Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fear


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Dix_Johnson

Dix_Johnson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts

Posted 11 June 2012 - 07:45 PM

It was mentioned before in a previous thread that lethality in almost every shooter on the market these days is a little excessive. There are many factors to this but I feel the best reason mentioned was that the players don't experience any real sense of fear. Since there isn't any way to force a player to actually experience fear perhaps we could simulate it! Aside from basic weapon sway just being a natural part of the game I feel that we can actually simulate fear by having it effect accuracy and other aspects of a players performance.

Although in a limited extent I feel that the suppression system in DH did this well by making your avatar flinch every time a bullet landed close to you. I say we keep this and perhaps tweak it furthur.

Another thing I had in mind would be to implement a system that was somehow able to read into how screwed someone is and effect their accuracy accordingly. Rather than just increasing weapon sway (which should be impacted from stamina) we should try to make the weapon actually shake in your hands to simulate trembling in fear. This could hinder players enough to prevent them from doing anything unrealistically impulsive/stupid and actually cause people to fall back from time to time instead of just fighting/charging to the death! The aforementioned DH system of flinching every time someone started throwing lead in your general direction could intensify as you start to lose your composure during the battle.

So what determines how scared you are?

I feel that the following things should scare your avatar:
- Seeing your comrades die/get wounded in battle
- Intensity/Accuracy of fire coming towards you
- How long you've been under fire/suppressed as opposed to how suppressed you are
- Being very close to the enemy
- Being surrounded/flanked
- Being injured
- Being outnumbered
- Losing the battle

I'm sure more can be added to this list but that's just a few things that would probably scare me half to death.

Sound is another big factor for me. Not just in terms of quality but also in terms of good dynamic voice acting!

I'm going to probably do something that is verboten in a lot of your books but I'm going to use Battlefield as a positive example... Say what you want but that game sounds amazing! The way that soldiers yell/scream at eachother during combat is pretty kick ass and if it was part of a more realistic game it would be much more immersive for me. Something similar could probably be implemented well in FE. RO2 sounds pretty wonderful too in terms of weapons/death screams but I feel that theres definitely some things that need to be improved upon (which I won't get into here).

While those two games to sound great the best example of dynamic voice acting I've ever seen was in Company of Heroes. Although it wasn't the most realistic game ever I LOVED the way that your soldiers would gradually start to lose it as the battle intensified around them. You would select a fresh, well rested, fully staffed squad which would reply to your commands in a calm, collected fasion but as the battle started taking it's toll on the squad you could hear the squad leader start saying things like "WE'RE ALL THAT'S LEFT!!!" "RUUUUN RUUUUUUUUUNN!!" "WE CAN'T HURT THAT!" "MOVE FASTER THEY CAN'T HIT A MOVING TARGET!!!" "YOU WANT SOME OF THIS YOU F!#*&* PU*#!& *!&*#&$!" etc...

Battlefield:


CoH:


While I think all of this is would be pretty awesome I think that it could be detrimental to the game in terms of balance. However, maybe a realistic solution would be to increase your stamina while you're scared, this would actually allow you to run away if things get too crazy.

What do you guys think? Good idea? Bad idea? Is it even possible? Discuss...

#2 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 11 June 2012 - 10:00 PM

I think the basic premise is good - I suggested the trembling after all - but I personally wouldn't want to see the more subjective psychological impacts (eg worrying about buddies) modeled. When I play these games, I think of the avatar as me. I'm not acting the role of a soldier, I'm imagining how I would do in that situation. This means I'm not happy to be told by the game that I'm scared or losing my composure - it makes it too much of a role-playing game for my taste.

I agree about the current DH suppression effects being good. However, I would exaggerate them to the point of immobilising the player when under heavy fire, once he's taken cover (say ducked down out of a window or jumped in a trench). This means that you can keep someone's head down by establishing fire-superiority, but you have to maintain it. I suppose it's like the system in Brothers in Arms, except you suppress players rather than bots, and I wouldn't have anything to indicate to the shooter that suppression is working.

As for being worried about being flanked/surrounded, I'd cover that with my forced surrender idea. Although we don't value our virtual lives, I think most of us try to avoid "dying" to some degree, so if you're given a chance to avoid it (ie retreat or get captured) I think most would take it.

More direct ways to encourage people to put more value on their lives is to lengthen respawn intervals, or limit the number of lives (which could be "bought" with team-play actions). But both of these might push too many players' frustration levels beyond acceptability.

