jtbalogh on 6/12/2013 at 05:13
Contextual architecture, contextual buttons, and contextual animation are different technologies, so let's not confuse the three.
Contextual architecture has been with us in the thief games and hopefully we will advocate for it in the future (mantling used ledges and not levitate, jumping used floors and fall through the world, rope arrow used wood and not arbitrary marks, swimming used water and never flying, etc). If mantling uses the architecture system of any ledge, then be consistent to use jumping, leaning, etc with the architecture system of any floor, consistent to use rope arrows with the architecture system of any wood, and so on. However, EM loses credibility with thief 4 by changing too many things if jumping, leaning, etc stop responding to the floor and focuses on architecture edges, rope arrow responding to architecture hotspots, swimming never responds to architecture, and so on.
Contextual buttons are a second contextual layer on top of the architecture. They still respond to the contextual architecture, but the likelyhood is not done well or not all of the architecture. For example, T1, T2, TDS and thief 4 have been attempting to perfect the feature with jump and mantle on one button and keep roleplaying believable. However, we have not been convinced yet that EM is clever enough to start showing off the technology on a multitude of other buttons.
Contextual animation (like zombie hands) could have been EM's amazing third contextual layer on top of the architecture and buttons. The zombie hands would reach out to architecture at different distances after we press a button without pulling us in. The zombie hands would not need to reach out at all if no architecture was nearby. This would prepetuate free-movement and everyone gets all technologies. However, EM was not smart enough to impress us but convinced themselves to enjoy being slotted into one groove of the world with zombie hands of the same boring fixed distance and angle in crouching, jumping, peaking, opening doors, lockpicking, mantling, etc.
Quote Posted by demagogue
For the record though, one of the improvements I liked in Darkmod was making mantling a separate key just so you didn't have to use contextual mantling if there was a risk of failing & having the player stamp the floor. So the mantling analogy still isn't the most convincing to me.
Actually, both the key and separate key still use contextual architecture. We can not press either key in the middle of a room to levitate onto some invisible ledge. You would be correct about the contextual button since optional with the separate key now and has shown advantages without the second contextual layer.
Mantling is unlike other movements and can not be justification to change other movements.
Responding to the destination? Mantling was accepted to check the ledge above if possible to reach and stand on. Jumping, leaning, etc only ever cared where your feet were first planted and never needed the destination even if deadly. However, thief 4 somehow seems to justify all movement needs to check the destination now like mantling does.
Vae on 6/12/2013 at 10:02
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Vae, your creative faculty seems unusually fragile.
There isn't any fragility...it just went above your head...Fortunately, jtbalogh is able to understand.
jay pettitt on 6/12/2013 at 12:28
Err nope. The point is to be creative and playful with the systems the game does provide. Not throw your toys out the pram because the systems aren't the ones you wanted. That's just not being creative and playful.
In LGS era Thief you could jump in a given situation. Let's give that 1 point. In EM era Thief you either jump (1 point) or swoop (1 point) in a given situation. OBJECTIVELY, in a given situation both games score 1 point. Your options for creative play are not being objectively reduced.
SubJeff on 6/12/2013 at 21:48
You know I hate Vae's hyperbole, right?
But in this case you're so wrong I think you've outdone yourself. Which is just incredible.
jay pettitt on 7/12/2013 at 02:43
Uh huh. Though it is difficult to know why I should care about what you think unless you care to try and say what it is you think is wrong.
SubJeff on 7/12/2013 at 03:31
Because you're making up an arbitrary points system and then trying to tell us that using that system, which makes no sense in the first place, you can prove that the game has some objective feature.
The entire thing is nonsense.
jay pettitt on 7/12/2013 at 04:42
Then come up with a better points system. If you want to argue that a jump or a swoop in T4 will won't be similar for supporting creative play than a jump in T2 then lets hear your justification for that.
Because the thing is, I'm very definitely not arguing that a game has an objective feature. I'm refuting an argument (read the stuff I'm replying to for context) that T2 style controls are in some fundamental way 'objcetively' better for supporting creative play than T4's contextual controls. An argument that appealed to objectivity, but didn't actually offer up any quantification at all.
And I'm trying to be generous here. Don't dismiss out of hand my attempt at quantifying the argument when you've made no effort yourself. Because the ball is in your court. If you and Vae want to argue that T4's contextual controls are poor, the burden of evidence is with you. Don't just sit there saying 'that's wrong' because you don't like it. Make your argument better. If you can.
SubJeff on 7/12/2013 at 05:10
I've discussed this many times before and I don't need a points system.
Contextual movements that enforce an action where previously they did not, such as the result of pressing jump in T2 vs T4 where swoop engages instead of jump, is potentially choosing the player action without the player's explicit choice.
This is therefore potentially a. limiting choice and/or b. shifting the player/simulated skill divide towards simulated.
Mofleaker on 7/12/2013 at 05:12
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
In LGS era Thief you could jump in a given situation. Let's give that 1 point. In EM era Thief you either jump (1 point) or swoop (1 point) in a given situation. OBJECTIVELY, in a given situation both games score 1 point. Your options for creative play are
not being objectively reduced.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. The fact that I can also swoop at any time doesn't justify contextual jumping in any way. At any given time in Thief 2 I can pull out a fire arrow and fire it straight at my feet, therefore Thief 2 gets 1 point in a given situation. What?
Can you explain to me why you think contextual jumping has the same potential for freedom as free form jumping? It's like being told a button prompt has the same freedom as a real gameplay mechanic. In fact, that's exactly what it is.
yxlplig on 7/12/2013 at 09:56
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Then come up with a better points system. If you want to argue that a jump or a swoop in T4 will won't be similar for supporting creative play than a jump in T2 then lets hear your justification for that.
Because the thing is, I'm very definitely
not arguing that a game has an objective feature. I'm refuting an argument (read the stuff I'm replying to for context) that T2 style controls are in some fundamental way 'objcetively' better for supporting creative play than T4's contextual controls. An argument that appealed to objectivity, but didn't actually offer up any quantification at all.
And I'm trying to be generous here. Don't dismiss out of hand my attempt at quantifying the argument when you've made no effort yourself. Because the ball is in your court. If you and Vae want to argue that T4's contextual controls are poor, the burden of evidence is with you. Don't just sit there saying 'that's wrong' because you don't like it. Make your argument better. If you can.
I think you're right that we've been doing a poor job of defending our position. That doesn't really bother me too much as I'm more concerned about enjoying the videogames I play, not explaining why I enjoy them, but for the sake of the argument we really should be trying harder.
What about scenarios that require leaning but there's no wall to perform a contextual action on. I'm mainly thinking about vertical spaces. How can they make a contextual animation for leaning and looking down a staircase with no railiings? What about if you're on top of a mezzanine and there's a guard underneath that you can't see without leaning over the edge. Or a tower with big windows and you want to look up at someone directly above you. The level designer has to handcraft every conceivable hotspot for leaning. The systems based approach in Thief 1-2 could be considered better because you're only restricted by game mechanics, not level designer thoroughness.
If you go and play about a dozen FMs you will probably find a lot of situations where you feel the need to lean with no walls nearby. Those were all examples from FMs I played recently. Yeah, maybe contextual controls can support similar levels of creative play, but you're trusting the people making the game to be completely on top of their game. Even if they pull it off, what does the end user gain if they succeed? Seeing viewmodels touch objects?
