test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Why I think Camera Tech should be the future...

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Look at the concept art for STO or Infinite Space. Now look at STO as a live game.

The textures remain detailed and, for the most part, beautiful. The models (particularly CapnLogan's) are gorgeous. The shadows and light sources and special visual effects are quite breathtaking.

So what's the big difference between the concept art and the finished product? Well, scale is one issue that players have noted time and time and time again. The other is composition.

This is part of why films have directors. Composition tells us things. Characters tilted to the left and right tell us they're speaking to one another. A cluster of Klingons at a table leaned in to one another like in the IS concept art tells us that they're having a private conversation. It evokes the idea of dirty jokes or illicit plans or conspiracy.

Both the scale and the composition in STO are driven by the camera. Everything is designed for a free roving camera rather than the camera being designed for the scene or the mood. This gives us environments that feel more generic in spite of fantastic work being put into their design, how they're rendered, etc. It makes different locations seem more uniform... which has some playability advantages but creates disadvantages in terms of shaping a mood for a place.

Now... Here's the thing: places that should have the most guided sense of ambiance are almost always instanced separately or located in a distinct part of a map. I'm thinking specifically about diplomatic missions, first contacts, Quark's, social hubs or key parts of social hubs, starship bridges, etc.

What I think would improve scale and composition drastically would be to have areas with fixed cameras that pivot and/or with multiple cameras we can switch between but NO ROVING CAMERA. It's the difference between, say, Resident Evil and Quake. Now, anywhere where combat can occur needs to revert back to that following camera mode but why not have places set aside from combat with fixed cameras, deliberate composition and more accurate scale?

I think that if we're ever to see these types of ambient locales, we need The Foundry and any open PvP in the future to take these into account. If they aren't something that a place is carved out for, they will be increasingly difficult to add as more features and revamps are developed for the game.

It's the opposite of the "Cataclysm problem" for WoW. Much of their game world was designed for fixed views and had to be overhauled to be viewed from every perspective. STO is designed for free-roving views but , without some planning soon, nothing has that heightened sense of design that can be associated with fixed views or a more controlled camera.

And in the end, if not a fixed camera, a better camera is pretty much core to the next level of play experience not only in STO but the Cryptic Engine in general.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    What the heck are you talking about? I read this and still don't understand what you are proposing. Please state it plainly and simply with out your pathos spilling all over the place.

    Thanks :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Ayenn wrote:
    What the heck are you talking about? I read this and still don't understand what you are proposing. Please state it plainly and simply with out your pathos spilling all over the place.

    Thanks :D

    He's asking for some areas to have fixed cameras to show off the artwork - rather than letting the user control it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    He's asking for some areas to have fixed cameras to show off the artwork - rather than letting the user control it.

    Right. I'm saying the roving cameras lead to less artsy compositions, less mood, and are the reason areas are so far out of scale.

    Basically, I'm asking that non-combat areas be given a "Judgment Rites" view or an "in-scale" view.

    For example, there are maybe a dozen fixed camera perspectives you'd ordinarily see on the bridge of a starship on the shows. If you lock the camera to those views, our bridges could be much closer to accurate scale.

    Likewise, you take certain village sets from the shows and it was mainly camera angle and lighting used to create the impression that it was a different place. If there's combat, I get it. But if an area is non-combat, you get a lot more control for the designers and a richer experience for the players if camera can be used to set mood.

    Look at it this way: Take Quark's. The point of that set, 99% of the time, is to showcase people talking. It's counterintuitive to design the bar and the camera there to emphasize combat (which the open spaces, large scale, and roving camera do) if the function of the set isn't combat.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Right. I'm saying the roving cameras lead to less artsy compositions, less mood, and are the reason areas are so far out of scale.

    Basically, I'm asking that non-combat areas be given a "Judgment Rites" view or an "in-scale" view.

    For example, there are maybe a dozen fixed camera perspectives you'd ordinarily see on the bridge of a starship on the shows. If you lock the camera to those views, our bridges could be much closer to accurate scale.

