BISHOP_PASS wrote:

quote: posture, gestures, and most importantly, the eyes

Exactly that is what should be aimed for. I know it''s unrealistic in technical terms, but if we focus on a one-on-one combat, we will have more options in graphics and speed etc. I think that the more a virtual object behaves like the real thing, be it by something like having the prey make a lifelike sound, the more real the virtual object, in this case an animal that functions as prey, will be. And the more realistic the animal is, the more sense of threath I will feel. Me, that is. I think I''ll be a minority, but I would prefer playing a quasi-realistic encounter with one virtual animal over anything out there.

Hm, now which do I prefer:

Play character and see moving objects. They look like green things, and I attack everything, so I press my mouse and attack it until its dead. Getting closer I see its a goblin. Once its dead, I take my loot and exp and go find more goblins. Need to kill 20 more to level up.

or

Play character and see moving objects. I can''t see what it is, so I move closer. I see that it is a [insert animal]. I know from these creatures that they only attack when pressured into a corner. I sidestep, giving it enough chance to pass by me. I''m almost past it now, but something must''ve startled it because I can see that its pose is now threatening. Its paws are a little closer to the ground, muscles tensed, its jaws show its big teeth as it gnarls. It must be preparing to jump at me. I bring up my [insert weapon] and try to slowly move away, ready for the leap that I know will come.

I''ve come to think that most games are trying to achieve too much in the quantative aspect. I''d like to see what could happen when a game is simplified to its basic element, then made perfect and only THEN carried over as a whole into a new generation, a different genre perhaps.

If we can get a real battle between one character and one animal going, then after that we should be able to perfect the character vs character part. And then we should be able to create a campaign style combat game using the same engine, but improving on speed and size.

After reading your last post, I can''t help but wonder if you misinterpreted what I was saying.

I was saying that animals (in this case, bears and pumas) are highly sensitive to the posture, gestures and eye contact (or lack of) made by the prey, which would be you. What you do has an effect on whether the animal is going to attack you.

As an example, in a real life encounter with a puma, you must not break eye contact with the puma. You should not kneel down, bend over, turn around, run away, or avert your gaze.

Silvermyst and bishop_pass, I think both of you have hit on something really good, where the player and the monster/animal/NPC make signs to each other.

It''s up to the player to interpret the opponent''s signs so that they know how to win a fight or even avoid combat. But it''s also important for the player to know what signs to give the opponent, to control their reactions. Both could be researched in-game.

Would this be called a psyche-''em-up?

BISHOP_PASS

I see what you mean now. I got confused by the "(prey)" part.

I think it would definitely make it more interesting, as Dracoliche mentioned, to make both predator and prey send psychological messages with their body language and behaviour, making every encounter somewhat like a dance. It''s up to the player''s wishes and his skill to decide if it becomes a dance of death.

(an important part of the game should be that a player/character can choose to avoid combat: perhaps the animal encountered looks to ferocious; perhaps the character is slightly wounded or tired; perhaps the animal has never been encountered before and the player does not want to take a chance; etc)

Predators prey upon prey.

DRACOLICHE wrote:

quote: the player and the monster/animal/NPC make signs to each other

Been thinking a little about implementation of these signs. I think there are two main ''sign'' categories:

1) detailed
2) general

The detailed signs are all those that a player/character has to focus on to notice. Things like the expression in the eyes of an animal, the way their nose and mouth is shaped at any one moment.

The general signs are all those that are fairly easy to notice. Body language (tensed or relaxed, preparing for jump etc), sounds (snarls, growls and such).

I think it''s near impossible to create an engine that clearly displays both types of signs to the player. A graphical depiction of the situation that is too close up will somewhat lose the general signs (except sound of course). And if the view is too distant, then the detailed signs will be lost.

One could let the player open up a ''close up'' box in one of the corners of the screen. This box would be a close up of an area of choice (usually head). This way, while the player is studying the body language of an animal opponent, the player can at the same time focus some of his attention on the facial expressions.

Was it Gamasutra that had the "Emotion Engine" article - I read one about that a while later.
Basically, you define the vertex / texture for happy, sad, angry, fear. Then when you need to have the character speak ( or attack, or flee in this case ), you blur Angry .4 Fear .6 and that is what the character looks like.
Your Puma ( or other animal ) could have raised hackles, exposed teeth, other things for its Angry / Fear pose, and as you approach it on the road, it move more from Neutral/Happy to Angry/Fear - letting the player know what''s going on.

BENFINKEL wrote:

quote: 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.

Can I agree and disagree at the same time?

Agree: Yes, the kid should be able to play the game and yes, so should grammy, so the player skill has to be disconnected from the character''s abilities.

Disagree: No, the kid should not be able to play the game and no, neither should grammy, so the player skill can be connected to the character''s abilities.

I think that any game should at least enable a person to attempt it. There should be a gameplay mode that let''s even a the kid and grammy have a go at it. Lots of automated options would be required.

But, skilled players should be able to take that skill and transfer it to the character. As always, I think it''s best to have an easy mode where players don''t have to take too much control and a hard mode where players can take as much control as they want (and gaining some rewards from it; example: when taking complete control, you could swing your sword 4 times every 5 seconds, instead of 3).

Let the player take as much or as little control as he or she desires.