PDA

View Full Version : Emotion



Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 04:10
So my response to the most recent trailer, and the two teasers before it, sort of got me thinking about some things:

What sort of situations and activities will we be presented with in Dog Days? How much of a focus will the lives and development of the characters be?

After answering those questions for myself, I wondered what the rest of the people that are stoked for this game are thinking on those questions. What do you guys want to see in this game--not in terms of content like weapons or vehicles; what sort of situations would you like to see Kane and Lynch in that would take advantage of their unique character?

Straight up action game set piece stuff is awesome, but I feel like when you focus on the event you're squandering what great characters the dudes at IOI have created. Personally, I want to see simple things, the dirty stuff that you don't see in games a lot, and the consequences of working in that area of crime.

When I see the videos of Lynch breaking down the door with the bowling ball, or the guys running naked through the fast food place with dogs and bullets chasing them, it makes the characters seem very vulnerable, real, not untouchable like every other character in games. If they can really capture that feel of vulnerability, humanity, I'll be one happy camper.

What are your thoughts?

Kman172
17th Dec 2009, 04:17
I'd like to play out the scene shown in the trailer with Kane. As I said in the trailer thread, I believe that the area shown in the scenes with Kane are a school grounds or playground. A firefight taking place in this area would be incredibly tense and emotional. A real test of morals. Wipe out the pursuers and risk killing innocent civilians, possibly women or children but keep your partners and comrades alive and well. Or, run away and try to kill as few people as possible and just barely escape with your life without the fear that you just made someone a widow and a child without a parent but also deal with the fact that you abandoned and essentially let your comrades die.

Kent-45
17th Dec 2009, 04:27
Kane & Lynch is very story driven, as compared to the Hitman games. Kane doesn't have a "set appearance" in any particular mission. Sometimes he's shaven, sometimes he's wearing a suit, etc... In the prison level of Kane & Lynch 1, his suit is dirty from the previous level. I think the little touches like that really bring the game to life.

Overall though... I think vulnerable is good for character development, but I wonder how vulnerable these two can really be after all they've been through. Lynch seems to have a girlfriend now, which implies some level of compassion... Kane seems to be up to his old heartless criminal ways again. It's business as usual.

My problem is that I like to play the game very slowly and methodically, and it seems like a lot of missions are going to be frantic "zomg run for your life" type deals... not sure how I feel about that, but at this point, it seems pretty freakin awesome.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 16:35
I want IO to keep the 'emotional' level even more subtle than in Dead Men , and have an ending that'll leave most people wandering "what does it mean ?" , not because of its ridiculous complexity , but rather by communicating with Our emotions ...
And of course since not everyone understands or know what guilt , drama and regret feels like , most gamers will be scratching their heads and calling the game crap , again ...

Anywya ...

Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 17:02
Yep, that would definitely play into the strengths of their characters. There are obviously going to be the more primal emotions interlaced through out, but achieving shades of an emotion within a moment is really important. I'm not sure how much of a connection they can create between the average person and these two murderers, but they can certainly make you understand their flaws better and how they affect their lives.

The problem is that when you have a game based around shooting people constantly, it's hard to find opportunity to effectively relay subtle emotions.

Just some thoughts:

I'd really like them to have more time leading up to the major action scenes where you get to see Kane and Lynch react to the situation and each other. If they had more of a build up to the action, not only could they try putting in different types of gameplay while your attention isn't focused on shooting everything in sight, but that would also create the opportunity for more development of character and environment.

I felt like the club scene in the first one was very close to achieving this sort of thing, but ended up being too brief; it was without anything really standing in your way that could make things interesting for you before the shooting started. Kane and Lynch talked like getting into this place was going to be a delicate process, or at least tricky in some manner. All you had to do is walk up to a dude and head butt him then walk in and shoot two guys. It was. . . . unfulfilling.

UhUh
17th Dec 2009, 17:38
Yep, that would definitely play into the strengths of their characters. There are obviously going to be the more primal emotions interlaced through out, but achieving shades of an emotion within a moment is really important. I'm not sure how much of a connection they can create between the average person and these two murderers, but they can certainly make you understand their flaws better and how they affect their lives.

The problem is that when you have a game based around shooting people constantly, it's hard to find opportunity to effectively relay subtle emotions.

Just some thoughts:

I'd really like them to have more time leading up to the major action scenes where you get to see Kane and Lynch react to the situation and each other. If they had more of a build up to the action, not only could they try putting in different types of gameplay while your attention isn't focused on shooting everything in sight, but that would also create the opportunity for more development of character and environment.

