Jump to content
  • Advertisement

thedarkknight9174

Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

117 Neutral

About thedarkknight9174

  • Rank
    Member
  1. thedarkknight9174

    FPS Games, Recoil and Spread

    "I shut off crosshairs and use iron sights, so -- to me --  it would look ridiculous if the weapon was perfectly still." That's the point. Some games add extra inaccuracy that would make reasonable sense if you saw the weapon moving around. Instead, the weapon is perfectly still and looks like it is stable, but is incredibly inaccurate. If a player is pointing at a target and fires, he/she is going to see a few inches or even a foot of deviation as normal and reasonable (at least I do). But, if I am pointing at a target in a game, the firearm looks like it is stable and my shot goes 10 feet off to the side instead of 6-12 inches, I see that as an unfair bit of added randomness. If I could see that the weapon was unstable, I could time my shot in order to be more accurate or compensate for it. Anything outside of that (at least in games) relatively minor path deviation is incredibly annoying for gameplay and it is also completely unrealistic and unintuitive.   This would be the same in real life. If you were on the firing range in real life, shooting an M16 at targets 100 meters away in good weather (low wind, etc.) you would expect that the bullet would hit within 5-6 inches of the target you were lined up with. If you stood up, and stayed lined up with that target (yes it would be harder to line it up but you could use compensation methods like holding your breath, timing your shot, etc. to assist you in this) and the bullet would then randomly shoot out into the other lane instead of being only 5-6 inches off then that would almost certainly invoke a "what the hell" kind of response. It doesn't make logical, intuitive sense. It doesn't in real-life, it doesn't in game. It makes even less sense in a game where the game designers usually make the random deviation inherent to the firearm relatively tame.
  2. thedarkknight9174

