Crossbow?

[Hylix Ulyx]

First off, I'd like to thank you, oddity, for the cool object. Personally, I agree that the crossbow "seems" like more of a thiefy tool, and plus I just love options, even if they have no direct bearing on gameplay.

 

Second, and this is pointed directly at the "realisticons": expressing what is or isn't arbitrary game limitation is highly subjective at best (naturally), and doing so doesn't qualify anything, since, until cray supercomputers become standard home workstations, there simply isn't enough computational power to facilitate a truely "realistic" experience.

 

That said, I think a better way to qualify what is commonly thought of as "arbitrary" is to simply ask one's self when playing any interactive game: "Do the devs believe there own bullshit."

 

In order that suspension of disbelief be maintained, a dev (or author, or director, etc.) has to set up some basic ground rules or laws for thier universe; rules or laws that both facilitate gameworld abilities, and remedy game world limitations. However, once a dev breaks one of it's own rules, the immersion is lost.

 

A good example of this is mercenaries: Here's a game where you can blow up "anything"....except trees. Why?

 

If you want realism, go outside. I don't want realism when I play games...I'm trying to escape from reality. All I want is for a game to believe in it's own rules. In that way, no matter how many limitations are placed on a game, I won't care or notice, because I'm immersed in a hyper reality whose own laws and boundries make sense.

 

Why do they make sense? Because the developers don't give me any reason to believe otherwise.

 

I play Thief not because I feel like a real-life thief...but because I feel like Garret, Master Thief. I believe in that universe because the universe believes in itself. Any talk of realism in lieu of a game where the protagonist flirts with a tree demoness (T2) is just stupid.

 

Believe your own bullshit: this understanding extends to all things.

 

Hylix.

 

And enough with the climbing gloves already. Even the devs of T3 admitted it was a gimmick they used because they couldn't get rope arrows to work.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Hylix Ulyx

[Vadrosaul]

Beautifully well put Hylix

 

and welcome back. Whats been going on with you?

[Hylix Ulyx]

Thanks, Vad.

 

I just moved upstate from the Bronx. I haven't had internet access for a time, and finally got my hands on a spankin' new cable modem after almost a year of dial up....(sobs).

 

Hylix.

 

edit: typo.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Hylix Ulyx

[bob_arctor]

I'm still on 56k. No option for broadband yet. Nice.

 

Sorry about my big font, it said 14 so I was thinking it would be quite small... I just find further reasons not to rope arrow a bit depressing, and the questioning of the Thief world a bit irksome and nit-picking. Most people just immerse themselves and forget about it.

 

It's just there are few enough opportunites to use rope arrows effectivly in TI and TII and Fms as it is, often you just forgot about it and use the ground. If you were limited you would use them even less when you should be encouraging more use. Eg hiding in corners of rooms and doing tarzan style with 4 rope arrows and collecting them as you go across.

 

It's like the massive frob in TI and TII. But it feels right to open doors from a long way away, and in TDS when you must run into doors to open them it feels wrong. What feels right in a game is often different to real life, and ease of use and gameplay and fun are important. so in TDS it is not fun having to stumble around struggling to open doors.

[Ishtvan]

I don't see the rope-bolt alone as an argument for the crossbow. One could make a mechanical rope arrow just as easily, using the same concept. When the arrowhead hits, it triggers something behind the tip of the arrow (spring loaded, a small explosive charge, fire crystal, whatever) that drives the long, barbed metal tip into the wood. The tip could also be threaded and rotate when the device goes off, effectively screwing into the wood.

 

That issue aside, I'm not against the idea of having a crossbow as an option, but it would feel weird to me to use exactly the same gameplay mechanics as the shortbow. I'm not talking about the projectile physics, just basic things like: You draw the shortbow back, and hold down attack to draw it back longer and fire further (up to a point).

 

Would the same drawing back gameplay mechanic make sense for the crossbow? How would you animate drawing the crossbow back slowly and then releasing it when you let go of attack? The crossbow is designed to fire an already drawn bow with the trigger mechanism, not to fire by someone manually drawing back the bow portion by some variable distance and then letting go.

 

The whole point of the crossbow is being able to draw it with your feet or crank it back (which takes some time), and then have it ready to fire instantly whenever you want. So I don't see how the crossbow could use exactly the same gameplay mechanics as the shortbow with only aesthetic changes.

