I''m sure that by now we''ve all battled a goblin or two. And I''m sure we''ve stood in awe of a dragon at least once in our gaming lives. But have you ever fought a creature and felt that it was anything more than just a matter of a few dice deciding the battle? Sure, that bear you are fighting now has more hitpoints than the wolf you just killed. Sure, it hits harder. Sure, it has a special bite attack every 5 rounds to do some extra damage. But it is anything else than a graphical representation of some 1''s and 0''s? I realize that there hasn''t even really been a good sword-fight engine (although Blade Of Darkness was a big step in the right direction) and that for realistic animal attacks, a good close-combat engine has to be used. But, counting on the fact that some day soon someone manage to design an almost perfect sword-fight engine, what would be necessary to make another leap and use that engine to make animals attack our characters in a completely new way?

quote: Original post by Silvermyst
I realize that there hasn''t even really been a good sword-fight engine...

I felt Bushido blade was very sophisticated. I suspect you''re constraining your evaluations to systems within the "quest-oriented" game genres (RPGs, adventure), though, so that didn''t count.

Yes, there is a shortage of realism. However, is there fun? I fully endorse realism, but only as much as it promotes fun. Having a bear with extremely sophisticated attack mechanisms might make him sufficiently bothersome/difficult to beat that it detracts from the game - especially considering that most of these beasts appear by the horde; they''re level "filler" and aren''t meant to consume your time. By the time you articulate their motions and offense, you''d be forced to scale down their frequency - which might seem like a waste of effort.

Continue, though. I''m very interested to see what opinions are put forward and what ideas develop.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! | Asking Smart Questions ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Well, Baldurs Gate 2 came *really* close a few times. Only when I played it first time though. And only a really few times (3, actually).

Those fine moments are when a battle starts without you expecting it (and preparing for it), but that still runs great.

My best experience was in the "Harper Complex". I just walked inside, suddenly encountered an enemy party, and had no time to save (and no saves recently). So I *had* to win. But it was challenging!

It was truly a battle for our lives. My main hero was a really fancy swordfighter, so he was doing 1-on-1 against the enemy leader, my 2 mages were both ganging up on an archer, my 2 fighters were off chasing the enemy mage into a corner (and then were facing a horde of summoned monsters), while Vicky (cleric ) casted a duplicate of herself, and managed to hold of 3 melee fighters with the help of a few skeletons...

That fight took me 15 minutes, lost and regained control of partymembers often (charm, confusion), at time we seemed to loose, at times we seemed to win.

BUT IT WAS GREAT!

The challenge wasn''t ''cause of the number of enemies. Or even because they were stronger. No, but because our numbers were equal, and our skills matched (since I wasn''t prepared, so couldn''t use my killer spells).

Actually, I have a rather strong opinion on that matter. It takes a bit of explaining, but since I love to talk anyways, I don''t mind.


If you''ve ever read the Otherland series by Tad Williams, there was a character named Orlando who spent most of his life playing in a futuristic version of Everquest. His online character was a barbarian named Tharagor who was famous throughout the game because of all the incredible deeds he had accomplished and all of the monsters he had killed.

When Orlando was playing the game as Tharagor, he was involved in many sword fights. Since he had a "neurocannula" connection which gave him direct sensory input and output, he didn''t have to worry about using the mouse and keyboard to relay his commands to the game. If he wanted to swing left, it was like he was really doing it. He had absolute control over his character in the most intuitve way possible.

I always found this to be a very unplausible idea of computer gaming in the future. Not becuase of the direct neural connection, but rather the implementation of the interface. Swordplay is as much, if not more, strategy and mental as it is physical. That being said, some people, hell MANY people, would not be very good at it. That is what a computer game does. It allows you to flex skills that you would not normally have. If I''m completely uncoordinated and have the reflexes of a moldy cucumber, that doesn''t prevent me from having a kick ass warrior in Everquest (or Asheron''s Call or whatever). I don''t need to posses the traits of my character, and that is part of what makes gaming so much fun! Especially RPGs (get it? Role-Playing?).

