NEO Plus 10 page DX3 article

Eldron on 18/6/2010 at 22:06

Quote Posted by ZylonBane

Very few of the many, many bugs that Bloodlines shipped with can be attributed to the early Source engine it runs on. Without the Source engine, we wouldn't have had the fantastic facial animation that forms a huge part of the appeal of the game's characters.

Tackling bugs in both the engine and within the game code is a nightmare, and source has some of the most mindnumbing inflexible tools out there today, consider now that they are way better then when troika worked with them, so back then it was probably not fun at all.

When an engine is a smooth ride, there's way more time over to focus on keeping the game itself bug-free.

chris the cynic on 18/6/2010 at 23:51

Quote Posted by DDL

Well..technically you can K/O strong. But yeah, he's the only guy who has to actually spawncarcass()..

(though actually, killswitching gunther and anna makes them explode() rather than spawncarcass(), but that is probably minutiae territory)

:D

You're right, I was wrong. Meaning it is possible to complete Deus Ex without killing anyone.

I was thinking of two things. The first is that you have to deal with him (except for the cases where he blows himself up.) That obviously has nothing to do with lethal vs. non-lethal but it is something that separates the encounters with Strong and Navarre from those with Hermann and Simons.

The second was both wrong and nitpicking. I thought that, since he's on that cherry picker instead of somewhere you can walk to, you'd have to leave him under the rocket which is presumably not good for his health when it launches. Taking another look reveals that you can jump there pretty easily and move his body to a less lethal location.

negativeliberty on 19/6/2010 at 09:03

Quote Posted by YogSo

No, no, no. I've never said I liked Bloodlines more because of the TPP. I did say that I loved stealth-killing with the katana. And I did say, as you have put it, that I "found the forced third-person gameplay enjoyable", if by enjoyable we mean "not annoying, not immersion breaking and definitely not getting in the way of my enjoyment of the game".

Well actually I just meant enjoyable, which doesn't mean to say something isn't getting in the way of enjoyment but in this context clearly means having added value to the gameplay.

So in the example of stealth-killing, do you feel that the stealth killing animation has any added value to justify two perspective switches?

Quote Posted by YogSo

(Incidentally, saying something is "the worst attribute" of a game doesn't equal saying that something is "bad" in and on itself, especially if the game in question is such a classic as Bloodlines. In any case, I agree with ZB: the worst part of Bloodlines is the endgame).

I love VTMB as much as you do but I will try to stop myself from looking at it in rose-tinted glasses when looking at it for the purpose of analysis. The rushed "ending" brings the game down a notch, but I wouldn't exactly call it an attribute since it's more of an unfortunate consequence of Troika's woes and not a concious design decision.

Quote Posted by YogSo

In my last post I was disagreeing with you when you said (your words, again, not me putting anything in your mouth): "First person gameplay is fun, although the stat-based shooting takes getting used to as with DX, however third-person mucked it up good. Third-person melee combat is utterly boring, feels clumsy and inaccurate, animations are jerky, it's unsatisfying and to be honest if gunplay wasn't so underpowered by comparison I wouldn't have bothered with it at all."

From my understanding, you were explicitly saying:

Bloodlines first person combat ---> fun, with some quirks.
Bloodlines third person combat ---> boring, clumsy, innacurate and unsatisfying.

Yes.

Quote Posted by YogSo

And my answer was:

Bloodlines third person combat ---> not as bad as you paint it, but I 'stealthed' my way for the most part, so didn't fight a lot.

I prefer the same approach, however there were times you simply had to fight using melee, as guns weren't as effective against most enemies for large parts of the game. But saying something isn't detrimental because you're not using it much anyway seems like an odd argument, and you seem to be half-agreeing with me that Bloodlines' third-person combat is bad, here.

Quote Posted by YogSo

Bad third person combat ---> boring, clumsy, inaccurate and unsatisfying.
Good third person combat ---> fun, skilled, accurate and satisfying.
Bad first person combat ---> boring, clumsy, inaccurate and unsatisfying.