[Maximius]

Thanks again to Oddity for the great model, Im officially dis-engaging from the topic.....3..,2..,1... "poink!"

[oDDity]

Obviously I would be making approprate animations for the crossbow, When you fire it, it drops down off the screen, when you press fire to raise and aim it, you hear it being cranked off screen and then it comes up with the bolt in it, you then aim it and ht fire again to shoot.

THe only advantage with using it is that you don't tire and waver after a few seconds like with the bow, so you can aim indefinitely, and we could makes the range slightly shorter as a balance, that only requires a tweaking in the def file anyway.

Rapid firing of the bow isn't necessary in this kind of game anyway, so whether it would be slower to reload isn't really an issue.

[Ishtvan]

Rapid firing might not be necessary, but it shouldn't be possible either... Although it would be pretty easy to do a slow reload, since I think by default you can't do anything while the animation is playing anyway, just make a longer reload animation that plays after firing?

[Hylix Ulyx]

I'm also curious about the range...

 

I may be mistaken (and odds are good I am), but as far as I know, crossbows fire bolts at higher velocity than a short bow could fire arrows...so, assumably, the crossbow would have essentially the same range (or longer) as the short bow, only without the need for the arc...

 

If the crossbow is included, will this be taken into account?

 

Just curious.

 

Hylix.

[Springheel]

It would require a little bit of tweaking to include the crossbow as an option. I'm for it, though certainly way down the list of things to do. But I'd prefer the FM author to make that choice. That way ammunition won't be an issue, since they'll be sure to put the right kind in.

[New Horizon]

I wish the devs would consider including the climbing gloves at some point.

 

As we have pointed out in several posts, there will be no climbing gloves. There will be an alternative however...other than the rope arrow obviously. It will require a bit more skill to use this alternative and hopefully require the player to think. That's all. Nothing more to see here.

[ironpants]

I'm also curious about the range...

 

I may be mistaken (and odds are good I am), but as far as I know, crossbows fire bolts at higher velocity than a short bow could fire arrows...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This entirely depends on the draw weights of the respective weapons. Generally, a bow has longer effective range because you can arc shots and let gravity do some of the work. However, a huge military crossbow with #120 of tension will shoot very far despite the flat trajectory.

 

oDDity's beautiful model looks fairly light and compact, with a foot brace for reloading. Probably heavier than Our Thieve's shortbow by something within #25. Greater velocity and penetration at close range, but the quarrel's flat trajectory doesn't have the same range as our shortbow.

 

Overall, a practiced archer will have a rate of fire / range advantage using a bow over a similarly powered crossbow. Crossbows are more accurate and take little skill / training to use.

 

I'd love for this crossbow to be usable in-game, and would hate to see those stupid little things the mechanists had in T2. Seriously, there is only one word to describe small crossbows: useless. They have inconsequential range and power.

 

oDDity, a crossbow would be more awkward to carry than a properly destrung shortbow - which becomes a short stick with string tied to it. In fact, I'd like to be able to destring the bow in-game for reduced encumbrance (assuming there is some kind of weight / encumbrance gameplay option).

[Bhruic]

Second, and this is pointed directly at the "realisticons": expressing what is or isn't arbitrary game limitation is highly subjective at best (naturally), and doing so doesn't qualify anything, since, until cray supercomputers become standard home workstations, there simply isn't enough computational power to facilitate a truely "realistic" experience.

 

That's simply a distortion of the concept of realism. No one is talking about realism as a "everything that's possible must be able to be done". Realism is simply the case of using the general laws of the "real" world as guidelines for the game. In a game, generally, speaking, anything could be done. We could make the thief able to turn invisible, fly, walk through walls, etc. By limiting the possible to real world equivalents (in general), you can eliminate a lot of those options.

 

If you want realism, go outside.  I don't want realism when I play games...I'm trying to escape from reality.  All I want is for a game to believe in it's own rules.  In that way, no matter how many limitations are placed on a game, I won't care or notice, because I'm immersed in a hyper reality whose own laws and boundries make sense.

