Rogue-like Doom

[Hammerskjold]

Some of you might already know\heard about this, but for those that haven't. Doom done Rogue style.

http://doom.chaosforge.org/

There's one interesting thread in their forum, and I hope it comes true as an option eventually, because the proposed artwork is quite good imo. Who can resist Doom chibi style?!

http://doomforum.chaosforge.org/index.php?...rum=3&topic=158

edited ps: Now the circle is complete. Diablo which was inspired by rogue like games, in rogue style.
http://diablo.chaosforge.org/index.php?module=news

[Nystul]

While that's cool, I'm more interested in the opposite direction... a roguelike game (well, probably more Diablo-like than a true roguelike) with randomized dungeons in three true dimensions using a Quake/Doom style graphics engine. Can you imagine falling through a trap door into a jelly pit, while the hounds you were running away from are breathing down at you? A dragon stomping over kobolds to get to you, while you (and the kobolds) make a desperate break for the narrow passageway out of the room? A bunch of pointless worms and gnats that breed at supersonic rates making it impossible for you to... nah, let's leave those guys out.

On a side note: [V]Angband, Level 32 Dwarf paladin, playing at a depth of about 1650', now rocking the armor of the Rohirrim.

[Thecla]

While that's cool, I'm more interested in the opposite direction... a roguelike game (well, probably more Diablo-like than a true roguelike) with randomized dungeons in three true dimensions using a Quake/Doom style graphics engine.

Well, I'm sort of optimistic about the upcoming Hellgate:London, which was initially billed as a cross between Diablo and Doom.

I suspect that it's reverted more and more toward an updated verrsion of Diablo, and away from Doom, as its development has gone on; but that's actually ok with me.

[Jugalator]

HGL is indeed going to feature:
- Randomness, possibly taking it even further than D2 (like random mini quests), but yes, random maps
- Different character classes with many different skills
- Different multiplayer modes including something hardcore'ish
- Focused on cooperative gaming
- Item based like Diablo II
- Graphics / engine comparable at least to Doom 3's, it seems

It's an interesting game to follow, and I contributed to its Wikipedia article here. Amazon Basin also has a guild forum for it where we discuss it, and among the best fan sites seem to be Hellgate Guru if you want some pointers.:)

I think it would be cool if LL would catch on with this game.;)
It looks to be a lot in the spirit of Diablo anyway, from the makers of that game too.

[Nystul]

Hellgate: London certainly has a lot of promise; perhaps the most of any game-in-development since NWN from my perspective. We'll just have to wait and see how much of that promise it is able to live up to.

I hope the gameplay ends up being a bit more nuanced than the early video clips would suggest. So far in most CRPGs that use 3D graphics, the graphics end up being more of a hindrance to the gameplay than an enhancement. For example, imagine a melee fighter in NWN or WoW (or insert many other 3D CRPGs here) walking along in the great forest, when he encounters a firebreathing, flying drake. What is he going to do? He's going to run up and hit it with his sword, right? Could you do that if you were playing Quake? No, you couldn't even do it in Starcraft.

These types of considerations aren't necessary for it to be a very good game, in the vein of Diablo II (which to me is a step down from Diablo in this regards, but that is debatable). But at the same time, if it ends up being "just" an updated graphics format for Diablo II style gameplay, it will be a bit of a shame.

[Hammerskjold]

>So far in most CRPGs that use 3D graphics, the graphics end up being more of a hindrance to the gameplay than an enhancement. For example, imagine a melee fighter in NWN or WoW (or insert many other 3D CRPGs here) walking along in the great forest, when he encounters a firebreathing, flying drake. What is he going to do? He's going to run up and hit it with his sword, right? Could you do that if you were playing Quake? No, you couldn't even do it in Starcraft.

>These types of considerations aren't necessary for it to be a very good game, in the vein of Diablo II (which to me is a step down from Diablo in this regards, but that is debatable). But at the same time, if it ends up being "just" an updated graphics format for Diablo II style gameplay, it will be a bit of a shame.

Yep, while I would like to see that type of game as well, there's a couple of problems I've seen that sort of plagues the genre to the point of becoming an almost standard cliches'. A pretty bad set of cliches'.

