Fluidity in Games

[NeutralMunchHotel]

No, this isn't some new 'M' rated game. What I'm talking about is how fluid a game is, ie the responsiveness, and how it affects gameplay.

This came around when I was playing Fable 2, and noticed how stiff the camera was and how laggy the menu and player movement were. It really was a problem for me, as especially with the camera I really wanted free reign of it and the ability to look all around the world rather than have a very restrictive view that is incredibly frustrating to use. This became a problem when you were looking for the gargoyles - this involved hearing their Scottish voices, then hunting around the immediate area when you will find and shoot them. The camera, however, made this an incredibly difficult task to do as many times you wouldn't be able to see them since the camera angle wouldn't allow it. I know this isn't just a problem with Fable - there are probably hundreds of games I haven't played with the same camera problems. And as for the menu - there's about a .5 second lag between moving the stick and the screen moving. This doesn't sound like too big a problem, but when you play it it's noticeable and equally as frustrating as the stiff camera. As a final point you might be thinking that 'It's a 3rd person adventure, of course the camera's got to have some limits', but play Twilight Princess. This is a 3rd person adventure game with a fantastic camera with none of Fable's issues.

In contrast, Fallout 3 is one of the most fluid games I've played this generation (I know, Oblivion). This is probably partly to do with the fact that it's a first person game and these generally have far better camera controls, but still, there was a sense of complete freedom. While Fable felt horribly claustrophobic and tight Fallout 3 felt incredibly loose and as though you had complete free reign of the camera.

I think this whole thing boils down to loose > tight. That is, the incredibly fluid camera and movement of Fallout 3 is better than the claustrophobic and restrictive camera and controls of Fable 2. Now these are just examples, but what are your thoughts?

 

[lostclause]

I agree, the camera in assassin's creed can be a pain when it wants to similar to how you mention. However my biggest complain about fluidity is when the driving lags in sandboxes (namely saint's row). Nothing ruins the experience faster.

 

[Soxafloppin]

loading screens ruin it for me.

 

[phar]

Ah i thought this thread would be where we can whinge where they have games which have crap framerates.

I havent played fable2 but the 3rd person game camera is always going to have a few clipping problems unless its always locked behind the player like in Gears for example.

Plus when you grow up youll realise that tight is better than loose!

 

[Mirroga]

loading screens ruin it for me.

As long as it does not cut in the same chapter of the story, its forgivable. But if it cuts during a very important battle or an objective, its shit.

 

[Jirlond]

I prefer fluidity in the story telling - I can usually put up with a poorly constructed game if it can tell a story.

The problem with loading screens as - all games have them now - some very short (adding to the fluidity, like Gears), and some that take forever and break up the gaemplay and your concentration (Metal Gear Solid 4).

 

[Elblai]

On loading screens... I like how Mass Effect used the loading screens as -part- of the story, almost. To me, this seems like the perfect solution.

Free-flowing cameras (That is, the ones you can control) have always presented a problem to me: How well can it adjust to the motion of your character? In most games I've played, it doesn't too well. In Metal Gear Solid 4, for example, the camera had a knack for suddenly looking behind me when I turned Snake around a corner.
Strict over-the-shoulder type 3rd-person camera's sidestep that problem by being completely intertwined with how the character moves, and in my opinion is a better way to go about it with some games.

But, isn't the issue of how a camera works closely tied with how the game is supposed to feel? Often camera angles can be the largest difference between a Sci-Fi game and a Horror game.

I guess I'm not really answering much, but it's just to say that I've always felt camera goes hand in hand with the game's "Mood", so to speak.

 

[Spucktier]

but what are your thoughts?

There are too many designers with too less knowledge about user interaction, anticipation and accessible design.

It's definitely harder to make a somewhat detached camera (3rd person) "move fluidly" than it is making the camera look good on a first person view. What I find most disappointing is that interface design does not feel as fluid as it could. Some companies (like Epic did with UT3) kind of focus on optics rather than accessibility. Fallout 3 was highly criticized for the design of the Pipboy and the way you navigate the menus. Most of the criticism was based upon the PC version where reviewers were used to using their mouse to click through menus. On the consoles however, the navigation felt nearly perfect because it was designed for that kind of controlling device.

Ever hated a developer for a 0.5 second "slide away" button effect when the only thing you want to do is to go to the settings and you have to get through four different menues to do so?

 

[Raz86]

I thought a lot of things in Fable 2 were garbage. It's horribly overrated. But the camera is most certainly the main offender. I just don't understand why so many 3rd person games have managed a free-camera that flows years and years ago, yet people today can't get it right. Seems like a very basic task to achieve in my opinion.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

but what are your thoughts?

Ever hated a developer for a 0.5 second "slide away" button effect when the only thing you want to do is to go to the settings and you have to get through four different menues to do so?

I'm not sure if that's your point but that is exactly like Fable 2. Actually, that probably is your point...