Okay so I was sitting here thinking of a action adventure RPG id like to make, one that is more RPG than anything else. Sorta like Dungeon Siege but well of course more rpgish..and I was thinking if you have a party, it would be nice to control everyone but keep the action going...so my golden idea is to use bullet time. Think of this you come across and enemy and you as your main character start whacking on it (just like in dungeon siege) then your other characters start in just like dungeong siege, the trick is you can click your right mouse button or something and go into "Bullet Time"... in which case the action starts playing out still but much slower, where you have time to select each character in your party (via a super effective UI) and then select the type of attacks etc for each characater..thus making it sorta Final Fantasyish because for that "Bullet Time Round" you have selected all the attacks, once the last attack is selected and orders are confirmed somehow (either by it being the last character that can have an action selected or some other way) then the game zooms back to normal speed, and you resume control of whichever character you want...running and attacking with a bit more control ala'' Diablo II. The if you want to change it up again...bam back into Bullet Time. I hate to toot my own horn, but to me this sounds like a very valid and awesome use for the bullet time concept. Hmmmmmm Any thoughts? -Shane

That''s an interesting alternative to pausing the game. It might even give the illusion of having a little more participation in the battle AND having the control you need at the same time.

And another setting to control how much the action slows down would be a good idea.

Would, in bullet time then, the Orc''s roar go from "Rar!" to "Oooooooorrrrrooooooorrrrrrr"?

Freedom Force recently did something like this. IIRC, you can set the pause option to use slow-mo instead of a complete freeze.

Nice idea. As waverider said, amount of slowdown could be adjusted depending on difficulty level, etc. This kind of UI feature might also be handy for RTS games.

This technique also helps maintain the player''s immersion (particularly if the control interface is well done), while giving the game a more cinematic feel. As far as the player is concerned, he might be seeing the "ardrenaline rush" his characters experience as they head into battle - less suspension of disbelief involved than in a complete freeze of the action - the world never stops moving.

Exactly, to me the the game play all but stops which is cool, but on a basic technical level the game play is stopping, just the player doesnt associate it that way. Which again I think is helpful for such an Action/Adventure to become an RPG. Let''s face it, RPG''s are very complex and deep (well hopefully)...but after playing the 30+ houred RPG''s doesnt the same battle system get boring? If there were more action it it might be more inticing for 30+ hours of play...but then you have the paradox, lots of action is not conducive to allowing for a deep complex system, and vice versa. But if you could meld the way, as with the bullet time and one hell of a speedy interface, then you have something that starts to shape up and become an actual Action Adventuer RPG.

The rest sorta unfolds then, since its complex its engrossing, and can cause for a great deal of strategic thinking...but since its action orientated its more accessable and since its adventure, its got the "I just need to play for one more minute" attitude thing going on.

I dunno, I personally would find such a game fun.

-Shane

see command and conquer, red alert, black and white, cannon fodder, dugeon siege, etc.

this has been done in nearly all rts games since the days of dos. there is a magic feature called timespeed which dictates how fast time moves (thus gameplay). just because there is a fancy name for slo-mo does not all of sudden make it special in some way.

is innovation use old stuff the same way it as been done before?

the only difference is now pcs are fast enough to resample sounds better. most pc rpgs are just rts games with stats and less strategy. also less units to manage (ussually 4 at most).

ideas are easy to come up with, its the implemnetation that makes it worthwhile. just saying "via super effective UI", does not mean you can come up with one, or there is even one, that will suit all players.

dont talk about what should be done. saying you must meld things, and disucssing obvius things is moot. why not try coming up with actual implementation details instead of fanasty world vaporware.


an example of how silly some ideas sound:

yep, i got a great idea. have this great interface, awsome visuals and story telling, coupled with just the right amount of action and naturally deep and ocmplex combat system. though its not complex enough for a newbie to learn, and not deep enough to bore those who dont care about details. ai is second to none with npcs that can actually hold real ocnversations. using ai that can actually understand when ask questions, not just select from predefined scripts. with the best speach to text and text to speach system ever seen, its like the npcs are living breathing ppl you are tralking to.


the key is to actually try implementing your ideas, instead of just thinking them up. there are real reasons why certain things have be done the way they have been. there are limits to what pcs can do as well as what gamers are willing to accept as good gameplay.

