Why am I invisible?

Probably simple frame-rate economics. In an FPS, the player is not an object that is frequently seen, so why waste precious cycles having to cull out geometry that will hardly ever be seen, especially if adding it really does nothing for the game? Especially since a model viewed as closely as that would have to be fairly detailed (wasting cycles), or it would just look stupid. That''s just the way I look at it...

Josh
vertexnormal AT linuxmail DOT org

---

Check out Golem: Lands of Shadow, an isometrically rendered hack-and-slash inspired equally by Nethack and Diablo.

VertexNormal is almost certainly right, but even if it was the easiest thing in the world to include a full player model that could be seen, I wouldn''t want it to be visible. It would just get in the way.

When you''re looking down at something below the glass floor on which you''re standing, if your foot is in the way, you just move your foot and look at it. Not so in a game. It would be entirely possible for your body model to obstruct your view, and I''m mad enough when the damn fancy gun is giving me a huge blindspot. Why don''t any video game heroes carry their guns at the ready, instead of up on-target? SOCOM II and the Rainbow Six games (until 3) didn''t even screw around with a gun model, and I liked that, though I know most players didn''t. Ever since Wolfenstein, people have loved seeing that little gun jump every time you pull the trigger.

So in conclusion, it would be an added cost in processor time for something that''s more harm than good.

Besides you'll be busy killing people to be troubled that your only visible body parts are your hands.

[edited by - AcRiD_aCiD on December 23, 2003 10:13:18 PM]

Because the one game that ever did that was Trespasser, which got such a bad rap that everything that trespasser did, every game developer refuses to do.

The PC Gamer review of Trespasser said something like "mmm...breasts" in reference to this, IIRC. They felt it was one of the game''s few good points. The lifemeter, in fact, was a tattoo on the female character''s left breast.

So did PC Game Review describe this as being a good point because it was more natural, or because they were given the constant pleasure of looking a breasts?

Obstruct view? Waste of polygons? I''ll tell you what a waste of polygons is. A 1700-triangle model of a hand holding an 8mm pistol *COUGH*Counterstrike.

As far as I can tell, the gun model is (A)usually too bulky, and usually more complex than the architecture, (B) without a hitbox or other useful representations in the "real" world, and (C) just a masturbatory element of modelers and gun fanatics.

A behind-the-eyes view has absolutely no less use being there as a superimposed in-hand view. Most players nowadays will look down and say, "Holy crap, I have feet"! Who cares if the gun model is only 75 polys? If you can do it RIGHT(and by right I''ll explain below), there''s no reason why you shouldn''t have this feature in the game.

Now, it''d require a lot of model-tweaking, in the sense of making sure the player''s view isn''t TOO obstructed. Unless the player is attacking, we really shouldn''t have the gun sight sitting right in the player''s face. This also applies to looking around. The gun should be tied to attacking only, so the gun will scroll out of view when the player looks up, for example. And when he looks down, his eyes aren''t simply rolling in his head-- his neck should crane out to look past his feet AND his gun should move out of the way. Well, if you actually start TESTING the model in this fashion you''ll figure out some of the other things that have to do with what I''m talking about. Also, you could yourself just carry around a gun prop(cardboard tube or something), and take note of the ways you "aim" it, how you run and look around with it, and how the prop moves in and out of your peripheral vision. NOTE: do this while no one''s around.

And that concludes my wisdom.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Also Known As:
The Number 2 Mind
He Who Enjoys Bread
Able to End Interesting Threads w/a Single Inane Post

There are more complications in giving FPS players full bodies... that only make the development harder.


1) Given the camera FOV used in most games is rather wide, the player body model would look ugly and ankward due to the perspective. Heck, in many games the *other* models already look that way already (Half Life and their "huge heads, tiny legs" characters is a major example).