    FPS Games, Recoil and Spread

    GoCatGo: I'm not actively designing a game. I'm making an observation about how I see things implemented in games that I've played and how they are commonly implemented in others and what changes to these implementations would provide for a generally better experience. I'm coming off of/still playing Battlefield 4 currently so when discussing these terms I've been referring to them related to how they are implemented in that. This is not a discussion on how to implement ballistics modeling in games in general.   The crux of the misunderstanding here is that I am not talking about firearm mechanics from a general, realistic perspective, but rather a "this is what they mean in most FPS games" You sound like you are already familiar with these concepts but writing them out is more to help me gather my thoughts. In real life, I'm aware that firearms have Inherent accuracy based on the rifling of the barrel, barrel length, manufacturing deviations, gas impingement vs. piston design, and many other things I don't claim to know about. Either way, this is usually measured in MOA. A sniper rifle is generally expected to have a sub-MOA, meaning a less than 1 inch deviation at a range of 100 yards (or meters?). Something like an M16 is commonly expected to have an MOA of 4-6. This can change based on the temperature of the firearm, how worn out the barrel is, if there is a suppressor, muzzle brake but a firearm has a base accuracy rating as it comes of the manufacturing line. But the basic gist of it is that no matter how skilled of a shooter you are you're not going to make the M16 into a sub-MOA firearm. This cannot be reasonably compensated for, regardless of skill or experience. Recoil, like you said is the result of explosions that happen inside the firearm and they way the firearm handles them. When the gunpowder is ignited by the firing pin, there is a forceful expansion of gas (explosion) that propels the projectile. The force from this gas expansion, the way the gases are vented, etc. and the way they affect recoil is dependent on the design of the firearm. Some firearms, like I think the Honey Badger PDW(?) purposefully are designed to redirect the gas in a way to push the firearm down to counteract recoil. However, a skilled, knowledgeable shooter will know the behavior of the firearm and will know how to best control the recoil. You can tense your muscles, consciously pull the firearm down and to the left (if the recoil is commonly up to the right) as firing, etc. This can be compensated for by a skilled shooter.   Other real-life factors include: Weather: There are devices, like the ballistics computer that is often paired with the Cheytac Intervention, that can help shooters compensate for this. Shooters can compensate for this on their own, but it takes a lot of experience to be able to do it in any significant way if you're talking about anything outside of close range. Stability of the firing position, fatigue, etc.: If you're standing and trying to shoot, your breathing, small muscle twitches, etc. are going to make the firearm move around a little as a result of your shakiness. If you're using the irons or some type of optic sight, this shakiness is going to affect your ability to aim the firearm at what you want to hit. However, you can compensate for this by tensing your muscles, holding your breath, etc. It won't reduce all of the shakiness but it will help. You can also compensate for this by just accepting that there is some shakiness and only firing when the weapon happens to be aimed at what you want to hit. If you are aiming at something, it does not matter if your aim if shaky or not, if you fire at the specific time when the firearm is lined up with a target it is going to go in the direction of the target.   As far as how these things are modeled in video games: Halo 4: Hitscan physics. Not affected by gravity or bullet speed. Bullets are laser fast and go exactly where the firearm was aiming. There is a crosshair that is of a fixed size determined by the weapon type. The assault rifle is intended to be a close range weapon by the game designers, so the accuracy is low (large crosshair/lots of "free space" in-between the tick marks). This weapon-dependent crosshair size in this situation models the inherent accuracy of the weapon, and does not account for weapon degradation, etc. (unchanging). There is not visible recoil in this game. For a weapon like the assault rifle, the recoil is actually bundled up into the crosshair size. The longer you hold down the trigger (full auto) the bigger the crosshair gets (starting at its base size determined by inherent accuracy). The recoil is not visible to the player because the area to which the crosshair is pointing does not change. In a game that models visible recoil, the crosshair size would stay the same size and instead, the center of the screen (player view, where the crosshair is) would move around. This game does not take into account the stability of the firing position. If you are standing or crouching (no prone option in this game) it has no effect on accuracy and thus doesn't affect the crosshair size at all.   