 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
...that slow player movement can be traced to the limitations of consoles...helps to avoid what would be an incredibly awkward aiming system on a console.
I don't think this is the case at all. Developers wanted real-world, realistically scaled environments, and so they slowed the player down, so he actually feels grounded in that world. Tiny FOV also probably traces back to limited console hardware processing power Nope, again it was for realism. People don't see in fisheye IRL. The push to create a more "realistic" shooter had nothing to do with consoles - the same thing would have happened on PC if consoles were never invented. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of realism in games at all. Most of the time it involves deliberately compromising some of the fun, and I don't really get the logic behind that. Weapon limit Yeah that might be more console-driven. Lack of buttons and all. Sounds logical. Plot/cutscenes - hides lack of gameplay brought about by console hardware limitations (pretty graphics! Yeah!) Not sure about this. Cinematics are usually expensive as shit. It's usually easier to generate 10 mins of gameplay that it is to make a 10 minute cinematic. I would say the cutscenes are shit. Mostly just a few NPC's talking in a room in a ship etc.
I dunno, Halo has a pretty ridiculous jump height (and also feels super damn floaty). And if a super soldier can jump that high why not be able to run pretty fast too? There's a logical disconnect there that I can't reconcile.
As for tiny FOV - sure we don't see all that fisheye as, say, some extreme QuakeWorld configs. But then there are some incredibly simple things that could be done to make the game more 'realistic' like 10 minutes of shit gameplay = 10 minutes of shit gameplay. We could discuss HalfLife 2 gameplay/cutscenes vs Call of Duty gameplay/cutscenes - it would be pretty interesting actually. Weapon limit Yeah that might be more console-driven. Lack of buttons and all. Sounds logical. I'm glad that admist the mudslinging and name calling of the Thinly Veiled thread that some funcers are still able to hold a serious and honest tone while having disag... HEY WAIT A MINUTE!!! I don't think it's entirely based around redesigning the FPS for consoles. But I think it had more of an impact than just the weapon limit thing. At the end of the day, you couldn't play a really fast game of Doom 2 or Painkiller on a pad. You just can't. You can't play Quakeworld on a pad either. Games have to be slower to make up for this weakness.
The other alternative is to have a very aggressive auto-aim but such a feature is even more looked down on :p FoV is getting better due to widescreen, but in CoD the FoV is something like 65... I find it pretty hilarious to have such a zoomed view AND have ironsighting to zoom further :( re: FOV and consoles, i'm pretty sure i recall hearing exactly what zwif said from some dev interview.
dunno, here's FP link: http://www.fileplanet.com/dl.aspx?/planetquake/underworld/sm82.zip
Errrr. I just tested by waving my hands either side of my head. I think my FOV for perception is about 160', admittedly we don't focus on the fringes, only perceive motion. 90 for general focus / vision would seem about right.
Hope you're okay. Just watching the news. Giant walls of water and debris carrying houses, cars, and burning buildings are usually pretty worrying...
But then there are some incredibly simple things that could be done to make the game more 'realistic' like
Isn't that the whole point of the "aim-down-sights" thing that most FPS's do nowadays? So it feels like you're aiming down the sights instead of just firing from the hip, Clint Eastward-style, all the time? Yeah, hope everything's good than.
Anyone else out there? Apparently a tsunami will hit here at 5pm. Dev videos are incredibly carefully vetted. There is a script provided by the publishers.
I did one recently that was rejected, I suspect, for not being cool enough. Isn't that the whole point of the "aim-down-sights" thing that most FPS's do nowadays? So it feels like you're aiming down the sights instead of just firing from the hip, Clint Eastward-style, all the time?
I meant why is that still there at all ? Try positioning your hands so that you get the same position as a character in an fps -you basically have to tie your hand to your shoulder to get something like that. Why not just model the rest of the arm pointing straight out? That's my rant against the realism of FPSes. Check out the way you see the players arms in this game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtB_zqysPBA&playnext=1&list=PL0BACBD98FC8C199B Anyone remember it? I remember thinking it was cool, but not having a good enough PC to run it smooth. I think the standard gun position in FPS games is fine, realistic or not. You've got to balance a few factors
"Does it look cool?" (yes) "Does it get in the way of the view?" (no) "Is it completely realistic?" should be way down the list. As for aim-down-sights (ADS), I can take it or leave it, depending on the game really. It's a good mechanic if it's in there for a reason, i.e. if a game is mostly long range combat (e.g. CoD) having ADS on every gun probably makes sense; for something more corridory, maybe you only need ADS on one or two rifle-type weapons, if you need it at all. this has always confused me in shooters.
the games ADS shows up in have gun accuracy. and that is represented by that dynamic expanding crosshair. but when you use ADS, the crosshair goes away, so i've never really understood-- is there some advantage to using it? does it reduce accuracy degredation? it's just strange and seems redundant when you've got the dynamic crosshair.
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2025 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |