" at
> all. Hence moving relative to the screen makes sense.
They do have a camera which has to move around with the character. The
camera in Sonic (Genesis) has to move up and down rather quickly to follow
Sonic as he moves through loops and whatnot. It's rather disorienting.
Sometimes it doesn't even catch up immediately. There are obviously fewer
camera issues in a 2D game, but there's certainly a camera. Haven't you
ever wanted to look down one of those long shafts in a 2D game to see what
platforms are at the bottom and where you should try to land? Haven't you
ever gotten to a point where the camera didn't want to move with you to
the edge of the screen, and so you couldn't really see exactly what was
ahead of you?
> > If you want to play 3D games, you have to learn something new.
>
> You may not have noticed, but I really *don't* want to play them...
Then why do you want to argue about them?
> That aside, I shouldn't have to learn something that's counterintuitive and
> makes no sense from a gameplay standpoint. Why can't there be an option for
> both in a game?
It makes perfect sense from a gameplay standpoint. In theory
character-relative seems better, but in practice it makes just as much
(sometimes more) sense to just move in the direction you want the
character to go.
> > Either you
> > have to learn how to deal with the game's camera, or you have to learn how
> > to control from the character's perspective. I think most people find
> > camera-relative easier to control for a fast-paced game.
>
> Apparently I'm not "most people." First time I tried Mario 64 in a store, it
> made absolutely no sense to me that the controls weren't fixed to my
> character.
I had a hell of a time with Mario 64 the first time I tried it too, though
not for exactly the same reason. If you want to talk about good or bad
cameras in "3D platformers" (there, see, I'm putting it in quotes just for
you), Mario 64 is not a great example. Other games have much better
cameras, but I suppose you can't be bothered to notice since you dislike
them all...
--Steve
Stephen Preston
>
> "Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:9hauee$4rl$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> > Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> > >"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>
> > relative to _your_ camera; that is, your viewpoint through your eyes.
> > Similarly with 3rd person games, IMO.
>
> And if I'm doing that, I'm not wildly swinging my viewpoint around while I'm
> doing that either...
But you could. Kids don't often stand still while playing with action
figures.
> > First-person games are more immersive... Not 100% immersive the
> > way a holodeck is, just more immersive. The very fact that a 3rd person
> > game shows you the character makes it harder for you to "become" that
> > character IMO.
>
> Perhaps. Still that's the cry of those who think 3D platformers are
> automatically better than "old outdated" 2D ones, because they're "more
> immersive."
I've never, ever heard anyone claim either that 3D is automatically better
than 2D, or that the reason is because they're "more immersive." They're
just different, and one could easily prefer one or the other for many
reasons.
>
> > >When I myself walk into a room I don't have to consider the location of a
> > >"camera" to decide how to walk across the room after all.
> >
> > Right, cause you're always carrying your camera around. It's
> > composed from the two images your eyes get.
>
> No, it's because there is *no* detached camera.
It's a bad example, because there IS a detached camera in
character-relative games. Imagine a puppeteer controlling a marionette.
That's hard because both the controls are difficult and because you have
to make very precise motions using a character-relative system.
--Steve
Raymond McKeithen II
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Preston" <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SUN.3.93.1010626135220.9153A-100000@math...
> > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:9h9eo6$sa$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> > > >
> > > The camera should not suddenly change direction while you're moving.
If
> > > it does, it's a bad camera.
> >
> > Then _every_ "3D platformer" has a "bad camera."
> >
> > Remember Sonic Adventure 1 well?
>
> Now you're just trolling.
If you say so...
> You know SA1 is not every 3D platformer.
No, but in this newsgroup it was held up as the best of its genre.
It's certainly representative based on my experience. What "3D platformer"
doesn't have such problems?
> Most
> people agree that SA1 has more camera problems than a typical game, and I
> meant Sonic Adventure when I made the comment above.
If most people agree on that, I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.
> > > But it's much easier to control
> > > camera-relative, since pushing down makes the character go down the
> > > screen, etc.
> >
> > Perhaps it's easier for you, it's not easier for me.
>
> I think it's easier to make precise movements quickly with a camera
> system. You don't have to figure out exactly which direction your
> character is pointing in.
No, but you have to readjust every time the camera decides to make a
"cinematic" adjustment.
> > > Imagine playing one of those 2D platformers you love with
> > > character-relative movement.
> >
> > 2D platformers don't have moving cameras...they don't have a "camera" at
> > all. Hence moving relative to the screen makes sense.
>
> They do have a camera which has to move around with the character.
Since you can't control it I don't see how this is a camera. The whole
concept of a "camera" didn't even exist until 3D games came along.
> [...] Haven't you
> ever wanted to look down one of those long shafts in a 2D game to see what
> platforms are at the bottom and where you should try to land?
No I do not.
This is part of the game design. Typically blind jumps are a sign of bad
design, though some of them are part of learning the particular game. If you
can look at every possible trap in a 2D game, there'd be no challenge and
you could just blow right through it first time playing.
> Haven't you
> ever gotten to a point where the camera didn't want to move with you to
> the edge of the screen, and so you couldn't really see exactly what was
> ahead of you?
Once again if this exists it's bad game design (it's a big part of why I
dislike Donkey Kong Country). A properly-designed 2D game doesn't have these
issues.
I guess you'll argue that a properly-designed 3D game doesn't have these
issues. That's probably true, but apparently then there isn't a properly
designed 3D game.
> > > If you want to play 3D games, you have to learn something new.
> >
> > You may not have noticed, but I really *don't* want to play them...
>
> Then why do you want to argue about them?
Because if someone would actually make a 3D game with character-relative
control that wasn't a collection game and wasn't filled with blind jumps I
might actually want to play it?
Because when someone says "Character-relative movement systems are the tool
of the devil!" _without_ any explanation as to why I feel a desire to
challenge that statement?
> > That aside, I shouldn't have to learn something that's counterintuitive
and
> > makes no sense from a gameplay standpoint. Why can't there be an option
for
> > both in a game?
>
> It makes perfect sense from a gameplay standpoint. In theory
> character-relative seems better, but in practice it makes just as much
> (sometimes more) sense to just move in the direction you want the
> character to go.
If a 3D game would mimic the viewpoint of a 2D game, I would agree. A
polygon-based game that's still primarily 2D in gameplay (i.e. Klonoa 2)
does this and I have no problem with that.
> > > Either you
> > > have to learn how to deal with the game's camera, or you have to learn
how
> > > to control from the character's perspective. I think most people find
> > > camera-relative easier to control for a fast-paced game.