Battlefield 4: This used projectile-based physics. Each weapon has a bullet speed and bullet gravity (not sure why they have gravity changing between firearms, should be constant unless some projectiles somehow have anti-gravity thrusters :-P). You have to aim above a target that is farther away to hit what you want to hit. For a moving target you have to lead the target. Each weapon in the game has inherent accuracy, so the base crosshair size is determined by what firearm you are using. This game has visible recoil. If you are using burst-fire or full auto, the crosshair will move around based on the defined recoil pattern of the specific firearm. So if I have the crosshair centered right in the middle of an enemy's chest (let's assume he is stationary throughout this exercise), after I shoot a burst of projectiles, the crosshair will no longer be centered in the middle of his chest, it will be centered on an area two feet to the left of his head (if that is how the recoil pattern of the chosen firearm is defined). If I want any hope of hitting the middle of his chest after shooting this burst I will have to adjust my aim, re-centering the crosshair on the area I intend [want to] hit. I can compensate for this some if I know the pre-defined recoil pattern of a specific firearm. For example, the M16 may jump up 1 unit and left 2 units after each burst. Knowing this I can pull my mouse down and to right slightly while firing to reduce the effect of the recoil implementation. This game does take into account the stability of the firing position. If you are prone and using a bipod this has no effect on accuracy. If you are prone and stationary there is a very small accuracy hit . If you are walking while standing upright then there is a moderate accuracy hit. The amount of instability/shakiness that there is as a result of movement and your stance is made apparent to you by further modifying the size of the crosshair beyond its base size, which is something that is defined according the the specific firearm. If the on-screen crosshair is on, you know this is occurring. If you opt to turn this off either via the options of by playing the "hardcore" mode like I do, there is no crosshair, and as such there is no visual indication that your aim is shaky/unstable. But, the key thing to point out here is that changing your stance or movement speed does not change what the on-screen crosshair the iron sights/optic sights are lined up. So like above, let's say I have a stationary enemy. I am crouched and looking through my irons, I have the firearm lined up/centered on the middle of the enemy's chest. If i stand up straight, look through my irons and the firearm is still lined up/centered on the middle of the enemy's chest, then I would expect that I can reasonably expect a fired shot to go in that general direction. However, this is not the case. If the deviation of a fired shot (the inherent accuracy) is 10 MOA, then the effective accuracy (MOA) when crouched is 12 MOA. When standing, it becomes 15 MOA. So basically, just by changing stance and movement speed the firearm itself becomes less accurate and more random. The problem I see with this is that by standing up, crouching, etc. the player is not changing the inherent characteristics of the firearm. Instead, they are changing the stability of the firing position. Like I mentioned at the very top of this: "However, you can compensate for this by tensing your muscles, holding your breath, etc. It won't reduce all of the shakiness but it will help. You can also compensate for this by just accepting that there is some shakiness and only firing when the weapon happens to be aimed at what you want to hit. If you are aiming at something, it does not matter if your aim if shaky or not, if you fire at the specific time when the firearm is lined up with a target it is going to go in the direction of the target." this is something you should be able to compensate for. If I change from crouching to standing, my firearm shouldn't be/appear to be lined up with my target but start shooting bullets out at a 15 degree angle to reflect that standing up in unstable/shaky. All I was saying was that in games that model the instability/shakiness in this way, wouldn't it be better if your actual, visible aim was shaky. This would be clearly visible whether or not you used the on-screen crosshair, and a player would know at any given time the true location that the firearm was centered on/lined up with. For an example of what this looks like see here starting at around 4:40: See how he is trying to hit targets but his aim is kind of wobbly? He compensates for it my making micro-adjustments and by holding his breath/tensing his muscles (holding the shift key be default in that game). Also, even in Battlefield 4 itself: Battlefield 4 only introduces this visible shakiness when the player is put in a "suppressed" state or scoped in with a high-power optic, but see how if the sight is lined up on target when he fires it actually goes where he is pointing at? Wouldn't it be infuriating for the player in the second BF4 video if the crosshair was completely stationary, but every time he fired, the bullet might hit as far as 20 feet away from the center of the crosshair? Well, in every other case this is pretty much exactly what happens. You're pointing somewhere but when you shoot the bullet hits somewhere that far beyond what would occur based on the inherent accuracy of the firearm (what the player is likely to perceive as "reasonable" since it's effect since it isn't extremely significant)   That's all I'm saying. In games that choose to model the shakiness/instability of a firing position, do you think it would be more fair/less frustrating if the induced instability was visible? Even if the aim was shaky, the player would *always* know exactly where they were *truly* aiming. There wouldn't be any of this "well I had by firearm lined up with X but the bullet didn't go anywhere close to there! What the heck?" In my opinion, you should either: a) not model the instability/shakiness of a firing position at all OR b) make it something that the player is clearly aware of and is able to compensate for in some way.
  3. thedarkknight9174

