dskneo said:
a bulb
Resistance: Fall of Man gameplay impressions
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
rabidrabbit said:
No on said they should not do those other things. In fact, body-part based reactions is something that has been included in a number of FPS to varying degrees of success. Current rag doll + proprietary deviations are the method of choice, but there have been dozens of shooters that have tried various methods of reproducing various effects (maybe the most famous is Soldier of Fortune). Further, motion tweening with ragdoll effect has been in Havok for a couple years.
Ditto Physics/Material properties. Robust material systems were introducted in a number of games in 2004, and before that there were many FPS that had material systems where wood doors, windows, etc could be shot through.
You probably don't play many FPS, but these are kind of standard features in the genre. You get dinged for NOT having them, not praised for having them present.
Are you mind reading? Take my posts for example. You must have missed the lengthy example of others games that broke into the genre and the innovations they introduced and how hard/robust this genre is. As noted above, your examples are things already present in FPS and expected from gamers. There are 100s of FPS released every year on various platforms. What separates the wheat from the chaff is the details.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with my platform of choice (my history: Sony consoles 1, MS consoles 0). My post history of criticisms of Far Cry, CoD2, Doom 3, etc and my own comments on what I want to see in the genre (or expect from it) stand on their own. So stop derailing threads; discuss the points, not the people.
If your comments are not on topic and beneficial to the thread then leave them to yourself.
MechanizedDeath
Regular
Major flaws, I can understand, but why are some of you nitpicking an incomplete game? Most games at E3 weren't running at 60fps with gobs of action on screen. I think a lightbulb is pretty minor in comparison to everything else they had running stable this early. If in November the light is still indestructible, give 'em hell. PEACE.
MechanizedDeath said:
The Gates of Hell will open, Rancid assures you
I'm just amazed at how stable and polished the game looks at this point. I'm sure little tweaks will be added here and there. I'm not sure why the lightbulb wasn't destructible since the lighting is pretty much dynamic. Seems to be more of a "We hadn't thought to put that in yet type of scenario.
All in all, the game looks great as of now non destructible lightbulbs aside.
mckmas8808
Legend
And don't they already have 32 player battles online up and running now?
MechanizedDeath said:
I don't think most were knit picking it. I specifically said it had promise, but it is not done and we wont get a good feel for it until it is released because FPS have a lot of levels, interaction, NPCs, weapons, etc... I think the contrast is the "OMG!" comments and the, "Hold on, what is so great here? What is new? What is ground breaking?" compared to other FPS? This could end up being the equivalent of CoD2 beefed up and be an excellent game. That is the direction I see it heading at this stage, but I want to see more.
Btw, the lightbulb being indestructable wont be a reason to complain.
If they progress in other areas significantly who really cares? But it is a general problem in the genre that CAN be solved (should be). But since it looks kind of dark in those tunnels, this would be a good place to impliment such a design.Anyhow, if we saw more of the game we would not be focusing on the graphics and a light. I personally wish more developers would take the time Valve did and did a walk through of their new innovations and design ideas. FPS are notoriously difficult to get a feel for from watch 10min of gameplay. It is good PR if they get people excited about the features that affect gameplay and breath new life into a genre or franchise. Especially a new IP needs to say, "Hey, this is how I am different!"
Come November we will find out more. Criticism is good feedback for where improvement is needed, but we should not dwell on it, especially if it is an industry problem (in which case we should lambast 'em all!).
You hear that id, CryTech, Valve, Gearbox, Epic, Ubi, and all you other studios with superman lights?! We are tired of them!
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Acert93 said:
Which is one of the reasons I loved SoF, still love SoF and SoFII and still play them eventually and long for SoFIII. They weren't graphically superior to what was available, but they were more realistic than what was available and if I recall correctly, were actually banned in a number of countries because they were too realistic.
Exactly. I'm glad at least somebody else gets it, (although maybe Slider has to be considered in this group as well since he's pondering the thought). Shooting out wooden doors, windows, lights aren't anything you get extra bonus points for having. At this point, every FPS shooter should have those features. You get nailed for not having them, which is the case here.
I actually love the progression.. From:
"What are you talking about? That didn't happen"
to
"He was shooting the outside of the lamp shade not the light itself"
to
"Well maybe that will change when they finally release the game"
to
"Why are you making such a big deal about an obvious flaw? Maybe other aspects of the game will make up for it."
To the last two points, I say.. Sure. Both possible, and then maybe this entire thing is moot. But until then, all this game appears to be is another standard FPS that is a Half-life 2 knock-off, and rather distant from the "OMG! It's a AAA title for sure!" comments that flooded the first few pages of this thread.
