|
| T O P I C | |
|
The End of the Exclusive?
August 30th 2003, 23:18 CEST by JMCDaveL So on Thursday pretty much every gaming site that hosts downloads banded together against Gamespy's exclusive on the Call of Duty demo. After thousands of sweating hamburger stained forum dwellers screamed "NO YUO~!!!" in unison, Activision has decided to release the demo to everyone... early at that. So, does this mean that anytime Gamespy gets special attention then the interweb militia will take up arms and cry until Gamespy has to share its toys again? Also, will the idiots who set nasty emails to Caryn over this die a horrible death involving knitting needles and a hummer? |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The End of the Exclusive?
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
It's a dangerous goal, though. The more you can make the game world seem like the real world, the more the player expects it to behave like the real world. If there's something the player is unable to do, it pisses them off far more than it would in a less realistic game, where the players feels like they are discovering the way the game world works rather than simulating the real world. If the team spends all their time making everything totally realistic, to the point that you can make dirt clods and juggle them, or start a grass fire with the scope off your rifle, they won't have any time left to put the fun in. |
|
#219 Matt Perkins An engine that handles the Real World (tm) just brings you that much further into the game. Engaging you and bringing into a the world is the goal. That goal is helped along by many things, one of them being phsyics we can relate with. Forgetting for a moment that a realistic WWII game spawned this discussion, I wish more people would come up with games that were like playable cartoons. The laws of physics don't even apply in cartoons; anything can happen. I'd love to play a game designed around the concept of the Looney Tunes world (I'm not necessarily talking about art, I'm just talking about the silly, "you don't actually fall 100 feet to the ground until you've noticed that you ran off the cliff" world). Just for fun. Basically, I'm with Shadarr to a certain extent. There's only so much effort a developer can expend to make the world realistic before they're so bogged down in the details that the rest of the game begins to suffer for lack of attention. My battlecry: "Zang! Who is that, running on the fields! It is Hellchick, hands clutching buzzsaw hand extensions! She roars mightily: 'I'm going to brutalize you harder than God thought possible!!!'"
|
|
Shadarr Right, that's my round about point. The more realistic things get, the more the unrealistic stuff is going to stick out like a sore thumb. Trying to mimic reality inside of a computer is a dangerous goal I think - you may think you're immersing the player, but you may be doing the exact opposite. Respawn Games
Open your mind, let the beatings begin. |
|
more believable world, means we can think sideways, rather than shoot it out with the enemy we could knock the fridge over so it blocks the doorway and retreat another route. Its being able to make another way into that room you just holed up in using the multiple tons of weaponry I seem to have at my disposal its being able to get the drop on an enemy by taking out the fusebox, or dropping a smoke grenade down the chimney its about being able to get up on that ledge and shimmy around behind where that bastard with the sniper rifle is lurking its about doing MORE than just run and gun, which why FPS gaming is so bloody stagnant Hopefully Half Life 2's touted physics engine and that gravity gun will lend itself to a bit more improvisation. Do not go gently into that good night.
Old age should burn and rage at the close of day. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. |
|
For my money, the best FPS MP map I ever played was the one from the SiN demo, where you were mouse-sized and you fought in giant living room. Realism went out the door, and the point was to frag and have fun. I spent hours on that map. "YES!! You see people, THAT'S why he's the Vice-President of A/V Services here at Respawn Games. Yotsuya ALWAYS unleashes the fucking fury!" - Warren Marshall
|
|
Kindly point out where I used the word "realistic". "I don't bemoan the great paste" - LPMiller
"I'm getting a 404 on the yarn link, Caryn. BAILEY DEMANDS YARN." |
|
#225 Creole Ned Kindly point out where I used the word "realistic". You didn't use "realistic", but you used "believable". Disregarding the usual "real world setting" meaning of "realistic", I'm not sure how you meant something different than "realistic". My battlecry: "Zang! Who is that, running on the fields! It is Hellchick, hands clutching buzzsaw hand extensions! She roars mightily: 'I'm going to brutalize you harder than God thought possible!!!'"