More controversially still would be to make deaths impact on stats - maybe have "point streaks" - points earned per death.

Interestingly people usually argue against things like that because it makes players selfish, but isn't that what we're trying to do with these ideas, in a sense? I've often played when players have been moaning at team mates for camping and not getting in the caps, and surely that's how you'd behave, without a huge incentive not to.

Anyway, good idea for a thread, Dix

#3 Dietrich Landrik

Dietrich Landrik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 368 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 03:47 AM

Length of suppression (not gravity) could work well for trembling and shaking effects.
Posted Image
"Nach Drill und Dreck, Gibt's Erbsen mit Speck, Aus der Gulaschkanone~"

#4 Gyps

Gyps

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 04:21 PM

Trembling/ shaking is not a good idea for many reasons, firstly it in no way imparts fear to a player, all it does is cause frustration at a gun that's shaking all over the screen - remember we are playing a first person shooter it's in the name not a first person shaker

DH had enough suppression, it was pretty much bang on this wont need more than DH, even that was frustrating at times - if the argument is that it in some way emulates fear then it falls flat, if the mouse gave you electric shocks when you were fired at and made you jump that could produce some sensible results but having the screen blur or the sights jump about doesn't really emulate fear - it just induces a random to the hit reg which is not a good idea in FPS's

If we really must have this then stick to something along the DH lines that interferes but doesn't go silly, and as it the length of time you are under fire tat governs shaking etc surely this works the other way the longer it goes on the more used to it you get

#5 jefaus

jefaus

    Senior Member

  • Sponsor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 263 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 07:28 PM

DH had enough suppression


No, it didn't.

If an enemy Rifleman caught in the "beaten zone" of an MG is still able to accurately return fire and plug the Machinegunner, then Suppression "isn't" working and "Fire and Movement" isn't necessary, neither is
the need to work as a part of a Squad to overcome obstacles.

Time we start giving Machineguns the respect they rightfully deserve, and lift the importance of fighting and moving as a Squad. Give "Volume of Fire" its advantage over "Accuracy of Fire".

Festung Europa has to be different if it is to be successful. Being faithful to realistic "Fire and Movement" will give this game its difference.
--- The Killer of Threads! ---

For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought. - B.H. Liddell Hart

#6 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:55 PM

@Gyps, I think what we're exploring in this thread is how to reproduce the behaviour that a scared avatar would produce, rather than how to make the player scared. If the player is driven by frustration to get out of the "scary" situation he's in, then to observers (=team mates and opposition) it may appear that he's acting through fear, therefore providing then with a more immersive game.

@ jefaus - those are my thoughts exactly

#7 Kashash

Kashash

    Senior Member

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:29 PM

I loved the panic system in Combat Mission game. It had a great pastiche of different states of panic, starting from cautious and shaken to pinned and broken. Each had a different impact on infantry's performance, if they panicked more they would usually fire less often.

The severity of infantry's dismay would grow larger as they stay in the pinned down zone longer, also they would start panicking much quicker if the caliber firing at them is bigger.

One of the last stages of panic is being routed which causes infantry to retreat to the safe spot, without your volition. At that point you would have no control over that unit for approximately 1-2 minutes (depending on how badly they've been affected).
This is the thing it lacks in fps, the unrestrained withdrawal of the infantry that run away regardless of the orders as it happened very frequently on the battlefield. Beacuse in fps you're not afraid of death I think the experience of being routed should be simulated.

Perhaps as you stay pinned down longer, the fading vision that you'd have on the screen (like in RO2 which I think is quite alright) would start to appease as you move from pinning zone further away. That way perhaps we could achieve the occurence of soldiers retreating in a paralyzing dismay.

#8 Tony O'Halloran

Tony O'Halloran

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 01:43 AM

As long as they don't take the leaf from HOS's book i think the fear implement can be done quite well.
The fact that fire hitting around or pass you creates an actual physical effect through the air which you can feel and hear, as well as the mental effect it can have on hitting around you is something to certainly bring into full effect in FE. If suppression is made more prominent it can actually make the character, and in turn the player feel "I am not going out there".
The system in DH is great,but it's not enough. Far too many times have I myself been shooting with an MG on a position, and only in turn to be shot by a rifle who just stuck his head up through it. The problem is the fire doesn't look, feel or sound lethal until it's buried in your chest.
The suppression effect can be ringing in the ears, blurred vision for longer, more aim throw-off, louder "snap crackle and pop", as well as increasing of the particle effects to show how much the fire is effecting around you. I'm not too sure about an actual implemented "fear" system, but rather and system that just let's you know yourself that if you look out of your cover your a dead man.