    First person perspective improvements?

      I agree.  That's what Metroid Prime was *about*, in a sense: being inside that helmet, using its functions, upgrading it, etc.  There were a ton of little details to remind you that you were seeing the world through a visor (like seeing Samus's face reflected whenever the lighting conditions are right).   But if a game *isn't* about that, that same level of helmet fetishism would get in the way of whatever the game *is* about.   Yeah I guess that is the distinction here. If the game is about making you see the world through the character's eyes, then it is good. If the first person view is simply a camera-like view into the world then no, it wouldn't make sense. I guess my understanding is that the entire point of a first person perspective is to try and make the player feel like they *are* the character, seeing what they see, etc.
  4. thedarkknight9174

    FPS Games, Recoil and Spread

    Orymus3: Oh I get what you are saying, the current target is the same as the center of the view. So I guess with a traditional view then this would basically be a minor form of "HUD bobbing". If you were firing from a very unstable position your view would be wobbly as whole.   Servant, no what I am talking about is the distinction between inherent [in]accuracy due to the firearm itself and inaccuracy as a result of dynamic crosshair (spread) based on player stance and movement.   So here are all the terms I am discussing and my definition of them:   Inherent accuracy: This is the accuracy of the firearm in the game. If the designer chooses to implement this characteristic, it will be implemented by introducing somewhat minor deviations to the bullet path. If you are using weapon X and it has an accuracy rating of Y then there will be a specific probability based on the distance that a bullet/projectile launched from it will hit its target. The player cannot compensate for this, because the inherent inaccuracy of the weapon is what differentiates it from the other ones. Recoil: When a shot is fired, the aim of the character is shifted. The recoil pattern is different for each weapon, so for example weapon X will shift the aim up 2 units and left 3 units per every unit of time. The player, by noticing that firing the weapon is moving their aim up and to the left, can then pull down and to the right to compensate for this. The player is able to compensate for this in some way. Spread: This is an additional factor that determines the accuracy of a fired shot and is dependent on the firing stance and movement speed of the character. When the character is prone and not moving, then this will be equal to the inherent accuracy. If the player is crouched or standing, stationary, walking or running, then this will increase the randomness of the projectile path. For games where a visible crosshair is enabled, the crosshair will get larger to show a less stable firing position, and smaller to show a more stable firing position. The player is unable to compensate for this additional randomness.   If any of you have played Battlefield 4 then you will probably understand this more. In BF4 each weapon has a defined recoil pattern and inherent accuracy. When you are crouched your crosshair is smaller than it is standing, meaning you are more accurate from that position. However, crouching does not make your view any more or less stable. However, if you are being suppressed, your view, and therefore your aim, will start to sway randomly up, down, left, right. When using the ironsights or one of the optical sights, that sight basically becomes the center of your view, and as such your view as a whole begins to wobble.   So, inherent accuracy I'm ok with because that is what differentiates the weapons. Also, the amount of randomness added to model the inherent accuracy is expected and somewhat minor in its effects. A projectile will not do a perfect hit one time at 5 meters and miss by a meter the next time, but might be 10cm off or so.   What I am saying is that with spread as defined above, a character who is standing still and is stationary will have a larger crosshair than he would stationary and prone, to model that this is a less stable firing position. Even if the firearm looks like it is stable and unmoving when he fires, the projectile path will be subject to this random deviation that is in addition the the inherent accuracy.   The alternative is that when in a less stable firing position, the actual firearm itself sways up, down, left, right randomly. The difference here is that the player can see the direction that the firearm is moving in and react to this by slightly adjusting his aim to counteract this. The player can follow the sway pattern and use it to predict the best time to take a shot. If I the crosshair is moving up and down, up and down, then he can see "oh the crosshair is moving down right now" and choose to fire the weapon at the exact time that it passes over the target. This would be the same for a game where there is no crosshair/it is disabled and only irons or some other kind of targeting mechanism is used. The targeting mechanism would be swaying back and forth, up and down, but you could alter the immediate position of target via an input event. This is analogous to if you were holding a firearm in real-life and looking down the irons. Depending on your movement speed and stance, the firearm would be wobbly due to the instability (minor muscle shaking, etc.) but you could specifically tense certain muscles, hold your breath, etc. to try and compensate for it.   Does that make any sense? Basically instead of the game showing you that the gun is pointing directly at a target, but the bullet path being random in a way that cannot be altered at all, the game would show the gun swaying, having it be physically pointing at wherever the bullet will go. This point will change due to the gun swaying, but you can quickly move the target in a slightly different direction to try and compensate for the current direction.
  5. thedarkknight9174

