Diogo Ribeiro

The singleplayer campaign is shaping up to be pretty interesting, although it's still on a "I'll believe it when I see it" stage for me.

It's a great game to explore, to discover locations, and small details of the gameworld. The lore of the gameworld is also surprisingly good and deep. Character creation is great in the sense that you can create very varied characters. Unfortunately, nearly all NPCs are vapid and are nothing more than walking encyclopedias to which you can ask for the same topics: lore, directions, other NPCs. Most of the skills are more often used for rising in guild status in a passive way than actual quests, and most quests are pretty bland, one-sided deals. Combat is also boring and repetitive, there's little to no challenge to be had. I suggest playing it first if you have the chance, but if you're interested in buying it, try to buy it as cheap a possible.

Hence, once again, why I suggested it for the game I was talking about. It works for that game because those are mainly the only two constant elements which are shown, and don't necessarily need to be shown. It's pretty obvious it wouldn't work for any of your other suggestions, or any other which needed more information on screen. No, it would have to do with what games it may be applicable. First, the suggestion didn't have anything to do with the game using stealth or not; it had to do with the game's interface. Second, you can figure out if the same idea will work on a game or not depending on how much interface is required to be shown. Unsurprisingly, it is going to work better in games that don't use many on-screen information to begin with. You wouldn't expect this to be implemented in a game that requires information from more than a dozen different sources. On the other hand, I'm sure a couple of firstperson shooters wouldn't suffer by including an inventory presentation like that of, say, Grim Fandango. That basically answers the question, doesn't it?

Who claimed it was "easy" to begin with? This isn't a contest. I and others have said already, it doesn't necessarily work with all games. In fact my inital suggestion wasn't even for a firstperson shooter; you were the one to bring up the implementation of that into firstperson shooters and then, apparently oblivious that I wasn't talking of FPSs to begin with, seemed irate that I would suggest it for FPSs! If you were expecting the suggestion to apply to all games in existence or to FPSs when it wasn't meant to - as obviously each game is different in design - then you only have yourself to blame for the disappointment.

Not really, Wookie, no. I expected what I was saying to have been clear enough, but I guess I wasn't able to express it properly. My suggestion is basically to make it so the information is still visible and just as compact, but instead of being conveyed trough a conventional interface it is instead presented trough the game's models. In short, turn something which potentially looks like this: Into something that, again potentially, would look like this: Minus the bad graphical quality of late night Photoshop rush jobs. Notice the difference? The 'floating' top left health bar and the top right ammo bar were transposed into the models. The ammo counter was placed on the weapon, the health bar was placed on the character as some gadgetesque display. Now, would this work for all games? No, I never said otherwise. It is however, very possible to do and if properly implemented can outdo the need for conventional interface displays.

Is a hell of a drug -- Rick James

I'm waiting to be able to buy Psychonauts. With all the money dumped into going back to consoles, I'm kinda short on t now.

It's a nice game that basically uses the Silver Age of Comics as a theme complete with corny one-liners, outrageous costumes and stereotypical characters, but it's done in a very charming way. Every hero that becomes available to you will have an introduction vignette, rendered in a Jack Kirby style. Basically it's a squad-based tactical game. Initially you play just one superhero, Minuteman but as you progress more heroes join your cause against commies, robots, monsters and all else that's evil. It plays out in realtime but you can pause the action to issue orders. Every hero has different types of powers available to them but the core types are melee, projectile and area-effect. One of the highlights of the game, although it isn't used as good as it could've been, is that the environments are very interactive. Want to hit four thugs at the same time? Rip out a street lamp and whack them. Don't have the power to jump to the top of a building to bash the thug firing at you? Kick the building down. Does getting trough an obstacle take too long? Pick up a taxi... And throw it at the obstacle. Another nice touch is that depending on how you complete mission objectives, you'll gain prestige points, which you can later use to 'buy' other heroes to join your cause. This happens because not every hero will immediately join you, and you have to recruit them to your team. The only RPG you'll get from it is the ability to customize your heroes via experience points awarded after each mission, where you can then improve statistics or purchase new powers. Haven't played it yet so I can't comment, but going by what I've heard it's pretty much an update on the first game in terms of graphics and control, while gameplay supposedly remains the same. This can be good or bad depending on what you felt about the first game, obviously.

