hencook

Thank you kind sir

The question is "Which proportions do you prefer?", and I am claiming that my edit's proportions are more realistic than the other made up picture. To help better illustrate my point, we can ask the question again using even more skewed proportions:

Which proportions do you prefer?

You might prefer Modok's proportions and I wouldn't be irked if you did; but I doubt you would want your significant other's head size to be that large in comparison to their body. The original post is thinly veiled as just the same claim as well.

But hey, smart people are attractive! I'm sure Modok is very attractive.

I don't think she's in an awkward pose considering this is an actual promo screenshot for content that hasn't even been released yet. Maybe the PR team of Irrational Games would agree with me on that one. But yeah, video or a full blown mod is not really in my grasp but maybe more screenshots would be nice. The head size has always been jarring to me and I'm just wondering if anyone else thinks so. I thought it was so jarring that even just one screenshot comparison would do it justice.

So you guise might be confuzzled...

On the left is the actual head size, and the right is my photoshop edit of how big I think Elizabeth's head should be.

Do you think it'll be worth one or two days to wait in line for a PS3 or an XBone? How much money do you think you can make by reselling it?

@chibithor: thank you for playing chibithor, and yes the final question was flawed in that I meant to say "360 vision" instead of limited to exactly what the character can see, sorry. Hope you had fun! And thank you for being a mediator in an argument as well.

Also, good explanation of what he means by inherent. Thanks to you, I understand now.

@believer258: Well there's nothing we can do then. While you think they're sidestepping the main argument (and you are entitled to that), I believe my questions reinforce my argument. I wish you'd answer them because I believe in front of our peers, you would fail to answer in your favor and lose the argument BUT, it is understandable, that one would refuse to grant me the pleasure of those answers. I know it can be a pain to reanswer something I've asked, but from my point of view, the questions are designed to actually address the answers you made into my favor instead.

Note that I understand your point of view thoroughly (I must since I did write a massive wall to address it), I simply wish mine to be as well, if just for acknowledgement's sake. I think you do get what I'm trying to say believer, and for that you have my respect. Oh well, I've gained a lot of XP from this encounter, so it was a pleasure arguing with you.

I like TPS. It's a bit flawed like a moldy cheesecake, but I'll still eat the cheesecake and enjoy it.

Sorry, but seeing only what your character sees is called an FPS. By listing TPS games that wouldn't work as an FPS you're only refuting your own argument. Yeah, maybe Vanquish wouldn't work if you could only see what the character was seeing. Isn't that counter to what you were saying here?

No, allow me to explain. I like how in FPS's, you can't see enemies outside the character's field of vision. I also like a lot of TPS games, like Uncharted. When I said "I want Fog of War for Third Person Shooters", people told me to go play FPS games. So my counter to that is, but you can't have Uncharted as a FPS. It's not nearly as good. Can't I have Fog of War and Third Person at the same time, so I can have the best of both worlds?

I am indeed in the minority of wanting it in every TPS. Well, let's be clear here... While I deep inside I want it in every fps, I freely admit it would be a horrible thing if EVERY fps had it. If COD was a TPS and it had this vision blocking mechanic, it wouldn't sell as well, and we would have less gamers buying games, and finally we'd get less games as a result of that. I guess that would be bad (although not all too bad, hehehe).

@believer258 said:

@hencook:

You must be missing what I meant by "inherent". By that, I mean something that comes with being a third person shooter, and that something was being able to see things that the character cannot. Not being able to move and shoot in RE4 and 5 is not inherent to the genre, it's a design decision made by the developers. Being able to see things that the character you are playing as cannot is something inherent to the third person camera. If you want to only see precisely what the character can see, then first person is where you go. I know that pisses you off but it isn't wrong to suggest it.

but on the contrary being killed indirectly by an all-seeing camera is even more frustrating!

It's not an all-seeing camera. When you hide behind a piece of cover and look down a hallway in Gears of War, you cannot see to your right or left unless you move the camera around. You can never see everything at once, and so putting yourself at the end of a hallway just to camp is a great way to get killed by a good player. Toss a grenade down there, walk around, etc.

