Platinumoxicity on 10/2/2014 at 14:45
Quote Posted by NuEffect
The TDM version.
The ideal alternative would be the TDM version, plus dynamic hand animations powered by current generation technology. The kind of dynamic hand animations that Eidos Montréal was initially referring to when talking about how Garrett connects with the world with his hands, but never actually implemented and just went straight for the static and incredibly simple alternative in all of its possible applications. It would have been cool, dare I say "next gen" to see a character's all limbs interact with the environment as the player does what he usually does, but I guess that was too "next gen" to ask for. You will get the immersive realism of seeing your hands touching all of
the targets that you lock in on.
SubJeff on 10/2/2014 at 14:48
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
The kind of dynamic hand animations that Eidos Montréal was initially referring to when talking about how Garrett connects with the world with his hands, but
never actually implemented and just went straight for the static and incredibly simple alternative in all of its possible applications.
I'm confused as to how you know the exact way they've implemented it. Did they say they wanted to do it one way but settled for a simpler version?
cyrosis on 10/2/2014 at 15:52
Quote Posted by NuEffect
Did they say they wanted to do it one way but settled for a simpler version?
From what I remember, yes.
I recall them describing a system where Garrett's hands interacted with the world in a very dynamic and seamless way. Where the player didn't have to be locked onto some hotspot, or pushed through a player controlled scripted event in order for his hands to interact with the world. Looking back however, I think they may have just been completely misrepresenting what they accomplished, and likely never had anything more advanced than what they are showing off now; but that's just speculation based on the language they were using.
suliman on 10/2/2014 at 16:11
Was Zero Mission really more linear than Fusion? I don't remember much of either game, but didn't Fusion lock you into small, linear sections for most of the game? How was Zero Mission worse?
june gloom on 10/2/2014 at 17:12
Where Fusion would move you to a section and let you figure out for yourself how to get to your destination with a lot of dead ends, Zero Mission was basically "go here" with very little room for deviation. In a lot of ways, it's like Metroid 2, but with more handholding.
Platinumoxicity on 10/2/2014 at 18:54
Quote Posted by cyrosis
From what I remember, yes.
I recall them describing a system where Garrett's hands interacted with the world in a very dynamic and seamless way. Where the player didn't have to be locked onto some hotspot, or pushed through a player controlled scripted event in order for his hands to interact with the world. Looking back however, I think they may have just been completely misrepresenting what they accomplished, and likely never had anything more advanced than what they are showing off now; but that's just speculation based on the language they were using.
I suspect that to be the case, yeah. One thing that should have been ringing alarm bells was the title of their technology presentation:
"Animation driven locomotion" -referring to game characters' movements being determined by their animations to make the movements more realistic.
And I was naïve enough to think they only meant NPCs. I guess I was under the influence of the smoothness of DXHR:s controls.
jtbalogh on 21/2/2014 at 07:25
Quote Posted by Platinumoxicity
I suspect that to be the case, yeah. One thing that should have been ringing alarm bells was the title of their technology presentation:
"Animation driven locomotion" -referring to game characters' movements being determined by their animations to make the movements more realistic.
And I was naïve enough to think they only meant NPCs. I guess I was under the influence of the smoothness of DXHR:s controls.
Animation driven and still not done right. Contextual controls are guessing when to do it right. Notice the rope climbing in (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MefdILzzRvc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MefdILzzRvc at 5:20. The player couldn't jump off of the rope until the thief was in the right position? The contextual prompt for L2 to jump was also intermittent and caused the animation to jerk around? They also perceived a threat of bunny hopping and are content with destroying every other instance to jump freely.
thiefinthedark on 21/2/2014 at 07:38
Based on having watched the entire game on livestream today from start to finish, the contextual movement is because the levels are incredibly tiny and linear set pieces which would be immediately and thoroughly broken by giving the character the ability to move freely.
demagogue on 21/2/2014 at 08:47
In the originals you could also get to "broken" places... Getting over the outside wall in the Bank is the first one I remember. If you add crate stacking, there are lots of places you could get to you weren't supposed to. But I suppose as the budget increases, they can't afford "broken" areas of a game to be accessible. They you wonder what the money you spent was for... Maybe it's that kind of logic.