So getting back to the original question. Having monsters attack realistically is fine, and probably even desired, but I believe you want to disconnect the player''s skills from the characters abilities as much as possible. You don''t want a clumsy oaf of a kid to be unable to play as a thief because he needs to be stealthy and agile. You want Anyone, even an 85 year old grandmother to be able to play as a thief, regardless of the fact that she can''t hear or see (sorry, little elderly person humor there). On the flip side, it IS a game and you do want some level of skill, but that''s a whole other argument altogether.

Anyways, a little rambling on my part. Yes, I believe computer controlled creature should attack as real as possible. But human controlled entities, while they should maybe have real attacks at their finger tips, should not be too dependent upon the player to determine what to attack and when. I think it''s a interesting question to see where gaming will go in the future as interfaces become more advanced and systems become more advanced.

*small bow, steps off soap box*
--Ben

Well, a bear isn''t going to stand toe to toe with a fighter trading blows, it''s going to charge, knock the figher down, and proceed to maul the life out of ''im.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that using natural weaponry can be a distinct disadvantage. It''s not much fun for the bear to have only flesh and blood paws to block a battle axe with. (not that bears do much blocking).

In my opinion, to have truely effective animal combat, you need a combat engine that is much more dynamic than is currently out there. Key-framed bone animation ain''t going to cut it, but real-time IK seems quite promising.

My ideal combat engine would play the fight out in a cinematic fashion with the player controlling the overall strategy of his character rather than micromanaging every move. (although a knee''em in the groin button would be useful for times when a bear knock you down and starts a''mauling...

Korvan

A quick thought or two...
I would expect an attack from an animal to be more like your character trying to prevent himself from being eaten alive than the thrust/counter/parry/etc give-and-take between two weaponed humanoid creatures. Whereas in a fight with a goblin, you''re trying to prevent your opponent''s weapon from slicing or bashing you, when battling an animal, you''re trying to stop him from ripping chunks of meat from your body. If the animal gets hold of your sword-arm and won''t let go because he''s trying to drag you down (I have no idea how likely any given animal is to use that tactic, I''m working on pure imagination), your weapon has become useless.

You could have pack animals pose a particular challenge in that once one of them gets hold of you, your character is significantly slowed down, so that the others have a better chance of attacking/grabbing hold of you, and you are quickly dragged down.

Sean

The Bear thread, right here in the GDNet Forums. Researching and living the real thing can sometimes lend insights that no amount of discussing can.

OLUSEYI wrote:

quote: I felt Bushido blade was very sophisticated. I suspect you''re constraining your evaluations to systems within the "quest-oriented" game genres (RPGs, adventure), though, so that didn''t count.

Actually, no. I haven''t really determined what genre it would be for. The only thing that IS required is that animals behave as realistic as possible. Since the game would be combat oriented (whichever shape it would take), the attacks that an animal can/should make are my focus right now.

The gameplay I envision now puts one player against only one animal. Let''s just stick with human vs wolf.

From The Wolf Education And Research Center:
"The identifying, pursuing, and capture of the prey is a multi step process. It is also a process which can have several different outcomes.

The first scenario is the successful hunt. A wolf pack will pick up the scent of the prey. This is done either by following tracks on the ground, or by picking up the airborne scent. After picking up the scent, the wolves move as a unit towards their quarry. This must be done quietly, so as not to alert their prey. Once the quarry is found, the wolves will surround the animal, biting it around the backside, sides, neck and head. Once the wolves have successfully attacked, death comes very quickly.

However, in most cases, the hunt is not successful. Either the intended prey will pick up the scent of the wolves and run, or in the case of the much larger prey such as the moose, the prey will try to fight the wolves off. If the prey is fleet of foot, or if the prey fights well, the wolves will leave in search of easier game. The wolves seem to know when to give up and search for something new."

