TresCom Forums

RexHunter99 wrote:and you can't move her arm while she holds a weapon.

That wouldn't be Trespasser anymore...

Second Illiteration wrote:So you don't want better graphics?

what I mean is that I don't want to good. Not like todays games, otherwise we can make a new game insted. Making a new Trespasser engine and change everything Trespasser stand for would be to make a new game. I like the Trespasser graphic, only if we could make it so you could read signs etc much more. No need to improve the graphic to much.


Also I agree with machf. You should ALWAYS be able to move your hand.

We need the strike the right balance between "What needs improving" and "What makes Trespasser, Trespasser."

tatu wrote:

Second Illiteration wrote:So you don't want better graphics?

what I mean is that I don't want to good. Not like todays games, otherwise we can make a new game insted. Making a new Trespasser engine and change everything Trespasser stand for would be to make a new game. I like the Trespasser graphic, only if we could make it so you could read signs etc much more. No need to improve the graphic to much.


Also I agree with machf. You should ALWAYS be able to move your hand.

I agree with you guys too! I really love the physic-based animations and I also think it's not good that you couldn't move the arm when holding a weapon. I think the basics of Trespasser, what really makes the game Trespasser should be kept, and other things should be improved. I think it's not a bad thing to improve the graphics, but I don't want the basics to be changed either.

The devs were really big on physics driven gameplay, so I think it'll be good to build upon that now that physics can be calculated far more easily now. A movable hand is a MUST. I think the physics are what made Trespasser unique.


I don't agree with making Trespasser how the devs would have made it though. As a community, we now have an opportunity to make it to what WE (the gamers) wanted Trespasser to be. It wouldn't be good to exclute a really cool, fun feature "because the devs wouldn't have done it".

Physics based animations are still not possible, we keep believing it is but it isn't, if we used physics-based we'd still have a small limit to how many dinosaurs can be active, we'd still have the very small distance dinosaurs can be active and we'd still have the huge problem of dinosaurs tripping over themselves, of getting stuck within themselves or other objects.

As for Anne, the player, I wouldn't remove the arm, it was the unique feature that grabbed me when I first played the game, and it's fine to use until we get to weapons, then things become a pain to manipulate, many people attempt to move Anne's arm to aim at dinosaurs, I learned just to center the weapon in a position that made me comfortable and move the screen to line up te shot, but still many people who began to play the game gave up simply because the arm frustrated them when it came to weapons, so why not at least fix something even the Dev's admitted went wrong? I wouldn't dream of removing her arm for other things though.

And with blended animations, you'd get very much the same effect as Trespasser normally has, except the part where the animations cause bone breaking rotations, or just plain ridiculous moments when a raptor sticks it's head straight up it's butt (It happens often)

As for Graphics, the engine is still being designed to work very much like Trespasser does, the only difference is the quality of the scene you can have. Levels have high-detailed terrain capabilities now and models aren't stuck with 400 poly limits before flooding the scene. Textures can be 4x as big and have millions of colours in them, water should reflect and refract and ripple realistically using Vertex and Pixel shaders to lessen the load on the CPU, shadows and lights are all controlled by PS and VS and to provide realism, bumpmapping is performed hardware.

By the way some of you talk, it sounds like a ll you want is a source-code update for Trespasser that has larger texture resolutions in it (boring) There's so much more to be had and you're all just scared of nothing, even if Trespasser looks better thanks to me, it'll still need better models,textures and mapping to make it look like a game of today.
(BTW Tatu, EpicZen, my Indie Game company prides itself upon not making "Just another FPS" the horrible cliche of taking Unreal engine and throwin models and textures and maps into it and saying it's a game when it isn't, that's what happened with the new Turok, I do not intend Trespasser to end up the same, Trespasser Reloaded is a game engine I want people to finish playing and feel "Wow... that was amazing!" not "Puh, I've seen it on Xbox a hundred times...)

In the end what we will have is Trespasser, very very improved with various features added in and buggy ones removed. This is how I feel about the engine and what I say regarding physics based animations and better graphics is going to happen so long as I can acheive it.
You can suggest features for anything else but those things are concrete in the plan and will not change I'm afraid.

RexHunter99 wrote: As for Anne, the player, I wouldn't remove the arm, it was the unique feature that grabbed me when I first played the game, and it's fine to use until we get to weapons, then things become a pain to manipulate, many people attempt to move Anne's arm to aim at dinosaurs, I learned just to center the weapon in a position that made me comfortable and move the screen to line up te shot, but still many people who began to play the game gave up simply because the arm frustrated them when it came to weapons, so why not at least fix something even the Dev's admitted went wrong? I wouldn't dream of removing her arm for other things though.