"But how am I supposed to know he's there?" Move slowly and carefully around, keep the high ground, stay with your teammates, etc. In a well-designed multiplayer like Gears, good teamwork dominates and playing smart means that you won't get one-shotted from around every corner.

You are ranting about a problem that's only a problem if you don't play good TPS games well.

It's not an all-seeing camera.

Come on now. You know what I meant, I said all-seeing camera so that we could get on with the argument rather than me saying "standard third person shooter camera without fog of war".

You are ranting about a problem that's only a problem if you don't play good TPS games well.

Wow, great argument, attacking my ability to play games. Thanks for the pro-tips by the way. I made it clear: I don't want to get killed from someone I can't see, and I don't want to kill someone that can't see me. I do not derive pleasure from 3rd person corner peeking. It IS an issue, and it CAN be solved with the fog of war.

If you want to only see precisely what the character can see, then first person is where you go. I know that pisses you off but it isn't wrong to suggest it.

And we're going in circles, like I said, Third Person Shooting has a lot of cool advantages that FPS does not.

You keep dodging all my statements, so I'm going to end this with my super special platinum arts move:

Field of Questions!

Section Inherent

1. If not being able to shoot and move at the same time is a legitimate design decision, can blocking the player's vision ever be a legitimate design decision as well? (if you answered to something along the lines that it would frustrate the player, please answer Section Frustration and return here)

2. Which is more important to a third person shooter, Character Movement or Camera movement? Aren't they just as important as each other? (Note: If you answered camera movement is more inherent because vision is the subject matter of the third person perspective, please answer Section Definition and then return here)

3. Is being able to know where your opponents pieces are in chess inherent to playing chess?

3A. If so, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegspiel_(chess) . If NOT so, then what's the difference between vision (or piece location knowledge) being inherent to chess, and vision being inherent to third person shooting?

4. Is it possible that an FPS game where you are completely blind to be enjoyable?

4A. If so, isn't the ability to see inherent to first person shooting?

4B. Wouldn't being blind the whole game frustrate the player?

4C. Would it frustrate ALL players, or would some, even if just the least a few, consider it challenging and enjoyable?

Section Frustration

1. Who would find a fog of war mechanic more frustrating? A noob or a pro gamer?

2. If you answered "Noob", then would the pro gamer be frustrated with the fog of war?

3. If you answered yes, is it possible that the pro gamer would learn to overcome this frustration with skill?

4. If you answered yes, is it possible that this pro gamer in particular would gain skill to the point that he no longer had frustrations with this camera scheme, or basically disadvantages from it?

5. If you answered yes, and if the pro gamer had no disadvantages, and only advantages, would this pro gamer see this mechanic as a legitimate design decision?

Section Definition

1. Do you accept Wikipedia's definition of TPS-

"A third person shooter is a game structured around shooting, and in which the player can see the avatar on-screen in a third person view"?

2. If so, does having fog of war in a third person shooter make it no longer a third person shooter?

3. If fog of war is merely a PARTIAL restriction of how the player is able to view with his camera in TPS, and the movement restrictions from RE5 are also only partial, what exactly about vision being inherent to TPS invalidates a partial vision restriction as a valid design decision if you can still partially see?

Section Issue Validation

1. Let's say you were playing your favorite FPS, for example's sake we'll say Counter-Strike. Would you rather A) Play standard Counter-Strike, or B) Play Counter-Strike where if you stood next to a corner, you could see through the wall and line up your shots on your enemy?

2. Would you consider scenario B from the previous question to be any of the following: No fun, cheap, frustrating if you get hit by it, not rewarding if you kill someone with it?

3. If you answered the previous question with something along the lines of "Just deal with it and play better", would you consider scenario B to be more, equal, or less skillful to play in than scenario A?

4. If you answered the previous question with "B is more or equal", then is peeking out of a corner more difficult in standard first person shooting, or standard third person shooting? Which one requires more risk to perform?

5. Is it possible that you could find gamers that preferred either scenario A or B, or would the majority of gamers prefer strictly only one scenario being A or B?

6. Is it possible that some people would consider being able to be killed by someone you can't see, or being able to kill someone that can't see you, as an issue?