In terms of the hectic voice acting, i think the HoS intended to do that, but the characters just shout at everything that moves, and half of what doesn't. Once i recall as a German Sniper in Pavlov's, i was in that large central building up in the roof, and when i fired and clipped a guys arm, i heard my character yell "did I hit him?" to which a soviet i had heard below me for minutes ran up and assaulted my position, not hearing any if my previous shots. I think if you are playing with a few fellow gamers, the actual real chatter is enough, but the dynamic chat while an great idea, and if it is planned and done well, i would welcome it, but as it is now i disagree.

#9 Cpl.Guillemette

Cpl.Guillemette

    Elite Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:12 AM

But blurring isn't the only thing, it needs to be sway, accuracy, over-reactiong slightly your movement, stuff like that
Also, it needs to be not constant, sometimes you need just a slight accuracy defect, while on other moment you'll over-react your movmeent and have more physical dysfunction
Posted Image

#10 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 04:22 AM

Fear is relative...some men were crazy and didnt fear at all. Some were hardend vets who didnt fear as much as others. How can you tell?

Mabye a system where if you have XX amount of kills vs death, then you are much braver and in bad spots you "shake less". Something like that.

So under this system "Tiger-phobia" actually works? If you see one on the horizon, you retreat in fear?

#11 Tony O'Halloran

Tony O'Halloran

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 01:45 AM

Fear is relative...some men were crazy and didnt fear at all. Some were hardend vets who didnt fear as much as others. How can you tell?



"Courage is not the absence of fear, it is action in the face of fear"

I think it would be much cooler to be able to do things through the fear, and actually use the fear to your advantage, rather than have a complete lack of it. Most people I know that aren't scared of these things either haven't been there, or are crazy.

For example fear is pretty much an overload of adrenaline, which can offer more sprint speed, stamina and perhaps even allow a harder hit in melee or something along those lines.
Although I do hate the "Fear mode enabled: +5 to melee" method,it seems to be a pretty standard way of adding attributes.

That said in a game where you respawn its hard to create a sense of fear, unless you are far behind enemy lines, reinforcements are low, or you are afraid of a long re spawn timer.

I'll re-emphasize my point i made up above.

For the fear to be put into the player, the player avatar must be made useless by fire. I dont mean HOS's version where a shot landing near you causes acute sudden colorblindness, and strange half deafness, i mean a shot landing into the wall by your head would cover your face in dirt, rattle your cage and send you to the floor. Not just cause you to stand up and look around only for a second shot to knock your block off.

The system needs to be accurate enough to let you know you've been shot at, and make you useless enough to actually make you stay in cover, but also cant be to harsh, as it is possible to return fire while being shot at.

Mabye a system where if you have XX amount of kills vs death, then you are much braver and in bad spots you "shake less"


Any attribute system I will automatically remain skeptical, also you're KD in RO in general will be in the negative more often than the positive i think, especially when you're starting off.

"Tiger-phobia"


I dont know, the allies were pretty much in fear of a lot of what the Germans had.

Also i dont like being told what to be afraid of in a game. I think the object itself should have presence enough to make you afraid. Real fear can make you mess up in game too, I've seen it often enough.
Posted Image

#12 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:00 AM

"Courage is not the absence of fear, it is action in the face of fear"

Yes, but I'm talking about fear, not courage. Fear is when your scared of something (wether or not you will be courageos in the face of that fear has nothing to do with it). How scared you are might determine if you will shake and how much.

I would like to see a "honor bar", and when it is full you get full health. Along with that I would like to see a uranate feature, but I know that isnt going to happen anytime soon. Like, if you pee in your pants you lose some honor.

For example fear is pretty much an overload of adrenaline, which can offer more sprint speed, stamina and perhaps even allow a harder hit in melee or something along those lines.
Although I do hate the "Fear mode enabled: +5 to melee" method,it seems to be a pretty standard way of adding attributes.

Mike Tyson said he learned how to turn his fear of the other boxer, into an attack avantage.

I dont know, the allies were pretty much in fear of a lot of what the Germans had.