Thank you, I vividly remember enjoying Super Mario even before this lesson in the obvious ;)

Quote Posted by YogSo

And I gave examples of games in the latter two categories.

But you haven't given me a mixed first-third person game in which the third-person gameplay isn't compromising the game even in first-person, or worse yet, like DXHR is doing, forcing perspective switches. (and Jedi Outcast allowed you to choose between first and third-person yourself, even for melee). What examples you have mentioned are irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote Posted by YogSo

So, to sum up my point: IMHO arguing if the incoming DEHR game is going to suck or is going to be great (there's never middle ground on the internets) just because it has or has not forced third person perspective whenever a stealth attack happens is a moot point at this time: it depends on the implementation of said sequences. The general consensus is that everything is better if the game keeps the player in first person perspective all the time. And in general, I agree with that.

Thank you. However while I agree perspective doesn't guarantee anything one way or the other, I do think certain types of games simply lend themselves (fairly obviously) better to one particular form.

*Btw DXHR doesn't just switch to a forced third-person perspective for stealth takedowns, but also for a lot of the augmentations, AND for "cover" (and there's no word on leaning, but then again there's not much of that in console games).

Quote Posted by YogSo

But there are always exceptions: I found the first person implementation of the blackjack in TDS both awful and immersion breaking * And I still don't buy the idea that the blackjack is the way it is in TDS because of the TPP, because, if anything, as many have pointed up, it is easier to judge distances in third than in first person perspective.

For the purpose of the blackjack I don't buy your argument. If when playing Thief you can't judge when an NPC is at arm's length then this is not the game for you. If you need a third-person perspective to judge whether or not you can jump that far, then this is not the game for you (but on the plus side, I'd be more inclined to believe you).

But let me break it down for you:
Thief: TDP and TMA were entirely first-person games. When equipped with the Blackjack, you either simply clicked when you wanted to KO someone, or held down the mouse to raise your arm (which was useful when timing came into the equation, like when you're leaning out to KO a passing guard who's only just in range).

For TDS, this changed to the permanent 'auto-raise' feature, which is a visual cue. Now, obviously as the first two games demonstrated, this was entirely unnecessary for first-person players, so this begs the question why it was there: because third-person players need a cue which tells them when Garrett is not only in range but properly lined up to the target in third-person (which btw is not to be mistaken with how NPCs kindly and quickly auto-rotate themselves perfectly away from your position just as you press the key :rolleyes: Yet another major nuisance which was mysteriously absent in the first two games). So it has less to do with judging distance (which I don't agree is easier in third-person as I explained earlier), and more with the combination of being in range and being lined up.

Of course, this wasn't the only hand-holding TDS feature, and it fits a bigger picture of a dumbed down game, but I find it hard to believe that this "feature" (ahem) was not a compromise which resulted from them play-testing in third-person perspective and finding that a visual cue was needed, considering how large a departure this was from a tried and tested gameplay mechanic which worked perfectly.

Quote Posted by YogSo

, and the third person perspective stealth kills in Bloodlines both 'in character' and awesome (especially with the katana).

So you keep telling me. For me, the perspective changes that come with each stealth move are unnecessary and detrimental to the experience. Should I take your silence on the actual subject of third-person combat in VTMB as agreeing with me and many others that it was awful and best avoided where possible?

YogSo on 19/6/2010 at 12:53

@negativeliberty:

OK, I will try to spell it very clearly this time. Regarding the third-person perspective in VTMB: I found that the stealth gameplay (including the stealth kills) "added value" to the game and I enjoyed it; the melee combat, on the other hand, was mindless clicking and didn't require much skill, but it was over quickly and I didn't find it detrimental of my enjoyment of the game. I would never play a game that focused entirely on that kind of third-person combat and nothing else, but in this case it played a minor role (again, because of my play style) so even if it didn't "add value", it didn't "substract" it either. Would have Bloodlines been a better game if it had had a better melee gameplay? Yes, maybe... to an extent. Even if it had had the best melee combat system we could dream of, at the end of the day I never played Bloodlines to spend the time killing people/monsters/whatever...