From this, I interpret the following:
Wolves hunt in packs
Wolves use scent to locate prey
Wolves will surround prey
Wolves will attack unprotected areas of prey (back, side, neck, head)
Wolves will not continue an attack against prey that fights back

Keeping it to a 1 on 1 fight, let''s drop the first few points and start with: wolf will attack unprotected areas, like back, side, neck and head.

In a group and having surrounded their prey, one wolf will always be able to attack it in the back. But by itself, this attack can only happen when the prey turns and runs. Players will not do this a lot.

So, we''re left with a main attack to the sides, neck and head.

The attack to the side can happen by the wolf pacing and waiting for an opening (when the human that the player controls doesn''t circle around fast enough to keep up with the wolf''s pace).

The attack to the head and/or neck can happen once the human is brought down to the ground, or when the wolf leaps at the head/neck.

The pacing wouldn''t be too hard to implement I guess. The main problem would be the leap. If you''re aiming for some quasi-realism, you don''t want the wolf to leap and land against some mysterious invisible barrier, dropping down to the floor after the attack and taking two or three steps back to get ready for another leap. If a person were to stand closeby, watching the fight, he should see the wolf pace, leap, bite down and bring the human to the ground. The human at this point should be able to strike at the wolf, trying to hurt it enough to make it let go, to make it back off.

I think the best engines to look at at this moment ARE the arcade fighting games, like Tekken and Dead Or Alive. I think the thing to do is tone down the number of attacks that take place, increase the potential damage from each attack and slow down the intensity of the fight until those few seconds when actual attacks take place.

I realize this is all just a big dream, but I think that what was missing in all the virtual fights I''ve fought is a sense of real danger. Sure, there are tons of animals to kill, but I''d rather experience ONE great fight than hundreds of so-so fights.

SEAN99 wrote:

quote: I would expect an attack from an animal to be more like your character trying to prevent himself from being eaten alive than the thrust/counter/parry/etc give-and-take between two weaponed humanoid creatures.

Exactly. It almost becomes a battle to just keep the animal away, more than an actual battle of attacks. You're not there just to strike at the wolf repeatedly until it's hitpoints are brought down to 0. You're there first to protect your life. The wolf is pacing around you, and there's no where to go. All you can do is keep your eye on the wolf, preparing for the leap you know will come. When the wolf finally does leap, you have to react fast and strike it in the air. It's kill or be killed.

KORVAN wrote:

quote: My ideal combat engine would play the fight out in a cinematic fashion with the player controlling the overall strategy of his character rather than micromanaging every move. (although a knee'em in the groin button would be useful for times when a bear knock you down and starts a'mauling...

Interesting thought. I think it's true that if realism is desired, once an animal grabs hold, it would be hard to decide how to let the engine deal with that. How about a combination?
Before an animal grabs hold, the player is free to move around, choose a defense stance, aim for a target. But once an animal takes hold, the engine takes over, automatically attempting to dislodge the animal. Once the character is free again, he can take control once more. (and perhaps even during 'auto' he can press some buttons, like the 'kick in groin' )

EDIT: Of course, when the result of an attack is animated, this will have to be done for every single attack type (leap at head, lunge at backlegs, etc), for every type of animal (bear, wolf, etc) and for every different outcome (complete success, partial success, complete failure). This would mean a lot of different animations.

But it still seems easier to implement than designing an engine that takes care of each and every situation in a fluid way. Still, if an engine like that could be created, an engine where new animal types and new attacks can be added without much difficulty, you've pretty much got the Holy Grail in your hands.

[edited by - Silvermyst on April 5, 2002 9:59:40 AM]

Realism...

Animal behavior is often heavily influenced by the posture, gestures, and most importantly, the eyes of the human. (or prey).

Compare the different recommended actions one should take when encountering a bear vs. a puma, two animals that one has a chance of encountering (a slim one) in many parts of the U.S., even near suburban areas bordering wilderness areas.

While eye contact is something that would be difficult to model in a third person view, it wouldn''t be difficult in a first person view.