Star Wars: Masters of Ter

Precisely. I would enjoy it either way, really, but why wouldn't this make the gameworld more immersive to some players? It can potentially make gaming artefacts and conventions much more tolerable.

It's the same as trying to call up any other function that potentially needs to be used during combat. Why are you complaining about the would be inadequacy of this feature in firstperson when the example was not given with firstperson or Oblivion in context? I'm neither, really. Although I know my playstyle and I know that I tend to not look at health or ammo displays because I'm generally more busy dealing with opponents than I am consulting that information. In fact, trying to read information during those times spells death to my avatar most of the time. I place more emphasis on performing outlandish maneuvers to survive than I do keeping track of health while the avatar is being shot. I've said multiple times that I suggested for it to be called up or toggled. You wouldn't have to keep calling it up if you toggled, obviously, just as you don't need to keep pressing a crouch button if you are toggling it. Because of this, the health display could be shown permanently if you so wanted to, except not using a conventional interface. Hopefully, it was the last time I had to repeat that... ...but I guess not. The point is to remove the interface from the visual area but to make the information still present. To do this I suggested the information to be displayed trough in-game methods. You would still have the information at your disposal, wheter you called it once or toggled its display, but still there. The only changes would be: Instead of a floating bit of interface, the information would be visible directly off the models in the game. Ammo would be displayed directly on the weapon model. Health would be displayed on the character model - again, check the wrist watch example to see if you can figure out how exactly it could still be permanent. Instead of a permanent display of the information, players could choose to call it on demand or toggle it On or Off. What is there to complain if the different "tools" are, or can be, visible all the time? What are you complaining about if my suggestion allows you to have your health levels displayed at all times if you so wish? From everything I've been (repeatedly) typing what exactly am I not being able to convey? Tell me. No, the fact remains you're somehow attributing a notion of realism to a suggestion that is poised to lessen the idea of playing a game rather than a gameworld. How can you even suggest I'm pushing for more realism when I'm not basing anything of what I'm writing in reality; and suggest I'm pushing for less gameplay (?) when gameplay remains virtually unchanged? As I said before, I don't check it that often. Even when I played online, such as in Quake 3 Arena or Medal of Honor, I focused almost always on sensing surroundings, opponent movements and tactics. I barely looked at my health or ammo levels.

I feel the same way personally, in the sense that I care more about the gameplay and how consistent and credible the gameworld is than I do with how much the interface keeps telling me that I'm playing a game. I'm not making these suggestions because I think the interface would solve any and all problems which might crop up in regards to immersion, because as I've said before it's not exclusive to interface. I believe that if a compromise between both is worth it then there's really no problem; I'd take an issue with such a thing if the in-game mechanics that tried to take the place of the interface were badly implemented or became too cumbersome. Transposing these kinds of options into valid and credible counterparts in the gameworld can be great, but it shouldn't be done just because. I haven't played Quake 4 (don't think I will either) but I have seen images of what you're talking about. If the weapon is going to have that kind of feature, I think the weapon readout should be turned directly at the player rather than placed at that angle. Point taken, and I agree; as I've said before I don't think it should be done just because. It should be properly designed. The way I see it, this kind of feature could in fact help in turning them into a better storytelling artform. When you're experiencing a gameworld, I feel the interface is, or can be as damaging to the overall experience as small liner notes would be when reading a book, or hearing/seeing notes about a movie as you watch it. It doesn't mean that it can't work seamlessly but more often than not it negatively contributes to it all.

First they called it turnbased, now it's partially realtime. Again I'm reminded why I never went to their website again.

That's because you're comparing between the gameplay mechanics themselves, when you should be comparing the ability to toggle or activate a function instead. In other words, no, I'm not saying sneaking is the same as looking at a health bar; I'm saying activating the health display would be just the same as activating a function like sneaking. Or reloading. That's why you'd be able to... Check it! Which part of "they're different", "I don't care for realism", and "immersion is independent of realism" do you require me to explain better? 2 extra keys, for expressing two functions most players can't deal with when in intense firefights. That hard to control?

