PDA

View Full Version : Thinking of how a first person mode would have it's controls configured.



JCearlyyears
01-31-2013, 12:56 AM
I was thinking of how a first person mode would have it's controls configured. I know how I would do it... sort of. I'm still thinking a bit. How would you do it? I think that it would be ideal for it to aim to maximize control over the character. Sure, it could have the same-ish controls(with the camera changed to control the direction faced.) but where is the fun in that? Certainly, something essential is the implementation of a fully formed body, no looking down and seeing just the ground, it would have the shoulders, chest, legs, arms, etc. visible. The whole body. I hate looking down and seeing just the ground. Anyhow... tell me how you would do it. This is just for fun of course. I'll update this when I finish my idea, and if people post in this thread.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit:Work in progress. I think it’s time that Eagle Sense becomes more useful. Because of the obvious limitations in vision, the game would need to use Eagle Sense which would detect the intentions of those around you to give you on on-screen indicator in front, or behind, to tell you who is attacking. I’ll layout the control scheme that I came up with.
Y-Eagle sense, no more sound interference like in the other games, no more blinding darkness, just color coding on people, attack indicators, target paths and predicted future path.
B-Block, interact and grab. RT and B is block. While holding LT, you can choose what you want to interact with or where you want to grab an opponent (grab their neck, arm, etc.)
X-Counter . X starts initial counter, press a to knock down, B to disarm, hold B to replace current held weapon, press X again to kill(on certain archetypes) hold A to meat-shield. When you press X to counter, you can turn on or off the slow-mo for easier or harder combat. Holding X as an attack comes activates dodge, which is controlled with LS. Move left to move left, back to lean back, right to move right, forward to duck under a high attack. If you click LS, you duck. You could jump over a low attack by not pressing X to counter.

A-Tap to jump, hold to climb while running, tap A, then tap it again while in mid-air to kick and if near a wall, to climb on the wall. You can do a running jumping kick.

LB & RB-Switch weapon. Hold to bring up weapon selection menu LB for left, RB for right (side of body, you could choose the hidden blade, hidden foot blade sword, etc. for one side, and you can choose three things for that side so for example, you hold LB to open the menu, then you find a weapon you want to use so you tap LB once on that weapon. You could hold LB to close the menu or you could find another weapon and tap twice, and again, you could leave, or you could find a third weapon and tap thrice. When done, hold LB and now you can tap LB once to bring out one weapon, tap twice for a different one, and thrice for the last. So say you are in a fight and you want to switch from your hidden blade to your sword, and you have the hidden blade in your right hand and want the sword in your right hand, and you have the sword on the first RB tap. Tap RB once. Now you have the sword out. Obviously there are still attacks coming at you, why would the opponent let you change weapons? This is why you dual wield. If you tap LB and RB at the same time, you swap weapons from one hand to another.
LS- Moving, click to crouch(with context sensitive cover taking), weapon swinging whilst holding RT and rolling or sliding when you are running and click LS. Running is based on pressure to LS. You block incoming attacks by putting it in the way of an attack(depending on the weapon equipped and incoming attack.) For example, you have a sword out and a sword attack is incoming, it is much like the wii sword fighting game, the sword is coming down vertically and so you move the LS in a semi circular motion left or right so that the sword ends up above your head in a horizontal position. LS controls the point of the sword or any other weapon.
RS-Right stick moves the camera, and the swinging of the weapon in the right hand. If you click it, it re-centers the camera, if you click twice, it enters a zoom mode so you can look closer at things, you click twice again to exit zoom mode, or you move, or get hurt, or anything really that isn’t standing still.
LT is lock. Hold to enter aiming mode, either to aim a weapon, or to get a more precise lock, whether it be a specific body part like an eye or the jugular, the heart, lung, etc. or it be a person in the crowd. Locking onto a specific body part will make you attack that point, say for example, with the hidden blade, you could target any point and then you will stab there by pressing forward with whichever stick it is equipped on while holding right trigger.
RT- Hold to enter weapon mode, which basically turns the sticks into weapon movement directors. Tap it and nothing happens.
 on the dpad- This switches from Normal mode to high profile mode(Which just enables high profile kills)hide mode, which enables hiding on benches, in groups(with at least one other person) or in hay, and while normally walking, you have your arms crossed. You can target a target, move next to them, whether they be standing or sitting on a bench, and then you assassinate them with the hidden blade for example, by holding RT and moving the weapon equipped stick in their direction, which will perform a stealthy kill. If you aren’t hiding, and are in normal mode, you can still perform a stealth kill, just target them and kill them. There are different stealth kill animations for killing in public. One is a fake stretch in which you pretend to stretch and are actually using your hidden blade(which is now not ridiculously sized so you can perform stealth kills with it.) I was thinking about a patsy move in which you accuse another person of doing it (and now you don’t look ridiculous and armed to the teeth, not that I didn’t like the outfits before, but they usually didn’t blend well in my opinion. You now hide the sword in your coat, it is a shorter sword.) I don’t know how to incorporate the patsy move so for now I leave it. I still have the rest of the Dpad… I am still thinking about stealth and combat mechanics, and parkour… I’ll update this when I think of something. This obviously has problems with it. Give suggestions for changes or improvements please.