    FPS Games, Recoil and Spread

    Servant of the Lord: Yeah, I understand what you're saying. People will always be upset at something and you are never going to have something feel 100% fair. However, I feel like you can reduce the number of things that feel unfair and reduce the number of people who get upset over things. For me, there are times where I am playing a game and I know where I lost because I legitimately had a weaker strategy or had poorer reflexes. But in a FPS for example, if me and another guy are looking right at each other and both using automatic fire at close range with very similar weapons, then shouldn't both of us go down instead of the game just randomly choosing a winner?   GoCatGo: I'm not talking about realism. I don't want to have to fix jams in games or calculate the weather or whatever except in maybe one or two games where they are dedicated simulators. All I was saying is that spread/random deviation based on stance and movement is not fun, and perhaps it would be better to replace it with weapon sway.   Spread, in the way I am describing it, actually is intended to represent the stability of the firing position. If you crouch, the crosshair gets smaller. If you go prone it gets really small. Yes, I'm aware that real firearms aren't laser accurate. A good sniper rifle has sub-MOA accuracy, while an M16 might have an MOA of 4 or so. However, in games where the crosshair size changes according to movement and stance the primary reason is to change your accuracy, not the firearm's. The inherent accuracy of the rifle might be part of the base calculation but it is not the main reason. It is obvious that spread in games that implement it like I said above are not trying to emulate the inherent accuracy of the rifle. The inherent accuracy (MOA) of a rifle doesn't change because you crouch or go prone.   In a scenario where the size of the crosshair of the firearm/weapon you using in the game does not change depending on stance or movement speed then yes, it would be trying to model the inherent accuracy of the firearm. In real-life an assault rifle might be "accurate" at 100 meters, but in a game where, for gameplay or other reasons (arena shooter with small maps), the gameplay designer wants "long distance" to be 35 meters, medium to be 15 meters and close-range to be 5 meters, then the size of the crosshair size that goes with the assault rifle may be bigger.   What I was getting at was that instead of using a dynamic crosshair size/increasing the randomness of the bullet path based on stance and movement speed, that the crosshair should be a static size (the size could be calculated depending on the inherent accuracy of the weapon, or be the same for all of them but whether or not inherent accuracy is modeled is irrelevant either way here), and should move around. If you're in real life, and you sprint for a while, are tired and then stop and try to shoot, is your gun going to be completely stationary and suddenly shoot bullets out at 15 or 30 degree angles? No, your fatigue, breathing, etc. will make it so that when holding the weapon up it is going to bob up and down, left and right. But when you pull the trigger, if the firearm is lined up with the target you want to hit, then it is going to go towards that target in a path that is only determined by the inherent accuracy of the weapon (again, let's take weather, etc. out of the picture for this discussion). The point is, you can make minute adjustments, rely on timing of the weapon movement if you notice a pattern, etc. to make a more accurate shot. So, in a game, if you're upright and walking, the crosshair would similarly move up, down, left, right. If you were aiming at something, you would have to wait until your crosshair was over what you wanted to hit before firing or you would have to make minute adjustments to your aim based on how the weapon was moving around. Wherever the crosshair was when you fired is where the projectile would go. In a game that doesn't model the inherent accuracy of a weapon, this would be exactly where it would go. In a game that does, it would still go where you were aiming but would deviate according to the inherent accuracy of the weapon. Using a dynamic crosshair and changing the spread of the weapon based on your stance and movement speed in a game takes control away from you and just says "hey you're tired this projectile is going to come out at an angle anywhere between 15 and 30 degrees" instead of letting you try and correct for the movement by adjusting your aim, relying on timing, etc.   Even if you turn the crosshair off in the game, this would still be visible when using the weapon's targeting mechanism. If you're looking through irons or using an optic sight, the sight, and by extension the gun, would still be swaying around depending on your stance and movement speed.   "I'm not sure what you are actually trying to accomplish with all of these FPS threads, but may I suggest something to you?" My other thread was about the first person perspective and in no way mentioned firearm modeling or the like. This is about first person shooters. Are you able to understand the difference or do you need someone to explain it to you? Damn, my understanding was that this was a discussion forum, not a place where people were required to have some clearly defined purpose or goal by posting that was deemed acceptable by others. Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "forum"? Here is a link that may help you decipher what it may infer about the purpose of an Internet forum: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum   Forgive me for posting something that YOU don't agree with or something that MAY not be ENTIRELY accurate (it is obvious above that my definition of spread is different than yours). "Know what you are talking about before talking about it." How DARE I open my mouth about something without being an expert about it. You act as if I personally attacked you and others by saying "this is the best way to model this and approach this from a gameplay perspective and if you disagree you are stupid and should just shut up", where in reality all I did was discuss how it works now in some games and ask if modeling it a different way would feel more fair and provide a better experience. So, may I ask you: What are you actually trying to accomplish by being an elitist dickwad? Why don't you go off and jerk off on a firing range somewhere about how much more knowledge you have than everyone else? Or, alternatively, you could learn how to engage in a constructive, polite discussion like Servant of the Lord apparently knows how to do.
  6. thedarkknight9174

    First person perspective improvements?

