Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
shurcool

Freeze! Have you ever seen this happen in a game?

This topic is 3771 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Have you ever seen this happen in a game? You sneak up behind your enemy without him knowing. You point your gun at him and shout "Don't move a muscle!" "Drop your weapon." "SLOWLY!" "Now move away from it..." You can think of an appropriate ending for that situation (or can you?), but it's interesting to see that it's a common occurance when it comes to action movies. Yet you almost never see this happen in a shooter game. Theoretically, it's possible to role-play this in any multiplayer shooter today. The thing is that it doesn't occur naturally. Rather, it can't. Even if for some reason you'd like to do this rather than shoot the guy as soon as you get a chance, it's not a feasable thing to do. In real life, people can only turn around at a certain speed, limited by their agility and how big and heavy the weapon they are holding. But in practically all computer FPS games I've seen up to date, there is never a physical world limitation as to how fast you can turn. It's only as fast as you can move the computer mouse multiplied by your mouse sensitivity setting. So if you do attempt this in a modern shooter, chances are the guy will immediately turn around and attempt to kill you, as you both have about equal chances of survival. The fact he's facing you with his back and you've got your aim on him does not give you much of an advantage, unlike in real life. A general approach to the resolution to this is pretty obvious. You have to limit how fast players can move/accelerate their aim or turn around. It should definitely matter whether you are holding a 50kg rocket launcher or a pistol. This incidentally would fix another issue of imbalance between pisolts and heavy assault rifles. Usually, in video games, an assault rifle is *always* better to carry than a pistol, so you're only using a pistol when you have no choice. But in real life, depending on the situation (i.e. extremely close quarters combat), a pistol makes more sense since you are more agile with it. So I guess I want to have a discussion on this. Do people feel this is a problem that should be attempted to be fixed, or rather leave it as it is now. If it should be fixed, what would be a good way to implement this limitation without the players complaining that they can't aim the way they used to. You wouldn't want to make aiming really awkward in an FPS after all. Also important to consider: Assume the aforementioned situation did occur in a multiplayer game (e.g. COD4 or Counter-Strike); Question: What would happen next, after the guy discards his weapon? Is this a wanted or unwanted potential situation? Would it have a negative effect on the dead players who are spectating, assuming it's a round based game, waiting for one of the teams to kill the other? [Edited by - shurcool on June 19, 2008 8:55:16 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Quote:
But in practically all computer FPS games I've seen up to date, there is never a physical world limitation as to how fast you can turn. It's only as fast as you can move the computer mouse multiplied by your mouse sensitivity setting.

So if you do attempt this in a modern shooter, chances are the guy will immediately turn around and attempt to kill you, as you both have about equal chances of survival. The fact he's facing you with his back and you've got your aim on him does not give you much of an advantage, unlike in real life.

A general approach to the resolution to this is pretty obvious. You have to limit how fast players can move/accelerate their aim or turn around. It should definitely matter whether you are holding a 50kg rocket launcher or a pistol.


First of all I think people would find it annoying, especially if the game was to be a shooter. At least if you still want to use the mouse to control the movements.. Say you want to turn 180 deg right, then you will have to start with the mouse to the far right of your desk, drag it aaaaaall the way over to the left part of the desk, and maybe by then you'd only have turned about 30 degrees (for a really slow mover), so you'd have to start over.

Also, people could possibly speed up their mouse inputs to avoid this kind of delay.

It's kind of the same thing as adding player getting hungry/thirsty to the gameplay. It's all realistic and fine and dandy, but it's also very very annoying. Players will get sick and tired of having to go eat and drink every now and then.