montagemik
01-31-2013, 08:57 AM
I Just wouldn't - First person mode just isn't suited to AC in my opinion , Bad concept .

ACfan443
01-31-2013, 09:21 AM
I Just wouldn't - First person mode just isn't suited to AC in my opinion , Bad concept .

I agree. However, if you think about it, since we're viewing memories through the eyes of our ancestors, shouldn't AC technically be a first person game?

montagemik
01-31-2013, 11:28 AM
I agree. However, if you think about it, since we're viewing memories through the eyes of our ancestors, shouldn't AC technically be a first person game?

I always thought that what we 'the player' saw on screen is what Shaun , Rebecca ( Lucy) were watching on the Animus interface .

Apart from the fact 1st person mode would just be impracticle for AC - How do we see multiple enemies surrounding us in combat & be able to react / counter their actions - Would just be dull & clumsy in 1st person view .
Sorry , AC just isn't suited to FP perspective.

dxsxhxcx
01-31-2013, 01:11 PM
I always thought that what we 'the player' saw on screen is what Shaun , Rebecca ( Lucy) were watching on the Animus interface .

Apart from the fact 1st person mode would just be impracticle for AC - How do we see multiple enemies surrounding us in combat & be able to react / counter their actions - Would just be dull & clumsy in 1st person view .
Sorry , AC just isn't suited to FP perspective.

maybe not for battle but for parkour a FPP could be interesting, I prefer games in 3rd person, but the option to choose FPP for free roam would certainly make the chases (when the ancestor is being chased) a unique experience...

kuled2012
01-31-2013, 01:59 PM
Like Mirror's edge?

EllisEverTellYa
01-31-2013, 02:19 PM
maybe not for battle but for parkour a FPP could be interesting, I prefer games in 3rd person, but the option to choose FPP for free roam would certainly make the chases (when the ancestor is being chased) a unique experience...
I agree, for Battles you should be in 3rd person ( for obvious reasons.) and when you free roam you should be able to go 1st person, you should have the option to be 1st or 3rd because when I'm being chased I like being able to see how far the enemies are from me! :rolleyes: But when I am strolling around town I would be in 1st person! ;)

SaintPerkele
01-31-2013, 02:35 PM
Like Mirror's edge?
Yup! Best free-running in games ever.

montagemik
01-31-2013, 02:43 PM
Yup! Best free-running in games ever.

& the game & it's sequels did so well too .

Megas_Doux
01-31-2013, 02:54 PM
Like thief may be? The first ones were GREAT!

CalgaryJay
01-31-2013, 04:09 PM
(at least off the top of my head) there are 2 things that would get me to quit the AC series.

1. Ditching the history angle and just doing present day/future

2. Switching it to a FP game

Do not want. (at the very least, just make it an option. AC gets me dizzy enough as it is, can't imagine how bad it'd be for that in FP)

Sushiglutton
01-31-2013, 05:29 PM
I would LOVE a FP AC, preferably with a VR-headest like the Oculus Rift. That would be maximum immersion. Mirror's Edge is a good start for the Parkour, but obv tweaks and improvement/polish would be needed. Thief series for stealth ofc. I think the simple type of combat that the Arkham games pionered would work well in FP, would be interesting to see if someone tried to make a game like that. Imagine vaulting over an enemy in slow-mo with full VR, that would be sick (-ening) :D!

As for controls I suppose starting with the same basic ideas as Mirror's Edge and then build from there. And mix in Arkham controls for combat. Super important that your body (limbs) are visible and animated fluently and beautifully. If done right it would be the most awesmoe game ever. Also bringing in something like Kinect so that you can see your own hands and could interact organically with the world.

That said, it won't happen in the next 10 years :(.

