~

[Deleted member 11480]

-

 

[racofer]

But how do I aim?

 

[racofer]

Oh, ok. If I get my J key I think it's actually p.good specially if the game has turn based combat with pause.

 

[zeitgeist]

Sounds like Bloodnet.

 

[Antihero]

It could get pretty annoying with either having to load a new screen every dozen steps or basically become a side-scroller.

Perhaps less so if there's more to do, better sceneries, and you spend more time at each location (like some adventure game where you type out commands or click on everything in the environment), but I don't think it's inherently better than the alternatives, just more suited to a certain type of game.

 

[Elhoim]

It could get pretty annoying with either having to load a new screen every dozen steps or basically become a side-scroller.

Not really, it can be done pretty seamlessly, even in a 3D game.

 

[mondblut]

Because a good RPG is normally supposed to represent a fucking *world*, not 5 rooms. Good luck hand-drawing 100000000000000000 screens.

 

[Antihero]

It could get pretty annoying with either having to load a new screen every dozen steps or basically become a side-scroller.

Not really, it can be done pretty seamlessly, even in a 3D game.

Then it's just a side-scroller, or a scroller of some nature - at which point it might just be better to drop it - or did you mean something else? Even if you just keep the perspective, it's still going to feel pretty cramped - like an old first person perspective RPG, only you get to control yourself in the third person. Pretty sure older RPG games have done something similar to that, even if not the exact same perspective - like Neuromancer on the C64/DOS comes to mind. Probably better examples out there.

 

[Black Cat]

As someone did already mention, Bloodnet used such system, up to fighting the battles in the same view. Quest for Glory did, too, though with the battles on a separate screen. Though both can be seen more as hybrids than pure role playing games, I guess.

 

[Fowyr]

Sounds like Bloodnet.

Looks like someone doesn't return medical database.

 

[bhlaab]

Good luck hand-drawing 100000000000000000 screens.

 

[denizsi]

YES, I've also been thinking of this a lot lately. I'm very distraught that games are reduced to this silly and utterly unimaginative concept of a faux-simulation using a single model. Who the fuck enjoys seeing the neck or the butt of a character and the world around in the exact same view point for 30+ hours? How the fuck is that any fun, what kind of fucked up monotonous understanding of a game is that?

The more game technologies become flexible, the more monolithically unremarkable they get. I'd very much appreciate a game that switched between sidescrolling, all kinds of dynamic and preset 3D angles and even first person if the game is made to look the part in first person. Fixed angles have taken out a substantial part of the joys of gaming.

 

[DraQ]

YES, I've also been thinking of this a lot lately. I'm very distraught that games are reduced to this silly and utterly unimaginative concept of a faux-simulation using a single model. Who the fuck enjoys seeing the neck or the butt of a character and the world around in the exact same view point for 30+ hours?

Those who prefer responsiveness and informativeness in their perspective, rather than artfaggotry, obviously.

For a conventional adventure, rarely requiring either fast and precise response or unobstructed view of locale explored or coordinated tactical response, and having relatively few locations, that can have their camera angles scripted individually fancy-shmancy camera might be an option.

For an action game*, aRPG, exploration centric RPG, tactical RPG, or any game with large gameworld, especially if it includes random generation, it's just somewhere between shit and not happening.

*) Yes, I know it's used, but it's still shit.
I consider consolish survival horrors barely playable for this reason, and almost ragequit LoK:Defiance quite a few times due to its retarded artsy-fartsy camera interfering with my controls in mid-jump.

 

[JarlFrank]

I approve. It would be fucking awesome to have an adventure-RPG hybrid that works like the previously mentioned Bloodnet.

Adventure-RPG hybrid is the keyword here, though. For a pure RPG it doesn't make that much sense to use this perspective. For a hybrid, it's perfect.

 

[DraQ]

I approve. It would be fucking awesome to have an adventure-RPG hybrid that works like the previously mentioned Bloodnet.

Adventure-RPG hybrid is the keyword here, though. For a pure RPG it doesn't make that much sense to use this perspective. For a hybrid, it's perfect.

If it's more along the lines of Adventure with RPG elements, sure.

RPG with adventure elements, is pretty much just an RPG, whether the adventure elements are puzzles, creative quest solutions or PS:T-esque storyfaggotry we all know and love.
<- this much.