That scenario with the drake (I'll assume you mean the dragon like type creature vs a fire breathing mallard.) would be pretty awesome. Unfortunately if it follows some of the usual cliches, it would pretty much screw any melee characters like you said. I've heard the usual excuse of 'well it follows reality that melee combat is inferior to missile combat due to range'. Why is it that 'realism' gets thrown in melee is mentioned, yet I don't hear it as much when something outlandish like a ranged attack eg: a bow chance to hit is equal no matter what the distance or the size of the target. Instead I can bet I'll hear 'oh well because we're not making a simulation here, we're balancing and striving for fun in a fantasy game'. I don't want a SCA simulator either, but it would be nice to have some sort of internal consistency, even for a fictional universe.

Maybe that drake is not only big, but a pretty heavy creature as well. Maybe he's a glider type, so if he decides to do a flaming strafing run there's a danger of stalling or even crash landing at lower altitudes, he might even have a slow turning radius. He might gain some thermal lifts from that fire breathing, but that kind of wing span for gliding might not be so manoueverable in that foresty terrain you described. Again I'm not asking for a 100% realistic flight sim of mythical creatures, just that I've been hearing all these things about how game technologies are getting closer to modeling physics in real time etc, to the point of using scripted events will soon seem quaint. Well what about applying those things to these type of games?

And I'm not buying the old excuse of 'oh well this universe has magic, therefore that drake can turn on a dime and hover and go warp speed because of uh...magic!' The way magic has been used in some c\rpg games is anything but magical to me. What about something even as simple as putting a cost\side effects to it. And I don't necessarily mean using a mana point system like a fuel gauge. Although even that could be used for this scenario. Maybe that drake could do all of that due to magic, but he might have to choose which abilities and for how long he can use it, before the physics and maybe even basic biology takes over and he may have to land and take a breather, opening the opportunity for the melee fighter a chance to attack. (Unless the drake lands in the middle of a lake or something, which by this point I would start to wonder if the game designer has some sort of bias against melee types, or just enjoys being a sadist to melee players.)

Basically I rarely see magic being treated as magical and most importantly mysterious and sometimes very dangerous. Instead I usually see it used as a way to label item progression, or as a cure all patching compound for gaping consistency\plot holes. I get that we don't really have anything analogus to magic to compare to, well I guess high technology is pretty much the closest thing, but it'd be interesting I think to play a game where you might have to decide is it worth using this magical sword that may or may not have some terrible cost for using it, vs using this 'plain' sword that is very well crafted but otherwise has no magical properties. Vs just using it because magical>anything that is plain jane.

And another thing with melee and combat, I understand some of the appeal and convention of the genre. I get that the top melee weapon is usually a sword. It's a romantic and very iconic weapon. But there are other weapons out there. And I don't mean just as a means to highlight how crappy they are in comparison the the sword. It would be a refreshing change I think if someone explored more of the rock paper scissor angle instead of the good, better, best model.

I'm just getting slightly fed up with some of the sillier things like 'any sword cuts through any armor, axes are slightly worse, but maces are the worst against armored opponents'. What is it about this bias against blunt force trauma? That type of effect can kill people even when they're wearing modern body armor. Again I'm not saying that slavish realism should trump over believability or fun. But personally I think the more grounded the fantasy is in realism, the greater the chance for believability and immersion, and fun.

But enough of my rambling. Basicaly I could not agree more with you that if the next gen\upgrade for these gameplay types is just fancier and prettier 3D graphics, that would be a wasted opportunity. Maybe this kind of dream game needs a dream team. The fantasy league team consisting of: (D1) Blizzard\Condor, the nethack Dev Team, the now defunct Looking Glass and Troika, Valve and Id.

[Drasca]

snip

Just pointing out a few ways of dealing with the stuff you noted.

Blunt vs Slash vs Piercing weapons. In guild wars, and various other games, you could armor up better or worse against various weapon types: axes / spears / swords / daggers, etc.

Projectile (missle/arrow) Physics: For Oblivion, if it makes contact and 'sticks', it counts as hitting. If its deflected by various objects in the way, it misses. If your aim stinks, you're very likely to miss, though not guaranteed to.