SaintPerkele
01-31-2013, 06:02 PM
& the game & it's sequels did so well too .
Imagine a single tear running down my manly cheek. Mirror's Edge did definitely not get the attention it deserved.

montagemik
01-31-2013, 06:32 PM
Imagine a single tear running down my manly cheek. Mirror's Edge did definitely not get the attention it deserved.

Neither did AC 1 initially to begin with , But still managed a good enough reception for a sequel to go ahead .

lothario-da-be
01-31-2013, 06:46 PM
I don't know if i would buy a 1st person ac game.

ACfan443
01-31-2013, 06:55 PM
I always thought that what we 'the player' saw on screen is what Shaun , Rebecca ( Lucy) were watching on the Animus interface .

But shouldn't they also be viewing the memories from a first person perspective? They're viewing memories from the eyes of the ancestor, and so are we, which means you shouldn't be able to see yourself.

lothario-da-be
01-31-2013, 06:58 PM
But shouldn't they also be viewing the memories from a first person perspective? They're viewing memories from the eyes of the ancestor, and so are we, which means you shouldn't be able to see yourself.
LOl thats true never thought about that:confused:

DTfunjumper
01-31-2013, 08:17 PM
For my personal AC-feeling: NO, AC was not meant as a FP game, the level designs were made for 3rd person and the overall feeling would be VERY DIFFERENT to what i know.

On the other hand it does awake certain interest in me. If we were to change the concept though, following simple rules would have to be changed:
1. level design (as said) We would need more in detail buildings, guessing towns would become smaller, less free roaming. NPCs would have to be facially more detailed, as you wouldn't want o look in pixel-faces running through town.
2. battle system. simple said, you wouldn't beable do go round town wrecking soldiers to pieces anymore, which already upset me during AC:B, AC:R and AC3, so actually i WOULD consider this as something positive... but that's personal!
Assassinations would have to be planned better due to the cut off combat system, improving the stealth feeling alot. maybe traps and ambushes would have to be planned in detail as well^^
3. NO CoD! Nuff said.

lothario-da-be
01-31-2013, 08:40 PM
For my personal AC-feeling: NO, AC was not meant as a FP game, the level designs were made for 3rd person and the overall feeling would be VERY DIFFERENT to what i know.

On the other hand it does awake certain interest in me. If we were to change the concept though, following simple rules would have to be changed:
1. level design (as said) We would need more in detail buildings, guessing towns would become smaller, less free roaming. NPCs would have to be facially more detailed, as you wouldn't want o look in pixel-faces running through town.
2. battle system. simple said, you wouldn't beable do go round town wrecking soldiers to pieces anymore, which already upset me during AC:B, AC:R and AC3, so actually i WOULD consider this as something positive... but that's personal!
Assassinations would have to be planned better due to the cut off combat system, improving the stealth feeling alot. maybe traps and ambushes would have to be planned in detail as well^^
3. NO CoD! Nuff said.
Why can't we have a combat system in 1st person?

Sushiglutton
01-31-2013, 09:12 PM
For my personal AC-feeling: NO, AC was not meant as a FP game, the level designs were made for 3rd person and the overall feeling would be VERY DIFFERENT to what i know.

On the other hand it does awake certain interest in me. If we were to change the concept though, following simple rules would have to be changed:
1. level design (as said) We would need more in detail buildings, guessing towns would become smaller, less free roaming. NPCs would have to be facially more detailed, as you wouldn't want o look in pixel-faces running through town.
2. battle system. simple said, you wouldn't beable do go round town wrecking soldiers to pieces anymore, which already upset me during AC:B, AC:R and AC3, so actually i WOULD consider this as something positive... but that's personal!
Assassinations would have to be planned better due to the cut off combat system, improving the stealth feeling alot. maybe traps and ambushes would have to be planned in detail as well^^
3. NO CoD! Nuff said.

1) This is correct. It would require more details which, all other things equal, would lead to the downgrades you mentioned.
2) Like I said above I think it would be interesting to see how the Arkham style combat would work in FP. Since it's so simple (icon flash => tap counter) I think it could work fairly well. Would be something new and interesting for sure.
3) I HATE this argument that I see thrown around on the web all the time. FP does not imply COD. There are tons of FP games in all kinds of genres. Portal (puzzle), Thief (stealth), Mirror's Edge (platforming), Amnesia (horror), Minecraft (building) and so on. COD doesn't own a perspective.

