Line of sight -- how do you prefer it?

0

0rganism

First time out of the vault
One thing I noticed in all the Fallout games is that terrain in any given area is revealed, although enemies, NPCs, and traps are not. Compare that to X-Com: UFO Defense where terrain, enemies, and civilians are unknown until discovery. Which do you prefer from the standpoint of fun gaming?

One thing a fully 3D engine gives is an opportunity to implement true dynamic LOS, from first-person or isometric view. Should Bethesda do it or not?
 
Anyone remember Nox? Hack-n-slash RPG by Westwood?
It was a top-down engine, and anything that your character didn't see, you didn't see... hmm.... okay, basically, it was fog of war (insert self-deprecating remark)... but it was the best implementation of fog of war I've ever seen.

$0.02
 
Fallout with Fog of War? Fuck no. That is totally unnecessary. Almost as bad as fixing the camera focus on your character.

Christ. Isn't there a post explaining why this is a bad idea somewhere already?
 
Ashmo said:
Christ. Isn't there a post explaining why this is a bad idea somewhere already?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I haven't seen it yet. If you can find one, or write one yourself, I'll certainly read it.

I did like the effect it had in X-Com:UFO, where the player was never sure what s/he'd find around the next corner. Of course, after a while, you learn the layout of the more common UFOs but the bases and towns are always something of a mystery.

After playing Fallout a couple times, it gets to the point where I'm going into an area thinking, "Yeah, I know this place, and the baddies are always up there, in there and over there." Takes away from the suspense, ya know?
 
Given your example of X-Com, and I'll add Jagged Alliance, I prefer it in those situations. Those are tactical, squad based games. Fallout is a crpg. And LOS can be good if done well, but I would rather there not be any limitations.
 
I think this is the only thing about fallout that I don't feel strongly about either way... as long as the camera is not locked on your character, i guess i can deal with wathever comes...

LazyGnome said:
Anyone remember Nox? Hack-n-slash RPG by Westwood?
It was a top-down engine, and anything that your character didn't see, you didn't see... hmm.... okay, basically, it was fog of war (insert self-deprecating remark)... but it was the best implementation of fog of war I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Nox's camera locked on your character? anyway, it was a pretty good hack'n'slash , tough i almost forget it sometimes...
 
I suppose LOS could be done okay-ish if you give the player a LONG view distance (as in two to three screens or so) and blacken out only the univisited area (as it is done on the world map and on your PipBoy "minimap") and hide all NPCs that are outside the LOS and maybe let them fade out when they leave your LOS so they don't just pop up or pop out that much. Or whatever.

However I strongly oppose the idea of having a short view distance and regrowing (black) fog of war. This is a bloody CRPG, not survival horror or about tactical combat.

However some maps should be completely revealed beforehand. It'd be retarded to have a vault dweller not know what his own vault looks like on the inside and the NCR holodisk would most likely also tell you the layout of at least the capital (Shady, the NCR town in FO2).

But if you're in a subterranean raider camp it's indeed unlikely that you'll know every path beforehand. Just don't go too far and make places feel like dungeons.
 
Maps should be revealed from the start, the whole "scratch off the field of war to reveal the level" has been annoying and is still annoying outside of the strategy genre. It also doesn't fit well when many enjoy playing sniper characters, unless the LOS boundary was quite far away. If that was so, then it wouldn't be such a problem.

Preferably to me, LOS should be used to show which actors are seen, along with any lighting effects, and that's it. Typically what you'd see in Arcanum or Fallout. Those not seen are simply not shown and they come into view accordingly with movement or change of viewpoint.

This is again preferable to many people who do tire of the fog of war scratchcard. That generally leads you into false patterns that lead to getting flanked, merely because your characters can't see far enough and they get attacked from the side as they are caught "scraping" away the shroud. Yes, it does lose a few points for not having "realism", but people generally can estimate a building's structure from seeing two sides or a general floorplan if they are familiar with similar designs. Caves could be done easily by having the light shading circles and strengths drawn in towards the characters to have it feel a bit more enclosed. For Vaults, light could reflect depending upon shiny surfaces, which would be pretty neat if the power is out. Rooms in general should be faded out with the general floorplan known, but the contents not known until the player opens the building and takes a look inside.

Again, I have to state, people are getting tired of having to play TO the automap or shroud in games. It really only belongs in a couple of kinds of games, but in the case of RPGs, you often don't need to use a shroud unless you're using stupid map design tricks like hiding a barrel full of magic items right outside of the camera's view but still in the general area where anyone of the NPCs could take it.

Alternatively, if the LOS was strict, in only showing what you could see at a time much like in the middle Ultima games, that wouldn't be too bad. It's better than the scratchcard shroud, but it often leads to developers pulling lame action game tricks like a wall or two dozen dropping down behind you to reveal monsters a la DOOM.
 