Guild wars Physics: Autoaim only on the vector at the time of the shot. So if the enemy zig zags or strafes, or your arrows / projectiles are slow, they've got a fair chance of dodging without any inherent character abilities involved.

A flying dragon *could* get too tired to fly and breathe fire all the time, thus landing some of the time, or make strafing runs at ground level, if you design your creatures that way. Thus, melee aren't (*$&#, but they'll have to be crafty and patient. Also possible to have the "hijack" type manuever grappling onto the flying creature and attacking melee while its in flight (possibly having a harder time maintaining flight). Pity the warrior that falls off at great heights though...

[Hammerskjold]

>Blunt vs Slash vs Piercing weapons. In guild wars, and various other games, you could armor up better or worse against various weapon types: axes / spears / swords / daggers, etc.

I'm familiar with the basic blunt\slash\piercing concept from my pen and paper days, but I'm going to have to take your word for it with Guild Wars since I haven't played it yet. Though I'm still somewhat wary since some of what I see (not specifically guild war, just fantasy crpgs in general) still comes down to an ultimate sword somehow somewhere at the end game, even if it comes down to marketing \ cosmetic reasons.


>Projectile (missle/arrow) Physics: For Oblivion, if it makes contact and 'sticks', it counts as hitting. If its deflected by various objects in the way, it misses. If your aim stinks, you're very likely to miss, though not guaranteed to.

Haven't played Oblivion either, only Morrowind. Unfortunately in Morrowind the combat simply didn't feel very responsive for my personal taste, so I didn't really play it much. Though Oblivion does look visually impressive, pity about the gear requirement though. At this rate it's probably more affordable to just buy\rent the console version.


>A flying dragon *could* get too tired to fly and breathe fire all the time, thus landing some of the time, or make strafing runs at ground level, if you design your creatures that way. Thus, melee aren't (*$&#, but they'll have to be crafty and patient.

Yeah, it's always possible to say that this drake is a powerful one, and can do a beyond visual range fire breathing, like a long range air to ground missile. But since this is a heroic fantasy game, personally I'm in favour of bending some of the rules in favour of the player trying to do heroic antics. It might be realistic to be killed without even seeing your attacker, hell that kind of thing can happen in real life quite often at times. But it's not very fun imo getting killed that way in a game.


>Also possible to have the "hijack" type manuever grappling onto the flying creature and attacking melee while its in flight (possibly having a harder time maintaining flight). Pity the warrior that falls off at great heights though...

Heh yeah I forgot that one of the FPS games (Quake \a Quake mod or Tribes, my memory is hazy right now)had the grappling hook maneouver, something like that would be great to see and do. I mean something like that already to me, have a greater potential in engaging the player and making me feel more immersed in the game world.

3D space and combat mechanics aside, most of my other wishes are relatively simple by comparison. Not using a treasure system that can make a small rat produce a giant sword as it's item drop would be great.:) Not needing to fight rats at nooblar levels would be greater still. Not needing to excessively 'grind' at all, well hot damn, I might just pre-order this hypothetical game.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . I might just pre-order this hypothetical game.

And I want the second copy:) Good ideas, all. It seems that game development goes in cycles driven by technology development. When a substantially better technology starts to become widely available (sound about ten to fifteen years ago, graphics over the last six or seven years) the game developers seem to spend more effort on incorporating the technology than in making a good (and especially innovative) game. The attitude seems to be "let's redo Rogue in 3D and 7.1". Then, when the technology slows down a little, the developers are forced to go back to focusing on the actual game. I'm hoping that the focus on the game part of the cycle comes back soon.

As to 'reality' and 'realism', I've been bitten by these discussions before. I agree with most of what you said in your earlier post. Incorporating magic into a fantasy world should not be done haphazardly just to solve some design (or plot) problems. The fact that so many authors and game designers do that is why I've long since stopped reading fantasy. Larry Niven wrote a good article on the subject, but unfortunately the book containing it is in storage. Basically, his argument is that an author should lay out the limitations and boundaries of magic use before writing the story. These rules for the magic should be balanced and, most importantly, self consistent (which is what 'realistic' usually means in this context). By having the rules, and by letting the player/reader know what they are (and, no, I don't mean a list somewhere), the author/designer builds a world where the suspension of disbelief only has to occur only once instead of each time the author uses an ad hoc magical effect to get his characters out of trouble.