 

And if you don't want realism, play a different game. You see, the "if you do/don't want X, go do Y" line can work for either side. And in neither case is it relevant. Even the most realistic of games would still be enjoyable because it's not real life. Taking the ridiculous extreme, think of the star trek holodeck system. You can create extremely realistic scenarios. Why don't people simply "go outside" (other than the fact that "outside" is a vacuum )? Because the simulation system allows them experiences it's not practical to have outside. I have no interest in being a master thief in real life. There's no reload, for one thing. However, that doesn't mean that the goal of making the game experience as realistic as possible is in any way a bad one.

 

And enough with the climbing gloves already.  Even the devs of T3 admitted it was a gimmick they used because they couldn't get rope arrows to work.

 

So we shouldn't try and argue the merits of climbing gloves, we should simply accept the fact that the T3 devs claim they were a gimmick? In which case, why not let the T3 devs make all our design decisions. That certainly would save some time discussing things.

 

Bh

[Hylix Ulyx]

No one is talking about realism as a "everything that's possible must be able to be done". Realism is simply the case of using the general laws of the "real" world as guidelines for the game.

 

Realism:re·al·ism (r-lzm) n.

The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.

 

And if you don't want realism, play a different game. You see, the "if you do/don't want X, go do Y" line can work for either side. And in neither case is it relevant. Even the most realistic of games would still be enjoyable because it's not real life.

 

No that arguement doesn't work both ways. Why? Aside from the fact that you're arguement is not the converse of my own, there's this:

 

Realism:re·al·ism (r-lzm) n.

The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.

 

My point overall, and I think most people got this, was that what is important is not realism in a gameworld (since that is, by design, impossible, at least at present), but a sense of consistency in the gameworld. If the gameworld believes what is "real", I will never be conscious of what isn't.

 

 

So we shouldn't try and argue the merits of climbing gloves,

 

No. That would imply there were merits to climbing gloves.

 

we should simply accept the fact that the T3 devs claim they were a gimmick?

 

Yes. If the guys who thought the shit up didn't even take it seriously, I'm not gonna even bother.

 

Hylix.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Hylix Ulyx

[obscurus]

As we have pointed out in several posts, there will be no climbing gloves.  There will  be an alternative however...other than the rope arrow obviously.  It will require a bit more  skill to use this alternative and hopefully require the player to think.  That's all.  Nothing more to see here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Climbing gloves shouldn't even be necessary to climb a rough stone wall - any Thief worth his salt or any halfway competant rock climber can scale a rough stone wall easily, so It would be nice if certain textures could be made climbable, although it should be quite easy for FM authors to do this even if TDM doesn't support it out of the box...

[Springheel]

I swear I've seen that post before....

 

[obscurus]

Realism:re·al·ism (r-lzm)  n.

The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.

 

My point overall, and I think most people got this, was that what is important is not realism in a gameworld (since that is, by design, impossible, at least at present), but a sense of consistency in the gameworld.  If the gameworld believes what is "real", I will never be conscious of what isn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I am not going to argue semantics with you, since you are only picking the most literal and narrow definition of the word, but what I and the other "realism" proponents want is a self consistent gameworld that is the closest approximation possible to realism within the confines of current computer technology.

 

I agree with you that self-consistency in the in-game reality is what makes for immersion, but I would prefer if we can manage a game that is self-consistent without resorting to magic or some other daft mumbo-jumbo to explain away a crude gameplay device like rope arrows and water arrows.

 

Rope arrows in Thief did not feel consistent with the rest of the game for me, and were just plain silly IMO. Climbing gloves DID feel consistent with the rest of the Thief universe, and their merits are that they let you access areas you could not get to otherwise.

 

And it should be noted that the Thief developers only included rope arrows because they couldn't get their preferred option, GRAPPLING HOOKS, to work properly.

 

I would like a crossbow that can launch a grappling hook - it simplifies the mechanics and animations of doing grappling hooks by other methods, and is more probable in RL without resorting to magical explanations.

 

Grappling hooks and crossbow = excellent

Climbing gloves = good

Vine arrows = OK

Rope arrows = lame, should never have been in the original Thief, should definately not be in TDM (which as I understand it, is not Thief, or has that changed?)

[Springheel]

it simplifies the mechanics and animations of doing grappling hooks by other methods,

 

How so? Whether the arrow is fired from a crossbow, trailing a rope behind it, or if it is 'thrown', the physics requirements are the same. We might save a 'throwing' animation, but we probably wouldn't include one anyway, since you don't generally see your hands when you throw other objects in the game.