|
|
AI to me is number one. And anyway you can't make a more interactive world without making much smarter AI. Last thing you want is the player to cleverly block a door only to have the AI enemies bunch up at it wondering why it's stuck. Or the AI to glitch somehow and accidently block a door the player has to get through. But good AI can make any game more entertaining. Not good as in good at killing the player. I mean things like ducking for cover, shooting wildly as they try to flee and crapping their pants when that grenade lands next to them. |
|
Want to shoot out a light? Too bad, you can't. Want to block a door with furniture to keep enemies at bay? Too bad, you can't. Want to face the consequences of shooting a teammate? Well, we don't, so nothing will happen if you do! And on and on. On top of all this, many games (shooters, especially) are getting ever shorter. So we are paying the same prices to get shorter games that are becoming less interactive but full of dazzling special effects. Well, atypical FPSes like Thief, No One Lives Forever, Deus Ex 2: Invisible War and Half-Life 2 have at trying to innovate the FPS genre. The AI in No One Lives Forever 2 were partially scripted and were intelligent enough to investigate disturbances with the lights, sounds or objects. I noticed that in the Call of Duty demo that you can shoot intentionally squadmates without failing the mission or the captain bitching at you. |
|
#218 Warren Marshall Can I ask what a more "realistic" world adds to the gameplay experience? I know it's the current pony that fanbois are riding, but what does it matter if you shoot the table and it reacts properly or not? Does this somehow make the game more fun? No, it adds to the suspension of disbelief. In a single player game, that's the most important thing. As more games innovate these little things, it becomes harder to go back to games that don't do it at all. #218 Warren Marshall To put it another way ... where would you prefer development effort be spent : on gameplay/ai, or on making a table look and react like real wood? Being able to shoot a table is minor compared to things like being able to take more than one given path. And once people start licensing the Half Life 2 engine, the issue is going to become even greater, because the games that use the HL2 engine as a base, which allows for that kind of interactivity, are going to already have an edge over the static engines. #220 Shadarr It's a dangerous goal, though. I'm not saying the world must be real. I'm saying that I want it to be believable. There is a pretty big difference there. One of my game design mantras is that reality is no substitute for good gameplay, and this holds in all situations. But if you can make your world more believable, it adds to the suspension of disbelief, which inherently makes your game more entertaining. So while it has no direct benefit or impact on how 'fun' something is, the indirect benefit is more than worth it. How many it had cost in the amassing, what blood and sorrow, what good ships scuttled on the deep, what brave men walking the plank blindfold, what shot of cannon, what shame and lies and cruelty, perhaps no man alive could tell.
|
|
I just wanted to thank those of you that gave me advice on my crashing computer (including Bailey that told me to ignore all advice fro PC and take it somewher to get fixed). It turned out it was a fried no-name power supply. Its now been replaced with a nice quiet Antec and fortunately nothing else was ruined when it died. Anyway, thanks again for your help, and feel free to return to the normal sarky-ness. |
|
feel free to return to the normal sarky-ness. You lying, overclocking bastard! "YES!! You see people, THAT'S why he's the Vice-President of A/V Services here at Respawn Games. Yotsuya ALWAYS unleashes the fucking fury!" - Warren Marshall
|
|
First, apropos of nothing, but Telus is by far the worst ISP I have ever experienced. They actually make me long for Rogers. The people in BC will understand how bad that is. "Our network problems should be resolved, just reboot everything!" Surprise, nothing has been fixed and when you call tech support, instead of an IVR, you get a busy signal because the lines are being clogged by customers who are probably getting a tad upset at two weeks of incredibly poor connections. Go figure! Anyhoo... Caryn: You didn't use "realistic", but you used "believable". Disregarding the usual "real world setting" meaning of "realistic", I'm not sure how you meant something different than "realistic". I don't want to get into an argument over semantics, but believable doesn't necessarily mean realistic. I only used the word in context of the WWII shooters because they are set in the real world and we know how that works. Being able to move a table or shoot out a light is something you can do in an everyday environment, so not being able to do so in a WWII shooter makes it less believable. But my argument isn't really about believability, anyway, it's about creating a game world that maintains its own internal consistency and allows you to do things that it looks like you should be able to do. Naturally, in a cartoonish world, the rules change and the level of interaction would be adjusted accordingly. In a more realistic environment, you come with preconceptions on how things work and when obvious things don't, it jars, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. In Half-Life, you can turn on the hand dryer in the washroom. Does it serve a practical purpose? No, but it makes the space seem more