2) The player gameplay physics would need a lot more of attention than most FPS''es provide. The player could no longer be an ellipsoid that slides like a bar of soap. If you walk looking down, the sliding and the fact the walking animation hardly matches the character movement would be too evident, and thus would require the developers and animatiors to throw their laziness through the window and put together more complex animation/movement systems.

3) Talking about more complex systems... pick any FPS and study how the player moves and aims. It''s clear that when your drag the mouse left/right, the whole player rotates left/right, only moving his/her head when looking up down. If the whole player body were visible, this would need to be changed a lot. The head (camera) and the body should move/rotate independently. So, if you drag the mouse to the right, the player turns the head to the right (and the arm, so he keeps pointig the gun). If you drag even more to the right, then the body would turn to the right (head has limited turning). If the head is aiming to the right, and the player press the "foward" key, then the body should turn to match the head orientation and walk foward.
That''s a bit complex thing to do, mind you, specially when you have a whole game to care about.

4) It would be possible to shoot at yourself... When the character is running or jumping, the legs will block the view if you look down.

So, while it is possible, and it could make a really interesting game, the odds are that the gameplay would just get a lot more clumsy and it would look a tad pathetic unless the idea is implemented with absolute perfection (and that means lots of work).

Project Eden did this. But it wasnt really a first person shooter. It worked quite nicely there however. Too bad the gameplay sucked ass.

As was briefly mentioned.... Tribes 2 gave the player a body model. It''s a first person FPS, if you look down you see your legs as they run and such, And sometimes even your free hand will briefly come onto screen.

You had the option of turing off the body, but I much prefer it. There are no drawbacks I can think of. It certainly didn''t slow down my system.

..It''s been done. And done flawlessly.

Any FPS that has any sort of jumping would benefit greatly from visible feet.

When I played tribes2 I experimented with turning on the first-person player model a bit, but I found it too irritating for the most part, blocking out even more vision. As for gun models, I actually like them, and find a failing in alot of games is either bad gun models or bad animations detracting from the fluidity of the environment. Would adding a first-person player model detract from the illusion of being _in_ the game for a player? But then again, I just said I like the gun models in games, so they might be fine if implimented properly, just making it feel more like a 3rd person game

In SWAT 3 you can see yourself in mirrors but not when you look down.

In Operation Flashpoint the same kind of model is used to render a player or a weapon (or a transparent vehicle), regardless if it is the player himself or another one. Additionally the camera is fixed at the player''s head. The only exception is the interior of vehicles that cannot be viewed from any angle at outside. This system has two implications:

1. The weapon in first person view looks quite bad due to camera position, and it tends to get even worse if the weapon is a low-poly one. That''s what turned my off OFP first time I played it before I entered the gameplay: "Hell is that supposed to look like a M16???"
2. You can see your legs and arms, just like you can see them of any other player. However, a bad side effect I''ve noticed is that in a certain few situations the camera is no longer centered in front of the player''s head, due to a special animation. The result then is that the player sees his own head.

Last I heard Call of Cthulu is going to have a player model and with good reason. Being less of a FPS and more of a horror/detective game they gave the player a more natural method of healing - you put a bandage/medkit in your hand, look down and target the body part that is wounded - the wounds showing up on your body as you take more damage.

They say they are going for an interfaceless game. You want to see how many bullets are left in your revolver? You have to open the chamber and look at it.

Could be a really good idea if implemented well. If implemented badly it could ruin the whole game.

Sounds like a good idea for a horror game - being able to see your character''s body. Opening the chamber to check the bullets - I like that.
But what if you get wounded in the back? What happens then?

I imagine you''d have to ask for help. Or else bleed to death.

I don''t think that such a game will be able to reach the ideal set by the idea of the system. It would take some kind of synaptic interface to make it work right. In the best case scenario, one where you can convince a player that the body on-screen really is THEIR body, the game would be plagued with little shortcomings. Players would want the avatar to have all the options that they would have in that situation, and that''s simply inconceivable. I hope the game is impressivle and successful, and I''d like to try it, but I''m not going to hope for what it promises.