This is the apparent source of disagreement here, because it appears the majority of participants in this thread believe what separates the wheat from the chaff is shiny things and better graphics.. Not interaction, AI, or details. How so? We already know the details and interaction are lacking because of the bulb example. We have no way of knowing what the AI is like from the evidence we have. Yet many of them have already proclaimed this game to be a AAA title based purely on its graphical prowess.
And mine? Two PS1s, Four PS2s, and One Xbox (that really doesn't work and keeps giving me a disc-read error everytime a pause a game). I own none of the "current" consoles (meaning I don't own a 360 because the others aren't available), and like you, I'm a sports and FPS gamer. I'll buy the PS3 or the 360 depending one which one has the best games.
Oh, if it were only that simple. Then we wouldn't get responses like "Wow, that bulb must mean a lot to you". Yeah, sorry.. But it does. EVERY bulb in EVERY game means alot to me.
Because if I can't shoot it out, it means I can't influence the environment which means I can't make the AI react differently to me and (also) they can't influence the environment to make me react differently to them.
End result: The game is nothing more than a game I played 5-10 years ago, except this one is more shiny!
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
weaksauce said:Well you could use the gun, you know when you fire it lits up.
.
And actually, I can't remember the game.. Maybe it was F.E.A.R. (?) where I had to do exactly that Hmm.. maybe it was DOOMIII now that I think about it.
But yes, the environment was dark, you couldn't see a thing and the only way to actually see anything was shoot a round or two off to view the environment so you could see where you were going.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
LunchBox said:I wonder if the reason why Insomniac games didn't add the breaking light bulbs on the game because of how the level is set up, people might accidentally shoot all the bulbs and end up trying to go through that area in the dark. I think more people would be pissed coz there wouldn't be an available alternative light source. Would be very cool if they gave you flares to use when you shoot out all the lights though
Or.. guess what? You made a mistake and either have to wander around in darkness and hope to find an exit, or you have to restart and not make the same mistake.
Either way, the real question is why did they spend so much time and effort making the lightsource 'moveable' through the shooting of it? Wasn't that to add to realism? To say 'Look at this! You shoot at the light source, the light source moves, and the light and the shadows are accurately reflected when the light source moves!'
Except.. shooting a naked bulb and having it move around is the opposite of realism. I'm fairly sure it would have been less work for them to just have the bulb be shattered and go out. But guess what? That would have actually been more realistic!
So.. in their attempt to add realism to the game through the movement of the light source they've actually taken a level of realism out of the game.
They either need to make the bulb destructible, or they need to change the representation of the light to one that is protected. Then it would be able to be moved via bullet fire, and yet remain in its protected casing.
However, as it currently stands, the trailer clearly shows a player unloading a great deal of ammo at a naked light bulb and having that bulb possess superbulb anti-bullet powers.
Seriously. If the bulb can reflect bullets, why should it even move at all then? It's like making a representation of a cardboard box that will get heavier and sink when immersed in water... but won't collapse in on itself and will still retain the shape of the box.
If "physics" are going to impact one part of the object (IE: moving it) then physics have to effect the other very obvious part of the object that the force isn't just going to move it.. the force will break it.
RancidLunchmeat said:
To be fair, Insamniac is a quality developer and this title appears to have a bit of potential. It looks nice, ran solid, and had a lot of action going on. Yes, the devil is in the details when it comes to the flooded FPS genre, but this game does got some of the prerequisit work done.
I am not a big CoD2 fan, but that is the feeling I get watching this game. If they can replicate that feeling (intense scripted gameplay with a ton of stuff going on, action around every corner, great music and sound, and heart rushing pacing that escalates higher and higher as you proceed through the game) while being solid in gameplay, captivating people with art and story, and build upon the genre some I think they very well could have a hit on their hands.
But I don't know enough either way to say such. It has promise, I will leave it at that :smile:
RancidLunchmeat said:
To their credit, dynamic lighting is a newer feature in FPS from the last couple years. As for why it could not be shot out, it could very well be a gameplay decision. Maybe they don't want it too hard? Maybe they are in the same universe as Doom 3 and there is no duct tape?
Realism doesn't always make great gameplay. True, I think with the new technology they can immerse gamers more and have more realism which feels more natural--and builds a lot of gameplay upon the FPS structure--but those can be big steps if not planned out.
Yet I know first hand FEAR and STALKER showed this very thing, UE3 in 2004 demoed dynamic lights (candle) and I believe D3 did long before that. And while UE3's demo did show the light going on and off, I don't believe any of those games (or Far Cry and other games with dynamic lighting) have put for the effort in this area either. Kind of an industry problem.