JCearlyyears
01-31-2013, 11:59 PM
I have updated the OP. Give constructive feedback please. As a side note, first person would certainly be optional. As another side note, farcry looked okay and is pretty big. I don't know why we wouldn't be able to have several discs with different cities and other character models on those discs and on the next gen, I would imagine that this would work okay with still a good amount of detail and hopefully not that many glitches.

montagemik
02-01-2013, 12:25 AM
But shouldn't they also be viewing the memories from a first person perspective? They're viewing memories from the eyes of the ancestor, and so are we, which means you shouldn't be able to see yourself.

Not at all , Rebecca / shaun are viewing events in the Ancestors lives as observers only , not participants - So they & WE should only be able to see it as a 3rd person event .

They (WE) can see the back of the ancestor & full 360 of the world around the character only because it's a digital interface representation of the memories - In effect they're watching a fully rendered recreation of the world around the ancestor created as needed by the animus from Desmond's genetic memory as accurately as their Animus tech permits .
Advanced as the animus is - It still has limitations .

Although the information that creates this world comes from Desmond's DNA - He too in a way is just an Interactive Observer so sees these memories in 3rd person too as they aren't directly HIS memories either .
The only time within the Animus we've seen memories that actually belong to us directly - Is when we're Desmond or Subject 16 in AC-R or The Lost Archives . Then & only then were we the direct player - So those memories/ events were in 1st person perspective.

Easy to get confused , but makes sense if you think about how the Animus is supposed to work. (well makes sense that way to me at least)

JCearlyyears
02-01-2013, 01:49 AM
So... back on topic.

montagemik
02-01-2013, 02:37 AM
So... back on topic.

You've edited & changed the OP & mapped the whole control system already , what's left to 'Discuss' ??
other than the viability of the perspective itself in AC .

JCearlyyears
02-01-2013, 04:03 AM
Criticisms and suggestions. I highly doubt that my idea would work. I want to see the holes in it. As for the viability of the perspective, it would be difficult to attack and counter the opponents who are behind you. I actually forgot to address that. When you want to counter a certain enemy, you target them and press the counter button. If there is more than one enemy, you can get creative. Let's say someone attacks from behind, and another in front. You could duck and they attack each other by accident, and while ducking, if there is another enemy to the left or right, you could take them by surprise, or you could grab a falling body and meat shield with them to block another attacker, then shove the body at the attacker and kill them or run, or whatever. It works from the left and right too, or any other directions really. If both are attacking from the front, you could move to the left or right and dodge their attacks and block if you need to or attack if you can. The attackers can counter you too. If two come in from the left and right, and both do stabbing attacks from around four feet away with swords, you could lean out of the way, disarm one, attack the other with the new weapon and then kill the disarmed guy. A lot of the difficulty comes from enemy numbers, frequency of attacks, and limited view. This is difficulty. Finally. We aren't meant to fight an army. Too many and we should be forced to leave. Eagle sense gives us an advantage of knowing who is attacking before they attack, where they are coming from, and it gives you time to plan. If an attacker tries to come at you with a hidden weapon and stealthily kill you, you could stealthily counter them. Details: A man approaches with a small kinfe. He tries to come at you with an underhand stab to the back, but you quickly put your am behind your back and grab his forearm, then activate your reverse hidden blade which goes out of the elbow, and direct the weapon away from your back, out to the side, and then foward and then quickly backward into his chest. He wouldn't yell because he didn't want to draw attention in the first place, an would likely still feel too confident about having a knife to your back to think that his cover has been blown. You only noticed the man because of Eagle sense, and would have otherwise caught a knife in your spine. I am trying my hardest to make a fighting system without a formula. There is no right answer. It isn't pre determined who will win the fight and how. Before, it was: Fight starts, enemies dumbly circle and only one or two attack. You counter the first one or two, and then kill streak the rest. In AC3, all that really seemed to change was that there is two attacking, and slightly harder archetypes. It wasn't that much different from the waiting to counter, then kill streak. We still have the kill streak. This would change all of that. No more waiting, you fight to end the fight as fast as possible, and so do they. The longer a fight lasts, the more time there is to die. Nobody is going to wait. They will likely feel powerful in groups and will take advantage of this, striking all at once to overwhem you. You have to be tactical, you have to plan, fights aren't casual anymore, you could DIE. Fights are hard now. They all might be glowing. If so, you should probably run, because they plan to smash you all at once. If one is not glowing, they are more nervous, they are weaker, and you can use this to your advantage. That one will be more hesitant to attack, although they still might choose to attack, they are more hesitant, and you will be able to meat shield with them to block the others' attacks. Killing them without using them as a meat sheild is not the best idea, but if you are clever it could work. I don't know how you would do it, but that is the point. Getting rid of the formula to success. Tactics are not exactly a formula to success. Although tactics give you a plan, this isn't a one-size-fits-all plan, which is what there was before. Sure, there was some variation before, but not much. Rambling... I hope that was coherent enough, I'm tired, and sorry for being a little... out... Anyhow, My main points are that despite having a limited field of vision, Eagle sense becomes a valuable tool and that combat is more varried.

