quote: Original post by MSW
just as they are in arcade games like Asteroids...and even fully 3D games like Quake have slower moveing projectiles (rockets, plasma shots, BFG, etc...) this has ZERO to do with technology and has everything to do with game design...slower moveing projectiles allows players and enemies to dodge oncomeing fire...which produces a different gameplay dynamic, requireing different player skills then a direct "point and shoot" approch.
Quake, Unreal...heck, just about every 3D game has had slow moveing projectiles.
I was not saying that technology _forced_ games to remove projectile-based weapons. My point was that the jump from 2D to 3D, a change in technology, influenced the design so that the pistol, uzi, shotgun were changed to hitscan weapons rather than projectile-based. That's been the main point I've been trying to make all along. That technology influences design. Many 2D games use projectile-based bullets instead of hitscan weapons because that's what makes the most sense for 2D technology. You don't have crosshairs and it's not entirely apparent where your bullet will hit. So, to be a bit more intuitive, the bullets move slowly so that you can plan things and aim better. But when you move to 3D, you have crosshairs and aiming a hitscan weapon makes a bit more sense.
I do agree that there is a gameplay mechanic which allows dodging when you have projectile-based systems. And that gameplay mechanic is itself, also influenced by the 2D game technology. You'll notice that 3D games don't tend to have this feature as much as 2D games did, probably because this particular gameplay mechanic doesn't make as much sense in a 3D viewpoint. Since gauging depth can be tough in 3D games, dodging 3D projectiles is a bit tough and non-intuitive. So there you go. 3D technology influencing design.
quote:
How often was the player allowed to fist fight in GTA1?...GTA3 was a 180 degree turn in the design of the series...the focus in the earlyer GTA games was on arcade like experiences...GTA3 focused much more on the game world...it traded the "shoot and dodge" action arcade like approch for one with a higher focus on story and characters...it made gun battles much more deadly, but introduced fighting to balance combat...it traded the nameless autos of GTA1 for a more detailed realworld approch of autos with names and specific characteristics...GTA1 had a more icon driven approch as the emphesis was on the run-n-gun action...GTA3 was basied much more in the details then the icon like representation of things...it approched the gameworld as a DM/GM would in a roleplaying game, and the game was designed along those lines...GTA1, on the other hand, took some fairly common arcade game mechanics and fit the game world around them...in GTA3 the gameworld is the centerpiece...in GTA1 the give and take of the arcade basied gameplay is the centerpiece.
Technology has NOTHING to do with it...there were lots of fully 3D games on the PSX before GTA1 was released...there have been lots sense then....as PSX developers they had complete axcess to the Sony development kits that others used...But they designed GTA1 with a different focus in mind...they chose the "top-down" viewing angle because it best supported the game they wanted to make.
My point is that maybe all the changes you mention above were influenced by the technology i.e. the jump from 2D to 3D.
Neither of us know for sure what the GTA designers were thinking. Maybe they wanted to make GTA1 with a 3D engine but they knew it wasn't feasible on the PSX as a 3D game. Or maybe if it was feasible, it wouldn't look or play good enough to meet their standards. Or maybe you're right. Neither of us know for sure. But I believe that both your scenario and my scenario are possible. You haven't argued why my scenario couldn't have happened. Technology _could_ have had something to do with it in that example.
Maybe I should state an example that is more clear-cut. Take Doom 3. The game is designed around the technology. Carmack says "I'm making this engine based on stencil shadows, pixel lighting, etc." And so the technology can only handle two enemies onscreen at once. So in Doom, you fight only a few enemies at once. They didn't say "Let's create a game where you only fight a few enemies at once. They said "Let's create this game with these technological features", and from that their game's design is influenced. Please don't argue about how this creates bad games or that Doom3's design is flawed. That's not the point.
And don't say that is the exception, not the norm. Think of every game that is going to license the Doom3 engine. Even better, think of the past games that licensed the Doom1 engine. I bet many of them had instances where technology influenced design. It happens.
[edited by - beantas on November 6, 2002 11:41:08 PM]