Another thing game designers need to get away from is the dice/tables/roll limitations of pnp/table-top games. In pnp gaming, too many factors leads to too many dice rolls leads to a slow, boring, game. But with the computer doing the 'rolling' and keeping track of the factors, many possibilities are opened. Such as damage spread between the armor and the avatar. Such as attack/defense speed governed by the intensity and length of the fight.

But, yeah, gamers want fun games, not SCA simulators:) We do want them in the latest technology done right. But mostly we want something that is immersive, innovative, interesting. And that does not seem to be too common today.

--Pete

[Merlinios]

Hammerskjold, you may well want to take a closer look at Guild Wars. I don't know if they're still running active demos, but you should be able to get a preview whenever they do a Beta event (just released an expansion, so it might be awhile) from pretty much anyone here who owns it. Weapons haven't really been designed in a good/better/best fashion, and they are fairly balanced in terms of swords vs. the rest, but I think that's because the game is based more on skill selection than equipment. You can start finding end-game equipment maybe halfway through the original campaign. Equipment is just not that relevant. In fact, the primary reason people upgrade at all is cosmetic. Yes, you can tack a +30 life mod onto your sword, but realistically, it might save you from death once a week (depending on how often you normally die, how good your Monks are, etc.). I don't know that they really answered the question of balance in weapons, or if they just powered them down so much that it doesn't matter, but there is some semblance of it. It's quite possible to see a good Warrior do better wielding an Ascalonian Piece of Crap™ than a bad Warrior wielding his choice of end-game gear.

The Blunt/Slashing/Piercing aspect is not as prominent as some might have you believe. In PvE, you can't really tell what's weak to which type unless you have a print-out or something. There isn't any kind of scanning ability. The bonuses are fairly negligible as well, since most of your melee damage will come from either conditions or skill bonuses, which are armor-piercing.

Not needing to excessively 'grind' at all...

Guild Wars has been touted as a game which emphasizes eliminating grind, but my personal exerience has been that people generally find that they miss it so they either leave the game and move on to something inferior, or create their own in one of several forms (winning PvP tournies, finding that perfect cosmetic gear, unlocking EVERY skill, not just the ones in the secondaries you will use, etc.). If one plays the game through with full parties and does a lot of quests, it is quite possible to reach the maximum level in a few days. If you take shortcuts, it's faster.

Upon further reflection, I may have stumbled upon something here. Most online games are now implementing fees to play, which means that grind (from a business perspective) is a GOOD thing. You want to keep players playing (but not necessarily happy) as long as possible. Guild Wars, on the other hand, is a one-time fee, followed by one-time-fee expansions (which are not necessary to continue playing competitively--I doubt Monk primaries will ever be supplanted. The result would throw balance out the window), which means that Arena.net (again, from a business perspective) wants to keep their customers loyal and happy rather than merely engaged.

Not using a treasure system that can make a small rat produce a giant sword as it's item drop would be great.:) Not needing to fight rats at nooblar levels would be greater still.

Scorpions, not rats, but I'm sure they're equally annoying. Fortunately, the first time you (I) play(ed) the game, combat was incredibly engaging. This is probably because I was coming fresh off the Diablo II clickfest and mass murderings. Enemies are ENEMIES, not rocks that sit there while you rain fiery destruction down upon them (beyond the tutorial area).

Rather went off on a tangent there. Such is often likely when I'm talking about Guild Wars, for better or worse, as sometimes I look at it and feel like they designed it with me in mind. There is little I personally would have done differently, given the basic structure of the game.



Looking at Pete's post brings up some good stuff as well, namely that since sometime in the mid to late nineties, games have stopped the focus on being "fun" and started being "technological". I have a friend who only plays MUDs for (I assume) this reason. This is why pen and paper RPGs still flourish, why board games are still a common sight. Can you imagine what would happen to those industries if the electronic gaming companies got a handle on what makes a game tick for the players besides graphics? They would only be played for three reasons; hardware concerns, cost, and nostalgia/friendship.