Because the arm is what makes Trespasser unique. You can shoot a weapon sideways, you can swing it as a club... you don't need to center the enemy in the middle of the screen. You only need to learn how to use it, once you do you feel comfortable with it.

I'm just with the better dinosaur animations...I'm all for better dinosaurs.

machf wrote:

RexHunter99 wrote: As for Anne, the player, I wouldn't remove the arm, it was the unique feature that grabbed me when I first played the game, and it's fine to use until we get to weapons, then things become a pain to manipulate, many people attempt to move Anne's arm to aim at dinosaurs, I learned just to center the weapon in a position that made me comfortable and move the screen to line up te shot, but still many people who began to play the game gave up simply because the arm frustrated them when it came to weapons, so why not at least fix something even the Dev's admitted went wrong? I wouldn't dream of removing her arm for other things though.

Because the arm is what makes Trespasser unique. You can shoot a weapon sideways, you can swing it as a club... you don't need to center the enemy in the middle of the screen. You only need to learn how to use it, once you do you feel comfortable with it.

Can we compromise then? What if I make it an option, one that lets newbies decide what way they want to control the weapons and one for us older players used to how we handle weapons.

There definitely needs to be the arm basically as it is now - just unable to go into crazy, impossible positions. Once you get used to the arm it's fine, I find it easy and am confused by other people not being able to use it, but maybe that's just me.

Personally, I'd have no problems with a newly updated "arm" control system, as long as the "old" version is still available to use. Manipulating the arm through the axes and such is what made - and still makes - Trespasser unique, and I don't think we want to lose that.

Again, as long as we don't worsen the features or change them so much that it doesn't have the same sort of effect as what Trespasser originally had (good points, of course).

Hope I've made sense in this post.. In the end, I don't think that it could turn out not feeling like Trespasser, and something nobody likes.

RexHunter99 wrote:

machf wrote:

RexHunter99 wrote: As for Anne, the player, I wouldn't remove the arm, it was the unique feature that grabbed me when I first played the game, and it's fine to use until we get to weapons, then things become a pain to manipulate, many people attempt to move Anne's arm to aim at dinosaurs, I learned just to center the weapon in a position that made me comfortable and move the screen to line up te shot, but still many people who began to play the game gave up simply because the arm frustrated them when it came to weapons, so why not at least fix something even the Dev's admitted went wrong? I wouldn't dream of removing her arm for other things though.

Because the arm is what makes Trespasser unique. You can shoot a weapon sideways, you can swing it as a club... you don't need to center the enemy in the middle of the screen. You only need to learn how to use it, once you do you feel comfortable with it.

Can we compromise then? What if I make it an option, one that lets newbies decide what way they want to control the weapons and one for us older players used to how we handle weapons.

Yes please, let's make it an option so the players can decide between them!

RexHunter99 wrote: Can we compromise then? What if I make it an option, one that lets newbies decide what way they want to control the weapons and one for us older players used to how we handle weapons.

Sort of a "keep arm centered" checkbox?

My cousin loves the game, but he's not a big fan of the arm, he would prefer if there was an auto-center, auto-pickup (for weapons at least) and crosshair. The ATX "AIM" command takes care of the crosshair, though.

Anne never held a gun in her life, it wouldn't make sense if she knew how to hold a gun like a pro and calculate exactly where the projectile will hit. The arm mechanics simulate that very well, and it makes the game unique. It should definitely not be removed, the idea of turning an option on/off sounds good to me, if you don't mind doing more programming that is.

RexHunter99 wrote:Physics based animations are still not possible, we keep believing it is but it isn't, if we used physics-based we'd still have a small limit to how many dinosaurs can be active, we'd still have the very small distance dinosaurs can be active and we'd still have the huge problem of dinosaurs tripping over themselves, of getting stuck within themselves or other objects.

How does physics based animation relate to the distance and maximum of creatures active? Doesn't Grand Theft Auto 4 use physics based animations? It can have a very large amount of people active. Same thing with tripping and getting stuck, people in GTA4 don't trip of get stuck.

Andreas Triassicus wrote:Trespasser was not a good product by far, and although it was revolutionary in many areas it had (and still has) too many technical shortcomings that seriously affected the playability and enjoyment, hence all the bad reviews. And now that it seems we (well, you guys) have the chance, why not try to do more than only improving fps? Finally we can make it the enjoyable experience it was meant to be from the start! If all we're going to end up with is just a little smoother running edition of the same bug-ridden, rushed excuse for a game, then what is the point?