Section Terrible:

1. A casual TPS game would not highly benefit from Fog of War TPS. Is it possible a competitive TPS game could benefit from Fog of War TPS, or are you SURE it would be terrible (or otherwise be ruined by the mechanic)?

2. If fog of war was set to ON in competitive TPS play, would teamwork be more, less ,or equally emphasized than a regular TPS game?

3. If fog of war was set to ON in competitive TPS play, would skill be more, less, or equally required than a regular TPS game?

4. Could you imagine a hybrid RTS/TPS benefiting from Fog of War when the TPS section is being played, or are you SURE it would be terrible?

5. Consider the following: Seeing your costume/character, taking cover, making difficult jumps, doing melee animations. Are these considered advantages of TPS?

6. Is the first person shooter's quality of being only able to see what your character can see a distinct flavor of FPS?

Final Question: If you combined the advantages of the TPS and the distinct flavor of FPS cameras being only able to see what their characters can see, and removed the frustration disadvantage from pro players, and these players preferred being able to only shoot what their characters were not obscured by (as in cover), is it possible that these players would derive pleasure from this type of game design?

Disclaimer: Regardless of whether or not believer chooses to answer these questions, I had a lot of fun creating these questions, so please don't assume I'll be all disappointed otherwise. If he doesn't answer these questions, then it's a default for me (unless he chooses to counter with his own field of questions). If he answer them, but fails to answer them favorably, then good for me, but if he answers them and replies in a way that's favorable to his argument, then I will also be pleased, and intrigued.

WHY is this disclaimer here? Because look at this freaking post. I'm bound to get ridiculed for it.

Stop dodging my statements. Ball is in your court.

You're assuming that a third person shooter should make strides to greatly restrict something inherent to it.

Yes, I am. I'll give some good examples of where this has been done before.
You can't move while aiming in RE4 and 5, even though it's inherent that you should be able to move at all times. Why did the devs do this? Perhaps to raise tension, to make aiming a weapon a risky move.
Street Fighter use to have strength sensitive buttons. The move that came out was dependent on how hard you pressed the button. Strength is inherent to fighting games, yet it was restricted.
Portal is a first person shooter that doesn't really allow the player to shoot.
And the nice Chess Fog of War example I posted above.

A restriction is not inherently bad game design. Health, reloading, and field of view are all restrictions.

when in fact removing them would cause great frustration to the player and you'd do it for no real reason.

I agree with you, it would cause great frustration to some players, but on the contrary being killed indirectly by an all-seeing camera is even more frustrating! At least for me. Is that a real reason? I also believe the mechanic would be better suited for a hardcore/competitive audience. It would probably frustrate them a lot less, at least compared to the average gamer, right? And it would probably make gameplay more interesting, seeing as it would be the first TPS without the all-seeing camera. This might not be popular, but it is at least a real reason that you're asking for. Imagine that, a competitive TPS with the advantages of the TPS, combined with the LOS restrictions of the FPS. If a player can no longer rely on his camera to see, he might have to rely on his teammates to relay their locations. GOW restricts camera movement.

It's like saying that Final Fantasy shouldn't include Phoenix Downs anymore because it gets in the way of the story (i.e. Aeris's death), when in fact removing them would cause great frustration to the player and you'd do it for no real reason.

I think we can do better than no phoenix downs. How about we play a TPS where you're simply BLIND the entire game? (okay, I think that's a FPS at that point, bare with me here)... That's a pretty crazy restriction right? I mean...being able to SEE is inherent to shooting games right? Would this frustrate players? Undoubtedly at first. But it's imaginable that you could actually make an experience out of it.

Yes, the fog of war idea is terrible game design for some TPS games, you know what, probably a majority of TPS games. But all TPS games? Are you sure, even with the reasons I've provided, that it would still be absolutely terrible for every single instance? Can't even be bothered to entertain one of my examples where it might be good? Just because the mechanic would be frustrating, doesn't mean the resulting game would be terrible. Combos are frustrating. Dying is frustrating. Hard mode is frustrating.... They're frustrating but they don't make the game terrible. I would rather best my foes with superior teamwork and my own situational awareness, not with something the TPS camera gives me.