For Pete's suspension of disbelief stuff there, I was always taught (by my parents--father is/was an English teacher, mother is communications major) that suspension of disbelief may happen as many times as necessary, as long as the largest premise is FIRST (or relatively early, I guess--in the exposition). If you take progressively larger leaps, you lose your audience. If you start off with something huge, you pull them into your world, and they remain there as long as you don't do anything to push them out again.

But with the computer doing the 'rolling' and keeping track of the factors, many possibilities are opened. Such as damage spread between the armor and the avatar. Such as attack/defense speed governed by the intensity and length of the fight.

Be careful with this line of thought. I think it may be leading down the road we've traversed already, except in calculations instead of graphics. Not to mention if you introduce more realistic features, you have...problems. With the example given, what happens, say, in PvP with two Warriors who have minor healing abilities. They are backed by support characters who die for whatever reason, and are left alone, unable to kill each other in any reasonable amount of time because they are too tired. Do they go take a nap for fifteen minutes? Even against the environment, this is a potential issue, unless you impose this strictly as a limitation for players and not ALL entities, which I would be amenable to, but would be a large turn-off to a majority of players out there. At least they would tell you it was, and perhaps convince themselves as well. I likes me a challenge, but if people on the Innernet are to be believed (HAH!), then they want games as easy as possible, with everything handed to them on a silver platter. Diablo II and its bot infestation has actually shown that some of them are not just kidding themselves. They will literally leave the bots on for days to find gear, which they will equip onto their bots. It's disgusting. There is no game-play for these guys. I don't know why they still have their CDs.

--me, lord of parentheses

[Nystul]

Yep, while I would like to see that type of game as well, there's a couple of problems I've seen that sort of plagues the genre to the point of becoming an almost standard cliches'. A pretty bad set of cliches'.

That scenario with the drake (I'll assume you mean the dragon like type creature vs a fire breathing mallard.) would be pretty awesome. Unfortunately if it follows some of the usual cliches, it would pretty much screw any melee characters like you said. I've heard the usual excuse of 'well it follows reality that melee combat is inferior to missile combat due to range'. Why is it that 'realism' gets thrown in melee is mentioned, yet I don't hear it as much when something outlandish like a ranged attack eg: a bow chance to hit is equal no matter what the distance or the size of the target. Instead I can bet I'll hear 'oh well because we're not making a simulation here, we're balancing and striving for fun in a fantasy game'. I don't want a SCA simulator either, but it would be nice to have some sort of internal consistency, even for a fictional universe.

Right. Well there are a couple of issues to this. I don't think there is any reason why a character should need to be just melee or just ranged. Obviously you want classes with different strengths and weaknesses, but that doesn't mean they have to be extreme to the point of making every battle the same. Maybe that warrior will have the choice, pull out his bow/gun/whatever and start shooting, take his chance at some magical wand that may blow up in his face since he doesn't really know what he's doing with it, or use the trees, rocks, etc. as cover... either to safely advance out of the area or lure the flying enemy into a close encounter. Maybe in some cases he could sneak up from behind on the flying enemy while it is resting without being seen or heard. Maybe he could more easily reach a low-flying enemy with a pike that would otherwise be inferior to his sword.

By the same token, magic users and other powerful ranged attackers should face similar dilemmas. Maybe you get into a cramped cave or face fast-moving melee attackers and you have to fight in close combat. Maybe if you summon a fireball or meteor shower on an enemy 2 inches in front of your face, you will get burnt to a crisp yourself. Maybe a lightning or meteor strike won't actually work if you don't have open sky to draw from. Maybe your arrows goes in a straight line instead of chasing the target sideways, around corners, through doors, and into the pond. Maybe fire doesn't work so well underwater, and maybe electricity works a little too well...

Maybe we have large staircases that only the larger enemies are able to climb up. Maybe we have buckets of tar or grenade type weapons that require an elevation advantage to be most useful. Maybe a stealthy character can sneak up to a door and gain a choke point for melee (or open the door, lob in a fireball/explosive/etc, close door, run) where another character may have those enemies pour into the giant hallway out front.