    Likewise, you take certain village sets from the shows and it was mainly camera angle and lighting used to create the impression that it was a different place. If there's combat, I get it. But if an area is non-combat, you get a lot more control for the designers and a richer experience for the players if camera can be used to set mood.

    Look at it this way: Take Quark's. The point of that set, 99% of the time, is to showcase people talking. It's counterintuitive to design the bar and the camera there to emphasize combat (which the open spaces, large scale, and roving camera do) if the function of the set isn't combat.
    Creating Realistic Sizes in Non-combat Areas > Restricting camera control
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Creating Realistic Sizes in Non-combat Areas > Restricting camera control

    You're saying there's more to creating realistic sizes than restricting camera control? Because I'm saying camera restrictions are a part of how you get MORE realistic sizes (and visually pleasing compositions). Not necessarily totally realistic but MORE realistic and more artful looking.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    You're saying there's more to creating realistic sizes than restricting camera control? Because I'm saying camera restrictions are a part of how you get MORE realistic sizes (and visually pleasing compositions). Not necessarily totally realistic but MORE realistic and more artful looking.

    I'm saying I'd rather have more freedom over the camera - unless your idea were optional.

    I say this having done some comic work using STO as machinima.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I don't see implementing this as a problem... treat camera's just like objects... place on map & have them either center on character or static... switch camera on reach point and switch to tacical view with a keystroke or when entering combat... it would allow a much better scene when beaming in, or while interacting, and still retain a combat view when needed.

    I'm of tired of seeing the backside of everyone without manually panning the camera around to see the cool scenes I make in my missions. It would allow some very polished works to really stand out. We know the tech for camera control exists in the Demo-Record utility, so maybe we can get it added to the Foundry Toolset.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I'm saying I'd rather have more freedom over the camera - unless your idea were optional.

    I say this having done some comic work using STO as machinima.

    I suppose my ultimate idea wouldn't be optional so much as a third gameplay mode, moving towards Space, Ground - Action (big areas, free camera) and Ground - Social (fixed camera, emphasis on facial cues and emotes, sierra style puzzles)

    I tend to think the ground/space split setup of this game is smart but that ground action probably needs to borrow some mechanics from space action (as well as other MMOs and FPS games) while we need a more radically divergent ground game with a different look and feel for puzzles and non-combat.

    So what I'm asking for is to divide ground into two playstyles with two camera types.

    But failing that, it would be pretty nifty to hybridize the "sitting in chairs" tech with the in-game cinematic tech and have optional stock camera positions you can switch to on certain sets and that would work well with Cryptic's goal of making in-game cinematics a bigger part of missions and the Foundry.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Ultimately, I tend to think that "Scan 5 crashed satellites" or "Diplomatic First Contact" should look like a different form of gameplay than "Kill 5 Klingon waves".

    If not a mechanically and graphically different system on a unique type of set then at least with some camera cuts similar to beamouts where the camera actually zooms in on people we talk to (and on our own character when we come to a decision). If that were made optional, I could live with that but I think it would make ground feel pretty dynamic if the camera swung around to focus on anyone who was talking or any object being interacted with.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I suppose my ultimate idea wouldn't be optional so much as a third gameplay mode, moving towards Space, Ground - Action (big areas, free camera) and Ground - Social (fixed camera, emphasis on facial cues and emotes, sierra style puzzles)

    I tend to think the ground/space split setup of this game is smart but that ground action probably needs to borrow some mechanics from space action (as well as other MMOs and FPS games) while we need a more radically divergent ground game with a different look and feel for puzzles and non-combat.

    So what I'm asking for is to divide ground into two playstyles with two camera types.

    But failing that, it would be pretty nifty to hybridize the "sitting in chairs" tech with the in-game cinematic tech and have optional stock camera positions you can switch to on certain sets and that would work well with Cryptic's goal of making in-game cinematics a bigger part of missions and the Foundry.