Quote Posted by negativeliberty

But you haven't given me a mixed first-third person game in which the third-person gameplay isn't compromising the game even in first-person, or worse yet, like DXHR is doing, forcing perspective switches. (and Jedi Outcast allowed you to choose between first and third-person yourself, even for melee).

Jedi Outcast allowed you to choose perspective, but if there's any trace of common sense in you, you would fight the lightsaber duels in third-person perspective, not because it was cooler or anything like that, but because in first-person the players lack the vital spatial awareness that allows them to engage effectively in hand-to-hand combat (developers aknowledged this and, IIRC, third-person perspective was forced in Jedi Academy, which focused entirely on lightsaber duels). First-person melee combat is extremely difficult to implement well, as Dark Messiah developers (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13032) can attest to. A quote from that article (emphasis is mine):

Quote Posted by Raphael Colantonio, creative director at Arkane Studios

[Gaging distance,] Colantonio admitted, was never fully solved, and they mostly cheated distance by giving the player a larger “hit zone” for enemies, even though a thrust might technically miss as far as physical reality is concerned - if it was 'close enough' Arkane let it count as a hit.

Regarding that hypothetical game that mixes first and third-person perspective, in which the third-person gameplay isn't compromising the game, and allows the player to switch between the two perspectives... What about Morrowind? The first-person combat wasn't nothing to write home about, but that wasn't the third-person perspective fault. I haven't played Oblivion yet, but I imagine it's the same. I admit there are not a lot of good examples, but that is because there are not a lot of games with mixed first/third-person perspectives.

Regarding the TDS blackjack, again. Look, I don't have any problem with the blackjack mechanics in TDP, TMA or TDM, and I played TDS with The Minimalistic Project after completing the Blue Heron Inn (i.e. the tutorial) in 'vanilla' version and noticing how much the new and severely restricted use of the blackjack sucked. I'm getting tired of repeating myself about this matter, so I will only add that I completely disagree with this argument:

Quote Posted by negativeliberty

third-person players need a cue which tells them when Garrett is not only in range but properly lined up to the target in third-person

Ha! So it's not only harder to judge distances in third-person :rolleyes:, but players are unable to notice if the NPCs have their backs to them unless the game tells them... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyesadinfinitum:

Ostriig on 19/6/2010 at 13:33

Quote Posted by negativeliberty

[...] and there's no word on leaning [...]

Actually, there is word on leaning, and unfortunately that word is "no". I'd seen it mentioned before, so I asked René when I messaged him with the (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132319&p=1995548&viewfull=1#post1995548) stealth question that popped up last week.

Quote Posted by René

For the leaning thing, indeed there is no leaning in the game. Because DXHR features a third person cover system, that's the area that you would use to your advantage to peer around corners while keeping Adam hidden and away from gunfire. If you choose to remain in first person the whole time, sorry, but there is no lean option.

chris the cynic on 19/6/2010 at 13:50

Quote Posted by YogSo

I totally fail to follow how this is in any way related to the topic of Human Revolution.

Unless I missed something*, according to what the developers have told us (which is, obviously, subject to change) the way it will work in Human Revolution is that you approach the enemy, hit a button to attack, the game switches to third person perspective, you watch your character do some stuff in third person perspective (sort of a mini combat cut scene), the game switches back to first person perspective, and you regain control of your character.

Now I can see some similarity to the Jedi Academy lightsaber stuff because, since some of the moves you could do were somewhat long, you could actually end up out of control of your character for a noticeable length, but the similarity seems to end there. Regardless of whether a lightsaber move/combo/thing lasted a single swing or as long as one could last things looked pretty much the same. It flowed together fairly seamlessly, in a couple of cases the camera angle changed but it would be by the camera moving not cutting so there was never the impression of a break.

If we're talking about things in terms of perspective I'm not sure you can get much further from what we've been told Human Revolution will have than what the Jedi games had. To be truly analogous you'd need to have the Jedi games work so that before every lightsaber attack (or, I suppose, force use) the perspective switched and immediately afterward it switched back. That is very much not how those games worked.