Grinding stops being grinding if you can A) randomize the combat encounters significantly, andB)give the random encounters enough variety so that players have to approach them with a wide variety of tactics. Of course, this is true even in a 2D game. But if you are going to spend half of your budget making a fancy 3D engine with fancy 3D graphics, then why not explore the gameplay possibilities that can come along with it?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Be careful with this line of thought. I think it may be leading down the road we've traversed already, except in calculations instead of graphics.

This is always possible and the designers of the game need to keep it in mind. As long as the designers focus on the game first and what technologies to implement second all should be well. But you have a valid point as the history of games over the last decade or so clearly demonstrates.

Not to mention if you introduce more realistic features, you have...problems. With the example given, what happens, say, in PvP with two Warriors who have minor healing abilities. They are backed by support characters who die for whatever reason, and are left alone, unable to kill each other in any reasonable amount of time because they are too tired. Do they go take a nap for fifteen minutes?

Again, this is a design and balance issue. The examples I gave were brief and simplistic. In a complex implementation, using both fixed factors and random factors (some days you just have more zip than others) the two might start out equal, but one would probably dominate in a while. In addition to fatigue, other factors could dominate. For each character, the effects of fatigue could be spread over strength, agility, coordination, reflexes, etc. And that spread could be somewhat (randomly) different for the same character in different fights. Putting on the player the needed to analyze the immediate situation and react accordingly instead of the 'this is a barlog, so I shoot him twice, cut him three times and finish him off with lightning' game play that is the norm. One of the reasons that PvP is so popular is that PvE is only a challenge the first time or two that a situation is encountered. After that, the brain is taken out of the loop and the discovered and digested solution is applied. Good enough for Tetris, maybe, but hardly what a gamer wants from a RPG.

Even against the environment, this is a potential issue, unless you impose this strictly as a limitation for players and not ALL entities, which I would be amenable to, but would be a large turn-off to a majority of players out there.

The rate at which fatigue is accumulated could (and should) be very much a function of the creature type. A magical creature might not fatigue at all. A bear would fatigue much more slowly than would a rat, and a character might fall in between. So, part of an anti-rat strategy might be to wear him down, but you want a quick kill versus a bear. And so on.

At least they would tell you it was, and perhaps convince themselves as well. I likes me a challenge, but if people on the Innernet are to be believed (HAH!), then they want games as easy as possible, with everything handed to them on a silver platter. Diablo II and its bot infestation has actually shown that some of them are not just kidding themselves. They will literally leave the bots on for days to find gear, which they will equip onto their bots. It's disgusting. There is no game-play for these guys. I don't know why they still have their CDs.

To each his own. Like you, I play games mostly for the challenge, and if the designer doesn't give it to me, I can often figure out how to add it (I still occasionally try Immortal Heroes in D1 and I've yet to three dot one). So, when I'm talking about what I would like to see in a game, I'm not talking about the games for the masses. I doubt that anybody would try making commercial games along the lines that I would prefer, they would be too frustrating for the common gamer and there just aren't enough of the hard core gamers out there to pay for the development. But I do miss the days of real game difficulty levels, where starting a new game on 'Impossible' often meant just that;)

--Pete

[Nystul]

Upon further reflection, I may have stumbled upon something here. Most online games are now implementing fees to play, which means that grind (from a business perspective) is a GOOD thing. You want to keep players playing (but not necessarily happy) as long as possible. Guild Wars, on the other hand, is a one-time fee, followed by one-time-fee expansions (which are not necessary to continue playing competitively--I doubt Monk primaries will ever be supplanted. The result would throw balance out the window), which means that Arena.net (again, from a business perspective) wants to keep their customers loyal and happy rather than merely engaged.

It is no secret that MMOGs incorporate grinding intentionally to get players to continue subscribing for a long time without the dev team having to create new content as fast as the players finish it (which of course, would be virtually impossible without grinding). Of course, games that make you buy expansions in order to avoid running out of content are a different sort of trap. I'd be willing to pay $100 up front for a game with mediocre graphics, if I were confident that it would offer the type of replay value I got from Diablo without having to fork out additional money on a monthly or bi-yearly basis. Obviously trying to design a game like that is no safe bet at success. From a business perspective, making an Everquest clone is just a lot safer (although market oversaturation may change that in a hurry).

