Dayz's Flawed Foundations: Movement and Gunplay

[dannyboyle 15]

11 hours ago, lakevu said:

the ONLY way i see control being better in respects is the COMFORTABILITY of the controller. its just more comfortable and less "serious" aura when using it. but i think that basically goes against the CORE energy and entity that is dayz. dayz is NOT supposed to be felt that way. it is MEANT to be serious. which is why it was born from arma 2. a SERIOUS game. which solidified its original creation and identity.

No, it's not just that, you ask for real movement and a keyboard doesn't give real movement because generally nobody uses keys with pressure, everyone uses keys without pressure.

A controller's joystick enables organic movements that a keyboard can't or makes much more complicated, and you'll never achieve the same surgical synchronization.

A simple example: with a joy stick you can adjust the speed at which you move, directly influencing stealth. On a keyboard, you have to create a specific button to enter stealth mode. The character's turns with a keyboard are more abrupt and lack real sensitivity because there are four buttons, and there's no sensitivity.

This often results in stealth only adapting when crouching, and not when walking slowly upright, when stealth should be functional when walking slowly upright as it doesn't make any noise with your steps.

The reason for the keyboard adaptation is because mechanics like this one, which involve synchronizing the camera's right joystick with the movement joystick, the left one, are not used, or have been abandoned, because they would have to be adapted to the DPAD keys in tank mode and that would take up buttons and would not be as realistic, as in the old Tomb Raider.

Even the joystick could be programmed to create a jumping mechanic based on the character's acceleration, joystick thrust, and even the distance at which you take a run and then press the jump button. However, on a keyboard, this isn't possible because the w key isn't sensitive when taking a run. The re-routing is fine if you want to play PvP, in a COD-like game, which is what you're complaining about, but in a game like DAYZ, you lose realistic mechanics and realistic movements in exchange for better mouse aim, something I don't think is as important in a game like DAYZ, since DAYZ shouldn't focus on being a PvP game; aiming should feel difficult, not like an arcade shooter.

And believe me, I've played games like Red Dead Online, and by the end, I'd play without autoaim, without a reticle, and without a HUD, with a controller, and I'd kill a lot of players. After playing for a long time, I'd get so bored that I sought out that more realistic and imprecise experience, and it was much more satisfying than seeing the reticle. In fact, I think the reticle is also a bummer. I think it's nicer for the player to have to imagine the dot in the middle of the screen and develop the skill to aim, but this is my personal preference, and it's something easy to enable and disable on a server. It's up to each individual.

[dannyboyle 15]

delete

Edited May 21 by dannyboyle

[lakevu 108]

12 hours ago, dannyboyle said:

No, it's not just that, you ask for real movement and a keyboard doesn't give real movement because generally nobody uses keys with pressure, everyone uses keys without pressure.

A controller's joystick enables organic movements that a keyboard can't or makes much more complicated, and you'll never achieve the same surgical synchronization.

A simple example: with a joy stick you can adjust the speed at which you move, directly influencing stealth. On a keyboard, you have to create a specific button to enter stealth mode. The character's turns with a keyboard are more abrupt and lack real sensitivity because there are four buttons, and there's no sensitivity.

This often results in stealth only adapting when crouching, and not when walking slowly upright, when stealth should be functional when walking slowly upright as it doesn't make any noise with your steps.

The reason for the keyboard adaptation is because mechanics like this one, which involve synchronizing the camera's right joystick with the movement joystick, the left one, are not used, or have been abandoned, because they would have to be adapted to the DPAD keys in tank mode and that would take up buttons and would not be as realistic, as in the old Tomb Raider.

Even the joystick could be programmed to create a jumping mechanic based on the character's acceleration, joystick thrust, and even the distance at which you take a run and then press the jump button. However, on a keyboard, this isn't possible because the w key isn't sensitive when taking a run. The re-routing is fine if you want to play PvP, in a COD-like game, which is what you're complaining about, but in a game like DAYZ, you lose realistic mechanics and realistic movements in exchange for better mouse aim, something I don't think is as important in a game like DAYZ, since DAYZ shouldn't focus on being a PvP game; aiming should feel difficult, not like an arcade shooter.

And believe me, I've played games like Red Dead Online, and by the end, I'd play without autoaim, without a reticle, and without a HUD, with a controller, and I'd kill a lot of players. After playing for a long time, I'd get so bored that I sought out that more realistic and imprecise experience, and it was much more satisfying than seeing the reticle. In fact, I think the reticle is also a bummer. I think it's nicer for the player to have to imagine the dot in the middle of the screen and develop the skill to aim, but this is my personal preference, and it's something easy to enable and disable on a server. It's up to each individual.

i see. i see. you what would be interesting to experiment with would be left hand thumbstick control and right hand mouse control. that could maybe be something. 

but to be honest i dont really care "real" movement. at BEST i care that it gives me the ILLUSION of being real. which arma 2 very much gave me that illusion in my mind and impression.

im not really a big fan of "realism" qua realism. in that game 1 to 1 manufactures reality. reality is boring. that is why i play games. i think there is MUCH more to be gained from have a RECREATED and retailored reality than something that is just as we get every day. because at the end of the day the game simply cant be "real". it just cant. its a game and nothing is going to trick your mind of that fact when all you have to be is even 1% self conscious while playing to break that illusion. you literally have to 100% get rid of the self to make it happen. just like how neo in the matrix believes the matrix is truly real UNTIL finds out his actually body is in that pod. once he knows the "real" is in the pod the matrix ceases to be nothing more than a playground.