    Maybe if you there was an option in the gameplay settings to turn this kind of thing on or off? [In reference to view obstructions like glasses] I can definitely understand where you are coming from though looking through glasses, at a monitor with a bezel and then through a pair of virtual glasses haha.
  7. thedarkknight9174

    First person perspective improvements?

    Something else I didn't remember, but I've thought before:   You should definitely be able to see your feet, legs, etc. when looking down. I remember watching the pre-release interviews for Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway back in the day where they had you being able to do this, and this was actually the way that you checked how many grenades and magazines that you had left if you opted to turn off the HUD for a more realistic experience (something I did in the two preceding it... no suppression indicators, health, crosshair, etc.. made the game much more fun). Again, none of this is going to take a mediocre game and make it life-altering or anything but, at least to me, they seem like they would provide a better experience. When I was in high school and some in college more subtle kind of features like this would get me a lot more excited than they do now.. I've got much more, realistic? expectations of games these days and realize that a lot of features only provide a small amount of improvment for a small amount of time before you/people in general just get used to them.
  8. thedarkknight9174

    First person perspective improvements?

    Olof: I guess your experience differs from mine, but motion blur in games just gives me headaches. If I turn it off parts of my view are blurry based on what I am focusing on anyway so for me motion blur seems like adding more of what I already have.
  9. thedarkknight9174

    First person perspective improvements?

    I wear glasses too, although I don't need them all the time. I was talking more about having the glasses be visible in your field of vision if you are playing as a character that wears them. The game wouldn't be switching between blurriness and crisp focus all the time, the player adjusting them would be just more of a cinematic thing reserved for single player games/modes. I would say at the very most it might blur the view for a split second while the character does the animation. Also, you obviously wouldn't want the character to be doing this every 30 seconds.
  10. thedarkknight9174