A lot of stuff they had, sure. But "Tiger Phobia" was something a bit different. In 1943 the allies never before faced something they had litterally no chance of destroying (unless they are 50 to 100 yards away), but something that had a 100% chance of mauling them in return. The Russians first experienced this, then the allies.

It got to a point where if troops saw Panzer IV's far away but with turret and side skirts on, they were mistaken for a Tiger, and word spread that Tigers were on the way. Some troops litterally retreated. One Tiger became as valuable as a whole platoon of tanks thanks to a psychological factor.

No other tank really achieved such a "fear" by the enemy.

#13 Tony O'Halloran

Tony O'Halloran

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:35 AM

What im saying is that men who are not afraid are often brave. in reality they are afraid but they act anyway, that's courage. I agree with you in terms of actual effects on the player such as shaking, aim throw-off etc

I would like to see a "honor bar", and when it is full you get full health. Along with that I would like to see a urinate feature, but I know that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Like, if you pee in your pants you lose some honor.


I have no idea where this belongs, not every man pisses his pants, we are representing hardened trained soldiers most of the time, and the use of *shudder* health/honor bars would actually make me gag at the sight of it.

When a friend of mine was wounded in Afghanistan with the Irish Guards, i would have loved to say, "yeah but if you had have gotten up and ran at the enemy the shrapnel in your leg would have disappeared from bravery and honor"

I think i posted this a while ago but ill redo it.

I prefer to play as my character in game, and make decisions based on what he'd do, and what id do rather than just play the game as a regular run, shoot die character.
I dont like being afraid of stuff that i myself would rather not be afraid of, and i think actual items on the field, should have enough of an impact on their own on your character,than having an actualphysical game effect like suppression.

P.S
Sorry for the typos etc.
Posted Image

#14 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 02:51 PM

I have no idea where this belongs, not every man pisses his pants, we are representing hardened trained soldiers most of the time, and the use of *shudder* health/honor bars would actually make me gag at the sight of it.

It was more a joke than anything else. I like to be creative :)

It's like the old saying "I'd rather be a live coward than a dead hero". But then there is the saying "a coward dies a thousand times, a hero only dies once". So which is correct? Both perhaps...in fact they back each other up.

What the two sayings are illustrating is if you are in a situation where charging ahead makes you a hero where you will most certainly die, then once dead you'll always be a hero. But if you retreat to saftey you will of been a coward...but alive. But I'm not sure I buy that.

Isnt it SMARTER to retreat, to fight another day and kill more of the enemy than to throw yourself away but be "a hero?". I think it might depend on the situation.

If I risk my life to grab a fallen injured comrade (Im not Russian, but I just watched "CoD Finest Hour" Stalingrad mission and Im all jacked up) and drag my freind under gunfire to saftey, then yes, that is heroic. I risked my life for the unselfish act of saving another.

If I throw myself on a live grenade to save the guys around me...well...Im not sure. Depends on how far away the guys are, if there was a chance we could of all lived even if I didnt throw myself on, etc-

Again, a "hero" depends on the specifics of the situation. There is heroic, and then there is stupid. And then there is "well not stupid, but it would of been smarter to..."

So this is a subject that is very complex and would take miles of conversation to cover. It is hard to put it all in one simple sentence.

#15 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 04:57 PM

You're right BL, we could debate the nature of courage at great length - let's get back to what it means in terms of gameplay...

What we really need is a mechanism which gives you pause for thought when you're faced with a threat. In FPSs we don't have to consider the negative consequences of actions because all we're risking is a brief hiatus from playing. The presence of scared behaviour is important in a realism FPS because it causes realistic tactics (mainly suppressing fire), and NOT because it makes the player feel scared. I think we'd all agree that we can't make players actually scared for their physical well-being. So, here are two ways I think we can implement to try to produce scared behaviour.

The first would be an extension of the DH suppression system whereby rounds impacting nearby temporarily removes control of your avatar from you and causes it to hit the dirt and be paralysed, much as Tony O'Hallaran suggests. Although I would go further and remove the ability to shoot back, otherwise you couldn't have suppressing fire. The disadvantage of this method is that it (obviously) suspends disbelief for the player if the games takes control of "him", and is saying to the player "you are scared" even when the player may feel (rightly or wrongly) that IRL he would have charged down that MG42.

Secondly we could actually try to make the player value his "life" and not throw it away. The most obvious way to do this is to is to limit the number of his lives or give him some other penalty for dying (longer respawn, loss of points). The disadvantage of this is that it may piss the more casual player off so much that not enough people will play the game to make it fun.