And yet not every FPS will require this feature to be a great FPS. Out of the dozens of FPS coming out in the next year (BiA3, MoH:A, Rainbow Six, Halo 3, Quake Wars, BF2149, Alan Wake, UT2007, Gears of War, etc) I am sure a number of those will be ABSOLUTE hits, yet at least one or two wont allow you to shoot out lights.
Baby steps? In the real world if you shot that light it probably would not only break the bulk and swing, with a large clip it would break off and be deformed. Most of that is obtainable now.
It is just a matter of developers thining outside the box a little. This is hard for restablished franchises since they are established and just building upon their gameplay elements and story.
It could be argued that there are more pressing things in development. I agree with you that we need to step back at times and stop building upon the past and try new things. Suck players back in. HL2 did an excellent job of that through the evolution of a number impotant parts of the genre.
As a game player I understand the complaint, but it is an industry problem. I believe they would say, "It allows too much freedom and is too hard to test". Of course we are saying, "Immerse us more! Let us interact more and have more realistic control of our world. Let THAT be part of the gameplay. Shoot out lights and blind the enemy and sneak by. Destroy an important light? Get stuck using a flightlight."
Such little features can totally change the way we approach FPS. But this is not a problem at Insamniac. They are just following their predecessors (id, Valve, CryTech, Bungie, Starbreeze, Gearbox, Epic, etc). The question is: Who is willing to break the walls down and think outside the box?
We really should not pick on Resistance too much because they are only following the trend. Of course that does mean they are going to have to compete in other ways if they are following trends, but then again we don't know that. So it is best to wait for more information/play testing of the full game. Looks like they have a good start, especially for their first FPS.
I don't have too much to say about things right now, except... Did it just seem too "stiff" to anyone else? It looks great, and certainly speaks well of Insomniac to have it performing at that level (with them contemplating whether to move to higher res, no less) at this stage, but it suffers even more from a complaint I have with lots of FPSes... Things just don't seem to flow naturally. I seem to always have to depend on 3rd-person action games to deliver it to me.
Will have to mull things over, as thinking about it it could be more the matter of perspective.
Will have to mull things over, as thinking about it it could be more the matter of perspective.
Acert93 said:
Their first game ever was a FPS.
Disruptor for the PS1 - it was pretty good, you could see that they have talent.
I even found some vids: http://media.www.gamestats.com/media/000/000135/vids_1.html
Edit: Just posted it for the record, I agree to wait for more info or the final game (but not because of that lightbulb - I don`t care about that)
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.ps3portal.com/ps3/article/400.html
Here's an interview that I don't think has been posted yet, where the lead developer claims that the team is progressing very well with making their own proprietary engine making full use of the Cell.
Here's an interview that I don't think has been posted yet, where the lead developer claims that the team is progressing very well with making their own proprietary engine making full use of the Cell.
Some cool info in there. I was thinking the other day when I saw EA footage for next-gen NBA and Fifa games how they now fluently animate, and how this should be integrated in other game-genres too.Arwin said:
Have been annoyed by the 'floating' players in FPS games, especially in arcadelike UT2004 games, when they animate or change direction. There is absolutely no transition between the 45 degrees angles the controller can make with his character in these games, so all the animations look too abrupt and comicbooklike instead of looking like realworld beings.
But this guy is claiming Resistence will have the same kind of stuff the next NBA showed in the feet-to-the-ground demo. That will at least increase reality-illusion in the gameworld when allies and enemies move around the field. All FPS'ers have been lacking in animations so far in this respect. It's mosty the 9 standard directions, a walk animation and a run-animation, with maybe a jump, strafe and some extra moves. And if you change direction, there's no smooth transistion between the way your running and the new direction. Doesn't really matter that it is all mo-capped, what counts is how well it all fits together. The feet and legs just float around their axis. So if you look at enemies of allies, they mostly move dorky running around the map in all directions.
It's a bit odd if you think about it, generally every devteam is putting hard work in making gfx and textures photorealistic working on shaders and polycounts etc, working hard on reallife physics and sound, all looking great on screens, but when it all moves it mostly lacks realism.
I understand these highspeed sci-fi frag-shooters are somewhat limited in this respect because controls should react instantly for fragmania, but in some way or the other an UT-Arena full of players looking like they're on steroids just doesn't impress me anymore. Back in the oriignal UT days it worked for me.
Highspeed fragging conflicts with creating realworld illusions in a game, and animations suffer the most in this respect. I think this is the reason why WWII shooters and other real-war shooters have become more succesful last years. They are going for the realisitc approach. It's all a matter of taste ofcourse, but I think if games like BIA3, Crysis, MOH:A and CoD3 are going to hurt the speed-frag-genre even more, shaming their animations. People will get turned down if the standards are raised in other shooters. Hopefullly Resistence will break some new ground here too, and impress in animations and their diversity.