 

Keep in mind we ARE planning to include a grappling hook eventually--if it is possible to code one. Even with a sophisticated engine like D3, it won't be easy to do.

 

Rope arrows = lame, should never have been in the original Thief, should definately not be in TDM (which as I understand it, is not Thief, or has that changed?)

 

Of course, this comes down entirely to your own personal preference. The only reason not to accept the 'reality' of rope arrows is if you just don't like the taste.

 

And judging from the reactions to TDS, you are in the minority on this one. There are far more people who are eager to see rope arrows in TDM.

[Bhruic]

No that arguement doesn't work both ways.  Why?  Aside from the fact that you're arguement is not the converse of my own, there's this:

 

Realism:re·al·ism (r-lzm)  n.

The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.

 

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I'll try again with smaller words.

 

Your saying "if you want realism, go outside" is idiotic, because outside isn't a computer game. Still with me so far? If one has already decided that one wants to play a computer game, then that's what they want to do. Furthermore, you imply that one shouldn't want realism in a computer game, as if that's a bad thing. Obviously you don't want it, but you not wanting something doesn't automatically invalidate it, no matter how self-important you think you are.

 

The problem with your dictionary quote, however, is that it actually counters your position. Really, I'm not sure why you posted it. I mean, thanks for the help, but really, my side of the argument was doing fine without it. That's what realism means. Now how does one apply it to a game?

 

Well, as I said, one models the game on the laws of the "real" world. That would mean that one can't have water arrows, for example, because they wouldn't function properly in the real world. Same with rope arrows. And so forth.

 

My point overall, and I think most people got this, was that what is important is not realism in a gameworld (since that is, by design, impossible, at least at present), but a sense of consistency in the gameworld.  If the gameworld believes what is "real", I will never be conscious of what isn't.

 

I got your point. But the problem is that you are making a conclusion based on a faulty premise. Or, rather, your conclusion in no way follows from the premise you are making. You are making an either/or case for realism and consistency. For what reason? Has anyone ever stated that realism can't be consistent? You can't conclude that realism isn't important because it's not consistent without showing why it's not consistent - and you certainly haven't done that.

 

Without doing that, your suggestion that it is not important is just a personal opinion. Which is fine, maybe you don't consider realism important. For that matter, I'm not a "realism" freak either. But the argument for realism can't be dismissed with the argument that you've brought to bear.

 

No.  That would imply there were merits to climbing gloves.

 

And if you were the person making the decisions about whether it has merits, then your statement would be relevant. As you aren't, it isn't.

 

Yes.  If the guys who thought the shit up didn't even take it seriously, I'm not gonna even bother.

 

Yes, of course, you're right, no one ever used climbing gloves before. The T3 devs just thought it up out of thin air.

 

Bh

[Springheel]

A little civility, people, or this thread will be shut down.

 

Generally when the dictionary definitions come out the discussion has run its course, so let me sum up:

 

Rope arrows will be part of the mod

 

Climbing gloves will not be part of the mod

 

Some AI will use crossbows. It's possible the Thief may also be able to use one. At the very least, he'll be able to pick up one if an AI drops it.

 

This mod is not a life simulator, or even a thieving simulator. It's a game. Therefore, it is going to have restrictions, limitations, and unrealistic aspects in an attempt to make it fun.

 

Anyone not finding it fun is highly encouraged not to play.

[obscurus]

I am sure I will find it fun regardless, and if there is something some of us don't like about the final release, well, we can just tinker with it a bit more till it suits us. It is a toolkit after all, we don't have to take it as-is, we can augment it with our own ideas.

 

Sorry for being a pain and going on about shit, you guys are doing great

Carry on.

[oDDity]

Grapplings hooks and crossbows are both my first choices as well, and I was fighting for grappling hooks at one stage, the upshot was that grappling hooks are rather technically tricksy to implement in a decent way.

[Fingernail]

oh for fuck's sake what is going on in this thread

[sparhawk]

Grapplings hooks and crossbows are both my first choices as well, and I was fighting for grappling hooks at one stage, the upshot was that grappling hooks are rather technically tricksy to implement in a decent way.

 

IMO we said that we would have a grappling hook, but not at this time. We will have to see how tricky it really is, though

[New Horizon]

Here come the pictures....