[Nystul]

Heh yeah I forgot that one of the FPS games (Quake \a Quake mod or Tribes, my memory is hazy right now)had the grappling hook maneouver, something like that would be great to see and do. I mean something like that already to me, have a greater potential in engaging the player and making me feel more immersed in the game world.

The first time I saw a grapple hook in an FPS game, it was Quake CTF (wonder if Zoid still reads this forum?!). Not sure if it was used in any earlier FPS game. In most Quake mods, this was a method of transportation to get up to high areas or possibly pull yourself rapidly from place to place like Spiderman. I do recall seeing some modified versions that let people reel in other players.

It should be noted that Hellgate:London's website shows a weapon called the grappler, which will allow you to reel enemies in for a close range kill. So that nuance has been considered. But the flying enemies they show in the grappler demo video are of the "hover 2 feet in the air" variety like those in NWN or WoW. The demo videos definately don't give a "mouselook up at the sniper" feel but rather a "flat ground, autotargeting weapons, strafe away!" feel. But obviously it is too early to draw any firm conclusions about the game, other than that it will definately have a different feel to it than your average Diablo clone.

[Occhidiangela]

t should be noted that Hellgate:London's website shows a weapon called the grappler, which will allow you to reel enemies in for a close range kill. So that nuance has been considered. But the flying enemies they show in the grappler demo video are of the "hover 2 feet in the air" variety like those in NWN or WoW. The demo videos definately don't give a "mouselook up at the sniper" feel but rather a "flat ground, autotargeting weapons, strafe away!" feel. But obviously it is too early to draw any firm conclusions about the game, other than that it will definately have a different feel to it than your average Diablo clone.

Pete

The problem of using a camera angle on a 2-D surface to faithfully simulate the ability to look up 90 degrees to se a "flying target" without screwing up the rest of the visual setting are not trivial. Aircraft flight simulation solves this with multiple screens or 240 degree wraparounds, and still misses fidelity by a large margin. Even with that quality of visual immersion, simulator illness due to vestibular upset is not an uncommon occurrence, even among a population not inclined to vestibular upset in a general sense. (Screening out those very suceptible to vestibular upset/ motion sickness is part of the process of crafting a pilot.)

I think it is just as well that the limitations on field of view remain. What we don't need is more people ending up in car wrecks, or falling down stairs, due to vestibular upset tied to the delayed reaction that is well documented in the literature. The causation chain may be hidden arleady for some accidents due to visually induced vertigo, it's just that investigators aren't asking the right questions . . . yet..

I will find the link tomorrow to one of the better articles I have on that issue: simulator sickness. The industry (simulator makers and VR vendors) hates people who write about it. Such articles cut into their profit margins.

That may be why so little information reaches the general public, unless perhaps most people don't want to know.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

That may be why so little information reaches the general public, unless perhaps most people don't want to know.

Occhi

I have had some vertigo episodes after long hours in FPS sessions. Mostly it is not a sick feeling, more of a trippy wierdness where the world wobbles in some strange movements I'm not ready for.

Doom3 made me queasy though, but I'm not sure why. It might have been the lighting, gore and motion all combined together, but I can take them all when seperated. FPS like Counterstrike, dark and moody like Thief, or gore... Ok, maybe it was the gore... The thought of spending hours playing a game like Redwood Falls blowing body parts off zombies I think would make me a little queasy too.

[Nystul]

I think it is just as well that the limitations on field of view remain. What we don't need is more people ending up in car wrecks, or falling down stairs, due to vestibular upset tied to the delayed reaction that is well documented in the literature. The causation chain may be hidden arleady for some accidents due to visually induced vertigo, it's just that investigators aren't asking the right questions . . . yet..

Interesting. Are these problems only caused by vertical rotation, and not sideways rotation? I'd guess that the number of people who would exposed to such threats from a 3D roguelike would be small potatos compared to the numbers who play FPS games, and the FPS games are faster in pacing.

[Hammerskjold]

>I think it is just as well that the limitations on field of view remain. What we don't need is more people ending up in car wrecks, or falling down stairs, due to vestibular upset tied to the delayed reaction that is well documented in the literature. The causation chain may be hidden arleady for some accidents due to visually induced vertigo, it's just that investigators aren't asking the right questions . . . yet..