> >
> > Apparently I'm not "most people." First time I tried Mario 64 in a
store, it
> > made absolutely no sense to me that the controls weren't fixed to my
> > character.
>
> I had a hell of a time with Mario 64 the first time I tried it too, though
> not for exactly the same reason. If you want to talk about good or bad
> cameras in "3D platformers" (there, see, I'm putting it in quotes just for
> you), Mario 64 is not a great example.
I brought up Mario 64 because it's the first time I played such a game. One
of the arguments in favor of camera-relative control I often see is how it's
intuitive and one immediately knows how to play such a game when picking up
the controller. This certainly wasn't the case for me.
Aside from that, Mario 64 and Sonic Adventure are usually held up as the
"best games in the genre." Next Gen's hype aside, I still read crossposted
posts here that claim nothing has yet matched Mario 64 etc. Hence many
people either feel these two games have no camera problems or they don't
care.
I put "3D platformers" in quotes because they're no longer about
_platforming_ at all; they've become exploration and collecting games. I see
no reason to legitimize calling them what they are not. I also put it in
quotes because many other "3D action" games (like Tomb Raider) suffer from
these same problems too so I'm lumping that all together.
> Other games have much better
> cameras, but I suppose you can't be bothered to notice since you dislike
> them all...
If the camera was my only problem with the games perhaps that'd make a
difference. As it's only one of my many dislikes fixing it isn't going to
change anything. I certainly haven't played every one but I've played enough
that I can confidently say I don't like the genre.
Someone else mentioned problems in turning. I am *not* advocating "tank
controls" like RE has. You can certainly have character-relative controls
without that; press any direction and the character turns quickly and moves
in that direction, same as camera-relative, but just relative to the
character instead.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>of the devil!" _without_ any explanation as to why I feel a desire to
>challenge that statement?
I stand behind that statement. Your arguments basically boil
down to the same thing; you think character-relative is the right choice
despite it being harder to handle because it makes more sense to you,
because it fits the way you think. Yes, yes, with enough practice, it
becomes second nature, you say. Then trust me when I say JGR's camera-
relative and PSO's camera-relative systems are the same way. Heck,
Sonic Adventure's camera didn't frustrate me all that often. I've got
just as much anecdotal evidence as you do.
(In my original post, I also noted that several examples of
character-relative movement were bad examples... Shenmue and FPSes because
they were effectively camera-relative and PSO because it simply _wasn't_
character-relative.)
So, anyways, bring on the usability testing to give us hard
numbers.
On another note, I don't feel that it's possible to offer both
character and camera-relative in a single game *and* have both choices be
acceptable. Some games require precise turning that you either get from
RE-style 'tank' controls or camera-relative + analog control[1]. The sort
of quick-turns you advocate for char-relative motion would not be precise
enough to match. Either the game would have to be made ridiculously easy,
or the quick turn char-relative system would be unplayable.
[1] IIRC, you prefer a digital joystick...
Billy Bissette
rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net says...
> That aside, I shouldn't have to learn something that's counterintuitive and
> makes no sense from a gameplay standpoint. Why can't there be an option for
> both in a game?
You might be surprised to know, but character-relative controls are the
controls that are considered the more counter-intuitive.
Three possible reasons:
1) When camera/screen and character-relative control diverges in a game,
the vast majority of games since the beginning have used camera/screen-
relative control. This has instilled an expectation that controls will
be camera/screen based.
2) When someone starts playing a game, they see the controlled character
as just that, a controlled character. They do not immediately identify
themselves and their actions with the character. So a camera/screen-
control is more intuitive to them, though a character-intuitive control
may be 'better'. Depending on the method of gameplay, this may change
rapidly though, particularly if camera-relative makes the game nearly
unplayable.
3) Character-relative is considered harder to control. The player,
until/unless they identify so totally with the onscreen character
that the transformations are made unconciously, has to transform the
direction he/she wants the on-screen character to go from the
screen-relative axes to the character-relative axes of the controller.
Thus screen-relative can be easier and thus can (not necessarily
will though) be more intuitive.
BTW, Resident Evil-style character controls are considered quite bad
to horrible.
Billy Bissette
rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net says...
> "Stephen Preston" <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SUN.3.93.1010626180231.9153M-100000@math...
> > people agree that SA1 has more camera problems than a typical game, and I
> > meant Sonic Adventure when I made the comment above.
>
> If most people agree on that, I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.
It was a constant complaint since the release of the Japanese version.
Heck, the US version was delayed to try and fix the camera in some 100
spots (according to one game website) during the game.
And even then there were complaints about the camera in the US version
after it was released, and continued to be complaints.
The question I've most seen asked about Sonic Adventure 2 by non-owners
is whether they improved the camera, with the occassional comments by
people who say they won't buy it because people have said the camera
was not improved enough.
Billy Bissette
> controls" like RE has. You can certainly have character-relative controls
> without that; press any direction and the character turns quickly and moves
> in that direction, same as camera-relative, but just relative to the
> character instead.
And when the character is moving in that direction, where is the
controller pointing? If its not back in the same direction it was
before the turn, then you have an even more complicated control
scheme where the controls are actually relative to neither the
character nor the camera and are instead relative to the last
direction the character moved. Or is perhaps actually relative to
the screen. :p (Super Mario Bros is screen-relative, not very
responsive character-relative, for example. Pressing a
direction moves you in that direction regardless of character
facing.)
If the controller is back in the same direction it was before the
change of direction, then you have a potentially difficult control
scheme to use. Some people might even call it "tank controls". It
can be done well, but its harder than you might think.
Raymond McKeithen II
"Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in message
news:jU9_6.315436$NK4.22...@news2.aus1.giganews.com...
> In article <PK6_6.660$5d.2...@newshog.newsread.com>,
> rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net says...
> > That aside, I shouldn't have to learn something that's counterintuitive
and
> > makes no sense from a gameplay standpoint. Why can't there be an option
for
> > both in a game?
>
> You might be surprised to know, but character-relative controls are the
> controls that are considered the more counter-intuitive.
>
> Three possible reasons:
> 1) When camera/screen and character-relative control diverges in a game,
> the vast majority of games since the beginning have used camera/screen-
> relative control. This has instilled an expectation that controls will
> be camera/screen based.
Yet in the pre-3D era there wasn't a "camera" per se, just a fixed
viewpoint.
> BTW, Resident Evil-style character controls are considered quite bad
> to horrible.