    I think that allowing users to achieve the perfect camera perspective rather than the developers is part of the freedom that people generally ask for in an MMO.

    In-game cinematics? Great.
    Optional "Cinematic" Angles in Non Combat areas? Awesome.
    Taking away manual control from machinima artists? No thanks.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I for one hate restricted cameras. The Assassin's Creed series really ticks me off when i'm moving along and the camera suddenly becomes fixed, allowing pivoting but nothing else. Really annoying and throws off the controls. It's designed to help the player but in the end it ends up feeling sloppy and inconsistent.

    If a game is going to have fixed camera positions, that should be its thing. Never change the camera controls on the player or you'll just annoy them. What you need is one camera to rule them all.

    I for one vote for the usual MMO style of optional first person camera. Everquest 2 accomplishes realistic sizes and a third person camera while simultaneously allowing for first person camera if the player feels too cramped.

    Speaking of cramped, you ever taken a Sarnak Paladin through Stormhold? Yeaaah...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    The more I think about this the more I think those "Check life support on the stations" missions would be a lot more fun if the camera zoomed in on the person talking and swung around to the captain when it's our time to make decisions. You could have this be something people could disable but it would help re-emphasize the fact that we're making decisions and giving the orders just to have the default be for the camera to center on people as they relate information and center on us when we make decisions, even if the decision is as simple as "Continue exploring" or "Beam up".
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Worst ... idea ... ever. The LAST thing I want in a game is for it to tell ME where to look. If something "artsy" catches my eye, I will go look at it. I don't need somebody grabbing my head and turning me to face it. /facepalm

    Let the players decide what's fun. Freedom is the key.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Nikahn wrote:
    Worst ... idea ... ever. The LAST thing I want in a game is for it to tell ME where to look. If something "artsy" catches my eye, I will go look at it. I don't need somebody grabbing my head and turning me to face it. /facepalm

    Let the players decide what's fun. Freedom is the key.

    Fair enough. It's just the only way I could envision smaller bridges ever working and the big difference between concept art and gameplay.

    But what do you think about the side idea to have the camera zoom in on people being talked to and the player when making a decision, all of whom perform an appropriate emote, as an option that could be disabled or enabled.

    I think it could make "Scan 5" snd diplomacy missions seem a lot less static if the camera was more active in coordination with the dialogues.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    He's asking for some areas to have fixed cameras to show off the artwork - rather than letting the user control it.

    Oh God no! Your are taking about an artistic choice that violates every bit of user interface commonsense for massive games there is! What you may fail to realized is that view/control schema can make game play nearly imposable for some people. a large portion of the population cannot think in mirror as would be required of a fixed camera system. Then there are the people who are out right handicapped. depending on the handicap a fixed camera would make it imposable for these people to play.

    We, as a species, dominantly think in a way that attaches us to representations of a self. To violate that innate instinctive feature of the species would spell doom for this and any other massive game.

    You may disagree with me but as a usability specialist I know whats what with this kind of thought.

    Still, It is an interesting way to think around "the box".

    Fair enough. It's just the only way I could envision smaller bridges ever working and the big difference between concept art and gameplay.

    considering the bridges, if they do make them smaller, will not be all that much smaller I don't see a problem. Again, nice thinking around "the box"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Fair enough. It's just the only way I could envision smaller bridges ever working and the big difference between concept art and gameplay.

    But what do you think about the side idea to have the camera zoom in on people being talked to and the player when making a decision, all of whom perform an appropriate emote, as an option that could be disabled or enabled.

    I think it could make "Scan 5" snd diplomacy missions seem a lot less static if the camera was more active in coordination with the dialogues.


    I wouldn't mind the camera zooming in during conversations at all actually. Mass Effect did this pretty well with a choice of different options on how to respond ... "hint hint cryptic." But camera fixing during movement would be a big no no. I also wish we had a first person view at could aim and shoot in ground combat but ... I don't think that's ever gonna happen lol.
Sign In or Register to comment.