I've recently gotten into a debate-turned-argument with a gentleman on YouTube by the name of "dmh79". I'd like to post the full discussion here to see what others think. I admit that I have become melodramatic and overly frustrated. Feel free to point out that I'm being a ******-bag as much as you like, but I'd also like to know some more general opinions on this subject.
For the record, the discussion is taking place in the comments for this video.
On to the debate:
Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by MOSpr0ductzOriginally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79Originally Posted by MalachyteOriginally Posted by dmh79... I'm pretty sure I got all that in the right order... although it's really hard to figure out with YouTube's convoluted reply-to-comment system. I'll update this if Mr. dmh79 replies again.Originally Posted by Malachyte
Chime in with what you guys think on this matter. Again, point out as much as you like that I'm being a pretentious and nit-picky ******-bag. I won't disagree with that. But I'm still curious to see what others think of the fundamental basis of this argument.
Discuss!![]()
I'll edit in a proper comment in a minute. For now I just have to say![]()
To the topic at hand I'd simply say, to a certain extent I agree with your point. Riding curves can look a tad unrealistic to the avid observer. It doesn't affect me in the slightest when I play though and even though you'll no doubt disagree, it wouldn't affect you either. It's an aesthetic and on an attempt on a track you're familiar with, going for a 0 or an high placing...nobody focuses on anything other than hitting the line/next obstacle properly.
I honestly think this whole thing is a cry for help from your subconscious, you gots da Trials withdrawl and it's makin ya cranky manI think you need to play some Evo, it won't consume you like before...I promise mate
![]()
I think the reason that you care so much is that you do this stuff in real life. While you are right that it is not realistic that the bike doesn't lean, it doesn't bother me and it probably doesn't bother most people.
And you were also right that sharp turns are pretty much impossible to do well and only wide, gradual curves will ever look good. However, even if your idea were added I don't think it would change this. Taking a sharp turn at 100mph will look stupid whether or not the rider leans into it, and it will still be unexpected and most likely cause you to slam your face into the next obstacle.
I made a track that takes place on a huge, gradual curve and it looks fine. However if automated leaning were added then the rider would be leaning the entire track and it would probably look stupid.
Again, my suggestion is to implement a change that takes both speed and curve diameter into consideration. For an extremely wide curve like this, the rider would lean only a couple of degrees - in effect it wouldn't even be noticeable. It's not like "lean on" and "lean off" - there should be varying degrees of leaning just like in real life. Have you ever been on a freeway with a very wide gradual turn and watched a motorcycle? It appears to "turn without turning" because the lean required for such gradual turns is hardly visible... but I guarantee it's felt by the rider nonetheless.Originally Posted by buttcheekofdeth
Trust me. Had RedLynx implemented my idea in the first place, all on-ground turns would look better, or at least virtually the same as they currently do with really really wide turns.
Oh, and I do agree that this seems to bother me WAY more than anyone else... as you said, probably because I bike in real life. I can just picture coming into a turn and trying to turn without leaning... I would immediately go flying off the bike in the opposite direction.![]()
If the rider were to lean in turns I think it would look much worse and completely ruin the physics if you were playing a technical but curved section. It would be much harder to control while you are leaning. I also hated the curves at first and still hate mid air turns but I got used to ground turns and barely even notice them at all. I can understand why this is a big deal to you because you have only watched the game. When you are actually playing and get into a "zone" you don't worry about it.
Just like wide sweeping curves, really slow curves on highly technical tracks would be the same. Once again, factoring in both speed and curve diameter, with a wide sweeping curve it's high speed and REALLY wide diameter, so virtually no visible leaning. It would be the same for a sharp turn at a REALLY slow speed - there would be virtually no visible lean for that either. Again, comparing it to reality - if I turn my mountain bike at less than 10mph, I use the handle-bars - I don't lean. If I were to lean into a turn going this slowly I'd just fall over.Originally Posted by A7XfoREVer531
The change I'm suggesting would mainly affect higher speed turns with small-to-medium diameters. Of course everything would be affected to some degree, but I guarantee you it would look good and be as realistic as possible within the confines of the game. Your rider would not all of a sudden lean 45 degrees to the side during an awkward slow-speed turn on a Ninja track.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4IUrEVB0BA4
I feel like it would ruin good tracks like this.
Look, I'm no physicist (where's Lestropie at when we need him??), but I have a decent sense for these things and I know when something just looks and feels completely wrong.
If you want the nitty-gritty-sciency details, click here.
I know you guys love this game, as I have loved Trials HD in the past, and your automatic reaction to my criticism is to defend the game and try to make counterpoints. But the fact is, that had it been done this way from the beginning there would have been absolutely no negative side-effects. Wide high speed turns would look the virtually same, and very slow sharp turns would look virtually the same. It would only make everything in between look better without messing up either of these extremed.
Someone show this thread to Lestropie - I promise he would back up my arguments!![]()
Dude, that's a VERY GRADUAL turn at a VERY SLOW speed. The rider would BARELY lean on this track with my suggested change... heck, on most parts of that track he wouldn't lean at all. Once again it would look virtually the same. Once again, you have to get out of the mind-set that it's either "LEAN_ON" for turns or "LEAN_OFF" for straightaways. What I'm suggesting would implement varying degrees of lean factoring in only two things - speed and turn diameter. Mid-air turns would still look like crap, but all on-ground turns would look either better or the same. There would be no negative side-effects. Stop grasping at straws.Originally Posted by A7XfoREVer531
Again, aesthetically speaking you are correct. You need to accept the reasons why you care about this and everybody else is indifferent.
Making this nitpick into a big thing is your subconscious way of convincing yourself you're right not to play the game![]()
![]()