Which wasn't what was being discussed. Character relative doesn't have to
mean "tank" control i.e. RE.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >Because when someone says "Character-relative movement systems are the
tool
> >of the devil!" _without_ any explanation as to why I feel a desire to
> >challenge that statement?
>
> I stand behind that statement. Your arguments basically boil
> down to the same thing; you think character-relative is the right choice
> despite it being harder to handle because it makes more sense to you,
> because it fits the way you think.
Exactly where did I say "despite it being harder to handle" in reference to
character-relative control? If you think I think it's harder to handle but
like it anyway you're not reading what I've written.
The whole point is, I _don't_ think it's harder to handle (I think it's
easier to handle), and you haven't offered any real reason as to why you
think it is harder.
> Yes, yes, with enough practice, it
> becomes second nature, you say. Then trust me when I say JGR's camera-
> relative and PSO's camera-relative systems are the same way. Heck,
> Sonic Adventure's camera didn't frustrate me all that often. I've got
> just as much anecdotal evidence as you do.
Which still avoids answering my complaint about camera-relative control,
which is, why should the camera be part of the gameplay?
If you "get used to" character relative control in a game, you don't have to
deal with that control not being absolute. If I "get used to" camera
relative control, I still have to deal with moronic "cinematic" cameras
changing direction in the middle of the action.
Trust _me_ when I say I'd _never_ get used to the vague poor control in JGR,
and that it has a lot more than just camera problems.
> On another note, I don't feel that it's possible to offer both
> character and camera-relative in a single game *and* have both choices be
> acceptable. Some games require precise turning that you either get from
> RE-style 'tank' controls or camera-relative + analog control[1].
I'm not discussing changing RE to not have 'tank' control; I'll save that
for a different time.
> The sort
> of quick-turns you advocate for char-relative motion would not be precise
> enough to match. Either the game would have to be made ridiculously easy,
> or the quick turn char-relative system would be unplayable.
Huh? If Sonic Adventure was changed to have character-relative control as
I've described (not tank control), how is its level of preciseness any
different than the current camera-relative control? It's *exactly* the same
control it has now, just "rotated" differently on the controller and fixed
there so you don't have to deal with the camera changing directions.
> [1] IIRC, you prefer a digital joystick...
This is correct, and if you also include that in the above discussion that's
another issue, as you are confined to "only" 8 directions of movement. I
maintain that's all you need since no 3D game is, or can be, all that
precise anyway. (It's like the myth of totall variable speed in Mario 64,
when all you need or use is two speeds anyway.)
Stephen Preston
> Huh? If Sonic Adventure was changed to have character-relative control as
> I've described (not tank control), how is its level of preciseness any
> different than the current camera-relative control? It's *exactly* the same
> control it has now, just "rotated" differently on the controller and fixed
> there so you don't have to deal with the camera changing directions.
Can you give an example of a character-relative game (preferably platform
or heavy-action) that doesn't have "tank controls"? I don't even know
what you're talking about if you throw away the RE-style controls... Are
you thinking something like Grim Fandango (the only example I can think
of)?
--Steve
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>> down to the same thing; you think character-relative is the right choice
>> despite it being harder to handle because it makes more sense to you,
>> because it fits the way you think.
>
>Exactly where did I say "despite it being harder to handle" in reference to
>character-relative control? If you think I think it's harder to handle but
>like it anyway you're not reading what I've written.
The "despite..." part is my addition, and I realize now that it's
awkwardly phrased.
>The whole point is, I _don't_ think it's harder to handle (I think it's
>easier to handle), and you haven't offered any real reason as to why you
>think it is harder.
It's harder to handle _because_ it requires an additional level of
translation ("now, 'left' means 'his left' _and_ he's facing left now"),
which the other system doesn't. ("move towards the camera -- down means
down").
>Huh? If Sonic Adventure was changed to have character-relative control as
>I've described (not tank control), how is its level of preciseness any
>different than the current camera-relative control? It's *exactly* the same
>control it has now, just "rotated" differently on the controller and fixed
>there so you don't have to deal with the camera changing directions.
I dunno. I was actually thinking of JGR when I wrote that.
Char-relative would be *much* harder to play JGR with when you're flying
in a curving jump... with camera-relative, it's not all that hard to
decide how to fine-tune your flight to land on a rail. It'd be much
harder *in flight* to continually do this sort of "well, he's rotated 14
degrees from the camera axis so I should correct by that much when I want
to change my facing direction by ~20 degrees" thinking.
>> [1] IIRC, you prefer a digital joystick...
>
>This is correct, and if you also include that in the above discussion that's
>another issue, as you are confined to "only" 8 directions of movement. I
>maintain that's all you need since no 3D game is, or can be, all that
>precise anyway.
Again, JGR -is- more precise than a quantitization of the circle
into 45 degree chunks would allow. (I suppose one could do it like
driving games do, with their stairstep approximations towards a curve, but
that would suck.) It's entirely possible to miss a rail by a small
amount, which would correspond to a small error in judging the angle of
one's leap.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>mean "tank" control i.e. RE.
So just to rewind a bit... which games have decent character
relative control? The ones I can think of could also be classified as
camera-relative since the camera's facing angle is _99.9%_ the same as the
character's facing angle. This includes driving games, FPSes, Shenmue,
and I'm not aware of any other games with good char-relative controls.
Like I said, Tomb Raider and the like drive me nuts.
Actually, to argue the other side, Crazy Taxi's default camera is
probably only 90% synced to the car's facing direction and it plays very
well. Playing it in the cinematic easter egg mode is incredibly tough,
though.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >Which wasn't what was being discussed. Character relative doesn't have to
> >mean "tank" control i.e. RE.
>
> So just to rewind a bit... which games have decent character
> relative control? The ones I can think of could also be classified as
> camera-relative since the camera's facing angle is _99.9%_ the same as the
> character's facing angle. This includes driving games, FPSes, Shenmue,
> and I'm not aware of any other games with good char-relative controls.
> Like I said, Tomb Raider and the like drive me nuts.
I consider Tomb Raider's control the way it should be...the game has
problems but the style of control isn't one of them as far as I'm concerned.
You've said it drives you nuts but you haven't explained what is _wrong_
with that type of control.
> Actually, to argue the other side, Crazy Taxi's default camera is
> probably only 90% synced to the car's facing direction and it plays very
> well. Playing it in the cinematic easter egg mode is incredibly tough,
> though.