believable. In Deus Ex, you can pick up or push nearly any object in the game, most of which have no bearing on how things will play out, but it helps to create the feeling that you are in a living, breathing environment, not some sterile maze where you can only interact with things that directly affect the game's outcome. I'm not even saying every game needs to be like this, I just think that we've reached a point where the worlds created have to start offering more than a non-interactive maze for players to be funneled through. Maybe I'm asking for too much, I don't know. I am a bit put off when I'm asked to defend something as simple as shooting out lights. To me, that is a no-brainer. If I want to shoot out the lights, let me. Oh, but then the AI has to be programmed to take into account the changed lighting, the player will not be able to find his way out of the room, blah blah blah. So what. A competent designer can let the player know that shooting out every light may not be the best idea and leave the player to use that info however he chooses. A competent programmer can design AI to react to changed lighting even if it's as simple as "light off = accuracy -40%" or something. I guess we'll see how important companies feel these things are when Half-Life 2, Deus Ex 2 and some of the other high-profile titles come out over the next year. And if people like the heavily scripted and relatively non-interactive stuff found in games like MoH and CoD, that's fine, too. I'd just like to see *some* shooters try to offer more. "I don't bemoan the great paste" - LPMiller
"I'm getting a 404 on the yarn link, Caryn. BAILEY DEMANDS YARN." |
|
Not only was that incredibly long, I actually contradicted myself because it is about believability. How you create the believability changes with the given context. Bluh. "I don't bemoan the great paste" - LPMiller
"I'm getting a 404 on the yarn link, Caryn. BAILEY DEMANDS YARN." |
|
Well, atypical FPSes like Thief, No One Lives Forever, Deus Ex 2: Invisible War and Half-Life 2 have at trying to innovate the FPS genre. Agreed, with the exception of Deus Ex 2. It isn't out yet, so we couldn't possibly know. "I keep trying to read your posts, but all the letters keep morphing into "HULAHGUALGHUAALHAGH". Perhaps I can file this as a bug." --Bailey
DVDs |
|
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care if a game is "realistic" or "toony", all i care about is a suspension-of-disbelief. Tron 2.0 is again an example I care to use. (FYI, I am in no means comparing Tron 2.0 to Deus Ex, just that Tron 2.0's RPG system seems to be directly ripped off from DE. I never played NOLF2 so maybe it's just copying that, I don't know) Tron has many, MANY flaws inherent is FPS design, yet it's suspension-of-disbelief is such that it overcomes these flaws. Because it sets up a setting and environment where ti explains, in a reasonabley beliavable fashion, why the world functions the way it does. In a cartoony world as Caryn descirbes, the laws of phyisics, gravity, how everyday items behave, etc. are no longer relevant or necessary becuase of the nature of the game world. In fact, phenomenon such as those described are actively encouraged to unrealistic, i.e. cartoony as they better fit the characteristics of the "toony" (or whatever) environment. However, in a "realistic setting" such as WWII or any other "realistic' shooter, whether it be Deus Ex (1 or 2) SOF2, Doom3, Raven Shield, or whatever, whenever I am unable to interact with the environment in a logical/reasonable fashion, as I would in a real world environment, it completely destroys my suspension-of-disbelief. Why? These games sell themsleves as being set in the real world, or a fascimile of, and when i cannot do something as simple as knock over a dresser (as I could in the real world) my suspension-of-disbelief is completely destroyed. What it comes down to is a continuity of the game world. Setting rules that define the paramaters of interaction with all objects of the game, not just the ones the designers deemed significant. Suspension-of-disbelief is a major (if not the most important) factor in theater, televisions, and movies (all of which contain numerous examples of reality and non-reality based situations, environments, and characters). Why should it be any different in games? Comment Signature
|
|
My insurance company told me that terrorism is considered an act of god. In Shallah. Warren To put it another way ... where would you prefer development effort be spent : on gameplay/ai, or on making a table look and react like real wood? For me, it'd be environmental issues. Like, say, in an Oni-style fighter/shooter, if I could slide across a room, shoot out two legs on a table, and have it tilt over to form a temporary shield from gunfire, that'd be keen beans. But again, it would have to be highly scripted to be viable. You couldn't have tables in every room or villians across from the tables in the rooms they're in. So a little column A and a little column B would be better than going whole hog on either. Also, I'd like for a few companies to try Caryn's approach and do something that isn't quite so bloody serious without devolving into the shitcannery that is "hilarious alternative" titles like Postal 2 or... uh... similarly stupid title... um... Redneck Rampage! Shadow Warrior! Duk- Er, however, in regards to Caryn's looney toons example, this sort of thing lends itself more readily to 2D and 3rd person platformers than to FPS titles. Doesn't mean we can't see them on a console, however. Too straight for #planetcrap.