>I will find the link tomorrow to one of the better articles I have on that issue: simulator sickness. The industry (simulator makers and VR vendors) hates people who write about it. Such articles cut into their profit margins.

>That may be why so little information reaches the general public, unless perhaps most people don't want to know.


I think I actually saw something like this mentioned once in a tech program on TV, quite a while back. It was about some people researching the very issue you're talking about, specifically about VR rides in some theme parks. (I think it was something like Disney's Alladin Magic VR magic carpet ride or similar.)

The closest thing I found was this link, http://www.citypaper.net/articles/032196...e038.shtml

Though I'm interested to read the article you mentioned if you find it.

As an anecdotal evidence, when I play some FPS games (say Half Life) in some levels where there is heights involved, or worse, heights and platform jumping, I do experience something peculiar. If I don't make the jump and I fall, I get the same feeling of falling nearly identical to when I fall in a dream. If I do land, I find my leg sometimes move as if to feel the ground underneath me. Precarious narrow ledge levels generates a mild vertigo feeling.

I'm not sure if this is one of those unsolvable situations, at least at this stage of the game and technology. How -do- you create a virtual environment without inducing real consequences like the ones you mention? Is it even possible. Setting aside VR helmets and faster computing power to eliminate visual lag, I guess this might be one of those limits that can't be crossed due to safety reasons right now. I mean it would be darkly funny to have a player survive this hypothetical, virtual aerial melee battle with the dragon, only to die in a car crash afterwards due to the videogame induced motion sickness.

ps: this might be a better link than my first. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/hu/gr...g/9606.htm

Anecdotal as it is, I remember one of my friends complaining of similar though milder symptoms while playing Half Life 2, so the problem might not be going away anytime soon.

[Occhidiangela]

ps: this might be a better link than my first. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/hu/gr...g/9606.htm

Anecdotal as it is, I remember one of my friends complaining of similar though milder symptoms while playing Half Life 2, so the problem might not be going away anytime soon.

Here is an older study, but a good one.

http://www.cyberedge.com/info_r_a+p05_ss-es.html.

There is also the Army study from 2005: Research Report 1832 "US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences." It is called "Introduction to and Review of Simulator Sickness Research." Dry. Available for unlimited public release.

I can't find the third article, may need to dig deeper. Grrrr. IIRC, it described the problem of VR in a data link controlling remote vehicles on land and in air.

As to problems with PC games/arcades, they aren't as bad as in full motion simulators, since those actually move you and cause changes in the vestibular system that sitting in a chair does less dramatically. You can still get headaches from it, though, and you can also get sick watching a IMAX show.

Occhi

[Nystul]

ps: this might be a better link than my first. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/hu/gr...g/9606.htm

Anecdotal as it is, I remember one of my friends complaining of similar though milder symptoms while playing Half Life 2, so the problem might not be going away anytime soon.

I guess that link answers my question about horizontal rotation. Heretic is a Doom-engine game (flat floor, low ceiling, no mlook), so those people were experiencing nausea without any (or extremely little) up or down character movement. They also weren't actually moving, and they weren't involved in a simulation that is even remotely realistic. So in this case, it seems that the headset/head movement technology was mostly to blame. Maybe it's a good thing those VR glasses never really did catch on. People having symptoms 15 hours after playing Heretic for 20 minutes... if it was like that under normal gaming conditions these games would have been banned years ago. It would be interesting to have a study involving newer games on widescreen monitors vs. regular to see if widescreen results in a higher number of symptoms (although I guess widescreens aren't really that wide).

Personally, I don't recall ever having these symptoms when playing an FPS game, and certainly no prolonged aftereffects. Some of the mild symptoms would not necessarily indicate upset vestibular (unless it can be linked to a specific character motion like the case you described). The stress these games put you under alone could cause many of the symptoms, and some of the graphics in the newer games can make people nautious whether the character is moving or not.

When it comes to my own gaming health though, I'm much more worried about permanent hand/wrist damage. Neither the rapid key inputs of Angband nor the constantly left-clicking of Diablo are particularly healthy for the hands.