Well, a game like CT, other driving games, Shenmue, is primarily "first
person view" games, whether or not the games are first person or
third-person, as the camera basically stays behind your character. If Sonic
et. al. stuck to that more instead of trying for cinematic views there'd be
less of a problem.
Nick Zitzmann
Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
> > It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when you're
> > moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are going
> > changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
>
> The camera should not suddenly change direction while you're moving. If
> it does, it's a bad camera.
That's the problem, actually... The only 3D platformers I've ever played
where the controls were tied to the camera and the camera doesn't
suddenly change directions when you're moving are Ape Escape and the
Crash Bandicoot games.
Sonic Adventure's camera suddenly changes directions while you're
moving, and the controls are tied to the camera, so I suffered more than
a few unnecessary deaths just because the camera did what it wanted to
do, not what I wanted it to do. The camera controls in that game are
useless except when stopped, and the whole issue turned me off from an
otherwise awesome game. I've heard that Sonic Adventure II does this to
a certain extent, and so I won't be buying it.
Nick Zitzmann
ICQ: 22305512
"WHY DID U MAKE THIS NEW PATCH PLZ EXPALIN...U SHOULD OF ATLEAST GIVEN A WARNING MY LVL 76 LANCE BARB THAT ONLY USE WHIRLWIND NOW SUX!!!! U KNOW HOW HARD I WORKED FOR THAT CHAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...AND ALSO MY ICE SORC NOW IS REALLY REALLY BAD!!!" - Anonymous Battle.net user, on the release of Diablo II 1.08, which intentionally lowers the power of the once-mighty (and unbalancing) Whirlwind technique
Billy Bissette
rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net says...
> "Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in message
> news:jU9_6.315436$NK4.22...@news2.aus1.giganews.com...
> > the vast majority of games since the beginning have used camera/screen-
> > relative control. This has instilled an expectation that controls will
> > be camera/screen based.
>
> Yet in the pre-3D era there wasn't a "camera" per se, just a fixed
> viewpoint.
There was always a "camera". And the controls of the majority of
2D games were relative to it. 3D graphics did not magically create
the "camera". You will also note I specifically said camera/screen
each time to try and avoid the dismissive (and inaccurate) argument
that there was no camera in the pre-3D era.
Nick Zitzmann
Billy Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
> 3) Character-relative is considered harder to control. The player,
> until/unless they identify so totally with the onscreen character
> that the transformations are made unconciously, has to transform the
> direction he/she wants the on-screen character to go from the
> screen-relative axes to the character-relative axes of the controller.
> Thus screen-relative can be easier and thus can (not necessarily
> will though) be more intuitive.
If the camera is always in a position that the player dictates, or right
behind the player, then character-relative control isn't that hard.
Shenmue and the Tomb Raider games did this, and I find myself liking
that sort of control better.
> BTW, Resident Evil-style character controls are considered quite bad
> to horrible.
At least, in Resident Evil, when the camera shifts positions, the
controls don't change with it. Since the camera changes directions
rather constantly in the game, if controls were tied to the camera, it
would be impossible to play.
Nick Zitzmann
arc...@sfu.ca (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote:
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >Which wasn't what was being discussed. Character relative doesn't have to
> >mean "tank" control i.e. RE.
>
> So just to rewind a bit... which games have decent character
> relative control? The ones I can think of could also be classified as
> camera-relative since the camera's facing angle is _99.9%_ the same as the
> character's facing angle. This includes driving games, FPSes, Shenmue,
> and I'm not aware of any other games with good char-relative controls.
> Like I said, Tomb Raider and the like drive me nuts.
The Tomb Raider games don't have camera-relative control; if the camera
shifts out for any reason (usually because a target has been spotted),
the controls don't change a bit. This is a good thing AFAIC, because if
a sudden camera angle change caught you off guard, you wouldn't run off
of a cliff or something similar. If a sudden camera angle change catches
you off guard in Sonic Adventure, then you're screwed. (See my previous
articles.)
Nick Zitzmann
Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> Can you give an example of a character-relative game (preferably platform
> or heavy-action) that doesn't have "tank controls"?
IIRC, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII and IX (with analog controls
turned off), Parasite Eve (same, analog controls off).
Stephen Preston
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.1010626135220.9153A-100000@math>,
> Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
> > > It's the only system that makes any sense to me. I can't stand when you're
> > > moving and suddenly the camera changes so whatever direction you are going
> > > changes. How can anyone possibly think that is a good idea??
> >
> > The camera should not suddenly change direction while you're moving. If
> > it does, it's a bad camera.
>
> That's the problem, actually... The only 3D platformers I've ever played
> where the controls were tied to the camera and the camera doesn't
> suddenly change directions when you're moving are Ape Escape and the
> Crash Bandicoot games.
Well, Crash doesn't really count (the camera doesn't have much work to do
except follow) and I don't remember Ape Escape's being so great (I had a
couple of problems with it). Spyro and Banjo had very good camera
systems. I'm still surprised that more designers haven't included
something like Banjo-Kazooie's follow-feature, where you can just press a
button to have the camera directly behind you as you move.
> > Sonic Adventure's camera suddenly changes directions while you're
> moving, and the controls are tied to the camera, so I suffered more than
> a few unnecessary deaths just because the camera did what it wanted to
> do, not what I wanted it to do. The camera controls in that game are
> useless except when stopped, and the whole issue turned me off from an
> otherwise awesome game. I've heard that Sonic Adventure II does this to
> a certain extent, and so I won't be buying it.
Once again, I had a lot of camera problems with Sonic Adventure and the
sequel is MUCH better on this issue. I guess you're more sensitive, but
I'd recommend you try renting it to see if it's as bad as people say.
--Steve
Stephen Preston
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.1010626215118.12653A-100000@math>,
> Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>
> > Can you give an example of a character-relative game (preferably platform
> > or heavy-action) that doesn't have "tank controls"?
>
> IIRC, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII and IX (with analog controls
> turned off), Parasite Eve (same, analog controls off).
I'm guessing precise control isn't terribly important in that style of
game. How about an action game with such controls? One where your
character is required to jump to certain locations or run around or such
things?
--Steve
Billy Bissette
nick...@eskimo.com says...
> If the camera is always in a position that the player dictates, or right
> behind the player, then character-relative control isn't that hard.
> Shenmue and the Tomb Raider games did this, and I find myself liking
> that sort of control better.
Tomb Raider had great control.