I felt like the club scene in the first one was very close to achieving this sort of thing, but ended up being too brief; it was without anything really standing in your way that could make things interesting for you before the shooting started. Kane and Lynch talked like getting into this place was going to be a delicate process, or at least tricky in some manner. All you had to do is walk up to a dude and head butt him then walk in and shoot two guys. It was. . . . unfulfilling.

Totally agree with you.

Without drastically change the game, they could add some little animation during the cover:
If you think about it, how many times do the characters just stand still behind something, in the trailer Kane screams for help, or just an expression of fear, rage, fatigue, a gesture.
Same thing when running: let them stumble, cover their face when underfire.

Keeping the game still full of action as it is, but at the same time fill in the gaps to make it feel more real. A little detail like that would make the characters way more alive then they are.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 18:08
As long as it's not scripted , those animations you proposed are nice little details they should add ...

Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 18:24
Indeed, it seems like they're trying hard to make these characters feel more human this time around, and I commend them for that. It's little touches to the characters and their animations, like the ones you mentioned, that can do a lot to making the characters feel like characters instead of unstoppable killing machines.

But I had a question that maybe people here can answer:

This game is supposedly really trying to be brutal and real. How would you work around normal gaming conventions--regenerating health and such--in a game that's trying to capture the brutality of violence and the fear it would create in a person?

The first game had some shootouts that were very tense with bullets flying everywhere, people dying and trying to crawl away, screams, etc. But (putting some of the AI issues that made the situations more funny than they were intense) you could get shot nine times before Kane even reacted. And after that, you only had to wait a few seconds before you were all better. That makes things significantly less tense when you know getting shot isn't a big deal.

Obviously, you have to be forgiving to a certain extent (maybe not on the higher difficulties), but how would you make the player feel vulnerable in a gun fight without making the game ridiculously hard or using some really gamey system like regenerating health?

Arsh
17th Dec 2009, 18:36
Just a thought, but you can assume that only one bullet will kill you. The damage indicators on screen should instead indicate how close the bullets are instead of how much damage you're taking. I think just changing the context could help in that regard. The more indication (arrows, screen filling with red), then it implies that the bullets are far more closer, you're getting grazed, etc. It only takes one fatal shot to put you in the ground.

Just a thought.

As for the emotion talk, I think you guys are spot-on.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R
17th Dec 2009, 18:41
If IOI adds those details that they had in the trailer then we wont have to worry about anything. those small details like Lynch wearing those reading glasses and nodding sadly at the mirror really made me realize how much humanity those two had.. I really hope that this game has an even darker mood than the first one while.

about the game being too easy or too hard, I think that the developers will just have to find compromise between the two. I won't mind if they keep regenerating health but I hope that this time around the AI is better at giving you a challenge. I thought that some part in the first game where hard but that was either because of those armored up guys who I really hated or snipers who shot me from miles away. if anyone here played the Brothers in Arms games, those had really amazing AI. the enemies would try to flank you and to corner you.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 18:45
I always played Dead Men on Morphine , the highest difficulty setting , and though it's true the screen goes red after only three deadly shots ... there wasn't a really a sense of emergency , or a need to 'survive' ...

That or maybe i played that game one time too many , anywya ...

As for your question ... i have a proposition :
Lower , or better yet , remove the 'magic' third person view completely when behind cover ...
Whenever you go behind cover you would expect that your character is completely oblivious to the enemies' position and such , but no , for some reason the camera is positioned as such that you can always see what's happening on the other side , all you have to is to take aim and shoot ...
Now what if you can't see what's happening on the other side ? ... meaning instead of merely aim and shoot , now you'll have to aim , observe the area , find the enemy , then shoot ...
Plus with this kind of gameplay ,the 'blind fire' will finally have some sort of usefulness ...

Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 19:06
Lower , or better yet , remove the 'magic' third person view completely when behind cover ...


I've thought about that a considerable amount. The answer I usually come to is that while in cover the camera should pull in very close so that the player can't see around the corner, then implement something that would allow you to stick your head out for half a second and pick up the positions of the enemies, mark them for a few seconds so that you know where they are for three seconds or something like that. That would make it so you couldn't just have a god perspective on things from a completely safe position.

The problem with that is, the player would then just stop using cover. I still haven't figured out that problem, maybe make the camera very tight as it is so that you can't look around corners easily while outside of cover, unless you expose yourself ... that might actually work ...

Anyway, concerning the health system. Making it so the bullets are missing until a certain point is definitely a good idea, changing context of the information could make a huge difference. Stand out in the open for so long, and the enemy will eventually hit you. The problem with that is that since you're still dealing with a number that is decreasing, you still know it will be a specific amount of time out of cover before you'll get hit. Maybe if the value of your "health" changed depending on your range from an enemy. So at long distances you had more "health" or time out of cover, and that amount decreases the closer you get to the person shooting at you until you're point blank range where you are sure to get hit unless you get really, really, really lucky.

