Wolfire Games Forums

When you cut someone, there should be the comma effect (rolling around with your neck slit pumping blood everywhere.) There should also, for fun, be a little editor hotkey (like the comma) that does the comma on everything but players.

Count Roland wrote:no they won't.

Their concept art tells the tale. Rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, wolfs, a bunch of other stuff, TIGERS.

I think that was on of the first pieces Aubrey did for OG, but they have... You know what? Just watch this:


Informative, and catchy.

I think the cut wounds should be more...relevant. As it is now, it's hard to tell between a bloodstain and a cut.

Jellydonut wrote:I think the cut wounds should be more...relevant. As it is now, it's hard to tell between a bloodstain and a cut.

I can agree with that. I think it would be fairly simple (compared to other things, anyway) to alter the normals according to the cut, to make it look like there is depth to it.

johndh wrote:

Jellydonut wrote:I think the cut wounds should be more...relevant. As it is now, it's hard to tell between a bloodstain and a cut.

I can agree with that. I think it would be fairly simple (compared to other things, anyway) to alter the normals according to the cut, to make it look like there is depth to it.

Or you could simply make a slightly different texture for the cut and make the blood the same. You could also change the color of the cut, make it more...fleshy.

Jellydonut wrote:

Count Roland wrote:no they won't.

Their concept art tells the tale. Rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, wolfs, a bunch of other stuff, TIGERS.

yeah that concept art was old, they got rid of everything but rats, rabbits, cats, dogs and wolves.

there should be a brothel....

of frisky squirrels.

Precisely. And whore rats outside who can't get work in the brothel.

Count Roland wrote:

Jellydonut wrote:

Count Roland wrote:no they won't.

Their concept art tells the tale. Rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, wolfs, a bunch of other stuff, TIGERS.

yeah that concept art was old, they got rid of everything but rats, rabbits, cats, dogs and wolves.

Didn't know that.

And now you know, cuz knowledge is power!

well that's why I told you! to give you the power.

Right now, Overgrowth has some basic stances. However, the characters don't try to face their enemies directly. This is quite understandable, since there are no animations for side-stepping or taking a step back - just animations for walking forward. The character has to face the direction it's moving into.

When two people fight, they face each other. If they step back, they don't turn to do it, they just step back and keep their face, their chest, their hand and possibly their weapon directed towards their enemy. How directly, that depends on the style, but generally you try to stay in a similar position in relation to your opponent. Most styles also have a preferred range.



Any script guys are welcome to think about how this could work. The basics are simple enough - just add few more animations. Face the enemy, use combat stance movement when distance to closest enemy is smaller than the range at which he is a threat.
How would preferred range best work? I think it might be better if it was a bit higher than the current range, it's all very close-range combat ATM. I feel like most enemies should try to stay at punching or kicking distance instead of kneeing distance. Weapons should also affect it, obviously.

Against multiple opponents choosing the facing would be much more challenging. However, it could be done so it doesn't affect your movement ability, just the visuals. If the opponents are grouped nicely in one direction, you can just average their position. When there's enemies all around you, though... perhaps the game could choose a 180-degree arc around the opponent who last attacked you, and then average the position of enemies inside that arc?

Some stuff:

Footwork by Bruce Lee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxTg6f_fYT0
Some aikido footwork and stuff. I wish the rabbits could do those ukemis, perhaps I wouldn't die instantly after falling down then!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su799hb7xtA


EDIT:
If someone knows where I could get good videos similar to the "distance game" or "multiple adversaries game", they'd be good references for combat movement. And "distance game" is all about dodging and evasion, so it'd be great for dodge animation reference.
http://youtu.be/6X4wvRCNB7s

I think that you would have to choose the highest priority target when grouped up. When you have a sword, an unarmed opponent, who is close to you should not be selected before an armed target, unless the unarmed target is attacking. I think it comes down to three factors:
+Threat
+Visibility
+Distance

First is threat. If an enemy is passively threatening, such as carrying a broadsword or actively threatening, such as winding up for a kick, they should probably be selected first as a target so the player at least has time to block.
If you can't see an enemy, you normally can't assess his/her priority on your who-to-face list. So we have three basic fields: Forward vision, Peripheral, and Audio. We can see in front of us clearly allowing quick, focused attention. We can see to our peripherals less clearly, but stimulus there still produces a quick, less focused reaction. Audio is what we gather from sound that we don't from vision. Essentially eyes in the back of our heads, to a degree.
Distance also comes into play. If there is a group of enemies surrounding us, one in the back of the mob is less dangerous than one right next to us.

The problem, for a programmer at least, comes about when you consider that not one of these thins is more or less important than another. They are all connected and affect each other and so must be considered equally when creating the targeting parameters. As for the actual aesthetics, I'd say a couple of new animations, some new movement, and the game having to choose an animation based upon the player's angle relative to the camera's. Probably beyond me, but not David.

Huh, I didn't mean to focus on the mechanical effects of facing. I mean, the player could just as well instantly rotate to the necessary direction, like he does when dodging or blocking right now. I have nothing against that this early on. Designing and coding that kind of mechanic would be beyond my meager coding skills, too. But that facing, that might not be that hard.

We already know how to turn a character towards its attack target (because characters do that when they attack), and how to choose between different animation in a given situation. I didn't get it to work on the first try, but it shouldn't be THAT hard.
EDIT: facing the enemy when you're a specific distance from him is easy, and it looks like I've been editing the wrong animation file, so...