I believe in ROMANTICISM not realism.

[dannyboyle 15]

2 hours ago, lakevu said:

i see. i see. you what would be interesting to experiment with would be left hand thumbstick control and right hand mouse control. that could maybe be something. 

but to be honest i dont really care "real" movement. at BEST i care that it gives me the ILLUSION of being real. which arma 2 very much gave me that illusion in my mind and impression.

im not really a big fan of "realism" qua realism. in that game 1 to 1 manufactures reality. reality is boring. that is why i play games. i think there is MUCH more to be gained from have a RECREATED and retailored reality than something that is just as we get every day. because at the end of the day the game simply cant be "real". it just cant. its a game and nothing is going to trick your mind of that fact when all you have to be is even 1% self conscious while playing to break that illusion. you literally have to 100% get rid of the self to make it happen. just like how neo in the matrix believes the matrix is truly real UNTIL finds out his actually body is in that pod. once he knows the "real" is in the pod the matrix ceases to be nothing more than a playground.

I believe in ROMANTICISM not realism.

No one has said that 100% realism is necessary in a game, that would be a mistake and impossible in many ways, but not in others. 

For example, when we talk about impact physics in realistic games, I don't think anyone will deny that we all want realistic physics with vehicles when we hit a human body or a wall, breaking it, or we want to see realistic explosions, realistic dismemberment, realistic graphics, realistic falls, realistic water, realistic animals, etc... But nobody wants to have to pee often. 

In fact, the funny thing is that DayZ is very realistic in those tedious aspects of life. It takes it very seriously even though it's adapted to a game: eating, cooking, dressing, having to stay warm, drinking, etc.

The only thing missing is sleeping, something that's difficult to implement and that I once I tried to think of a design. In a single-player game it's easier because you just go to sleep and can speed up the time and wake up with your energy recharged, but in a multiplayer game you can't do that because there are more people playing; you can't speed up their time. The only solution I found is for everyone to go to sleep at that time, for everyone to agree to sleep, but that would be very difficult.

Another way would be to force players to sleep for 5 or 10 minutes every few hours when they see they can take a break. It's always good to take a break, go get some water, eat something, stretch your legs, but of course, you would force them to do that, it's a difficult thing.

Another way could be to control different characters, switch between them, and when one falls asleep you can choose another who isn't asleep. In fact, the design wouldn't be bad like that, but it would be different from being a single character.

 

As you can see, in this case, realism is difficult, and even looking for a semi-realistic adaptation that might work is also hard. In the end, these games in their world do have to be realistic because a large part of their grace is in the simulation, in making that world feel real, the problem is what affects the player, a player does not want to play DayZ in a faction of a settlement as a guard of a wall and spend a large part of the hours of the game watching that same point and waiting, that's what NPCs are for, you want adventure, moving over the map, manage things, survive, discover, experiment, have fun, you do not want to do the work of an NPC.

I say this because there are people who believe that these games should not have NPCs, I mean humans, and I think it is necessary because NPCs, in addition to enriching the world of these games, can be part of the automation of aspects that players do not want to do as we progress in the game, for example, automating crops, or automating livestock, automating surveillance, etc.

 

Now, back to the topic, in other aspects, adapted realism is always welcome, for example, the physics I mentioned: animals that move and attack in a very realistic way, rain that floods areas, fire that spreads, realistic birds moving and resting in posts or street wires, drowning if you spend too much time in the water and run out of stamina—it's an interesting kind of realism that works in this game. Your clothes get wet if you fall into the water, a shot to the head kills you if you're not wearing a helmet, a shot to the heart kills you, all of that is realistic and acceptable in DayZ, I don't think it's crazy to look for realistic touches in a game like this, but obviously a game is never going to be reality and things have to be adapted to make the experience fun and satisfying.

 

In fact, I haven't said anything that is far from satisfying, stealth in a game is satisfying, being able to regulate the speed to regulate stealth is not something that makes the game feel bad, or for example, improving the jumping mechanics and making it satisfactory doesn't seem bad to me either, in fact I think that in a game one of the most important things is character movement, making it feel organic and natural and not robotic and square, and currently DayZ has pretty bad controls, especially jumping. Just like adding stamina to the grip when climbing places and things like that, if you're tired the character refuses to climb and that conditions you, but obviously there are things like the ones I mentioned before that are difficult to implement, like going to the bathroom or sleeping, I'm not saying it's impossible, I said that it is complex to make it satisfactory, while other realistic things are easier to implement while being faithful to reality, or trying it.