|
|
Please forgive the complete lack of grammer and lack of proper world placement in the above post as I was (and still am) extremely tired (and had been drinking a bit, well a good bit). Comment Signature
|
|
To me, great physics take away from whatever story you are trying to tell. I look at Half Life 2 and I don't give a damn about the story or the characters or even progressing through the entire game, I just want to make large piles of stuff. The more the enviroment reacts, the more of a metagame it becomes, and that can easily distract the player if you are trying to deliver a story. |
|
kind of like seeing how many vehicles you can pile together in BF1942 and how far you can fling them with a synchronised explosives detonation. Its rather fun to `bomb` an enemy base with detpacked jeeps..... especially at a lan when both sides are somewhat shitfaced drunk Do not go gently into that good night.
Old age should burn and rage at the close of day. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. |
|
If that was true Foodbunny then a simple experiment using Thief or Deus Ex would confirm it. Clearly once the novelty runs out people will look to the game objectives. For instance in morrowind/gothic self set goals like killing an entire town or making high stacks of apples quickly grow boring. On the other hand if the designer wants a scene where blocking a door is a good tactic they could use then it should be possible elsewhere. Having a table that can be pushed around in one room but not in the other breaks the suspension of disbelief. After reading this discussion I have a new respect for Quakes stone walls and thick doors. There was no thought to try and blast through them and the game never hinted you could do something that was not really possible. |
|
Agreed, with the exception of Deus Ex 2. It isn't out yet, so we couldn't possibly know. From what I saw at E3 2002 and of Thief 3 they seem to be pushing the envelope. For once you can shoot out light bulbs, roll fire barrels and climb walls (while showing your hands, arms and legs). RPG system seems to be directly ripped off from DE. I never played NOLF2 so maybe it's just copying that, I don't know... Well, Deus Ex wasn't the first first-person RPG with stats and inventory so I never understood why now every FPS that has a RPG-style stat stystem is copying Deus Ex. |
|
From what I saw at E3 2002 and of Thief 3 they seem to be pushing the envelope. For once you can shoot out light bulbs, roll fire barrels and climb walls (while showing your hands, arms and legs). Your arms, your legs? Tresspasser was showing us your tits years ago. This isn't anything new. Too straight for #planetcrap.
|
|
Most FPSes' first person perspective are disembodied (when you look down you don't see your torso/legs). Tribes and Trespasser are the exceptions. In Thief 2 will actually show Garret's hands climbing the wall, whereas most FPSes the view arms will still be holding the weapon while climbing up ladders or ropes. |
|
I am probably in the minority considering what others have said already, but for me realism comes more from the tools that the player is given to make the trek thru the game environment. The reason I feel that I'm in the minority here is because I absolutely loved the resource management in a game like System Shock 2, where your weapons would actually jam or break unexpectedly, causing you to have to actually think for a moment about how not to get your ass killed. Granted, it wasnt the best implementation of the idea, but it worked...and I'm really surprised that more games havent taken this approach considering the advances that have been made since this game came out. In CoD you have the ability to use your weapon in melee combat, but no where in the demo was I ever put into the position to actually have to use it. It would add so much to the immersion factor if my gun jammed or misfired(which was a common occurance in WW2) when I was doing the left flank thing in clearing out those houses.(after taking out the half track gunner) I would then be forced to use an alternate means of achieving my immediate objective....deciding if I should pull my pistol, toss in a grenade, or run in and whip the germans about the face and neck with the butt of my rifle. Maybe it's just me, but I am just so weary of games that still rely on running out of ammo as the only means of resource management...meh. "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
|
|
THIS IS WHAT AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY LOOKS LIKE Joker, Ph.D. Procedural Assholian Behaviour, Pedophilosopher
- All your ass are belong to my wang Jafd. Prepare to are penetration. "I fart in THX." - Sgt_Hulka PENETRATOR: Rise of the Wang Cuming "When it's done". |
|
That's nice Joker. |
|
Can you pick up objects without using the gravity gun in HL2? --jmc
|
|
More games haven't done the "see your own body" thing because, basically, it sucks. See: Gore. And I agree about Quake1's level design. The structures were made to be thick and solid affairs so you never gave a thought to interacting with them beyond running through and finding the gold key. There was a method to ids madness. The problem came with user maps that got the bright idea to start adding furniture and decorations to maps that did nothing but slow down the frame rate and get in the players way. Respawn Games
Open your mind, let the beatings begin. |
|
Oooh, another pet hate - shite clipping. Getting stuck on windowledges while trying to keep close to the wall for cover is doubleplus ungood. "You know you are doing art when everyone has an opinion of what you're doing." - Lexx, creator of the supremely stupid Doom for Columbine mod.
