wizmet1_2 

Reminds me of similar things in #tf a few years ago when somebody hated scampie. Metlslime should add something like 'do not bring #tf problems to func' to policy in faq page 

almost everybody hates scampie and czg :)

but scampie have improved in last years :p 

Don't congrat them please... they will stop to improve... it is always possible to do better you know :P 

Thanks - that seems to fix my problems temporarily. 

heheh this is so true JPL :) 

So since it's impossible to adequately explain an idea in full in #tf, I'll do it here so no one thinks I'm done explaining an idea after I send a single message.

The idea was that in a survival horror game (Silent Hill in mind), to add to combat there could be a part where a monster tackles the player to the ground. The goal is to add to the tension of 'clunky' combat, without making the game Devil May Cry or God of War.

Now what happens is basically this: A monster knocks the player over and moves in for the kill. In the example I had, the camera would move down near the floor to better see action, and get in close. There could be different examples, cameras do different things, etc etc. This is just one example.

The player has now has the option of running away taken from him. He has to struggle to survive. The way I imagine it, it's an extension to combat, not a qte. The player can kick the monster off, block incoming attacks if he wants, hit the monster with his weapon, etc. It's not based on "press this button now or you die." You don't die in normal combat by pressing a button at a certain time, why would this be different?

If you can push the monster back far enough, you can regain your footing, where as the monster is dazed on the floor. Run away or try to capitalize before it gets back up as well.

If you choose to fight the monster, you can get it off balance by hitting, which will also damage it. If you hit with a heavy attack, it could become dazed (depending on if the monster is low on health, how big the monster is, etc.) During this time it will stop advancing on you, and you can either kick it back, switch weapons/use items (I assume if you're struggling on the ground you won't have time to switch weapons or use health packs, but that's open for debate) or keep on hitting it.

Now of course the monster is in the advantageous position. It wants to kill you, so it's trying to render you useless. Different monsters will have different struggle strategies. Some will probably try to pin your limbs down, others will just wait until you attack, then dodge your blow and strike from a different angle (no reason they have to be slow, lumbering monsters, they could be small annoying cockroach things) in which case what you do might have to change depending on the monster that's attacking you. If you normally just kick a monster off and it's too heavy to be pushed back, then maybe you should just try and daze it.

Likewise, which weapon you have equipped will affect how fast/heavy you can attack. Smaller weapons attack faster, but less chance to daze an attacker. So that also has an effect on the struggle.

Now maybe some monsters have soft spots, weak points, vulnerabilities. Maybe you want to risk a monster to get closer to you than further away so you can directly attack its weak points, dealing more damage or possibly outright killing it (jamming a knife into a monster's throat/heart/head, etc.) But if you fail/miss, then the monster is closer to killing you, and harder to get off.

Now fuck, just so people can argue against me that it's qte, I'll add in timing elements so you're not just pounding buttons as fast as you can.

Let's say if a monster is pretty aggressive and fast, it'll crawl all over you in no time, even if you're trying to daze it/kick it off. How about waiting until it attacks, then blocking at just the right time? Perhaps if you time it correctly, you can flip the monster over and regain your footing, or roll over on top of it and start bashing away with your lead pipe. Or maybe you can counter attack and kill it with a quick jab to the throat. (There goes those pesky weapons, affecting combat again! And if you have the wrong weapon out when the struggle begins, your tactics will be different of course.)

I *hope* I've explained how this is NOT qte, how it adds to normal survival-combat, how it's not just "press button as fast as possible", "press button at right time for quick kill", and adds more of a strategic element to combat more than anything else.

So really, the struggle aspect I was trying to talk about isn't "press button now" like most of you fuckers think it is. How unattractively narrow minded of most of you. You hear a new idea, and assume it's 'qte.' Oh, you can't escape from combat? QTE. Without even hearing an explanation, or even exploring the idea, you default to qte.

I suppose it's my mistake, though, for wanting to talk about taking things in a different direction and talk about game design in #tf. Second time I've tried talking about game design and been pwned by true gamers! Completely my fault. 

map an iceberg cavern 

http://www.neosurrealismart.com/3d-artist-gallery/3d-artworks/3d-fantasy-art/413d-Iceberg-ice-age-B.jpg 

vondur does live in an iceberg. 

Vondur sounds more and more like the Lich King every day. 

you basically end up with a fighting game?

ps. also, i'm doomed, i knew what qte stands for :( 

Quicktime event.

Because the interactive movie fad of the cd-rom era worked so well. 