 

For example, in a multiplayer game, permanent death can be handled much more satisfactorily than in a linear narrative story-based game. Even in multiplayer, losing characters is actually quite satisfying. However, in single-player, it's more complex because you generally have a story with a narrative line, and if you eliminate the main characters it doesn't make as much sense. It can be done, but at very key moments in the story and with one character, you can't do it constantly.

 

 

Edited May 22 by dannyboyle

[lakevu 108]

4 hours ago, dannyboyle said:

No one has said that 100% realism is necessary in a game, that would be a mistake and impossible in many ways, but not in others. 

For example, when we talk about impact physics in realistic games, I don't think anyone will deny that we all want realistic physics with vehicles when we hit a human body or a wall, breaking it, or we want to see realistic explosions, realistic dismemberment, realistic graphics, realistic falls, realistic water, realistic animals, etc... But nobody wants to have to pee often. 

In fact, the funny thing is that DayZ is very realistic in those tedious aspects of life. It takes it very seriously even though it's adapted to a game: eating, cooking, dressing, having to stay warm, drinking, etc.

The only thing missing is sleeping, something that's difficult to implement and that I once I tried to think of a design. In a single-player game it's easier because you just go to sleep and can speed up the time and wake up with your energy recharged, but in a multiplayer game you can't do that because there are more people playing; you can't speed up their time. The only solution I found is for everyone to go to sleep at that time, for everyone to agree to sleep, but that would be very difficult.

Another way would be to force players to sleep for 5 or 10 minutes every few hours when they see they can take a break. It's always good to take a break, go get some water, eat something, stretch your legs, but of course, you would force them to do that, it's a difficult thing.

Another way could be to control different characters, switch between them, and when one falls asleep you can choose another who isn't asleep. In fact, the design wouldn't be bad like that, but it would be different from being a single character.

 

As you can see, in this case, realism is difficult, and even looking for a semi-realistic adaptation that might work is also hard. In the end, these games in their world do have to be realistic because a large part of their grace is in the simulation, in making that world feel real, the problem is what affects the player, a player does not want to play DayZ in a faction of a settlement as a guard of a wall and spend a large part of the hours of the game watching that same point and waiting, that's what NPCs are for, you want adventure, moving over the map, manage things, survive, discover, experiment, have fun, you do not want to do the work of an NPC.

I say this because there are people who believe that these games should not have NPCs, I mean humans, and I think it is necessary because NPCs, in addition to enriching the world of these games, can be part of the automation of aspects that players do not want to do as we progress in the game, for example, automating crops, or automating livestock, automating surveillance, etc.

 

Now, back to the topic, in other aspects, adapted realism is always welcome, for example, the physics I mentioned: animals that move and attack in a very realistic way, rain that floods areas, fire that spreads, realistic birds moving and resting in posts or street wires, drowning if you spend too much time in the water and run out of stamina—it's an interesting kind of realism that works in this game. Your clothes get wet if you fall into the water, a shot to the head kills you if you're not wearing a helmet, a shot to the heart kills you, all of that is realistic and acceptable in DayZ, I don't think it's crazy to look for realistic touches in a game like this, but obviously a game is never going to be reality and things have to be adapted to make the experience fun and satisfying.

 

In fact, I haven't said anything that is far from satisfying, stealth in a game is satisfying, being able to regulate the speed to regulate stealth is not something that makes the game feel bad, or for example, improving the jumping mechanics and making it satisfactory doesn't seem bad to me either, in fact I think that in a game one of the most important things is character movement, making it feel organic and natural and not robotic and square, and currently DayZ has pretty bad controls, especially jumping. Just like adding stamina to the grip when climbing places and things like that, if you're tired the character refuses to climb and that conditions you, but obviously there are things like the ones I mentioned before that are difficult to implement, like going to the bathroom or sleeping, I'm not saying it's impossible, I said that it is complex to make it satisfactory, while other realistic things are easier to implement while being faithful to reality, or trying it.

 

For example, in a multiplayer game, permanent death can be handled much more satisfactorily than in a linear narrative story-based game. Even in multiplayer, losing characters is actually quite satisfying. However, in single-player, it's more complex because you generally have a story with a narrative line, and if you eliminate the main characters it doesn't make as much sense. It can be done, but at very key moments in the story and with one character, you can't do it constantly.

 

 

i think its important to keep in mind the "more" depth or basically anything you add to the game. the more stuff you have the more taxing it is on the mind and can take away from the experience. especially when it comes to gear and such. where now you find shirts and everything but before (arma 2) it wasnt like that. you found clothing packets. where now there is SO MUCH to lose that it almost makes people not want to engage in the more interesting part of the experince like the hold ups and stuff because they just have so much to lose.

building a game is definitely a balancing act but i think arma 2 really set the gold standard to how much depth a game needs to have to not take away from the experience and focus on what really matters. FEELING and ENVISIONING yourself in the apocalypse. wet clothes and sleeping i think are too much maintenace and detracts from the game.