Or maybe I play enough of them to suggest something that doesn't require any out of the ordinary maneuvers, as well as allowing players to keep paying attention to the action. Unless you have the ability to switch between first and third person. Like Oblivion. I can't fathom how you go from 1 button to 3, then 50. Before your next post mentions my suggestion requires 14 keyboards, 5 mouses, and 2 DDR Dance Pads, look up the part of my post where I said it only needs one button to be activated on demand, or toggled. With 1 button. If you don't find executing that action hard, you shouldn't consider checking your health in the same manner hard. Nicely put, IF. Go check that line you quoted. I said my suggestion allowed players to retain the ability to keep seeing all the action and interacting with surroundings. When I say they'd still be able to see the action, I'm clearly not refering to the HUD, I'm refering to the action that is occuring, ie, gunfights. In other words, the player would have the ability to call up the health display in the suggested manner, but doing so would not negatively impact on his ability to keep interacting with the rest of the game. By association, this also means he'd be able to switch between seeing and not seeing his health displayed without this becoming a problem when used in the middle of a confrontation because it's not on a separate screen or anything; it's displayed on the same screen as the rest of the game, while the action is taking place. If you have to, consider it close to going about your business and suddenly lifting your left hand to check your watch to see what time it is. Except in the game, you'd be shooting every stinking hippie down the street. I'm glad you know more about the system than I do, especially considering it doesn't exist. 'Actual combat' is unpredictable. Given you play FPSs, you should know no combat situation is ever the same, and different actions may be required to survive or advance. This is especially true of online shooters where there'd be a whole deal of frustration if stealth or crouching was only done before any combat situation, rather than when it's required.

Depends on interpretation. True. Though, did I suggest or say otherwise? Just curious. I agree, although I don't find it's exclusive to those elements alone even if I find them to be more important. Giving clear and direct information can be made in a way that it feels natural to the gameworld or it can be made in a way that it feels distant to the gameworld. Considering interfaces are elements which filter what happens in the gameworld so we can better interact with them, and are recognizably so, I'd say they feel distant and can lead to immersion breaking. This isn't always the case, but it is most of the time. Also, in no part of what I wrote above did I suggest pulling the player out of the action in order to access his health bar or ammo count. The structure of the game isn't necessarily the same as the interface. Bad as it may have been, the situation in your example wasn't quite the same as explaining why there are colored bars or numbers flying off NPC's head in combat. Better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try.

Or think about how my suggestion was for Metal Gear Solid, which is not a firstperson shooter and does not have the need for such a level of constant feedback as one. Or think about just how many times during intense gunfights players actually look at health gauges. Check out Llyranor's suggestions, they're pretty good. Progressive texture remapping of the model to display wounds, slowdown of movements, and loss of skill depending on character damage. To start with. I'll let them speak for themselves. Doubtful, since I'm suggesting nearly any interface to be visible at all. It can't be cumbersome if it's not there. Your point was that it was (supposedly) hard to do. I only presented another example of something which is also considered hard to do, but it's very manegeable. And both reloading a weapon and checking up on health during a firefight are very similar, to the extent the player has to perform two actions simultaneously. But considering my suggesting involves the ability to keep seeing all the action and interacting while still checking health levels, I don't see how that's really a concern to begin with. It can be used once or toggled, much like a stealth mode, changing between running/walking modes, or doing a simple crouch. I'm not trying to "destroy realism". Also, they are independant of each other. ...Is it me or I can't understand anything about this last part?

"Hide behind a button"? This makes it seem suggesting the game giving information based on key pressing is not only evil, it was never done before. Lollerskates. If it sounds terribly frightening to press a button, you could always attach a counter to most weapons and therefore consult them just by looking at the weapon. If you haven't been following the thread, I'm not sure you'll get it by now. In any case I'll try to make it brief. For starters, an item is not "magically" doing the same thing, there's a context and explanation in the very game for it to work; it isn't working "just because". Also, the difference is that one (hovering health bar/ammo counter/etc) is a clearly intrusive interface device which risks breaking immersion; the other (is an acceptable way of simultaneously giving players the ability to gauge important information without having to be forced to deal with a cumbersome interface. Having to press a button to manually reload an empty weapon instead of having it reload automatically is also hard, but it doesn't mean it's not manageable. Once again, reality != immersion. And how could you make a wrong guess if the way to represent health is the same as ever, only presented in a different way? No one is taking away your ability to see character health, just as no one is suggesting the information should become less accurate (which you'd have noticed if you had read what I wrote previously).