Jedi Academy may well have forced you to be in third person while the lightsaber was drawn (I don't have it installed right now to check) but if you can't see the difference between being forced to stay in the same perspective the entire time you've got something available (note that when it is available is up to you) and being forced to change perspective twice every time you attack with it then I think you're being willfully obtuse.

-

Also, for future reference, while it is certainly true to say that Jedi Academy focused on the lightsaber it isn't true to say it "focused entirely on lightsaber duels." I'm not just talking about the level where you have to take on an imperial base without using it, or that other level where you can use it all you want but doing so is useless. In general there was a reason they gave you access to weapons other than the lightsaber, and that was that they could all be pretty useful any time you were fighting any enemy who wasn't holding a lightsaber of their own.

[Added:]
* And I may well have missed something, given that Ostriig says that Rene says you can "choose to remain in first person the whole time" which I had not heard.

negativeliberty on 19/6/2010 at 16:19

Quote Posted by YogSo

OK, I will try to spell it very clearly this time. Regarding the third-person perspective in VTMB: I found that the stealth gameplay (including the stealth kills) "added value" to the game and I enjoyed it; the melee combat, on the other hand, was mindless clicking and didn't require much skill, but it was over quickly and I didn't find it detrimental of my enjoyment of the game. I would never play a game that focused entirely on that kind of third-person combat and nothing else, but in this case it played a minor role (again, because of my play style) so even if it didn't "add value", it didn't "substract" it either. Would have Bloodlines been a better game if it had had a better melee gameplay? Yes, maybe... to an extent. Even if it had had the best melee combat system we could dream of, at the end of the day I never played Bloodlines to spend the time killing people/monsters/whatever...

Fine, just don't make it sound as if Bloodlines benefited from third-person gameplay, if you enjoyed it in spite of it and even felt more "in character" when you witnessed a stealth katana kill, that I can understand, although for me it had no redeeming value whatsoever and only brought the game down more. Luckily Bloodlines had plenty to offer if you looked past its faults. Unfortunately with DXHR, I haven't seen or heard anything which indicates this game has similar potential.

Quote Posted by YogSo

Even if Chris already went into this:
That was hardly my point now was it? And did I not mention clearly enough that games lend themselves much better to one particular form? Outcast is an irrelevant example precisely because it allowed you to choose, a luxury DXHR won't afford players (and again, not just for melee takedowns as you seemed to suggest, but augmentations and cover as well).

Also, saying a Jedi Knight game focuses entirely on lightsabers is odd to say the least considering how big a part force powers play throughout the games (no points for guessing which perspective I prefer for that ;)).

Quote Posted by YogSo

First-person melee combat is extremely difficult to implement well, as Dark Messiah developers (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13032) can attest to. A quote from that article (emphasis is mine):

And yet it's the core gameplay of many good games; Chronicles of Riddick, Zeno Clash, Mirror's Edge, you mentioned Dark Messiah, Condemned etc. dare I say it, even Thief had a well thought out, fun and challenging dueling system (granted if you had to use it often you were probably playing the game wrong). Hell, I had zero problem whatsoever with Deus Ex's "basic" melee, and I in fact most enjoy baton- and riot-prodding my way through the game.

Lots of things are hard to get right when attempting to make a great game, but then you have to actually aim that high in the first place.

Quote Posted by YogSo

And that in turn is because it's impossible to the point of infeasibility to make a first-third-person hybrid in which one view doesn't compromise the other, both in terms of time and resources and gameplay itself. Which is why most developers are sensible enough to stick to one perspective and not switch back and forth three hundred million times, and at the very least allow the player to choose.

Quote Posted by YogSo

Regarding the TDS blackjack, again. Look, I don't have any problem with the blackjack mechanics in TDP, TMA or TDM, and I played TDS with The Minimalistic Project after completing the Blue Heron Inn (i.e. the tutorial) in 'vanilla' version and noticing how much the new and severely restricted use of the blackjack sucked. I'm getting tired of repeating myself about this matter, so I will only add that I completely disagree with this argument:

So in other words, you can't refute that this was a consequence of third-person gameplay? Because unlike what you seem to be suggesting, you have yet to make an argument against it, let alone repeat it.

