Contextual Animations for V

+
"Immersed in the world" does not mean "the world is exactly like our's." CP2077 is set in a world where technology has advanced, where people are often part machine, and where corporations rule. Technology for them is even more intrusive than it is for us, just like it is more intrusive for us than it was for our great-grandparents.

You are set to have something exactly like real life, while ignoring that the world in question is not the world we know and that it may involve people doing things we simply cannot. Which, in turn, means dealing with technology operating in ways it does not in real life because it was designed for this greater intrusion, much like how technology now doesn't operate like it did back in the 1430s.

Also, between the pair of us, which one is it that is capable of adapting their thinking to take into consideration that your elevator example may be irrelevant simply because technological advancement has made it so? That was why I used a railing example originally; it's very, very unlikely to change even in this particular setting.

Also, the other problem with your elevator idea: It's a directed animation. Sure, your character is playing the animation of pushing the button... and while it's playing, the people who are shooting at you have tossed a grenade through the door. Oh, yes, you get a bit of button pushing... and then you're reloading a save because you died. That's why they don't do it; it's an anti-frustration measure that comes from the fact computer technology is a lot more limited than people think it is. Maybe in a VR version of the game what you want can come about, but not in the ones you'll see on a standard desktop.

Also, as much as you don't like it, RPGs feature combat. This one has already been shown to feature FPS-style gun mechanics. Those mechanics have to be designed around, and that does mean some "immersive" features have to be sacrificed because reloading fifteen thousand times due to death is far more immersion breaking than not seeing some animation of your character pushing a button.

OOOooor you can use point-to-point animation with IK for the hand that is pushing the button and use the other free hand to grab the grenade or do whatever you want from your current position and if you want to move as well - you cancel all animations, my dewd.
 
OOOooor you can use point-to-point animation with IK for the hand that is pushing the button and use the other free hand to grab the grenade or do whatever you want from your current position and if you want to move as well - you cancel all animations, my dewd.

You mean, you push the button and then you die? Because grenades land on the ground (some exceptions, but keeping this simple). You have to bend down, grab the grenade, and toss it back enough to not hit you with the explosion or any shrapnel... typically in three seconds or less. Usually much less.

That's part of why I love elevators. Get someone who needs an out and you have the stairs secure? Leave the path open to the elevator. Suckers head for it every time. One grenade toss and you either have a nice batch of slightly-chunky salsa or they've dived to cover and watched their only way out get permanently disabled. Either way, they're dead.
 
I can see a few problems with this...

"Okay, I need to walk up and pull out my sniper ri- WHY ARE YOU LEANING ON THE RAILING? Ohshitohshitohshit I was spotted here comes a fuckton of bullets oh holy fuck! Welp, I'm dead. Time to load my last save."

Which is usually why we have to press a button to do it. Like, lean on the railing, sit in a chair, shoot up enough heroin to make poppies extinct, get a soda from a machine, activate the bathapult to throw out both baby and bathwater, dance... All of those things that could seriously screw you up if done at the wrong time.

You don't understand it from a development, game-making perspective. The point of "contextual animations" is an automatic trigger of the character reacting and interacting with his environment in a real and sensible manner. It's supposed to be smooth and incredibly easy to exit out of the animation by pressing an input that could be aiming your weapon, walking, jumping, etc. It's not an intrusive and clunky thing in theory or execution at all.
Post automatically merged:

Also, the other problem with your elevator idea: It's a directed animation. Sure, your character is playing the animation of pushing the button... and while it's playing, the people who are shooting at you have tossed a grenade through the door. Oh, yes, you get a bit of button pushing... and then you're reloading a save because you died. That's why they don't do it; it's an anti-frustration measure that comes from the fact computer technology is a lot more limited than people think it is. Maybe in a VR version of the game what you want can come about, but not in the ones you'll see on a standard desktop.