 

[JarlFrank]

Yeah, by hybrid I meant something like Quest for Glory. Basically an adventure game with multiple paths/solutions that are based on your class/stats and some combat encounters, which are not the focus of the game however.

Making this adventure game semi-nonlinear, that is with branching paths like King's Quest VI, would make it into quite the awesome hybrid. And anyway, if there's any genre that lends itself perfectly to getting some RPG elements injected, it's the adventure game, especially the King's Quest style game. It's a travesty that QfG is the only hybrid of that kind, really.

 

[Shemar]

If a game is using an actual 3D engine it makes absolutely no sense to lock the camera angle. Just give lots of options and let the player use the camera angle they like. First person, third person, isometric (which is not actually isometric, the term just stuck from when the games were 2D) and everything in between. Games like NWN2 and DA:O let the player choose their camera angle (DA:O is still pretty limited for my tastes, it could use more zooming out).

As for games using a 2D engine, I am a big fan of the isometric (which in this case is actually isometric) tile based view. Because like somebody else said, if you don't use tiles, good luck hand drawing all the screens it would take for even a relatively small RPG. I don't see any advantages in using anything different.

 

[denizsi]

Duh, hand drawing hasn't been around for quite some fucking time. Possibly 9/10 games had pre-rendered images of 3D scenes and yet people keep mentioning hang drawing and even IE games in the same sentence.

Those who prefer responsiveness and informativeness in their perspective, rather than artfaggotry, obviously.

And please explain how locking onto the butt or the neck of your characters have provided have provided responsiveness and informativeness in the past? Anything that couldn't be otherwise done at least as good if not better with smart design?

Also I'm lost on the difference between RPGs with adventure elements (your typical RPG) and adventures with RPG elements (duh, your typical RPG again?). What are these RPG elements in adventure games that are worth mentioning as extras over adventure games without the RPG elements? Where is the line crossed where either one stops being itself and becomes the other one?

 

[DraQ]

Those who prefer responsiveness and informativeness in their perspective, rather than artfaggotry, obviously.

And please explain how locking onto the butt or the neck of your characters have provided have provided responsiveness and informativeness in the past?

It provides consistent view of the environment relative to your character. In case of my beloved FPP I could also add "unobstructed".

You also have perspectives like 2D overhead, 2D isometric and 3D free-rotating and zooming cam, that all provide good tactical overview a camera *locked* onto some arbitrary point in space might fail to provide.

All the perspectives mentioned also have distinct advantages of:
a) working well in large, continuous, often complex environments.
b) not requiring camera position to be arbitrarily defined in all possible cases.

What advantages, apart from "it looks cool and makes entire game look sort of like a lengthy cutscene" does adventure cam have anyway?

Also I'm lost on the difference between RPGs with adventure elements (your typical RPG) and adventures with RPG elements (duh, your typical RPG again?). What are these RPG elements in adventure games that are worth mentioning as extras over adventure games without the RPG elements? Where is the line crossed where either one stops being itself and becomes the other one?

Well, I'd say that the amount of battles is what differentiates them, but that could spark some "hence the fact that PS:T isn't an RPG", which would certainly derail the thread.

So, probably the amount of stats check. and battles.

I'd say it's simply relative lack of non-scripted content.

 

[KalosKagathos]

Also, the game could be in 2D, which pleases me a lot and it’s not that expensive.

Unless your game is in the glorious 320x240, I can assure you that 3D will be the cheaper option, provided you don't have a slave army of artists and animators eager to work for leftovers from the master's table locked in your basement. High resolution 2D is very, very costly, which is why most developers moved away from it. There's a reason why most 2D games these days either come out on handhelds (low resolution), or are fighting games (limited number of characters and backgrounds).

 

[denizsi]

Those who prefer responsiveness and informativeness in their perspective, rather than artfaggotry, obviously.

And please explain how locking onto the butt or the neck of your characters have provided have provided responsiveness and informativeness in the past?

It provides consistent view of the environment relative to your character. In case of my beloved FPP I could also add "unobstructed".

You also have perspectives like 2D overhead, 2D isometric and 3D free-rotating and zooming cam, that all provide good tactical overview a camera *locked* onto some arbitrary point in space might fail to provide.