#16 Tony O'Halloran

Tony O'Halloran

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:24 PM

a coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave just one


I'm pretty sure this means the coward allowed fear to control his life, and when he fears a death, he runs and escapes, while the brave embraces it, and dies just the once.

The major point that cannot be evaded, is that if you are allowed to respawn, and try again, you will not be afraid to die, which is why a lot of us play realism. We play it to feel the actual rush, and feel the actual fear of potentially dying. Once you get used to the respawn times, you wont be afraid to die, which means you wont be afraid of anything in the game to kill you.

On screen effects for me are a no go, as i dont want to be told what to fear and what not to fear, and then have that thrown on me, id rather not be raped by pop-ups and attributes.
Make me afraid of the game, make it scarier when i get shot at, i want dirt all upon my face when a round hits the ground in front of me, or the wall by my head, particle effects need to be looked at too, especially with buildings, foliage and mud. In DH and RO they are pretty null and void, they don't really make a difference whereas in a game like FEAR, the effects are huge, and much more realistic (albeit a different style and engine). Scary enough as it is, a loud snap, a blurring of the screen and a shot landing next to my head, would be multiplied with a louder noise, a slightly larger blurring, and a huge impact in the wall, with a massive dust puff coming from the shot would make me think twice.

If theres one thing to TL;DR from this rant it's:

No on screen stuff a la RO2.
No attribute settings that can be "won" or "achieved" over time.
Make everything more dangerous to the opposing force.

Tanks >Infantry etc. but even more than they are now.

I'm not huge on the penalty idea, it will make it impossible for new players to play the game with any enjoyment. If your respawn timer is based on your life time, then if one team is winning slightly the advantage will then tip over in a knock on effect, making defenses much more difficult in the long run in general.

Rant potentially over
Posted Image

#17 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 06:16 PM

I wouldn't call it a rant! This is about expressing ideas and giving the devs a feel for what their potential customers want from FE, so, as long as you keep it constructive and polite, keep it coming. I may personally have different ideas, but if we all express them, then the devs can get a better picture of the consensus


Make me afraid of the game, make it scarier when i get shot at, i want dirt all upon my face when a round hits the ground in front of me, or the wall by my head, particle effects need to be looked at too, especially with buildings, foliage and mud. In DH and RO they are pretty null and void, they don't really make a difference whereas in a game like FEAR, the effects are huge, and much more realistic (albeit a different style and engine). Scary enough as it is, a loud snap, a blurring of the screen and a shot landing next to my head, would be multiplied with a louder noise, a slightly larger blurring, and a huge impact in the wall, with a massive dust puff coming from the shot would make me think twice.


My view is that you can make a FPS scary, i.e. it'll make you jump, by having as you say loud noises and dynamic effects, but will that make you take cover? I think you're right that our conditioning to such things will perhaps make the player flinch (I mean literally, whilst at his/her keyboard) when a bullet whangs off some nearby masonry, but for how many times, before it just becomes part of the background? I think people will get acclimatized to such things, which is why we need something "gamey" to simulate fearful reactions.

I also agree that realism is the way to go if you want the rush, but I fear that not enough other players want to go down that route to make a viable game. I was going to put this in another thread, but I may as well say it here:

What we need is a game which can be picked up and played for those who want a blast of realistic WW2 FPS action, but who don't want to form squads or be told what to do all the time, and can also be mutated so that realism clans can have 3hr battles in which you barely see the enemy and die once. And I'm not being sarcastic there - we obviously have an audience for the latter style game, I just don't think it's the biggest audience. I'm not proposing an RO2-style multi-mode scenario either - I'm suggesting a DH-style core game that can be privately tweaked to be even more hardcore for those who have their own servers.

Edited by Father Ted, 11 November 2012 - 06:37 PM.


#18 Schneller

Schneller

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:40 PM

I would say a "Fear Calculation" is some distance in the future. The things listed in the starting post are almost undeniable "scary things". The issue is how does the game engine detect these things and trigger some kind of action. Getting a calculation off of things like being wounded is easy (and present in every FPS,right?). So, a way to phrase the question is: What events are detected? Could they be reliably translated (interpreted) into fear-like actions? Or,would they be ambiguous? IMHO only reliable interpretations would make it into the game.