    FPS Games, Recoil and Spread

    So, in FPS games, there are a number of things at work that determine your accuracy, as you know. Excuse me if these terms are something you already know.   Recoil is something you have to adjust for based on the power and rate of fire for the weapon. High power weapons usually have high recoil to reduce the time between shots that they are fired. A high rate of fire weapon has high recoil because each projectile knocks the weapon in a certain direction.   Spread is used to emulate stability of your aim. If you are running, the spread is very high, if you are walking it is low, if you are crouching it is even less and if you are prone and not moving at all it is at its lowest.   This isn't an original idea at all, but wouldn't it provide a better gameplay experience if the concept of spread was replaced with the crosshair moving around? So, if you are moving or stationary, standing straight up, crouching, prone, whatever the crosshair would be the same size. However, to do the same thing that spread does, the crosshair would move around. If you are walking at high speed the crosshair would be moving up and down, left and right. Whereever it was is where the projectile would go, and there would be no randomness or misunderstandings about where you were actually aiming. Like recoil, this would be something that the user could control more directly. With recoil you can compensate somewhat for it if you know how. With spread you can only compensate for it indirectly by reducing the randomness. With a moving crosshair, you would be able to adjust your aim to compensate for your stance or movement speed if you knew how, and there would be no "what? I had the crosshair centered on the other player, what happened?" kind of reactions.   Edit: It seems like some games, e.g. Battlefield 4, have scope sway, which is similar to this, but the scope sway is present along with spread. Also, for games where there is no crosshair or it can be disabled, the rendering of the weapon would have to realistically show that is was bobbing, which it seems to do in a fair amount of games already.   Thoughts? Comments? The only thing I can think of that might make this an issue is that having a moving object that the player constantly needs to track might be annoying or headache inducing for some, similar to motion blur effects.
  11. So, first person games are supposed to make the player "feel" like the character, whereas your average movie or third person game is basically a "view" of what is happening. That being said, there are certain things that make the use of the first person perspective more engaging.   1) [Lack of] motion blur. Motion blur is a purely cinematic effect. It only occurs due to the limitations of viewing/recording devices like cameras. In a true first-person view, motion blur is extremely subtle unless someone is having vision problems for some reason (either as a result of medical problems or being drunk or whatever). In fact, the human brain shuts off your optic nerve many times a day during periods of high motion because it simply does not like blurriness. This is called saccadic masking. Therefore, in order for a game to provide a good first-person experience as opposed to a cinematic one, shouldn't this be used much, much less? Think about it. If there is a lot of motion on screen anyway, your vision is automatically going to focus on certain parts and blur others. Doing it in game **for the purposes of providing a first-person experience** is actually less realistic and wastes processing and other hardware resources which would be better used elsewhere.   2) HUD bobbing: This isn't really very realistic in many implementations. There aren't really a lot of HUDs in real life, but as a proof of concept take a pair of cheap work goggles. Draw a little ammo counter, health meter, whatever on it. Put the goggles on and make sure they fit reasonable well. Now shake your head around. The images on the goggles shouldn't move much relative to your view. If they do that means your goggles aren't tight enough. At the most they should only move like a few millimeters. In games where super soldiers have power armors, etc. that explain the ammo counter, etc. then wouldn't you think that their helmet would be fitted reasonably well since it is used in combat scenarios? For first person games where the HUD is just there to assist the player and there isn't an in-game reason for it then the HUD bobbing is completely pointless and just makes it harder for the player to see the extra information that the HUD exists solely to show them.   3) Six degrees of freedom: In most games with a first person perspective, there are only 4 degrees of freedom. You can look up, down, to the left (turn to the left), to the right (turn to the right). However, in real-life there are two other ways in which you can look: to the left (*rotate* to the left) and to the right (*rotate* to the right). This is in games like ARMA, flight sims, and vehicles in games like Battlefield, but wouldn't it be more immersive if this was present in more games. For example, in an FPS, you are running towards a certain area. However, just to be safe, you turn around every so often to make sure nobody is following you. With 4 degrees of freedom, you have to stop running, and turn to the left or the right and backpedal. Then you turn around again and start running in that direction. Instead, what if there was a button to hold that would allow you to only rotate your view left or right? In the scenario above, this would allow you to look behind you or to the side but still keep you running forward and have your weapon/item pointing forward. In most scenarios turning your view is just as fast as rotating your view, but it would be more immersive and, in very specific scenarios like above be useful. I don't know about you, but it annoys me to have to quit running, turn around and backpedal, then turn around and start running again, especially if you are playing a game where this kind of cautious behavior is needed.   4) Minor view obstructions So, in games with a first-person view, the view often contains no obstructions. For example, if you are playing a game where the main character wears glasses, the only way you would ever know that is if there was a cutscene.. they do not appear in your view of the game world.   In real-life, most everyone "sees" their nose all the time, but their brain sort of tunes it out. That would explain why you don't see first person views with a nose obstructing the field of vision.   However, I noticed while playing Halo 4 at the end of 2012 that you could actually see Master Chief's helmet in your field of vision. You could see the "bill" of it as well as the sides, etc. See here: http://www.gamertheory.com/uploads/games/halo4campaign5.jpg   I remember thinking this was pretty cool, especially when running or looking up, etc.you could see more of the "bill" in your field of vision. It didn't obstruct your view too much so it wasn't annoying.   Wouldn't it be cool if more games did this? What if the Half-Life games had had Gordon Freeman's glasses in the field of vision like this:   http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/01/article-0-154A31EE000005DC-185_634x423.jpg   If there was an explosion, or you fell from a high distance or some other jarring event, the character might automatically reach up and adjust them. Looking up or down would make more or less of them come into your field of vision (looking left and right would not, in first person games you never actually turn your head, just rotate your body.. unless you're playing a game like ARMA or a flight sim where you get 6 degrees of freedom where you can hold a button down to look around). Or, say your character was wearing googles for some reason. Maybe he is skiing or going scuba diving. Having them visible in your field of vision would be more immersive.   Thoughts?
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

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

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!