Karkianman on 5/3/2005 at 21:48
Quote Posted by Twist
The polarizing nature of these design decisions indicates their fundamental flaws.
Two years ago, nobody debated frob styles. Nobody debated player control and feel in Thief. Nobody debated the virtues of playing in third-person.
Now these three topics polarize the community and create devout followers on opposite sides of each issue (and I recognize some issues are less evenly divided than others).
Regardless of which side you choose in each of these matters, the fact that choosing sides even exists represents some poor design decisions.
wow, or it could be that the 3rd game is slightly different from the first 2, and the first 2 didnt have polarizations, because there was only one side :rolleyes:
Mandrake on 5/3/2005 at 22:12
Quote Posted by Karkianman
wow, or it could be that the 3rd game is slightly different from the first 2, and the first 2 didnt have polarizations, because there was only one side :rolleyes:
Exactly what I was planning to say :cheeky:
I've mentioned before but when I first played Thief1 a few years ago (comming from a Quake1 background) I thought the player movement physics of THAT game were clumsy and wonky :laff:
Compared to FPS's of the time, the viewport was much higher than normal (tall skinny player models) the movement speed was much slower, also contrary to what people here are saying, the player view in TDP and T2 *does* lurch a little with the footsteps, (compared to FPS's where you glide on rails) but in a slightly different way - the head position bobs up and down a little, and also tilts left and right slightly with each step.
Jumping and mantling are also pretty strange compared to most games....but eventually I got used to it and now like it. (Apart from mantling and ladder climbing, which are both buggy and cumbersome sometimes)
But I also (mostly) like the movement of TDS too. Mantling is much improved, and the "head cam" idea DOES work for me. The subtle lurching of the view feels realistic. The 1st person view when mantling also seems realistic, for example mantling onto the balcony on the first hammerite mission in 1st person feels like you're really doing it, rather than just an artificial sliding up then forward movement of the first two games.
What I DONT like though, is the robo-hips where you can't maneuvere on a narrow beam without falling off all the time, and the side stepping, which is useless and pointless compared to the lean in the first two games.
I never use the sidestep, any time I would have used lean in the first two games I use the third person view in TDS.
Raen on 6/3/2005 at 02:08
Back on topic: someone should make a DX inspired mod with the T3 tools. Though not all of the script conditions/actions made their way from DX2 to T3, I bet there are enough there to do everything you need to do.
The Nay-Sayer on 7/3/2005 at 01:07
Quote Posted by Raen
Back on topic: someone should make a DX inspired mod with the T3 tools. Though not all of the script conditions/actions made their way from DX2 to T3, I bet there are enough there to do everything you need to do.
Source seems like an INFINITELY more appropriate engine for making a DX mod. If you've played Vampire Bloodlines you'd probably agree since alot of the DX mechanics are working in that game.
Harwin on 7/3/2005 at 19:02
Quote Posted by Twist
The polarizing nature of these design decisions indicates their fundamental flaws.
Two years ago, nobody debated frob styles. Nobody debated player control and feel in Thief. Nobody debated the virtues of playing in third-person.
Now these three topics polarize the community and create devout followers on opposite sides of each issue (and I recognize some issues are less evenly divided than others).
Regardless of which side you choose in each of these matters, the fact that choosing sides even exists represents some poor design decisions.
Personally I found it difficult to identify junk vs. loot sometimes in T1 and T2. When I found out T3 had loot glint (I was not on the T3 team except for general engine work and helping it ship at the end) I was thrilled. Some people had a problem with it, we attempted to fix that problem. I'm generally happy with that solution.
Body awareness and first person?
Question: Suppose we did all real-time dynamic lighting, and had the guards cast shadows etc... and the player didn't? A lot of games go that route, but they aren't "all about shadows" the way Thief is. So they knew they needed to have the player have a body so it could cast a shadow. And if it casts a shadow, you had better be able to see it (I remember people on the forums complaining that in T1 and T2 you COULDN'T see yourself) Once you've given the player a body that you can look down and see... it has to animate properly, and you have to tie the camera to that animation.
So, there's a justification for it without even mentioning 3rd person.
I'm not discussing whether loot glint or body awareness were the best solutions, or whether they could have been done better, just providing some insight into why decisions like that get made. There's a problem we're trying to solve, and we come up with a solution. In both cases, the game addresses the problems we are trying to solve, although inevitably, any design decision that solves one problem is going to cause consternation for others.
ZylonBane on 7/3/2005 at 19:28
Quote Posted by Harwin
Once you've given the player a body that you can look down and see... it has to animate properly, and you have to tie the camera to that animation.
But once animation issues start driving what the player can do, the cart has officially been put before the horse. TDS gives the player less flexibility in lockpicking and ladder-climbing precisely because of (I'm assuming) the need to accurately animate the body model.
Not a good trade, IMHO.
Harwin on 7/3/2005 at 20:51
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
But once animation issues start driving what the player can do, the cart has officially been put before the horse. TDS gives the player less flexibility in lockpicking and ladder-climbing precisely because of (I'm assuming) the need to accurately animate the body model.
Not a good trade, IMHO.
And that's where design decisions can't always win. There is always a tradeoff. Sometimes the tradeoff is obvious, sometimes it isn't. The tradeoff is more obvious here because you have the previous 2 games to which to compare it. You got consistent self-animation and the chance to see your own shadow (as well as play in third person smoothly... which some people like and some people don't). It's our job to pick the side of the tradeoff that works better with the audience and the game. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. My only point in these posts is to try to expose the tradeoff as I see it, bearing in mind that I may be forgetting other advantages (or disadvantages) of the decision.
Twist on 7/3/2005 at 21:04
I appreciate your taking the time to provide rational responses to my sometimes caustic (but honest) comments.
Was it body awareness, specifically, that prevented the use of a standard collision cylinder with model and animations attached to it for first-person control and feel?
You could certainly still have a player shadow using that old tried and true method. Plenty of games have also used this method for 3rd person control.
So was it body awareness, and not the third-person option, that dictated the viewport be attached to the player model rather than a collision cylinder? Is the body awareness what we have to blame for (what many of us perceive as) wonky player control?
Edit: Krypt's post above pretty much answers these questions, I guess. It's a shame body awareness couldn't be achieved with some other method. But I appreciate the team wasn't exactly working with complete freedom. ;)
Thirith on 7/3/2005 at 21:46
Quote Posted by The Nay-Sayer
Source seems like an INFINITELY more appropriate engine for making a DX mod. If you've played Vampire Bloodlines you'd probably agree since alot of the DX mechanics are working in that game.
I don't know how much of it is the engine or its implementation, but I thought that combat in Bloodlines was rather weak and fairly wonky. Personally I think that the concept behind Bloodlines is marred by its execution. The game has a lot of potential, but it's got some serious flaws - IMO more serious than those of TDS.