Though part of Tomb Raider's great control is how it doesn't go
for a more analog movement, and the more complex jump sequences
are arranged around that detail. That meant that you could do quite
complicated jump sequences, rapidly altering Lara's position and
direction relative to the camera, easily.
Some of those sequences would be nothing but trial and error with
camera-based controls. But if Lara's movements or the movement
required by the jump sequences wasn't so 'digital', I'm not sure
which scheme would be better.
Joe Ottoson
> In article <nickzman-D40699...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
> nick...@eskimo.com says...
> > If the camera is always in a position that the player dictates, or right
> > behind the player, then character-relative control isn't that hard.
> > Shenmue and the Tomb Raider games did this, and I find myself liking
> > that sort of control better.
>
> Tomb Raider had great control.
Huh?
> Though part of Tomb Raider's great control is how it doesn't go
> for a more analog movement, and the more complex jump sequences
> are arranged around that detail.
By adding flaky alignment controls and making the camera move in ungodly
ways so that it's impossible to see where you're jumping to.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>You've said it drives you nuts but you haven't explained what is _wrong_
>with that type of control.
Yes I have. It requires an additional step to properly think where
to move the character. It requires an additional mapping from my "up" to
"moving upwards relative to the view", which is how I think. In short, it
is the opposite of enhancing immersiveness.
--
"The Canadian and American governments asserted that the best way to bring up
the issue of human rights with China was to make a lot of money from the evil
empire first, then mention the slavery and killing and repression later."
-Dave Watson
Nick Zitzmann
Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Nick Zitzmann wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.1010626215118.12653A-100000@math>,
> > Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Can you give an example of a character-relative game (preferably platform
> > > or heavy-action) that doesn't have "tank controls"?
> >
> > IIRC, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII and IX (with analog controls
> > turned off), Parasite Eve (same, analog controls off).
>
> I'm guessing precise control isn't terribly important in that style of
> game.
Control of some sort was important in Parasite Eve. There were about 2-3
scenes in that game where you had to get from point A to point B in a
very short amount of time, and any mis-step would cause the game to end
prematurely.
> How about an action game with such controls? One where your
> character is required to jump to certain locations or run around or such
> things?
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure that the Crash Bandicoot games were like this,
but the camera in those games was more or less fixed, even moreso than
the Tomb Raider games.
Andrew Ryan Chang
> Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>> Can you give an example of a character-relative game (preferably platform
>> or heavy-action) that doesn't have "tank controls"?
>
>IIRC, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII and IX (with analog controls
>turned off), Parasite Eve (same, analog controls off).
FF7 and 8 (and probably 9) are *camera* relative. Or at least FF7
and FF8 for the PC are.
--
Will giving a huge tax cut to the wealthiest people in the country help prevent
a recession? No. Isn't this the same tax cut Bush tried to sell us during the
campaign on the grounds that the economy was so good we needed a tax cut? Yes.
-- Molly Ivins, "G.W.'s fuzzy agenda" 2/2/01
Raymond McKeithen II
> Nick Zitzmann <nick...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> >> Can you give an example of a character-relative game (preferably
platform
> >> or heavy-action) that doesn't have "tank controls"?
> >
> >IIRC, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII and IX (with analog controls
> >turned off), Parasite Eve (same, analog controls off).
>
> FF7 and 8 (and probably 9) are *camera* relative. Or at least FF7
> and FF8 for the PC are.
But isn't the camera static in each scene, since the backgrounds are
pre-rendered bitmaps?
If there is no moving camera it's not an issue, then it's the same as in a
2D game. Something like old Sierra PC adventure games were like this and
there's no problem.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> >> I stand behind that statement. Your arguments basically boil
> >> down to the same thing; you think character-relative is the right
choice
> >> despite it being harder to handle because it makes more sense to you,
> >> because it fits the way you think.
> >
> >Exactly where did I say "despite it being harder to handle" in reference
to
> >character-relative control? If you think I think it's harder to handle
but
> >like it anyway you're not reading what I've written.
>
> The "despite..." part is my addition, and I realize now that it's
> awkwardly phrased.
Akwardly phrased? It's wrong period, in the sense you _added_ anything at
all.
Don't be so presumptious to reinterpret what I have said to make it more
suitable to what you want me to say so it fits your agenda!
> >The whole point is, I _don't_ think it's harder to handle (I think it's
> >easier to handle), and you haven't offered any real reason as to why you
> >think it is harder.
>
> It's harder to handle _because_ it requires an additional level of
> translation ("now, 'left' means 'his left' _and_ he's facing left now"),
> which the other system doesn't. ("move towards the camera -- down means
> down").
And yet you still ignore the issue of arbitrarily moving cameras. What
*isn't* hard to handle about the "extra level of translation" of having to
somehow *know* that, "oh yeah, the camera is fixing to take a 180-degree
turn and I have to somehow magically be aware of that so I can change what
direction I'm pressing"?
In case it's not clear, when I play a game with character controls, I don't
engage in an "extra level of translation." Apparently I'm a minority, but
I'm not a minority of ONE as some in this thread would like to believe,
since at least two other people have spoke up who agree with me (one of who
was (e)magius who started this part of the thread).
Obviously this is a pointless discussion...
> >Huh? If Sonic Adventure was changed to have character-relative control as
> >I've described (not tank control), how is its level of preciseness any
> >different than the current camera-relative control? It's *exactly* the
same
> >control it has now, just "rotated" differently on the controller and
fixed
> >there so you don't have to deal with the camera changing directions.
>
> I dunno. I was actually thinking of JGR when I wrote that.
I wasn't aware JGR, which isn't really a "3D platform" game at all, was
under discussion.
> Char-relative would be *much* harder to play JGR with when you're flying
> in a curving jump... with camera-relative, it's not all that hard to
> decide how to fine-tune your flight to land on a rail. It'd be much
> harder *in flight* to continually do this sort of "well, he's rotated 14
> degrees from the camera axis so I should correct by that much when I want
> to change my facing direction by ~20 degrees" thinking.
I don't see how you can do "14 degrees" in that game at all considering how
vague and mushy the control is, combined with the usual "3D positioning"
issues. If they actually require control that accurate in the game, it must
be totally unplayable. I must've played that crap demo about 50 times and I
don't see how you can possibly have that kind of control given the game's
poor feeling of control combined with the lousy analog pad on the DC
controller.
> >> [1] IIRC, you prefer a digital joystick...
> >
> >This is correct, and if you also include that in the above discussion
that's
> >another issue, as you are confined to "only" 8 directions of movement. I
> >maintain that's all you need since no 3D game is, or can be, all that
> >precise anyway.