If you dislike the game so much, then why are you even here?
Of course, any bugs that can be fixed should be fixed, if it doesn't change major parts of the game.
You are telling me you want Trespasser: Recoded to be a generic FPS like Turok was?

Nick3069 wrote:My cousin loves the game, but he's not a big fan of the arm, he would prefer if there was an auto-center, auto-pickup (for weapons at least) and crosshair. The ATX "AIM" command takes care of the crosshair, though.

Anne never held a gun in her life, it wouldn't make sense if she knew how to hold a gun like a pro and calculate exactly where the projectile will hit. The arm mechanics simulate that very well, and it makes the game unique. It should definitely not be removed, the idea of turning an option on/off sounds good to me, if you don't mind doing more programming that is.

But she's obviously seen movies or read books or even seen pro's wield weapons, just because I'd like her to hold a gun at her hip doesn't mean she's going to go all pro and hit everything no matter what she does, I'd more than be happy to make the recoil and weapon accuracy decrease greatly, and aiming down the sights is just common sense, and even then the weapons would not be as accurate as if a Marine or Soldier were holding them.

Nick3069 wrote: How does physics based animation relate to the distance and maximum of creatures active? Doesn't Grand Theft Auto 4 use physics based animations? It can have a very large amount of people active. Same thing with tripping and getting stuck, people in GTA4 don't trip of get stuck.

How? In Trespasser they limited the distance and number due to how much logic time it took to process them (Trespasser runs really well without Dinosaurs active, once the dinos are active the fps drops heavily and the real glitches begin...) even with todays advances in hardware and with the heavy use of mutliple threads (for instance, I could process all AI in a single thread on another core of your CPU) we can't have that many creatures active at once, and the distance we could have them active at would be hampered to make sure closer dinosaurs get logic time too.
As for GTA, either you're wrong and it uses pre-recorded animations and state processing (all the previous ones have and they all worked well, so why change it?) or my explanation is proven, GTA AI is simple, all they do is walk, run, shoot, bash, drive (and when driving, the AI is a car, not a human, and physics is only processed when considering hydraulics, suspension and physical shape of the car, and even then those are really only used for collisions...)

Nick3069 wrote: If you dislike the game so much, then why are you even here?
Of course, any bugs that can be fixed should be fixed, if it doesn't change major parts of the game.
You are telling me you want Trespasser: Recoded to be a generic FPS like Turok was?

Maybe he's been waiting for someone to come out and begin doing what I am, as for changing major parts of the game, it seems most of you are so scared that I'm just going to go out and turn Trespasser into some foriegn monster when I'd be more than happy to go back and change features to suit Trespasser's style, there are some things in Trespasser even I love too much to have them change drastically, but then, why can't we experiment? What's there to lose if we try out something new?

As for Trespasser: reloaded becoming a Turok monster, I would never want that to happen, I was so dissapointed with Turok that I took it back to EB Games and demanded a refund for half an hour before they caved in and just gave me my fifty dollars, so why would I turn Trespasser into soemthing like that?

Nick3069 wrote:

Andreas Triassicus wrote:Trespasser was not a good product by far, and although it was revolutionary in many areas it had (and still has) too many technical shortcomings that seriously affected the playability and enjoyment, hence all the bad reviews. And now that it seems we (well, you guys) have the chance, why not try to do more than only improving fps? Finally we can make it the enjoyable experience it was meant to be from the start! If all we're going to end up with is just a little smoother running edition of the same bug-ridden, rushed excuse for a game, then what is the point?

If you dislike the game so much, then why are you even here?
Of course, any bugs that can be fixed should be fixed, if it doesn't change major parts of the game.
You are telling me you want Trespasser: Recoded to be a generic FPS like Turok was?

No, no, you got me wrong. I have been in love with Trespasser since I read the preview in Games Master in 1998, played the demo and finally the full game in 99. I have played through that game more times than I can think of, with all kinds of hardware, exploring every corner of the game. One can hardly say i dislike it. But honestly, as a game (the total experience) it had too many issues and was a disappointment. I think RexHunter sums it up quite nicely.

To me Trespasser is the game that never were, what we got at the time was not the game they intended to release. Why so protective of a game that was basicly another beta, when it could have been so good? Of course I don't want to turn it into Turok, I don't like Turok. that's just jungle-Doom. I really don't think we have to fear that the soul of Trespasser will be lost, RexHunter obviously know what he's doing.