It could work, but there'd have to be a bit of thought put into the different factors that would affect that number dictating whether you get hit or not.

My idea, which I admit wasn't as good as the one I addressed above, was that when you got hit, you were hindered, but not killed--mobile but not moving as quickly as you would healthy, until a friend came over and healed you. If you got shot more than once, you'd go down and have to crawl to safety where someone could hit you with adrenaline.

Now that I think about it, having a combination of those two systems could be super cool.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 19:20
Ironically , all the ideas we've got so far Still doesn't make the game very 'real' , nor does it makes the player feel 'vulnerable' either ...

There's one way where they can make you very vulnerable when playing as Lynch ... have him loose or breaks his glasses ...
Now that'll be a sequence where you can't tell civilian from cops ...

But i suppose that's more likely to be a scripted sequence rather than a gameplay element ...

Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 20:26
Very true, we're talking about a video game. But I don't think that invalidates trying to create mechanics that are more in line with the limitations of the human body within the real world.

I want to highlight the following idea just because I think it's pretty great:
(I'm seriously excited to propose this).

Since one of this game's stated goals is to create an experience that is brutal, I think one of the most effective things that IOI could do is make the impact of every bullet on the player character very clear, and that is so whether they decide to include regenerating health or not.
In the most recent trailer for the game, the part where Kane gets shot. In that moment, Kane is firing at enemies, you hear the whizzing bullet briefly, then you hear the impact of the bullet, and Kane is literally thrown to the ground. Imagine that happening in game!
You're out of cover, trying to get a bead on a guy; you hear a bullet whizzing for maybe half a second, cuing you into the fact that you're about to get shot. You could go back into cover within that small time frame and avoid the bullet (I imagined succeeding at this a few times would unlock an achievement or trophy called "...I can dodge bullets?" :P), but if you failed to get out of the way in time you'd get hit, you wouldn't die, but you'd be thrown to the ground, as Kane was in the trailer. At this point you'd have to drag yourself back behind cover for your health regenerate--you could get up on your own if you were only hit once.
Imagine how jarring that would be! After years of playing games and being able to "sponge" bullets, you are now put down after only one. You'd still be able to shoot, you're not defenseless or completely immobile, but you got shot and there should be some effect more than just the screen's edges turning red or blood spattering on the screen. If IOI wants the game to be brutal, they should make the bullets have impact on the characters just as much as they have an impact on the environment.

Obviously, the weapon being used should have an effect on how much of an impact the bullet has, but I definitely think it would be a GREAT idea for them to implement something to this effect.

I might just edit this into the head thread message if people agree that it's a good idea.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 20:33
Damn son ! ...
I think you should make that last post into a new topic ...
" Bullet Impact , or why You should fear evey bullet ! " ...

ohitspatty
17th Dec 2009, 20:41
I like that idea a lot. On the hardest difficulty the game should be very hard. That's what I found about Dead Men to be kinda bland was that on Morphine it wasn't much harder than Cocaine.

Mercenary of The7
17th Dec 2009, 20:57
I like that idea a lot. On the hardest difficulty the game should be very hard. That's what I found about Dead Men to be kinda bland was that on Morphine it wasn't much harder than Cocaine.

Hahaha - "cocaine". :D

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 21:00
Yeah well turns out there's this ultra secret difficulty that we didn't knew about ...

RancidAluminium
17th Dec 2009, 21:01
when you guys were talking about the character reacting to his enviroment and being shot i think uncharted is a good example of that you see him wince and huddle down from every shot making him seem more vunerable. but i doubt IOI will go into as much detail as ND. and thinking about emotion even tho we saw flash backs of kane regretting his actions and wanting to protect his daughter it felt to disjointed from what was going on the screen, thus stopping the player from feeling any emotional connection to the characters. they need to ramp it up in the sequal maybe have levels that dont soley rely on shooting all the time.

the latest trailer really made it seem like kane was scared for his life with him laying on the floor screaming for help and bleeding, which makes a change from the rambo approach of most shooters.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 21:05
Did he just compared Naughty Dog with IO Interactive ? ...

RancidAluminium
17th Dec 2009, 21:06
Did he just compared Naughty Dog with IO Interactive ? ...

yes he did

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 21:08
And do you know Why he did it ? ...

RancidAluminium
17th Dec 2009, 21:11
maybe he just watched jamie oliver.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 21:13
Then he should get Help ...