I used to play a lot of MUDs back in the days where the player got thirsty/hungry over and over.. This resulted in most players started to use triggers/actions to automatically pick up some food/water and drink once they were hungry. Even while hunger and thirst affected gameplay (player started to lose minor health after a while), it was just a really really annoying part of the gameplay.. Imagine someone standing beside you and poking you with a stick repeatedly every 5 minutes while you were playing Counterstrike, and you had to poke back to make them stop. It was THAT annoying (ok, I made my point now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by trasseltass
First of all I think people would find it annoying, especially if the game was to be a shooter. At least if you still want to use the mouse to control the movements.. Say you want to turn 180 deg right, then you will have to start with the mouse to the far right of your desk, drag it aaaaaall the way over to the left part of the desk, and maybe by then you'd only have turned about 30 degrees (for a really slow mover), so you'd have to start over.

Also, people could possibly speed up their mouse inputs to avoid this kind of delay.

This is implementation details.

One possible way of doing with lesser negative impact, for example, is to not limit the speed at which you can turn your view or head around. But your hands with the gun would be lagging behind if it's a heavy gun and you just turned 180 degrees in 15 milliseconds. Your gun would only catch up to your view about 200 milliseconds later, for instance. If it's a light pistol instead, it would catch up with your view almost instantly.

Of course, you'd never see this hand-lagging-behind effect unless you move your aim unrealistically fast.

Quote:
It's kind of the same thing as adding player getting hungry/thirsty to the gameplay. It's all realistic and fine and dandy, but it's also very very annoying. Players will get sick and tired of having to go eat and drink every now and then.

Yeah, my main concern is that this might be annoying to some players.

But the idea is not to make this a core part of the gameplay. Instead, it's more along the lines of making this a *possible scenario* that *some* players would want to employ (assuming they are skilled and lucky enough to sneak up from behind on someone - this doesn't happen all that often), and should they choose to, give them the advantage when they have their enemy's back in their aim.

In other words, the idea is to see this happen once every 10-100 hours. Not in every round.

Edit: Of course the whole "drop your weapon" conversation is completely optional. You can just shoot the enemy in the back as soon as you get the chance, and feel confident he won't be able to turn around 180 degrees in a millisecond and shoot you in the head faster than you can finish him off shooting at his back.

Edit 2: This might have another positive effect on the teamplay, as you will really need people to cover your back. If an enemy behind you gets the first shot (assuming he doesn't miss, and you can't jump behind cover in time), you don't stand much chance of winning the duel by doing an insta-180-turn-and-shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an idea to implement this, and it uses two cursors to do it; one is your Mouse Cursor to which can move as fast as you want it to (depicting the desired direction to aim, or the character's eyes/head), while the other is the Gun-Nozzle Cursor to which movement depends on the reflexes of your character and the weight of the gun (to which is the character's arms/body).

When you move your Mouse Cursor, the Gun-Nozzle Cursor will attempt to follow and line up with it - there will be a lag or maximum movement speed of the Gun-Nozzle Cursor, to which is really fast when you have high reflexes / a light gun, or really slow when you have slow reflexes / a heavy gun.

When you fire the gun, the bullet will only come out of the Gun-Nozzle Cursor. This means, if you have aimed with your Mouse Cursor at a target but your Gun-Nozzle Cursor has yet to reach there, then the bullet will not hit the Mouse Cursor'ed target and instead will hit whatever place that is currently aimed at by the Gun-Nozzle Cursor. Only when the two Cursors of your Mouse and the Gun-Nozzle line up are you then actually hitting the target to which you desire.

Recoil. Whenever you fire your Gun-Nozzle, the Gun-Nozzle Cursor will move slightly up. As long as the Mouse Cursor stays on the desired target, the Gun-Nozzle Cursor will continually try to move back down and line up with the Mouse Cursor after each fire, the speed of this which again depends on reflexes. The amount of distance that is displaced after each fire depends on the character's Strength rating - the stronger the character is, the less recoil he will experience.

Turning your Body. The Mouse Cursor's maximum movement speed is infinite (depends on player's hand) as long as it is within the edges of the screen. Once it reaches to the edge of the screen, this means your character will start turning his body in that direction, where the speed of this will also depend on the character's reflex rating. This means that a player cannot make an instant 180 turn. The screen represents the character's entire field of vision in one bodily direction (limited by your character's neck) - moving the Mouse Cursor within the screen is like aiming the eyes/head of the character to a desired place, while the Gun-Nozzle Cursor is the arm/body to which follows the eyes/head.