>
> Again, JGR -is- more precise than a quantitization of the circle
> into 45 degree chunks would allow.
And again, I just don't buy that. There's not enough precision in that
controller (or the thumb) for the game to require the kind of control you
claim it does.
While the companies implementing analog control claim they're doing it for
finer control, instead it's having the opposite effect. With a digital
joystick you only get 8 directions, but you get *8* directions. With analog
it's "oops, I wanted to go at 45 degrees but instead I managed about 35..."
> (I suppose one could do it like
> driving games do, with their stairstep approximations towards a curve, but
> that would suck.) It's entirely possible to miss a rail by a small
> amount, which would correspond to a small error in judging the angle of
> one's leap.
In the case of this game and its control, I think I consider that bad game
design.
As a side comment, I think driving games with an analog thumb controller
suck. A wheel is great, but if you're stuck with a pad digital is
preferable. At least you actually have control.
All that side-tracking still didn't answer why you think what I suggested
wouldn't work in Sonic.
SecretOrigin
> On 26 Jun 2001, SecretOrigin wrote:
>
> > The camera in Ecco sucks. Cameras should stay behind the character whenever
> > possible.
>
> There are two camera modes in Ecco. Do you dislike both? As I recall,
> one was better than the other.
Does either of them fix the point of view behind Ecco?
SecretOrigin
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> >
> >I don't find it natural at all. It seems perfectly natural to me that when I
> >press "up" my character will walk forward in the direction he's facing.
>
> As you and others have pointed out, you're hardly representative
> of any large group of people.
In any game where the point of veiw changes a lot, I prefer the up-is-forward
control scheme.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>> awkwardly phrased.
>
>Akwardly phrased? It's wrong period, in the sense you _added_ anything at
>all.
>
>Don't be so presumptious to reinterpret what I have said to make it more
>suitable to what you want me to say so it fits your agenda!
Fine. I was trying to say that many people also find
char-relative more awkward.
>> It's harder to handle _because_ it requires an additional level of
>> translation ("now, 'left' means 'his left' _and_ he's facing left now"),
>> which the other system doesn't. ("move towards the camera -- down means
>> down").
>
>And yet you still ignore the issue of arbitrarily moving cameras. What
>*isn't* hard to handle about the "extra level of translation" of having to
>somehow *know* that, "oh yeah, the camera is fixing to take a 180-degree
>turn and I have to somehow magically be aware of that so I can change what
>direction I'm pressing"?
That really doesn't happen that much. To be honest, I didn't feel
the SA camera screwed me over very much at all. Yes, what you describe
would be a problem to me; no, I don't feel games like SA are as bad as
what you describe.
>> I dunno. I was actually thinking of JGR when I wrote that.
>
>I wasn't aware JGR, which isn't really a "3D platform" game at all, was
>under discussion.
Why not? What the hell is a platform game? Apparently, it's not
Sonic Adventure. Why not JGR, which is all about the precision jumping?
>I don't see how you can do "14 degrees" in that game at all considering how
>vague and mushy the control is, combined with the usual "3D positioning"
The control is hardly vague. It's just twitchy and you need to
know the difference between steering before you jump and after. A lot of
control in JGR is knowing when to leave the stick neutral and when to
steer.
>issues. If they actually require control that accurate in the game, it must
>be totally unplayable.
And yet, it isn't. I can understand not appreciating the game's
art direction or underlying plot or whatever, but the controls in JGR are
excellent. (see below for a few more thoughts on this)
>> Again, JGR -is- more precise than a quantitization of the circle
>> into 45 degree chunks would allow.
>
>And again, I just don't buy that. There's not enough precision in that
>controller (or the thumb) for the game to require the kind of control you
>claim it does.
Download the movies from the JSR website and see how good expert
players can be. It really does require fine control to be able to pull
off some of those stunt chains; it takes practice, timing, and
sometimes a very fine adjustment of the analog stick.
>> (I suppose one could do it like
>> driving games do, with their stairstep approximations towards a curve, but
>> that would suck.) It's entirely possible to miss a rail by a small
>> amount, which would correspond to a small error in judging the angle of
>> one's leap.
>
>In the case of this game and its control, I think I consider that bad game
>design.
But ridiculous precision jumping in Sonic 1 is good game design?
Please!
>All that side-tracking still didn't answer why you think what I suggested
>wouldn't work in Sonic.
WRT Sonic Adventure 1, I guess it might work. Like I said, I have
a hard enough time with RE tank controls, and there turning is slow enough
that I can get the desired facing angle in two tries. With your "quick
turning char relative controls", I'm sure I'd head in the wrong direction
6/7 times or more. Unless they just stuck the camera behind Sonic as
tightly as the Shenmue camera... and then it's back to de facto camera-
relative control.
--
Right now, I want each of you to try something interesting. There's no
trick to it -- it's just a simple trick!
-- Brad Goodman at the "Inner Child Workshop", "Bart's Inner Child"
Stephen Preston
I think so. Been a little while since I've played it, and I don't
remember which setting was the default, but I think one of the settings
followed you pretty carefully while the other one allowed you to go back
and forth without the camera moving so much. I don't remember camera
controls being much of an issue for me.
--Steve
C. Delorean
news:nickzman-D40699...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> In article <jU9_6.315436$NK4.22...@news2.aus1.giganews.com>,
> Billy Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > BTW, Resident Evil-style character controls are considered quite bad
> > to horrible.
>
> At least, in Resident Evil, when the camera shifts positions, the
> controls don't change with it. Since the camera changes directions
> rather constantly in the game, if controls were tied to the camera, it
> would be impossible to play.
Capcom did something interesting w/ Resident Evil 2 on the N64. They had the
regular RE control, but they also allowed the analogue stick to be used with
a conventional 3D control setup, so it was tied into the camera. But here's
the kicker. If you entered the next screen you would continue going forward,
even with a new camera angle, until you let go of the analogue stick. It
would then reset so that you would have to push it in the proper direction
the new camera angle dictated.
As I am used to the RE control setup, I didn't really take to the new
control scheme. But there's a lot of people who can't stand RE controls who
really liked it. I always wondered why Capcom didn't keep it as an option in
Code:Veronica, Dino Crisis 2, etc.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>
> >*isn't* hard to handle about the "extra level of translation" of having
to
> >somehow *know* that, "oh yeah, the camera is fixing to take a 180-degree
> >turn and I have to somehow magically be aware of that so I can change
what
> >direction I'm pressing"?