ToughGuy31
02-01-2013, 04:17 AM
Criticisms and suggestions. I highly doubt that my idea would work. I want to see the holes in it. As for the viability of the perspective, it would be difficult to attack and counter the opponents who are behind you. I actually forgot to address that. When you want to counter a certain enemy, you target them and press the counter button. If there is more than one enemy, you can get creative. Let's say someone attacks from behind, and another in front. You could duck and they attack each other by accident, and while ducking, if there is another enemy to the left or right, you could take them by surprise, or you could grab a falling body and meat shield with them to block another attacker, then shove the body at the attacker and kill them or run, or whatever. It works from the left and right too, or any other directions really. If both are attacking from the front, you could move to the left or right and dodge their attacks and block if you need to or attack if you can. The attackers can counter you too. If two come in from the left and right, and both do stabbing attacks from around four feet away with swords, you could lean out of the way, disarm one, attack the other with the new weapon and then kill the disarmed guy. A lot of the difficulty comes from enemy numbers, frequency of attacks, and limited view. This is difficulty. Finally. We aren't meant to fight an army. Too many and we should be forced to leave. Eagle sense gives us an advantage of knowing who is attacking before they attack, where they are coming from, and it gives you time to plan. If an attacker tries to come at you with a hidden weapon and stealthily kill you, you could stealthily counter them. Details: A man approaches with a small kinfe. He tries to come at you with an underhand stab to the back, but you quickly put your am behind your back and grab his forearm, then activate your reverse hidden blade which goes out of the elbow, and direct the weapon away from your back, out to the side, and then foward and then quickly backward into his chest. He wouldn't yell because he didn't want to draw attention in the first place, an would likely still feel too confident about having a knife to your back to think that his cover has been blown. You only noticed the man because of Eagle sense, and would have otherwise caught a knife in your spine. I am trying my hardest to make a fighting system without a formula. There is no right answer. It isn't pre determined who will win the fight and how. Before, it was: Fight starts, enemies dumbly circle and only one or two attack. You counter the first one or two, and then kill streak the rest. In AC3, all that really seemed to change was that there is two attacking, and slightly harder archetypes. It wasn't that much different from the waiting to counter, then kill streak. We still have the kill streak. This would change all of that. No more waiting, you fight to end the fight as fast as possible, and so do they. The longer a fight lasts, the more time there is to die. Nobody is going to wait. They will likely feel powerful in groups and will take advantage of this, striking all at once to overwhem you. You have to be tactical, you have to plan, fights aren't casual anymore, you could DIE. Fights are hard now. They all might be glowing. If so, you should probably run, because they plan to smash you all at once. If one is not glowing, they are more nervous, they are weaker, and you can use this to your advantage. That one will be more hesitant to attack, although they still might choose to attack, they are more hesitant, and you will be able to meat shield with them to block the others' attacks. Killing them without using them as a meat sheild is not the best idea, but if you are clever it could work. I don't know how you would do it, but that is the point. Getting rid of the formula to success. Tactics are not exactly a formula to success. Although tactics give you a plan, this isn't a one-size-fits-all plan, which is what there was before. Sure, there was some variation before, but not much. Rambling... I hope that was coherent enough, I'm tired, and sorry for being a little... out... Anyhow, My main points are that despite having a limited field of vision, Eagle sense becomes a valuable tool and that combat is more varried.
It's very good, and like other people said, even though it sounds good on paper, it's near impossible for it to have a good outcome. The best you could hope for is something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPkhsJoX83o&feature=player_detailpage#t=104s
Skip to about 2:30

MadJC1986
02-01-2013, 12:21 PM
I think a FP-Mode would be quite awesome. If you played Far Cry 3 you know that it does feature almost every assassination of Assassins
Creed (air assassination for example). Climbing and parkouring would be just like in Mirrors Edge, which was awesome. The only thing that would most probably suck is combat.