Update #38: Meet the Developers with Mark Bremerkamp, Lead Animator

[sesobebo]

properly drawn portraits all the way. i wasn't asking for closeups of 3d models. i also wasn't asking for portraits to be animated; i was asking for the possibility of animated portraits.

[Osvir]

Are there any significant differences between animating movies and games?

-There is a big difference. Usually in games the camera can be in any position so the character can be seen from every possible angle. That means every part of the character has to look good from any and every possible angle. When we work on movies or cinematics the camera is locked to one specific angle. With a locked camera the animator only needs to animate the parts of the character that are in frame. Animation response time is another thing a game animator has to always keep in mind. The game mechanics will dictate how fast or slow an animation should be. When the player presses the button they expect their character to react. As animators when we shoot realistic reference of a punch  we need to be cognizant of this. If we animated exactly to that reference the hit frame on the attack more often than not feels slow. A lot of times we have to animate with less anticipation before the strike so that the attack is responsive for gameplay

 

 

Thank you for your answers, this is the one I wanted to as more about. It is still possible to animate two entities individually and have them fight a battle, looking visually like a battle? Looking like an animated movie, but animated "actors". It'd most definitely blow the budget, but it is possible? Because P:E isn't Batman (Player skill) could animations purely be character animation?

 

Are you having any thoughts on an animation mechanic that fulfills the animation before your character takes an action?

 

In this scenario:

Bandit: Attacks character

Player: Player clicks somewhere else to move away the character from the attack.

Bandit: Attack finishes, then Character moves.

 

I believe that could give more freedom to the animators to do a little what they want with combat, and add tactical situations. Specially in the case of "Do I want to engage this?" scenarios. Would you engage the Ogre if you'd be "locked" in animation during the Ogre's attack and have to wait for the animation frame of the Ogre to finish before your character runs away?

 

So in a sense, a little bit turn-based. Though, aren't dice rolls turn-based anyways?

 

Again, the question stands "Is it possible?". Early on, one of the Developers (Tim Cain I think?) said something about "How do you grapple a Centaur?" that is all fine and dandy in my opinion, but how do you fight a Centaur?

 

My thoughts are generally on a "realistic" combat, which I believe could work very well with parameters such as "Dice rolls". I see so many triggers that a 3D programmer and animator could use. Is this realistic to create with technology today? Or am I being naive on how easy it could be to model & animate an isometric combat?

 

Why am I curious?

 

Wizard duels, based on what "styles" of fighting you activate, your Wizard could breathe fire, in a struggle of dice rolls, against another Wizard that breathes ice. And you, as the player, simply gets to sit back and hold your thumbs that you will win the struggle of dice rolls. I can think of pretty much every single class, weapon, item, affecting dice rolls as well. So it could be like the Player simply "inserting" assets into the fight to change it into their favor.

 

Like a Chef adding flavorful and spicey ingredients to an already interesting dish 

 

Is this a possible reality with today's technology?

 

 

EDIT: Finally, is it possible to animate two entities as "one body" rather than "two bodies". So Gladiator vs Gladiator becomes a fight between Gladiators normally, adding in "special attack" continues the animation to that attack and the opponent reacts to it or takes a hit?

 

If Mortality is a Big Business on Hard (this is on design I think), could that single hit be what determines the end of the battle? And Stamina as a resource would be what keeps the "fight alive" so to speak?

 

As for "Blocks", there could be "passive" abilities that trigger the Fighter, so that he reacts based on a dice roll and defends (without Player intervention) a special attack by the enemy. Remember:

 

Bandit: Special Attack

Player: Clicks character to go elsewhere.

Bandit: Attacks first, Character moves later. Or, the passive makes your character react (due to dice roll) and blocks the special attack.

 

Yeah anyways, I'll stop advocating this idea after this post. Just curious as to what works, and what doesn't work both in today technology and P:E.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Osvir

[Jarmo]

 

"For instance,  longswords and bastard swords  use the exact same animations."

 

Oh dear.