>
> That really doesn't happen that much. To be honest, I didn't feel
> the SA camera screwed me over very much at all. Yes, what you describe
> would be a problem to me; no, I don't feel games like SA are as bad as
> what you describe.
I feel they are totally unplayable. There shouldn't be camera problems
period; they didn't exist in 2D and we shouldn't be going backwards just to
get something into 3D.
> >> I dunno. I was actually thinking of JGR when I wrote that.
> >
> >I wasn't aware JGR, which isn't really a "3D platform" game at all, was
> >under discussion.
>
> Why not? What the hell is a platform game? Apparently, it's not
> Sonic Adventure. Why not JGR, which is all about the precision jumping?
Well, mainly because I didn't play enough of JGR (just the demo) to feel I
can discuss it with any authority in the context of its camera and such.
Plus the subject of this thread says "Sonic Adventure." :P
I don't feel that *any* 3D game should have precision jumping at all, since
judging distance in 3D on a 2D screen is an exercise in futility. (It's one
of my main issues with 3D games, but I wasn't trying to bring that into this
control method discussion.)
> >I don't see how you can do "14 degrees" in that game at all considering
how
> >vague and mushy the control is, combined with the usual "3D positioning"
>
> The control is hardly vague. It's just twitchy and you need to
> know the difference between steering before you jump and after. A lot of
> control in JGR is knowing when to leave the stick neutral and when to
> steer.
...and apparently knowing the exact microsecond when it'll actually accept
your button input for spraying, which is maddening since it's impossible to
tell when you're lined up that accurately.
> >issues. If they actually require control that accurate in the game, it
must
> >be totally unplayable.
>
> And yet, it isn't. I can understand not appreciating the game's
> art direction or underlying plot or whatever, but the controls in JGR are
> excellent. (see below for a few more thoughts on this)
Well, I don't appreciate those elements of the game, but I do truly feel the
control sucks. I don't like the analog control in any of these games, but I
think it's especially poor in JGR.
I tend to think you like the game so much you ignore its control flaws and
don't admit they exist.
> >> Again, JGR -is- more precise than a quantitization of the circle
> >> into 45 degree chunks would allow.
> >
> >And again, I just don't buy that. There's not enough precision in that
> >controller (or the thumb) for the game to require the kind of control you
> >claim it does.
>
> Download the movies from the JSR website and see how good expert
> players can be. It really does require fine control to be able to pull
> off some of those stunt chains; it takes practice, timing, and
> sometimes a very fine adjustment of the analog stick.
I don't doubt that some people are masochistic enough to overcome the
control issues, that's not in question. However, I don't think I should have
to do that; it's what I consider poor game design and control
implementation.
> >> (I suppose one could do it like
> >> driving games do, with their stairstep approximations towards a curve,
but
> >> that would suck.) It's entirely possible to miss a rail by a small
> >> amount, which would correspond to a small error in judging the angle of
> >> one's leap.
> >
> >In the case of this game and its control, I think I consider that bad
game
> >design.
>
> But ridiculous precision jumping in Sonic 1 is good game design?
> Please!
Sonic 1 (Genesis) or SA1? In Sonic 1 yes it is. In SA1 it isn't as I said
above; 3D "platformers" shouldn't require precision jumping at all.
> >All that side-tracking still didn't answer why you think what I suggested
> >wouldn't work in Sonic.
>
> WRT Sonic Adventure 1, I guess it might work. Like I said, I have
> a hard enough time with RE tank controls, and there turning is slow enough
> that I can get the desired facing angle in two tries. With your "quick
> turning char relative controls", I'm sure I'd head in the wrong direction
> 6/7 times or more. Unless they just stuck the camera behind Sonic as
> tightly as the Shenmue camera... and then it's back to de facto camera-
> relative control.
Well I think what was mentioned elsewhere about N64 RE control would work.
You press whatever direction and you quickly turn and go that way. You keep
going that way until you stop moving and then the controller reorients to
the direction you now face.
In Sonic in particular part of the problem is the fact that a fair
percentage of the time the camera *is* stuck right behind Sonic, and then it
decides to do something else. It's especially maddening in the timed "speed"
sections of the game.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> The control is hardly vague. It's just twitchy and you need to
>> know the difference between steering before you jump and after. A lot of
>> control in JGR is knowing when to leave the stick neutral and when to
>> steer.
>
>...and apparently knowing the exact microsecond when it'll actually accept
>your button input for spraying, which is maddening since it's impossible to
>tell when you're lined up that accurately.
JGR is often quite loose with how close you need to be to start
spraying and how accurate you need to be on the joystick twirls.
>> art direction or underlying plot or whatever, but the controls in JGR are
>> excellent. (see below for a few more thoughts on this)
>
>Well, I don't appreciate those elements of the game, but I do truly feel the
>control sucks. I don't like the analog control in any of these games, but I
>think it's especially poor in JGR.
>
>I tend to think you like the game so much you ignore its control flaws and
>don't admit they exist.
Thank you for telling me how I think! So this is behaviour that's
bad when I do it and good when you do it?
I'm saying that with JGR, I can do more precise actions than I
could in Shenmue, Sonic Adventure, Soul Reaver, or Tomb Raider. As
gameplay control goes, I think it's a good one. I can aim precisely, I
can do fun tricks, and if I miss, well, I miss in those 2D platformers you
revere so much too...
>> But ridiculous precision jumping in Sonic 1 is good game design?
>> Please!
>
>Sonic 1 (Genesis) or SA1? In Sonic 1 yes it is. In SA1 it isn't as I said
>above; 3D "platformers" shouldn't require precision jumping at all.
Then what would a 3D platformer be? It wouldn't be about
collecting things, and it wouldn't be about precision jumps, so... ?
[back to fixing SA1]
>Well I think what was mentioned elsewhere about N64 RE control would work.
>You press whatever direction and you quickly turn and go that way. You keep
>going that way until you stop moving and then the controller reorients to
>the direction you now face.
That's the modified camera-relative control scheme in N64 RE! (at
least, if I understood that post correctly.) So we agree, modified
camera-relative is the way to go? I certainly wouldn't have a problem
with that in SA1; after all, it does that a fair bit already.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >> The control is hardly vague. It's just twitchy and you need to
> >> know the difference between steering before you jump and after. A lot
of
> >> control in JGR is knowing when to leave the stick neutral and when to
> >> steer.