Yes, I known; they're pretty much secondary visual aides when it comes to determining character health. These type of animations usually have quite a number of supporters when it comes to pushing for more intuitive, fluid game experiences, and feedback.

Except Dungeon Keeper.

I'm not giving suggestions for everyone, either. Which doesn't mean it's not breaking the illusion that we're experiencing a game rather than an interactive world. Which is what is being discussed.

Beats me. Then again I didn't suggest removing them from the game. What is more of an immersion breaker, numbers popping out of a character's head to indicate his health loss or something which takes one button and one second to use and doesn't remind you as much you're playing a game?

All you're doing is replacing the health bar with another health display system which is just as accurate. It's not really that different from how Resident Evil did it, except you don't have to access a separate page to do so. Reality != immersion. As in, the suggestion has no intention of making the game simulate reality at all, only to overcome the need for immersion breaking devices such as interfaces which get in the way. It is true that MGS's interface doesn't really get much in the way but you can apply the same suggestions to games which do have issues with such interface use.

Graphics and Control of will always be 'immersion breaking' for as long as we arn't plugging computer games into our brains, this is a non-issue because the point is never to think 'we arn't playing a game' but to get so involved in the game that it's not relevent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you notice, interface, general gameplay conventions and the ocasional oddball designer decision are largely the main reasons why there is such immersion breaking in games, even in games most people claim to be immersive. Interface is for the most part always intrusive, and it gets worse the more feedback you're trying to give players but it's my belief that it can be made to be very effective while being streamlined. Compare something like Baldur's Gate 2's interface with titles like Soul Reaver or Metal Gear Solid. It can be argued that these games wildly differ in gameplay and in a need to display information to the player, but they nonetheless provide nearly all the information in very subtle ways. MGS stands out as a game where you don't even need to access a separate screen for the inventory - a quick tap of the shoulder buttons and you're cycling between them. The interface barely messes with immersion, although it does pause the action so you can access it better. In the oddball department... Take Baldur's Gate and how some weapons were named after their magical attributes. Bastard Sword +1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters is something the player should know about, but should be masked from the gameworld. Is it credible that characters would go about naming their weapons as we do in reality, when they aren't aware of our reality to begin with? It's like playing the initial area of Knights of the Old Republic and having characters refer to the controls, or playing Zelda DX: Link's Awakening and having the kids in the island talk about gameplay hints or mechanics which they shouldn't know about. I believe its entirely possible to make a compromise between giving feedback and streamlining information without a game becoming utterly simplistic or devoid of information, although admitedly there's not a whole lot of examples when it comes to the RPG genre. But really, information can be presented in many different ways and sometimes this hasn't got much to do with the technology available, but rather how it's used. I'm not a game designer - unfortunately; at best I'm a gaming enthusiast with too much time on his hands - and I'm sure I could pick up on MGS and tell you a couple of ways to obscure most of the interface so the experience would become more seamless. Want to remove the health bar? Devise a gadget that reads the health condition of the user (much like in Resident Evil games) and provide an adequate in-game explanation for it. Have Snake wear it on his wrist and code it so players switching to a firstperson perspective could consult the gadgets' readings. Bye bye health bar. Want to remove an ammo counter? Take the same previous example but make it so players can look at their weapons' in-built ammo counter, or into a sort of utility belt which graphically displays the remaining amount of ammo for a given weapon, or grenades. Farewell gun statistics flying over your head or somesuch.

Well, as I've said before, it boils down to just how much a given event is supported by the gameworld or gameplay itself. Take Morrowind for instance, where Dagoth Ur is invulnerable until you destroy that which makes him invulnerable. In this case, there is an explanation in the gameworld for his immortality - and it would be perfectly valid wheter his immortality would be permanent or not. With Deus Ex (and other games, of course; I'm not trying to make Deus Ex some sort of scapegoat, it just seeped into the conversation) there's a lack of justification for these things in the gameworld. No disagreement there, although this isn't much of a common thing nowadays. Preferably there should be a reasonable number of alternate means to advance in the game instead of relying on one single element. Yes, you've already established that. The thing is, does it always have to be Game Over? I don't think so.