Quote Posted by YogSo

Ha.... what? I'll have some of that herb you're smoking, pls? :)

Like I explained, and you either are unwilling or unable to understand; a consequence of the third-person camera in TDS (which freely rotates around Garrett) is that often the camera itself will be pointing in a different direction than Garrett is, which creates situations where players will actually find it harder to see where they're going to land their blow in relation to the target. I would be extremely surprised if it was not for this reason that IS opted for a visual cue, thereby lobotomising blackjacking.

Rather than refute my point you've chosen to rolleyes ad infinitum, so good luck with that, hopefully while you're at it you will discover a new metaphysical perspective which will bring balance to the force and unite PC and console gaming.

And what I said about not mistaking it for the fact that in TDS every person you blackjack first turns completely and perfectly away from the player if you're approaching from an angle, which is awfully friendly (not to mention telepathic or otherwise preternaturally mindful) but completely and utterly ridiculous and there is no excuse for it whatsoever, was for the purpose of clarity. The fact that none of these nonsensical clumsy mechanics are present in the first two games you can make of what you want.

edit@Ostriig, chris; That's unfortunate, but a natural consequence of multi-platform development (and more specifically, multi-platform laziness).

Quote Posted by René

I'm sorry but I can only agree with ZylonBane on what comes to mind reading this: Fuck. That. Shit.

Ostriig on 19/6/2010 at 16:29

Quote Posted by chris the cynic

[Added:]
* And I may well have missed something, given that Ostriig says that Rene says you can "choose to remain in first person the whole time" which I had not heard.

You haven't missed anything, that's pretty much how it's meant to work. Choosing to remain in first person during gameplay basically translates to not using certain augs, not using close-quarters takedowns, and not engaging the cover system. While I suppose the augs and the takedowns might be achievable enough for those really wanting to stick to a first person perspective, I expect that the lack of leaning will mean that the third-person cover system will be a must for effective stealth gameplay. So while exclusive first-person may be theoretically possible, I think the trade-offs wouldn't make it worthwhile for many of us here. Can't speak for everybody, but at least for me stealth gameplay is a pretty significant part of Deus Ex.

Quote Posted by negativeliberty

edit@Ostriig, chris; That's unfortunate, but a natural consequence of multi-platform development (and more specifically, multi-platform laziness).

Not quite, I don't think that's the cause here for two reasons. First off, apparently there is such a thing as "first person cover" for consoles, as seen in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQin4AaPwJw&feature=player_embedded#!) this video of Medal of Honour: Airbourne on the X360 (I think it was originally linked on the Eidos forums during a similar discussion). If they wanted to provide first person cover functionality on a console controller, this could've been an inspiration. I suspect other options exist, too. Second, I don't think it's an issue of "laziness" either, since leaning is actually quite easy to implement. The camera movement and any relevant animation assets (if any) would be a minor effort. The other technical issue is considering AI behaviour, notably NPCs' ability to accurately detect and subsequently fire on the player when they are only partly out of cover, but I expect some of that would've already been handled for the situation in which the player fires or pokes their head out from cover. I'd really like to get my hands on a recording of that E3 demo they did. Obviously, there would be differences, as modifiers would be easier to apply with a cover system that can be linked to a boolean bInCover type of variable, but I suspect some of the relevant behaviour could be applied to handle leaning. I could be wrong, maybe there are some farther reaching technical implications here, but I can't think of any right now.

Rather, I think the reasons behind EM's decision with third person cover are, first, that it's popular these days and thus familiar with a wide array of gamers, and second, that they indeed wanted to take the opportunity to show Adam off to the player for cinematic value. Another argument against leaning might've been that they didn't want to risk confusing newer players by implementing it in addition to the required cover system. Obviously, I'm not happy about it, but I guess I've had plenty of time to get used to it since we kind of saw it coming since they first announced third person cover for the game.

