Posted 9:34pm on Tue 15 February 2011
- Posts: 6,541
Why do we still accept the fact that throughout most First Person Shooters our character will not actually interact properly with the environment. Halo Reach, Call of Duty, Half-Life, all fantastic games, but why when I press a button, or activate something am I expected to suspend my disbelief enough that I'll be fine with the notion that my character doesn't have to actually press it with his hand.
Half-Life is the worst offender when it comes to what I'm talking about. I remember back to when I first got into the hover-craft, or more aptly, slid into the hover-craft. Gordon Freeman didn't climb into the vehicle the way a real person would, he just glided smoothly into position.
I'm sick of FPS' not moving on past the days of Doom and Duke Nukem 3D. I should be seeing the character I'm controlling interacting with things, I should feel as though it really is a first person view of a real person, as opposed to a floating camera with arms sticking out of it. One of the first things I do in an FPS is look down to see if my legs are there, and all too often they're not, or they look ridiculous.
I suppose what I want is to really feel some weight, some movement when I walk. I don't want to slide around the floor from place to place. i want to be the character the developers are trying to convince me I'm controlling.
Say what you will about Killzone, from what I've played it does the best job I've seen in making me feel like a real person. The guns feel heavy, I look at my gun when I reload, I move my arms in a believable way when I run. These whould be fundamental things, but are lacking in so many triple A releases.
Posted 9:42pm on Tue 15 February 2011
- Posts: 8,039
The only time you'll notice things like that is if you're looking for them, or if the game isn't engaging enough. I couldn't tell you with any certainty which FPS protagonists use their arms to push buttons, because I don't care, and because it's not integral to the experience.
It's the same argument as suspending disbelief to account for any number of reasons why FPS aren't realistic. Being able to carry a dozen guns at a time, having guns that shoot portals and toilets, magical bulletproof bubbles, alien invasions, regenerative health, invincible AI allies... where do you draw the line?
Posted 9:45pm on Tue 15 February 2011
- Posts: 2,931
I don't really notice thing like that. It's not important to me, so I don't look for it. I'm usually too busy enjoying the game to think "hey where the hell are his hands??"
If I wanted to see the character I was playing i would play a third-person shooter.
Posted 9:50pm on Tue 15 February 2011
- Posts: 8,195
I guess it comes down to the experience the developer intends on delivering. I mean Killzone 2, except the world it is set in and it's events is based on realism, but then again so is Crysis 2. All down to the little details that we the gamers don't think about like foliage and more recently Naughty Dog have created virtual oxygen and incorporated into Uncharted 3 just so that the fire would burn realistically. But we don't take notice of it.
My point being is that some developers go into a whole level of detail that we don't even realise and appreciate and it's some areas of the game i.e. pressing a button that people may have a gripe with, which i guess is understandable but still it's nothing major, i mean we do it in real life are you that bothered that a virtual character doesn't do it? (not to sound mean or anything)
I'm a perfectionist, naturally, so i would go that extra mile just to get that animation but only if i could.
Posted 10:34pm on Tue 15 February 2011
- Posts: 3,049
I too am a bit fuzzled by this. Most of the FPS I see nowadays don't go to the lengths of first person immersion that I think they could if they really tried. True, being able to see your characters body and seeing it interact with the world doesn't make or break a game, but it's one step closer to making me believe I'm actually in a living, breathing world that works and operates like it should.
Despite some faults in the game, Dark Messiah: Might & Magic I believe accomplished this better than any other game I've ever played in the first person perspective. Everything from climbing up ropes, turning a crank wheel, climbing a ladder, shooting a bow, swinging a sword, etc. felt quite real and in person. Looking down your entire body is viable from the shoulder downward, and changing your outfits and such even affected its appearance as well. The head bobbing, pain effects, and shield implementation also helped.
Crysis was another that allowed you to do everything with your entire body (Insert sexual reference here); but it wasn't nearly as well implemented as in DM.