Arsh
17th Dec 2009, 21:15
I don't see anything wrong with the comparison. He's just comparing animation quality. Let's face it, Uncharted has the best animation of probably the entire industry and ND are fantastic animators. It makes the characters all the more lifelike. KL2 can benefit from animation like that.

UhUh
17th Dec 2009, 21:19
Amazing ideas here!

The bullet knockback is genius, love it.
About the cover camera, what if the focus would be closer on the character?
This way you could till be able to have a general idea of what is happening, but being out of focus, you can't just aim clearly like now.

Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 21:20
i think uncharted is a good example of that you see him wince and huddle down from every shot making him seem more vunerable.

They did do a good job in terms of those details, and it did serve to make the character seem more human and vulnerable, but it had no actual effect on the player, who is the one interacting with the video game. I think there needs to be something that does a better job of linking the player to the character more than just slightly disrupting his aim slightly when he gets hit.

@UhUh

Making the area outside of cover out of focus until you pop out is a great idea! Your impression of what's happening outside of the cover would be vague just as the character's would be in that situation.

RancidAluminium
17th Dec 2009, 21:20
I don't see anything wrong with the comparison. He's just comparing animation quality. Let's face it, Uncharted has the best animation of probably the entire industry and ND are fantastic animators. It makes the characters all the more lifelike. KL2 can benefit from animation like that.

yes thats what i was getting at uncharted has set a standard for 3rd person gaming be nice to see some other dev try and go one better, but saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder....im getting all philosophical now shouldnt of eat that whole packet of smarties.:(

RancidAluminium
17th Dec 2009, 21:26
They did do a good job in terms of those details, and it did serve to make the character seem more human and vulnerable, but it had no actual effect on the player, who is the one interacting with the video game. I think there needs to be something that does a better job of linking the player to the character more than just slightly disrupting his aim slightly when he gets hit.

well maybe if everyone on these forums sends in thier life stories IOI could taylor make a game to each of our personalities, because thats the only way more than using sound sight and camera trickery to pull us into a game :D. joking aside tho if you feel no affinity for a character then your not gonna invest much in that game so the hook is all important. tick tock...

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 21:31
if you feel no affinity for a character then your not gonna invest much in that game so the hook is all important.

Guess that's something pretty graphics can't make up for ...

Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 21:45
well maybe if everyone on these forums sends in thier life stories IOI could taylor make a game to each of our personalities, because thats the only way more than using sound sight and camera trickery to pull us into a game :D. joking aside tho if you feel no affinity for a character then your not gonna invest much in that game so the hook is all important. tick tock...

Bahahaha. That is always the problem with any art medium--the effect a piece of work has on a person is almost entirely dependent on their spectrum of experience.

What I was talking about was effecting the player more directly by taking control out of his hands for a moment--that's the most frustrating thing, right? If you put the player on the ground, take away a lot of his mobility, and put him in a difficult situation when he gets shot, he's not going to want to get shot again.

I think that's what games like Uncharted 2 were trying to do by making your aim bobble when you got shot, but I don't think that was effective enough.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 21:49
Far Cry 2 did it well in a way that You were the mercenary you were playing ... but no one gave a **** about that game ...

Arsh
17th Dec 2009, 21:51
Far Cry 2 did it well in a way that You were the mercenary you were playing ... but no one gave a **** about that game ...

Yeah, cause that game sucked.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 21:58
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ...

*cries so hard a planet exploded somewhere in space*

Seriously , why all my favorite games are those that no one like ? ...
Everybody keeps on saying Dead Men sucks , Grand Theft Auto IV sucks , Far Cry 2 sucks and Fallout 3 is a buggy mess ...

I need help ...

Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 22:02
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ...

*cries so hard a planet exploded somewhere in space*

Seriously , why all my favorite games are those that no one like ? ...
Everybody keeps on saying Dead Men sucks , Grand Theft Auto IV sucks , Far Cry 2 sucks and Fallout 3 is a buggy mess ...

I need help ...

Yeah, I think people focus on the negative aspects of the games you mentioned. I enjoyed all of those games you mentioned, including Far Cry 2, but they were marred by stuff. Not bad games by any means, though.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 22:05
Strange that somehow most of these people completely ignores the negative aspects of Arkham Asylum , Modern Warfare's and Uncharted's series ... to list a few ...

Arsh
17th Dec 2009, 22:29
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ...

*cries so hard a planet exploded somewhere in space*

Seriously , why all my favorite games are those that no one like ? ...
Everybody keeps on saying Dead Men sucks , Grand Theft Auto IV sucks , Far Cry 2 sucks and Fallout 3 is a buggy mess ...

I need help ...