Also, as much as you don't like it, RPGs feature combat. This one has already been shown to feature FPS-style gun mechanics. Those mechanics have to be designed around, and that does mean some "immersive" features have to be sacrificed because reloading fifteen thousand times due to death is far more immersion breaking than not seeing some animation of your character pushing a button.[/QUOTE]

What your saying right here is so wrong and not true. It's very laughable lol. You're thinking very narrow and rigid about it. The type of animation conceivably implemented could TOTALLY be possible if done right. And you're wrong for two reasons:

1) For one, the animation doesn't have to be that slow. It could be fast and sped up. You ever seen the game, Bulletstorm? That's a FPS with extremely fast animations that doesn't get in the way of anything. Plus like in The Witcher 3, they could design all animations to be abruptly interrupted to transition to smoothly transition into a different. For example, in the situation that you laid out, it would be possible to quickly switch from pressing a button to taking out your gun and firing on incoming enemies.

2) The elevator in the demo was within a totally safe environment, a social hub. You were in an apartment building which is where your safehouse was located. The chances of getting into a firefight there would be extremely low and implausible unless you were in an enemy compound that had elevators. I don't think us, the players, would have to worry about getting into any danger while were using an elevator within these social, safe mega complexes. But again the point of contextual or more interactive animations for V would be so we can embody the character more and easily switch between a variety of animations.
 
Last edited:
You don't understand it from a development, game-making perspective. The point of "contextual animations" is an automatic trigger of the character reacting and interacting with his environment in a real and sensible manner. It's supposed to be smooth and incredibly easy to exit out of the animation by pressing an input that could be aiming your weapon, walking, jumping, etc. It's not an intrusive and clunky thing in theory or execution at all.

Then why are there exactly zero video games I can find that use it? Most of them use interruptable directed animations as contextual animations. The rest completely skip the idea. The animations can be fast, sure, but there is a limit to how many you can have in a game before it becomes a problem or they start to slow down; RPGs tend to skip a lot of animations because of this.

What your saying right here is so wrong and not true. It's very laughable lol. You're thinking very narrow and rigid about it. The type of animation conceivably implemented could TOTALLY be possible if done right. And you're wrong for two reasons:

This should be good.

1) For one, the animation doesn't have to be that slow. It could be fast and sped up. You ever seen the game, Bulletstorm? That's a FPS with extremely fast animations that doesn't get in the way of anything. Plus like in The Witcher 3, they could design all animations to be abruptly interrupted to transition to smoothly transition into a different. For example, in the situation that you laid out, it would be possible to quickly switch from pressing a button to taking out your gun and firing on incoming enemies.

So, basically, it can be done in this RPG because it was done in an FPS? Just because there are FPS elements copied over doesn't mean it's FPS-enough for everything to apply.

And pulling out a gun has another issue: When you are pulling out the gun is the point the grenade they tossed in while you were pressing the button explodes. Because, even by game tactics, they'd have to be absolute idiots or simply out of grenades not to take advantage of that.

Remember, you have less than three seconds to stop pressing that button, find the grenade, and throw it a safe-enough distance back. And then you start shooting back.

Also, it's not my scenario; my scenario was someone leaning on the railing while sneaking up to pull out a sniper rifle.

2) The elevator in the demo was within a totally safe environment, a social hub. You were in an apartment building which is where your safehouse was located. The chances of getting into a firefight there would be extremely low and implausible unless you were in an enemy compound that had elevators. I don't think us, the players, would have to worry about getting into any danger while were using an elevator within these social, safe mega complexes. But again the point of contextual or more interactive animations for V would be so we can embody the character more and easily switch between a variety of animations.

This entire section is completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. This is the original elevator scenario, as posted earlier:

Because in the real world when you press a button on the elevator while people are shooting you... you shoot them and see magically the button press by himself?...

Mebrilla, my apologies if I dragged you back into this with this post; not my intention.

DAlexander, I'm kinda not seeing your point. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong; I have more to gain from learning than the tiny cost to pride that comes as a negative. But, when you have a complete lack of evidence to support it, I'm kinda left with using that lack of evidence against you.
 
BaalNergal don't you want to have such awesome and immersive animations in this game ? If yes, stop being a pessimist and putting other people down and start looking for solutions and be optimist, regardless if you've seen it in other game or not.
 