I suppose we can just be hopeful for the future. Every year I think developers get better and better at all types of games. Who knows what FPS will be like in 10, or even 5 years.
Posted 11:39pm on Tue 15 February 2011
I'm with you on this one James. I've always been a believer that the little touches can have a big impact on a game and a lot of shooters always miss out on them. But, rightly or wrongly COD is the standard bearer of FPS games this gen so if we really want to see these things implemented in other games we may hope they are in the next COD. Well, you can always hope...
Posted 8:09am on Wed 16 February 2011
- Posts: 6,541
Thanks man, my argument isn't so much about the games not being 'realistic'. It's more a case that if considering we are now capable of such finesse and little touches, why aren't we doing it? Why is it still so archaic?
We shouldn't just okay with the fact it doesn't happen, we should be wanting advances in things such as this.
Posted 9:37am on Wed 16 February 2011
- Posts: 2,751
I can see where you are coming from, and I have on occasion witnessed animations (or lack there of) which make me wonder why more time and effort didn't go into them, but all in all it doesn't bother me too much.
Detail is a great strength of any title and I agree that when the effort is put in we may appreciate the authenticity a bit more but if a lack of these particular details or actions does not detract from the enjoyment of the game, then few people will bother to measure the inconsistancies.
If there is anything about what you're saying that truly irks me it is the 'floating' character movement. Weight is an essential requirement of how a FPS character is represented in the environment, particularly when other factors such as bullet drop and vehicle gameplay are present.
Truth is that the line between fantasy and reality has to be blurred somewhat to make it an enjoyable experience. If this means there is a brief moment between when I'm standing on the ground and getting into a tank that the game neglects to show me climbing up, undoing the hatch and sliding down into the turret then I can live with that.
I agree with your comments on Killzone. That game (2) - (and what I've played of the KZ3 multi) does a good job of adding weight to the characters and the environment which they inhabit. So much so that I felt very vulnerable all the time which is the way it should be...
Posted 10:06am on Wed 16 February 2011
- Posts: 4,258
Had I quick breeze though everyone's post and surprised no one talked about Mirrors Edge. YOU had feet and arms, when you run into a wall she would put her hands up to stop her self, and I'm dam sure she pushed buttons with her hands. I know some people don't see it as a FPS but I think its a great marker for what others can do.
Many years ago I remember a game on my P166 PC in which you controlld a women in a Jurassic park type FPS. To pick stuff up you had to push a key to make her reach her arm out, then with the mouse you had to wave her arm about to pick things up. Problem was you could pick up a gun and instead of turning it round you picked it up in what ever orientation it was laying in. So you could pick it up upside-down, or facing you.
Also to see how much health you had you would look down at your breasts too see if a tattoo of a heart was full or near empty.
To be completely honest though I really don't mind the way FPS are. It doesn't take me away from the game and I still enjoy them
Posted 3:20pm on Wed 16 February 2011
- Posts: 6,541
Largely the case seems to be that people don't mind the lack of animations or weight, but is that because we're now so used to it? Dazzadavie brings up Mirrors Edge, and from what I've played it is a great example of what I'd like to see more of. However, in my brief time with the game, the lack of peripheral view or awareness of what was behind me did seem to inhibit my performance slightly, and I think this was largely due to the fact that I wasn't used to the controls. I'm so used to swinging around like (I know I keep using this metaphor) a floating camera, that it was strange to be confined the only the natural sight of a first person view.
I don't like the fact that we're all so accustomed to the idea that when we press a button we don't see our hands, or when we run we don't move in a believable manner. I feel as though we should be striving for these things. If we all just keep on saying :I'm alright with the way things are" then how are we ever going to move on, or technologically advance?
Sure, I'm fine with my current iPod, but if everyone just said "it's alright, let's leave it" then the whole industry would be stagnant. It'd be so much cooler if when I was running there was the danger of tripping up if I went too fast or was being silly with the controls, or when I pull a lever I see my hand doing the work. C'mon guys, expect more from developers, don't just decide everything's fine the way it is.