All the perspectives mentioned also have distinct advantages of:
a) working well in large, continuous, often complex environments.
b) not requiring camera position to be arbitrarily defined in all possible cases.

Explain why consistency in mere viewpoint is inherently better. Is it more fun? Does it appeal better to senses and creating memorable moments? Is gaming chiefly about simulationism? Obstruction of view depends on the design and so are (a) and (b). It is possible to have dynamic camera angles providing that adventure look. It's still more work than simply adding a fixed trail camera but it's different than setting up hundreds of fixed scenes with limited view range. We aren't talking about 2D games here any more. There isn't even any point bringing up these points with 3D now.

What advantages, apart from "it looks cool and makes entire game look sort of like a lengthy cutscene" does adventure cam have anyway?

That it's utterly boring and unimaginative? That games are meant to be fun, not exclusive pseudo-simulations? Unless of course you consider seeing your characters' butts and necks all the time fun and inspiring... For that purpose, I prefer erotic videos. And are you so biased against cutscenes now because mainstream games are shifting towards passive cutscenes?

Anyway I'm just bored with the basic game design mentality, which is:
1. construct 3D environment
2. add fuzzle to kill and ding to get
3. attach a camera
voila! It's a game! Oh how so stimulating!

 

[DraQ]

Explain why consistency in mere viewpoint is inherently better.

For the exact same reason why it is better to not have interface elements that change colour, shape and location on the screen randomly.

Obstruction of view depends on the design and so are (a) and (b).

Yeah, designing stuff that actually matters around fantastic-spastic cinematic camera is just so reasonable.

It is possible to have dynamic camera angles providing that adventure look. It's still more work than simply adding a fixed trail camera but it's different than setting up hundreds of fixed scenes with limited view range. We aren't talking about 2D games here any more. There isn't even any point bringing up these points with 3D now.

So, what are the other options?
Either you define camera work explicitly, which requires you to go through all locations, and generally setup and test camera repeatedly when in an FPP, TPP or free rotating cam setup you do this exactly once, or you entrust it to some 'smart' bit of code that will try to determine what angle will look the most spectacular while also remaining informative - again, a lot of coding, a lot of testing and how smart will your bit of code be anyway?

That it's utterly boring and unimaginative? That games are meant to be fun, not exclusive pseudo-simulations? Unless of course you consider seeing your characters' butts and necks all the time fun and inspiring... For that purpose, I prefer erotic videos.

Let me put it this way - if you turn towards camera as means of injecting creativity and imagination into your game, the camera is the least of your problems.

Of course, there is simple and easy way to avoid watching butt, shoulder, or weapon all the time - vanity cam, which is simple, easy to implement and allows one to take screenshots of their awesome character.

 

[denizsi]

It's ironic when this is coming from the "let's use real physics simulation for combat in our games, the unaccounted inconsistencies with the physics be damned!" guy.

Anyway, whatever works for people. I'm only bored by the hard-on people get by limiting themselves into craptastic tourist guide simulators and annoyed how it has overridden all the other options we got every now and then back in the day, like peace-loving muslims forcing their intolerant drive of self-entitlement on pussified europeans.

 

[DraQ]

It's ironic when this is coming from the "let's use real physics simulation for combat in our games, the unaccounted inconsistencies with the physics be damned!" guy.

With a powerful machine it's easier and more profitable (in terms of enriching the gameplay with emergent situations) to simulate physics, then try to sieve out those emergent situations that happen to be bugs, than to try and infer complete abstract logic from your idea of physics it is going to simulate, then explicitly scripting all enrichements you can think of and test the result for stupid loopholes and other unforseen consequences.

Aping reality has the distinct advantage of reality having been playtested rather extensively.

 

[Excommunicator]

While I do not think there is anything wrong with adapting this "adventure cam" idea to the right kind of RPG hybrid, I would not consider it an effective option in any normal RPG.

In fact, I would find it incredibly jarring to see the camera switching and panning and jumping around to its new positions. As DraQ touched on, the camera is one of the most foundational things necessary to provide consistency to the player. If you start arbitrarily changing it in ways that the player cannot realistically anticipate, then you are already a step behind due to introducing problems that weren't there before. You had better hope that this cinematic effect or whatever the aim is, can compensate for that weakness and then some.

I am a diehard proponent of FPP anyway, so any third person view is generally disappointing in end result for me.