|
|
In other news, my table/chair set will be here this morning. This completes my 2 bedroom apartment. For the first time in my adult life, I'll be living somewhere that is completely furnished with stuff that I actually own (and like). I'm all grown up and shit. Respawn Games
Open your mind, let the beatings begin. |
|
Now throw a house warming party and watch it all go to ruin. AND DON'T ADD A SMILEY AFTER EVERY GODDAMN THING YOU SAY!
|
|
To me, great physics take away from whatever story you are trying to tell. I look at Half Life 2 and I don't give a damn about the story or the characters or even progressing through the entire game, I just want to make large piles of stuff. The more the enviroment reacts, the more of a metagame it becomes, and that can easily distract the player if you are trying to deliver a story. As someone else pointed out, the novelty will wear off and then you're left with an interesting engine that could be used to tell a story that you are going to feel drawn into. As many people pointed out, it's not about true physics, it's about believability. Between scripting, AI, and world interaction, you need to feel like you are there. When you shoot your soldiers, they need to bleed and maybe with enough agravation, shoot you back. They need to respond as humans would for us to believe that they are humans. I realize that shooting all of your soldiers in Call of Duty would probably break the scripting, but that has to be figured out, not make our guns nerf when shooting them. That brings us out of the world and makes us remember we're just playing a game. For instance, when you watch a Hollywood action movie one main problem occurs... They take believability and throw it out the window, stomp on it and spit in the audiences general direction. If the characters in the movie don't have superhuman powers, then don't make them do more than is humanly possible. If it's not a Hidden Tiger type movie, don't have them "magically" fly. Set up a premise of the real world and make us stick to it. That's the rule. That rule applies to games very much so. "I'm an extreme programmer. I don't plan anything when I code."- Lord Nekrull
|
|
Maybe if you were just a good little soldier and didn't shoot your squadmates this wouldn't be an issue. We are OK in a misguided, sadist way.
We are OK in a disabled veteran's way. We are OK. |
|
Being able to shoot/move anything might make the world more believable, but would it even be possible for developers to tell some kind of story? What if a story required soldiers to come into the house and capture you (for the oft-used lose all your weapons and start again scenario)? If you stacked up tables and chairs against the door they could never capture you and the story stops progressing, you are basically stuck in a house doing nothing. This is only one example, but wouldn't there be hundreds of these choke points in a game? |
|
I believe there would be, yes. Tons of them. Interactivity leads to geometrically increasing complexity in the world/AI/storyline. The testing required on a game where you can do these sorts of things hurts my brain to even think about it. Allowing SOME of these things to take place is fine, but it needs to be controlled. Hence, scripted events give you a feel for things happening but don't give you the total control some people are asking for. It's a good compromise. Respawn Games
Open your mind, let the beatings begin. |
|
Those are questions of design, they are not technical issues. If you want to work with the baseline that all game designers are simpletons who can do no better than "room corridior room" then you may have a problem. I'd like to think the people making games are capable of a little more that that. "I don't bemoan the great paste" - LPMiller
"I'm getting a 404 on the yarn link, Caryn. BAILEY DEMANDS YARN." |
|
And who is asking for total control? Warren, you keep trying to paint what people want in extremes and I don't think anyone *here* is asking for that. "I don't bemoan the great paste" - LPMiller
"I'm getting a 404 on the yarn link, Caryn. BAILEY DEMANDS YARN." |
|
The PS3 will be backwards compatible with PS1 and 2. By the time the PS3 comes out, are people really going to be interested in playing Playstation 1 games? I know in the year I played my PS2 I never bought or played a PS1 game. |
|
No they don't, but that's not the point. The point is that they can. AND DON'T ADD A SMILEY AFTER EVERY GODDAMN THING YOU SAY!
|
|
I've got a bunch of PS1 games that I bought after I got my PS2, mostly the final fantasy re-releases and one or two others like Chrono Cross. I kid cause I care.
|
|
block the doors so the ai cant get in? ok the ai comes in the window, or throws flashbangs / tear gas / stun gas in where you are, issue worked round. single way into the room and youve it blocked with filing cabinets? there are few problems the correct application of excessive explosive cannot fix. Do not go gently into that good night.