YogSo on 19/6/2010 at 21:49

@ chris the cynic & negativeliberty:

I first brought Jedi Outcast into the discussion as an example of a third-person perspective melee combat done right, when it seemed that negativeliberty was saying that the Bloodlines melee combat was clumsy because of its third-person perspective. He then ruled out it saying that at least Outcast let you choose between first and third-person perspective. AND my answer to that, in my last post: it was only a semblance of a choice, because the only proper way of successfully fighting with the lightsaber is in third-person mode.

chris, my argument had nothing to do with what you are saying about the animations in Jedi Academy (if IIRC, they not only did force the third-person perspective, I'm pretty sure the developers disabled the first-person entirely when using a lightsaber; but I too would have to check that). And who is saying that you have to change perspective twice everytime you do a melee attack?

_____

(There where other weapons in Jedi Academy? (Checking...) You know, you are right! I had completely forgotten about them. And which were those levels "where you have to take on an imperial base without using the lightsaber, or that other where you can use it all you want but doing so is useless"? I don't remember anything like that. I'm going to check a walkthrough. (...) Oh, yeah, I remember now: the mission where you are captured right at the start and you have to escape from the cell and retrieve your lightsaber. Not one of my favourites of the game, certainly. And I guess the other mission you talk about is the one with the 'unkillable' rancor, but that doesn't count because it's a boss-like puzzle, and you could use the lightsaber (or whatever weapons you brought with you) against the rest of the enemies on that level just fine. But you are right, I take away my comment about Jedi Academy focusing entirely around the lightsaber.)

@ negativeliberty:

I can't refute that the TDS blackjack is the way it is as a direct result of the third-person perspective because I didn't design nor develop the game, so I can't categorically assert which were the real reasons (but I can guess: hand-holding and dumbing down). However, what I can do is refute your arguments:

a) It can't possibly be connected with judging when Garrett is in range, because in third-person perspective it's crystal clear that if Garrett is next to an NPC, then HE IS IN RANGE. For God's sake, it's the third time I say this.

b) It can't possibly be related to "lining up" the hit, because it's as easy to see if the NPC is facing the other way in third-person as is in first-person. Plus, in earlier games, the 'attack vector' was never so constricting as to force Garrett to be exactly aligned with the back of the NPC, so what is the reason for changing that? Again, it can't be because of the third-person perspective, because leaving aside camera control issues, if the player is dumb enough as to rotate the camera in a way that he/she can't see what is directly in front of Garrett... well, that is not the game's perspective fault, is it? He/she would probably be dumb enough as to play in first-person perspective looking to the ceiling or to Garrett's feet...

(As I already said, I didn't play much of 'vanilla' TDS before installing The Minimalistic Project, so I didn't understand your comment about the NPCs gallantly rotating themselves to make Garrett's life easier... That is completely awful. And unnecessary! And another hint that the real problem with TDS is that Ion Storm fucked it up big time. In a properly animated third-person perspective game that wouldn't have happened --- A little digression related to this: Have you seen any (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-tron-evolution/700305) gameplay videos of the new TRON: Evolution game? It's a TPP action-adventure, and the character has a roll-on-landing animation in which he doesn't move forward at all! That's another example of an awful animation which has nothing to do with the camera perspective and all to do with the animators' skills/budget/lazyness.)

To tell you the truth, I'm very tired of this argument and I can't see either of us convincing the other one. You think Ion Storm "lobotomized" the blackjack because of the third-person perspective, I think they could have implemented the old blackjack in third-person perspective if that would've been their original intention, but they had other plans regarding "accessibility". So, in the absence of a direct answer from one of the developers (or some article on this matter) I think we should juts let it be for the moment.

Papy on 20/6/2010 at 01:50

Quote Posted by Ostriig

I expect that the lack of leaning will mean that the third-person cover system will be a must for effective stealth gameplay.

I'm not sure I understand the relationship between leaning and stealth. Considering our natural ability to easily spot faces and eyes, I always thought the real advantage of leaning was that it allowed the player to shoot at things while exposing less of his body. I was a stealth player while playing Deus Ex, but I almost never used the leaning function. It didn't make much sense to me that leaning would make me invisible.