Developers have for a long time struggled with how to implement their ideas. How to make the player do something awesome when all you have for reliable game mechanics are jumping on crates and hitting stuff with a sword? Cutscenes are falling out of favor, because the anti-Hollywood luddites refuse to cease insisting that our media has to be "interactive" all the time. The answer is really quite simple: you give him some buttons to press.

(Personally, I love a good cutscene. In fact, quite often, after I've watched a good one, if I've still got some milk duds left in the box I'll go and get myself killed just so I can watch it again. Developers who 'get it' make that part easy for me, with tons of bad guys and instant death traps right after a healthy dose of exposition. So I don't have to go looking.

I'll tell you about a developer who doesn't get it: Bungie. First cutscene I experienced in Halo I was so thrilled I immediately grenaded myself to death to sit through it again, only to find out they put a checkpoint save after the cutscene! Come on, fellas! You put all that work into an animated sequence and the player only gets to watch it one time? No wonder Microsoft kicked those guys to the curb.)

What if we want the player to be able to climb a giant statue and stab its eyes out? Too fantastic for you? Get up and leave the room. This is a discussion for problem solvers. For years developers have been wishing their awesome ideas and visionary action sequences could be made into movies, but unfortunately, the best they could do career-wise is games, where they're hobbled by the constant annoying presence of this entity known as "The Player." (Hollywood is smart - those guys don't give a fuck about who's on the other side of the screen. *clicks his powerpoint presentation to a slide of George Lucas* )

But how do you stage and animate the player character climbing this colossal statue while still fulfilling your token obligation to be 'interacting' with the player? Easy: you make a token gesture! And that's why we have QuickTime Events. By forcing the player to press buttons at regular intervals, you ensure he stays awake and that his thumbs haven't gone all tingly, AND if he can lose by not pressing them fast enough then it still feels like a game! But there's a third benefit: the player doesn't have to wait to the end of the cutscene to watch it again! Now your game controls intuitively serve a second role as fast-forward and rewind buttons. Yep: one step closer to the movies.

Back in what I like to call the "Dark Ages" you'd have to write a whole statue-climbing system and simulate the whole affair (plus, your statues would have to be concepted by the level designers - oh god!). After that much expense, you'd pretty much have to make your entire game just about climbing statues and stabbing them in their sensitive bits, and you'd barely have time to pad that with something dead simple like a riding-around-on-a-horse mechanic. And who the fuck would buy that game?

What a modern age we live in. 

Thanks, but I think we're all stocked up on impotent whining. If you know where that shipment of solutions is though, I'm all ears. 

How dare you!!?

oh no, wait a minute....


.

Yes it is 

If you know where that shipment of solutions is though, I'm all ears

-> write a whole statue-climbing system and simulate the whole affair 

"write a whole statue-climbing system and simulate the whole affair"


That's not a solution, it's a pie in the sky wish. I can do that to:

"Make the funnest of the funnest game and make it really fun and super great!"

Same level of usefulness. 

QTE is the answer to a question no one asked. 

Quick-Time-Event is managerial speak so they sound like they know what they're talking about 'Oh, so its like quick time?'
'Yes' (no, you fucking tard)
Usually after not having played the game mechanic in question.

Limiting the players input and the good/bad results of input reduced the amount of gameplay in the game.

This is not a good thing. 

"Quick-Time-Event is managerial speak so they sound like they know what they're talking about 'Oh, so its like quick time?'
'Yes' (no, you fucking tard) "

Where on earth are you getting that from? 

The silent hill fight sequences described above are excellent gameplay mechanics, but they will be labeled as quicktime, which has a shitty, shitty reputation.

Quick Time Event is a modern phrase that has little meaning. What people mean when they say it is limited player input. 

Ahh OK, sorry. I over reacted. 

"Make the funnest of the funnest game and make it really fun and super great!"

Same level of usefulness.

Well... No. Not really. While I could write an entire design doc on how the system should work, I'm not actually a professional games designer (unlike yourself (as you are so often want to remind us)). However, if GTA can manage to have different control systems for driving/flying/walking/swimming/cycling/pogo-sticking and not confuse players then I'm sure you can construct some kind of useful system to allow the player to actually climb a giant statue and stab it in the eye without resorting to 'press X now!' every minute or so while pretending it's not just a more annoying version of a cutscene.

Of course if you actually meant 'unfortunately it's unfeasible to create 200 different control/gameplay systems within the restricted budget/development time of a modern game' then that would be more understandable (and a seperate discussion on the problems symptomatic of the modern games industry). But that's not what you actually said, is it? 

driving / flying / walking / swimming / cycling / pogo-sticking / fuck your auto abrv. system metl ;p