Well pardon me, I thought this was the idea posters place. If I wanted an implementation, sure I could of done that. But alas working in a box is very bad...hence its good to put a few ideas out on the table, mash through them then come up with an implementation as opposed to spending insane amounts of time programming and applying your implementation only to find out it wasn''t thought through far enough or that it is just not a very good idea to begin with. But I guess some of us are blessed enough to know instantly when our idea is perfection, and can code it in an awesome speedy way and thus get it working almost days after their idea which was so very easy to come to anyway popped into their heads.

I never said bullet time was special, I just said (As I saw in another thread somewhere, people were saying it hasn''t been used as much as it could been.) that there was another use for it. Of course nothing is ever really new, after all no games are different they are all the same, I mean they all put pixels on the screen right?


And by the way, the your silly idea sounds just right almost for a Game Concept Design Document. Of course it has to be hashed out, I mean my "via super effective UI" wasn''t the design document or tech document for my UI...it was simply attempting to stress the point, that such an implmentation of "Bullet Time" would need a "super effective UI" to even have a chance of making the bullet time worth while.

-Shane

It´s a good idea, but I think it´s been brought up in some discussion of combat mechanics a few months back (it was suggested that the speed or agility skill of the fighter determines the amount of slowdown that occurs).

quote: Original post by a person
see command and conquer, red alert, black and white, cannon fodder, dugeon siege, etc.

this has been done in nearly all rts games since the days of dos. there is a magic feature called timespeed which dictates how fast time moves (thus gameplay). just because there is a fancy name for slo-mo does not all of sudden make it special in some way.

I think you''re missing the point, although setting the time speed is included in many RTS games, the idea here is that it''s promoted to the player. In a lot of games the speed is generally hidden away in the options menu as an afterthought, whereas instead with this idea the speed becomes a fundamental part of gameplay.

For instance, in Max Payne "bullet time" wouldn''t really have been a significant feature if you had to go to the options menu and turn it on and off. It''d be outside the game, and regarded more as a "cheat" then anything else. However, since they worked it in as an in-game feature it''s considered a significant part of the game.

quote:
is innovation use old stuff the same way it as been done before?

Ah, but that''s the key, it''s not the same as it has been done before.

quote:
ideas are easy to come up with, its the implemnetation that makes it worthwhile. just saying "via super effective UI", does not mean you can come up with one, or there is even one, that will suit all players.

Right, but the poster wanted input on his idea without the UI being a variable, which is why he just assumed that it would be a great UI for the sake of discussion.

quote:
dont talk about what should be done. saying you must meld things, and disucssing obvius things is moot. why not try coming up with actual implementation details instead of fanasty world vaporware.

quote:
the key is to actually try implementing your ideas, instead of just thinking them up. there are real reasons why certain things have be done the way they have been. there are limits to what pcs can do as well as what gamers are willing to accept as good gameplay.

Implementing time slowing is trivial, it''s not really even an issue except working with the sound. Balancing it with the design might be more of an issue, but that''s what we''re here to discuss, eh?

----------------------------------------
"Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
Then, when you do criticize them, you will be a mile away and have their shoes." -- Deep Thoughts
"If you have any trouble sounding condescending, find a Unix user to show you how it''s done." - Scott Adams
FaceHat Software -- Wear the hat.

There isn't any harm in talking about it. This is a discussion forum, after all. Some people are going to contribute, others are going to say it's been discussed before. With all the varieties in between. It's best to be aware of that when you post here.

So which is better anyway, Direct3D or OpenGL - JUST KIDDING!!!! ONLY KIDDING, FALSE ALARM, PUT DOWN THE FLAMETHROWER and STEP AWAY SLOWLY

[edited by - Waverider on June 5, 2002 3:41:31 PM]