 

I'd expect all 1-h swords to use the same animation(s) and 2-h swords to use the other set.

Bastard sword would use one or the other, depending on whether it's used as 1 or 2 handed.

 

Even stuff like mace could use the same overhead bash animation as a longsword,

though if there are - and I hope there will be - alternate animations, then that could be a different one.

 

As long as it's not like a stab with ball and chain, I see no reason to not share animations as much as possible.

[PurpleLlama]

I'm of the opinion that painted portraits are preferable to 3d or animated ones. A couple of small reasons. Firstly it sparks the imagination a bit, secondly animations could be a bit distracting making for an overly busy UI, and lastly it just feels right to me - more reminicant of say a fantasy book and in certain ways the spirit of D&D.

 

Tis my humble opinion.

[Valorian]

 

Indeed.

ToEE did a great job with animations and character models. It's those details.. like for example how their stances change when combat begins.

 

 

"For instance,  longswords and bastard swords  use the exact same animations."

 

Oh dear.

 

Would people be more upset if they found out that their weapon of choice shares the same attack animations with a longsword or bastard sword... or would they be more upset if their weapon of choice has a single, one and only, attack animation, but! different from a bastard sword, which happens to be the weapon of choice of... John in Australia?

This could work on budget. Make 3 attack animations per weapon, but let all swords have the same animations. Same with hammers and morningstars or flails. This overlap is no big thing, and you save money for death animations as well

 

 

I'd expect all 1-h swords to use the same animation(s) and 2-h swords to use the other set.

Bastard sword would use one or the other, depending on whether it's used as 1 or 2 handed.

 

Even stuff like mace could use the same overhead bash animation as a longsword,

though if there are - and I hope there will be - alternate animations, then that could be a different one.

 

As long as it's not like a stab with ball and chain, I see no reason to not share animations as much as possible.

Neither do I.

[rjshae]

I'm of the opinion that painted portraits are preferable to 3d or animated ones. A couple of small reasons. Firstly it sparks the imagination a bit, secondly animations could be a bit distracting making for an overly busy UI, and lastly it just feels right to me - more reminicant of say a fantasy book and in certain ways the spirit of D&D. Tis my humble opinion.

 

The most useful aspect of the character portraits is the stuff that's not actually in the portrait: physical and magical effects, health/stamina status, mana remaining; that sort of thing. I wonder if a profile would work better?

[Gorth]

 

I'm of the opinion that painted portraits are preferable to 3d or animated ones. A couple of small reasons. Firstly it sparks the imagination a bit, secondly animations could be a bit distracting making for an overly busy UI, and lastly it just feels right to me - more reminicant of say a fantasy book and in certain ways the spirit of D&D. Tis my humble opinion.

 

The most useful aspect of the character portraits is the stuff that's not actually in the portrait: physical and magical effects, health/stamina status, mana remaining; that sort of thing. I wonder if a profile would work better?

 

I can sort of see the benefit of both approaches. I liked that I could replace all the portraits in the Baldurs Gates games with some of my own liking (for both my character and the other party members), but I also though it nice in PS:T where I could see people looking battered and bruised when they had taken a beating. I always thought it could be an interesting place to show a party members attitude towards you through facial expressions. Are they friendly, hostile, servile, arrogant or possibly just faking it (metagaming you the same way you would try doing it to a party members)?

[Falkon Swiftblade]

Gorth, that's exactly what I was saying. I just wanted the portraits to represent stuff like if the companion was dissatisfied with your action, or if they were happy, or scared, maybe that could help be a narrative to help the meta story. Maybe as you do a quest, you see the portraits face cower in fear as you speak to an NPC, and that gives you some context that companion has some history or connection to the player or NPC's. And I'm Really hoping the characters are able to have some method of showing in greater details damage over time, or their equipment swap in real time, but if they can show a character heaving or bruised eye or something in the portrait that would be fine too.

[Helm]

OMG he worked on Bloodlines??? I already love this guy.

 

Check the computer in the bail bonds building in Santa Monica. His name is mentioned there (with some other developers) as a gag.