In regard to the second major theme of this thread: Voice Acting/Voice Scripting....I would say you tend to get what you pay for. It should be no surprise that a game with a multi-million dollar budget has good sounds and voice acting! This can be an expensive thing to do in a high quality manner. At this point I'd say expect realistic scripting for sure. As far as the acting goes, it will be the best we can afford! Regarding how much voice acting you hear...it may be more minimal than a lot of games. Just as our screen is likely to be uncluttered in comparison to most, the voice acting may be less rather than more repetitive. I'm currently most interested in Voice Commands and the best ones to include and the best system for the Leader Player to issue them. I feel like we'll see some strong improvement there. One benefit I'm striving for is to lessen communicatiion barriers with regard to language and with regard to shyness about using the microphone.

Life, being as strange as it is, you may end up with a fine Squad Leader being a 14 year old girl from Finland ....whose voice you never hear but, who leads you to victory with style!
Posted Image

Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game

WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!

#19 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:39 PM

I would say a "Fear Calculation" is some distance in the future. The things listed in the starting post are almost undeniable "scary things". The issue is how does the game engine detect these things and trigger some kind of action. Getting a calculation off of things like being wounded is easy (and present in every FPS,right?). So, a way to phrase the question is: What events are detected? Could they be reliably translated (interpreted) into fear-like actions? Or,would they be ambiguous? IMHO only reliable interpretations would make it into the game.


Is this because we can't have a sophisticated enough system within the game engine to reliably\realistically dictate "behaviour" as a result of the interaction between the environment (i.e. incoming fire) and the avatar? So if we want to have "fear" as a factor in how players behave we need to make players feel something when they're in fearful situations, rather than impose that behaviour upon them because the game has decided they should be scared?

If so, we come back to the idea that the player must place some value upon his or her "life" in order that they don't just act with suicidal bravery.

Edited by Father Ted, 13 November 2012 - 10:48 PM.


#20 Schneller

Schneller

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:09 PM

If we go back to where Dix started this thread, he said:

I feel that the following things should scare your avatar:
- Seeing your comrades die/get wounded in battle
- Intensity/Accuracy of fire coming towards you
- How long you've been under fire/suppressed as opposed to how suppressed you are
- Being very close to the enemy
- Being surrounded/flanked
- Being injured
- Being outnumbered
- Losing the battle

There are some things the engine can sense. Then (from what I know) you'd end up writing code that would convert certain reported data into effects that let's call the "Fear Calculation" although it is better thought of as stress induced fatigue.
Let's say the engine can detect:
the volume of fire arriving in your immediate area
Distance from the enemy
Being injured
Losing the battle
rate of friendly casualties taken

These are the things I believe are detected/reported (in some form)by the engine. There are probably a lot more. This creates two questions:

What should these calculations translate to? About all I can think of is a physical representation of stress in the form of fatigue. For example: Loss of fine muscle movement control is a indicator of fatigue. So, accuracy would suffer as an example and speed of reloading..you get the idea.

What NON-physical effects could be generated to represent fear/stress.

The second question is Game Play or player satisfaction related. A lot of players want their in game "soldier" to be one Hell of a guy! Brave, courageous and bold!
Able to shrug off the pains that would slow down LESSER MEN.They want their soldier to IGNORE the very things that Dix listed. Be full of resolve and determined to win. The worse things are going...the harder they fight!!!!
:mad:

Look at the most popular games out there. The player strength and stamina is ridiculously high and doesn't fade easily. When it does, seems like there is always some sort of "Health Pack" to bring the player back to jumping over six foot walls. So....how do you expect the player base to respond to "playing hurt"? To me it is realistic and adds suspense and immersion but, am I the small minority? We do want to have a large player base and lots of full servers.

So there is a tension here. Great games solve it in some way. Stupid games blow it.

MANY Players would dislike Playing Hurt. I'm pretty sure of this.
So, in a way this would induce fear. Not of death but, of reduction in "super-soldierness". You would IMHO have to enforce a strict penalty for suicide. RO seemed to allow this with little cost. If suicide cost your side dearly in reinforcements (as an example) then...the player would either have to bear his injuries and "shakes" or QUIT the map and go to another. I'm sure a certain amount of players would do this.

I think some of the concepts that have been suggested in this thread will make it into the game. So, you are not wasting your time. Some will be practical (that means we can figure out a way to do it) and others won't be.

Keep the ideas coming!

Schneller

Posted Image

Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game

WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users