BaalNergal don't you want to have such awesome and immersive animations in this game ? If yes, stop being a pessimist and putting other people down and start looking for solutions and be optimist, regardless if you've seen it in other game or not.

That depends: What is sacrificed for them?

Development time is limited, so every animation and every feature requires something else that could be potentially added is not worked on. Do these animations mean we get stripped-down conversations? Barebones stealth mechanics? The most basic of video game economies? Less content to explore and fewer activities to do?

What depth do we sacrifice just to make this game look pretty? Because, at the end of the day, that's all those animations are: Making the game look pretty.

Has it occurred to you that I am so negative because I want this to be as close to a true RPG as can be managed, rather than an FPS game with driving and RPG mechanics tacked on as an afterthought?
 
That's why they don't do it; it's an anti-frustration measure that comes from the fact computer technology is a lot more limited than people think it is.

Actually I don't see the the difference between dying because of that immersion enhancement thing and dying because you are blocked bumping against something you don't see because of another immersion enhancement thing (FPS view).

reloading fifteen thousand times due to death is far more immersion breaking than not seeing some animation of your character pushing a button.

That seems to be an advice, not a fact.
Post automatically merged:

Development time is limited, so every animation and every feature requires something else that could be potentially added is not worked on. Do these animations mean we get stripped-down conversations? Barebones stealth mechanics? The most basic of video game economies? Less content to explore and fewer activities to do?

Why nothing action related appears on your list?
 
Actually I don't see the the difference between dying because of that immersion enhancement thing and dying because you are blocked bumping against something you don't see because of another immersion enhancement thing (FPS view).

Part of why many FPS games tend to have the field of vision a little lower in the body than the human head is naturally positioned.

That seems to be an advice, not a fact.

What? This doesn't make any sense o_O

Why nothing action related appears on your list?

The combat mechanics were already demonstrated. The action elements are already in the game, and likely were one of the first things they worked on. No point in asking them to sacrifice what they've shown to be already completed.
 
Part of why many FPS games tend to have the field of vision a little lower in the body than the human head is naturally positioned.

I don't see the point between the height of the view and lacks of peripheral vision.

The combat mechanics were already demonstrated. The action elements are already in the game, and likely were one of the first things they worked on. No point in asking them to sacrifice what they've shown to be already completed.

You say that as if you have source about all the action parts of the game all being 100% done.
 
I don't see the point between the height of the view and lacks of peripheral vision.

You don't need the downward side of peripheral vision as much if your vision level is lower to the ground.

Also, note it's peripheral vision; your vision is limited to what's at an angle from your eyes, and peripheral vision is just what's at the edge of that vision.

You say that as if you have source about all the action parts of the game all being 100% done.

The mechanics they could compromise while still keeping true to the cyberpunk genre? Yes. The E3 demo and a few things released since then are my sources.
 
You don't need the downward side of peripheral vision as much if your vision level is lower to the ground.

Also, note it's peripheral vision; your vision is limited to what's at an angle from your eyes, and peripheral vision is just what's at the edge of that vision.

Actually peripheral vision is the reason you don't bump things when you do sidesteps like side movement in a FPS.

The mechanics they could compromise while still keeping true to the cyberpunk genre? Yes. The E3 demo and a few things released since then are my sources.

I won't take it futher beside I think you lacks imagination IMHO.
 
Actually peripheral vision is the reason you don't bump things when you do sidesteps like side movement in a FPS.

People bump into things and each other when taking side steps all of the time. What you're referring to is more of one of the awareness categories, which rely on information from multiple senses and contextual knowledge supplied by the human brain; peripheral vision is just an aspect of the sight sense; blind people completely lack it, relying on their other approximately 19 (might be more) senses more for the information they need (humans have anywhere from twenty to twenty-five; there's a lot of debate as to the actual number).

I won't take it futher beside I think you lacks imagination IMHO.

Ask me about lacing someone's jock strap with a mixture of glue and icy-hot if you want imagination :p
 
Top Bottom