Old age should burn and rage at the close of day. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. |
|
Warren: I believe there would be, yes. Tons of them. Interactivity leads to geometrically increasing complexity in the world/AI/storyline. The testing required on a game where you can do these sorts of things hurts my brain to even think about it. then again, smart level design could prevent most of those choke points. don't put any movable objects in the house so the player can't block the door. problem solved. a certain technique being at the designer's disposal, doesn't mean they would forcibly use it all the time. a better physics engine gives game designers extra tools to craft a game experience. did the breakable walls in Red Faction pose any problem? no, because they used the technology with moderation. It did, however, enable them to do things like dig through the cave wall with the digging machine. It enabled the player to blast his way to hidden areas, blow a hole in the floor and use it as a foxhole,... It didn't reduce any of the narrative, it still had a storyline. And although Red Faction was, on the whole, a very average game, I found it very compelling at times. I'm surprised you can't see this nuance since you have a lot of experience with the implementation of technology into a game. Besides, look at JK2. It already has the 'movable objects' thing: run into a room with stormtroopers, do a Force Push to blow em into the wall, then a force pull to move all the pickups, ammo etc, towards you. Of course, SS2 had Kinetic Redirection long before JK2 came along. "Sorry LP, I had to go to a lunch meeting and was unable to keep it real."
-Shadarr |
|
I absolutely loved the resource management in a game like System Shock 2, where your weapons would actually jam or break unexpectedly Do you also love pounding nails through your dick? How many it had cost in the amassing, what blood and sorrow, what good ships scuttled on the deep, what brave men walking the plank blindfold, what shot of cannon, what shame and lies and cruelty, perhaps no man alive could tell.
|
|
What if a story required soldiers to come into the house and capture you (for the oft-used lose all your weapons and start again scenario)? If you stacked up tables and chairs against the door they could never capture you and the story stops progressing, you are basically stuck in a house doing nothing. This is only one example, but wouldn't there be hundreds of these choke points in a game? Forced failure is a major no no. In that kind of a situation, if the player can avoid being captured, he should be allowed. I don't like a game where it cheats in order to make me lose. Fuck that, if I can kill all those soldiers, then I shouldn't get captured. EOD. How many it had cost in the amassing, what blood and sorrow, what good ships scuttled on the deep, what brave men walking the plank blindfold, what shot of cannon, what shame and lies and cruelty, perhaps no man alive could tell.
|
|
Also: I can't wait to see what HL2 does. How many it had cost in the amassing, what blood and sorrow, what good ships scuttled on the deep, what brave men walking the plank blindfold, what shot of cannon, what shame and lies and cruelty, perhaps no man alive could tell.
|
|
Can people start voting yes or no for Neale's topic? I think its a good one to start talking about. |
|
#257 Creole Ned And who is asking for total control? Warren, you keep trying to paint what people want in extremes and I don't think anyone *here* is asking for that. I don't know about that. It seems that no matter how much control you give people, they want more. No matter how many paths you give them to the goal, they want more. It's a never ending cycle that will eventually end up in the place I already see them heading. DS single way into the room and youve it blocked with filing cabinets? there are few problems the correct application of excessive explosive cannot fix. Can you hear the wailing? I can. It goes something like, "If the AI just blows up whatever I put it's path, what's the point of me blocking anything!? This is bullshit! Why did they even bother letting me do that if it doesn't stay put!!??" Gunpoint then again, smart level design could prevent most of those choke points. don't put any movable objects in the house so the player can't block the door. problem solved. So ... what we have now then? Great! We've arrived. Everyone off the bus! I'm surprised you can't see this nuance since you have a lot of experience with the implementation of technology into a game. Red Factions use of GeoMod was so limited it might as well have been scripted. There was practically no difference. Respawn Games
Open your mind, let the beatings begin. |
|
In a game set in the real world I'd like a level of interaction to make be believe I am in the real world. DX did this. There was no real reason to be able to turn on water or pick up potted plants*, but it did immerse me into the world. After DX I played NOLF and I can't tell you how much of a let down it was that I couldn't pick up or interact with objects in that game. Of couse, I still loved NOLF, but it wasn't as immersive. *Actually I picked up stuff and threw it at Gunther and Anna to annoy them. Yes, throw stuff at them and they would talk back to you, but never do anything, but I figure that's immersive too. |
|
So ... what we have now then? Great! We've arrived. Everyone off the bus! why did you bring up your original point if you label the counterpoint as obvious? "Sorry LP, I had to go to a lunch meeting and was unable to keep it real."
-Shadarr |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The End of the Exclusive?
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|