I didn't think Dead Men sucked. Nor do I think GTA4 sucks. They have flaws yeah. GTA4 is not really paced that well, and Niko's character does not make sense with the actions he commits. He's so tired of war and stuff, and complains about being poor, but then he robs a bank and kills like 100 cops even while having like 100, 000 dollars at this point.

But I hate Far Cry 2 so much. It looks pretty, but the story is stupid, the pacing is thrown out the window and the gameplay is like frustrating just for the sake of being frustrating. I haven't actually played Fallout 3... RPGs aren't my thing.


Strange that somehow most of these people completely ignores the negative aspects of Arkham Asylum , Modern Warfare's and Uncharted's series ... to list a few ...

The only thing wrong with Arkham to me is the final confrontation... they could've done so much with it, but I think they got lazy near the end. Plus some repetitive fights. Modern Warfare games are so short and Multiplayer is frustrating.

Uncharted... well actually, Uncharted is my perfect game. I don't have any real problem with Uncharted.

UhUh
17th Dec 2009, 22:34
Far Cry 2 did it well in a way that You were the mercenary you were playing ... but no one gave a **** about that game ...

I for one loved that game!

Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 22:40
Quick opinions!

I thought GTA IV's story should've been told in a linear game. The open world stuff killed any semblance of pacing.

Far Cry 2 had a lot of cool little things, but how they handled enemy respawns and the complete lack of any noncombatant characters really killed the experience.

Modern Warfare 2 didn't even have a single player as far as I'm concerned, and the multiplayer is kind of tired at this point--they also piled too much crap on top of what was already there.

Batman was great, too easy (my hand was held through the entire thing) and the last encounter was silly.

Uncharted 2 succeeded at everything it set out to do. I can't fault it for what it is.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 22:42
Oh believe me i've got my share of criticism for Grand Theft Auto IV , Dead Men and Far Cry 2 , but these are nothing compared to the thousands of gamers on the internet who says nothing but those game 'sucks' and doesn't even give the slightest attention to the good things , if not innovating parts of those games ...

And we're in topic asking how to communicate emotion to the player ...
All they want is a nuclear explosion ...

Bawabus
17th Dec 2009, 22:44
All they want is a nuclear explosion ...

Problem: SOLVED

We can all go home.

GrievousOdyssey
17th Dec 2009, 22:58
Amen brother ...

Oh **** ...
We nuked our home ! ...

WERE'RE DOOMED ...

UhUh
17th Dec 2009, 23:26
Oh believe me i've got my share of criticism for Grand Theft Auto IV , Dead Men and Far Cry 2 , but these are nothing compared to the thousands of gamers on the internet who says nothing but those game 'sucks' and doesn't even give the slightest attention to the good things , if not innovating parts of those games ...

And we're in topic asking how to communicate emotion to the player ...
All they want is a nuclear explosion ...

Those who complain always make more noise then who actually enjoyed it, but anyway fc2 sold well and had many positive reviews.

It's like for K&L, there were some obvious problems, but overall they were trivial for what are great games.

In the end you can't expect to please everyone, and following the expectations of the masses may lead to some bland thing.
There's a lot of people that pretend something more from videogames than just explosions.

ohitspatty
18th Dec 2009, 00:21
Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games. It's a big, long game...of course it will have bugs and glitches.

Anyway...I'm really excited for K&L2. I hope it's dark and gritty as the first one. Me and my cousin will tear the co-op online the night it comes out! Can't wait.

GrievousOdyssey
18th Dec 2009, 12:56
It's a big, long game...of course it will have bugs and glitches.

Rockstar Games says otherwise ...
And if that game wasn't so fun and refreshing , no one would be playing such a buggy game that is Fallout 3 ...

ohitspatty
18th Dec 2009, 19:03
Are you saying that GTA IV wasn't buggy? Sure not as much as Fallout but isn't the Wasteland bigger than Liberty City?

GrievousOdyssey
18th Dec 2009, 19:09
Maybe not in the overall size , but Fallout 3 may have got more little 'detail' elements than Grand Theft Auto IV ...

So yeah point taken , but it's still rather impressive how Bethasda could have released a game which freezes countless amount of times , and with everyone giving it a nine out of ten score ...

PS : I don't know for you , but i never had a single bug / glitch / freezes with Rockstar's game ... though i heard the PC version was a real mess , however ...

ohitspatty
18th Dec 2009, 19:20
Yeah I had few problems with Fallout 3, I agree. Even when my xbox died it was after few good hours of it lol

I had few minor issues with GTA IV on 360. Like getting stuck in the mid jump or screen freezing during the black and white fade after you die. You know, nothing too serious but it was there.