This makes your back not only just a handicap in terms of not being able to see there immediately (Mouse Cursor), but also you can't aim there immediately (Gun-Nozzle Cursor), forcing the player to tactically place their backs against places that are safe (such as a wall).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tangireon, thanks for sharing that. It's pretty much analogous to what I had in mind as one possible implementation of the idea. The only difference was that I was thinking of the actual on-screen gun instead of what you refer to as Gun-Nozzle Cursor. But that's just a different visual representation of the same thing.

The idea is to separate "where you are aiming with the gun" from "where you want to aim" into two separate concepts.

Right now, your mouse directly controls the "where you're aiming". But this approach makes the control chain as follows:

Mouse ---direct control--> where you want to aim ---real world turning speed limitations--> where you are actually aiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
part of the problem is also that in real life our senses are so good that we can tell if someone is behind us, even if our eyes are closed and they don't say anything. We can feel them, hear their breathing or their footsteps, feel their footsteps through the ground, etc. In a game, our primary form of sensory input is the rasterization on the screen. If a player feels like someone has snuck up behind them, their initial reaction is generally going to be to look behind them. Unless you sneak up behind that one player who uses his/her surround sound and who actually gets into the game (rather than just running around shooting things and enjoying the visuals/interactions...), its going to be a fairly big waste of time sneaking up on people.

Unless you design the game specifically with that intent, but I'm not personally a fan of the sneak-genre. Especially for FPSs, I just want to play gungho. Its a game; what's the worst that's going to happen if I don't drop my weapon? I get shot? Bwah, I'd probably rather see what's behind me and risk getting shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have played a few shooters using dynamic accuracy. When you move or turn fast, your accuracy drops (usually visible as the radius of a circle around your cursor) and the probability that you will hit your target will drop. This mechanism is also used to reduce accuracy when firing fast with heavy weapons. In such games, when you turn very fast with a heavy gun, you will almost certainly miss your target in the first few seconds.

Even though, in current multi player shooters, I think, it is seldom useful to take an enemy hostage instead of shooting him in the back. In games where you immediately respawn, hostages will always try to run unless a respawn has a hiigh penalty of some sort. In games where this is the case, the game is usually to fast to make it worthwhile. It is not really a matter of life and death, so teammates will not care very much when they accidentally(or deliberately) kill another teammate along with his hostage taker because the hostage is of no value to the team as long as he is hostage anyways. While on the other hand, guarding a hostage takes a lot of your attention and makes you very vulnerable. So, in order to make this behaviour worth the effort, I think other aspects of gameplay should be changed as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't following the general direction of the previous posts, but I think the "FREEZE!" effect would have a greater meaning if the player was the one who had to freeze. Does he obey, or does he take a risk? Will he go to jail (and seeing how this is an ending, he'd get off easy for cooperating), become a cop killer, or lay dead? Interesting, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't the 'Die Hard' arcade game employ the ability to arrest your foes (given the correct sequence of button presses)? It wasn't an fps but it was an easy way to beat an opponent without having to actually 'beat' the opponent.

The only problem I see with having this ability in a current FPS is this:

I don't travel alone. I'm always with at least one other person. So, by sacrificing myself to you (the 'Freeze-Master') I'm allowing my partner the necessary time to remove you from the equation. And my partner stays alive.

This is why I'll never 'Freeze.' It is an interesting concept though. Although, it may have a better use in single player modes.

-XY

[Edit] Say I do freeze, Would there be a way to signal to my buddy that I'm being held hostage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They do something similar in the splinter cell games, you can take hostiages. This works well in a single player game, the story and will to live is there on the NPC's part. In counter strike there would never be a reason to agree to give up your weapon, there is no will to live that doesn't involve the use of a weapon. Now if you took away the attacked player's ability to object and added a benefit to capture over kill then it becomes an interesting gameplay option in a multiplayer game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!