> >
> >...and apparently knowing the exact microsecond when it'll actually
accept
> >your button input for spraying, which is maddening since it's impossible
to
> >tell when you're lined up that accurately.
>
> JGR is often quite loose with how close you need to be to start
> spraying and how accurate you need to be on the joystick twirls.
Perhaps, but I certainly didn't find that in the demo. However, how do you
correlate it being both loose and having precision control.
> >> art direction or underlying plot or whatever, but the controls in JGR
are
> >> excellent. (see below for a few more thoughts on this)
> >
> >Well, I don't appreciate those elements of the game, but I do truly feel
the
> >control sucks. I don't like the analog control in any of these games, but
I
> >think it's especially poor in JGR.
> >
> >I tend to think you like the game so much you ignore its control flaws
and
> >don't admit they exist.
>
> Thank you for telling me how I think! So this is behaviour that's
> bad when I do it and good when you do it?
Sorry, not what I meant. I just really don't see how anyone can think the
control in this game is that accurate. Just as most likely the control
bothers me an extra amount because I dislike the game as a whole, it's easy
to forgive some issues when the reverse is true.
Plus, I said "I tend to think..." rather than claiming you said something
you didn't. There is a difference...
> >> But ridiculous precision jumping in Sonic 1 is good game design?
> >> Please!
> >
> >Sonic 1 (Genesis) or SA1? In Sonic 1 yes it is. In SA1 it isn't as I said
> >above; 3D "platformers" shouldn't require precision jumping at all.
>
> Then what would a 3D platformer be? It wouldn't be about
> collecting things, and it wouldn't be about precision jumps, so... ?
The name 3D platformer is an oxymoron; since you tend to remember everything
I've said you should know I think that.
I maintain there is no such thing as a 3D platformer, why I typically put
the term in quotes. Most 2D platformers are about precision jumping. Since
you can't have that in a 3D game and actually have it playable, the ones
that actually work on some level have abandoned platforming for something
else, like collecting.
Calling Mario 3D or Sonic Adventure platformers at all is a farce.
> [back to fixing SA1]
> >Well I think what was mentioned elsewhere about N64 RE control would
work.
> >You press whatever direction and you quickly turn and go that way. You
keep
> >going that way until you stop moving and then the controller reorients to
> >the direction you now face.
>
> That's the modified camera-relative control scheme in N64 RE! (at
> least, if I understood that post correctly.) So we agree, modified
> camera-relative is the way to go? I certainly wouldn't have a problem
> with that in SA1; after all, it does that a fair bit already.
No! Unless I misunderstood C. Delorean's post (I don't play RE) it's always
character relative. If it's what you said then ignore what I said just
above.
I'll never agree that camera-relative is the way to go for any game.
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>> spraying and how accurate you need to be on the joystick twirls.
>
>Perhaps, but I certainly didn't find that in the demo. However, how do you
>correlate it being both loose and having precision control.
It's loose WRT the spraying elements, precise WRT the jumping
elements. I've logged over a hundred hours on the game by my estimate,
and while I enjoy almost every aspect of it, it's really the core grinding
and jumping game that I love about it. The spray paint stuff, the part
about escaping cops and rival gangs -- all that is window dressing. I
would enjoy this game much less if I felt that I was fighting with the
controls, or if they weren't precise.
>The name 3D platformer is an oxymoron; since you tend to remember everything
>I've said you should know I think that.
I don't remember much from ancient days, but I'm good at short-
term memory. Anyways, I've seen you advocate for some hypothetical 3D
platformer you would enjoy and play, and I wanted to ask about what that
would be.
>> [back to fixing SA1]
>> >Well I think what was mentioned elsewhere about N64 RE control would work.
>> That's the modified camera-relative control scheme in N64 RE! (at
>> least, if I understood that post correctly.)
>No! Unless I misunderstood C. Delorean's post (I don't play RE) it's always
>character relative. If it's what you said then ignore what I said just
>above.
I took another look at C. Delorean's post and I'm pretty sure what
he said about the RE2N64's additional control scheme was that it was a
modified camera-relative system.
C. Delorean
Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:WZs_6.861$5d.3...@newshog.newsread.com...
<snip>
> > That's the modified camera-relative control scheme in N64 RE! (at
> > least, if I understood that post correctly.) So we agree, modified
> > camera-relative is the way to go? I certainly wouldn't have a problem
> > with that in SA1; after all, it does that a fair bit already.
>
> No! Unless I misunderstood C. Delorean's post (I don't play RE) it's
always
> character relative. If it's what you said then ignore what I said just
> above.
>
> I'll never agree that camera-relative is the way to go for any game.
I guess I wasn't clear. It has the regular RE "tank" style controls, where
up is always forward, along with an alternate control scheme (that Capcom
labels as 3rd person) where you push the stick in the direction you want the
character to go, like in Mario 64. When you enter the next screen (which
will invariably have a different fixed camera angle) you will continue in
direction you were going, but if you let go or if you want to go in a new
direction, you will have to push the stick in the proper direction.
One mistake that I made in my original post was that it works for either the
analogue stick OR the d-pad. You have to decide in the options if you want
the regular tank controls (which is labled 1st person), or the one I
described above.
Hope this clears it up.
C. Delorean
Tim Miller
news:fd58c0e9.01062...@posting.google.com...
Yes, one of them does.
Tim (tm)
Eugene Moon
Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
>In either case, that 2D viewpoint/camera doesn't swing around while you're
>playing the game (with probably some rare exception that I don't recall that
>someone will no doubt point out).
You mean like on the loop-the-loops on Sonic CD? :)
Eugene Moon
MjallenII
game @ your own pace!!! And yes those rouge/Knuckles stages were
boring. I wish there were more sonic/shadow levels!!!
And on the 2p game part, I was playing against my cousin(I'll say his
name is Jay), anyway, I was playing w/ Jay, and I would be right at
the end of a level with 0 coins(I'm shadow hes sonic or vice versa)
cuz he just hit me w/ a sonicw ind/chaos spear, then he just keep
getting that through out the whole level, and I would get crapy stuff
like speed up or light dash, that really sucks. On the green Forest
level right at the end on the moving blocks, I would jump on the last
one, it would rumble(at the same time, or maybe 1/2 sec before) I
would press the jump button, and I would fall to my death!
On the knuckles stages, the radar would flash rapidly(w/ a red
background) and the emerald would be no where in sight(that really
sucks) I still havent finished that level.
It's a good game, it just needs to be more like SA1