Hell no, Fallout should not have fog of war! There was only one decent implementation I can remember, and that is the one in Nox, where objects cast realistic "shadows" as your character moves past them. Every other implementation was ugly and bloody annoying, in all games, strategy and RPG. Just remember Command & Conquer, for fuck's sake - in a game which takes place in the near future, where your troops are equipped with technologies of amazing power, you do not even have a simple satellite sweep at your disposal, so you must send out footmen to explore the terrain like some prehistoric moron. Or, if you prefer RPGs, take Baldur's Gate, where you feel like your party is a shovelling through a thick layer of pitch-black foam, and you are forced to spend half an hour scouting every square centimeter of the map or risk missing a critical item that was conveniently placed in the farthest corner of the <insert a generic D&D area>. Realism my ass! If anybody says that hideous black fog thing is needed for a good tactical game, just look at Commandos and dare to repeat it in my face.

The only two ways to implement line of sight in a satisfactory manner are either the trivial one - to have a first person or chase cam view, in which case characters and objects are obscured naturally by obstacles in the area - or the less realistic one we have seen in Fallout, where NPCs are invisible until they come into your field of view. Anything else just disfigures the maps that developers painstakingly designed and turns the game into a tedious scouting nightmare.
 
It's becoming clear that there's a mix-up about "Fog of War" vs. "Line of Sight", and I can see that this caused some confusion -- perhaps even revulsion -- with respect to the initial question. Line of Sight does not equal Fog of War, although some would say that Fog of War is a (primitive) type of Line of Sight. I initially picked the example of X-Com rather than, say, Warcraft, because X-Com uses a LOS method pretty close to how things really do look in unfamiliar terrain. Heck, if you haven't played X-Com:UFO yet, do yourself a favor and track down a copy, cos it's an exceptional game for its time. You'll see what I mean.

Fog of War usually puts a radius of "knowledge" around a unit or the PC, and obscures everything else. What I meant by LOS is a bit more in-depth, but follows some predictable rules wherein objects on the playfield obscure that portion of terrain that they would naturally mask. An explorer's vision is comparable to a light source revealing objects that are casting shadows of unexplored terrain. Basically,

1) higher elevations mask lower elevations behind them
2) taller objects mask shorter objects behind them
3) shorter objects partially mask taller objects behind them

Of course, some implementations allow for additional sight obstructions -- smoke from a fire, for example, might partially mask entities in or behind the smoke..

To illustrate, suppose a PC is walking down a street with multiple buildings on two sides. I'll use "roguelike" notation for this, where @ is the observer, # is visible building interior, - and | are walls, = are windows or open doors, and Y is a tall tree. Unobscured, it would look like
Code: 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|######################|'''''''''''''''''''|######### 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|######################|'''YY''''''''''''''=######### 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|######################|'''YY''''''''''''''=######### 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|######################|'''''''''''''''''''|######### 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,+------==-------==-----+'''''''''''''''''''+----==--- 
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
.......@............................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,+----==----+...+---==-------==---==--+......+----==--- 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|##########|...|#####################|......|#########
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=##########|...=#####################|......=#########
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=##########|...=#####################|......=#########
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|##########|...|#####################|......|#########
Using standard Line of Sight, the oberver will see the entire street, the fronts of the buildings, but anything in between the buildings or behind walls would be obscured:
Code: 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|          ####     ###|         ''''''''''| ###    # 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|         ###      ###     YY   '''''''''''=###    ## 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|        ##       ##       YY '''''''''''''=#     ##  
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|       ##       ##      ''''''''''''''''''|     ##   
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,+------==-------==-----+'''''''''''''''''''+----==--- 
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
.......@............................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,+----==----+...+---==-------==---==--+ .....+----==--- 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|     ##     ..|    ##       ##   ## |   ...|     ##  
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=#     ##     .=#    ##       ##   ##|     .=#     ## 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=##     ###    =##    ###      ###  #|      =##     ##
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,| ###    ##|   | ###   ####     #### |        ###    #

"Fog of War" in the same situation might look more like this:
Code: 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|#####################
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|######################
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|######################|
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|######################|'
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,+------==-------==-----+''
.........................................
..........................................
..........................................
.......@..................................
.........................................
........................................
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,+----==----+...+---==----
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|##########|...|########
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=##########|...=#######
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=##########|...=######
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,|##########|...|#####

So there's a useful distinction we should make in this discussion. Arguably, the Fog of War makes for better gaming in some RTS and strategy games, where one nets additional options for building up a base or deploying troops based on a lack of knowledge by the opponent(s). I wouldn't consider it for a game like Fallout. The Fallout series already does some LOS, and does it rather well in the context of necessary transparencies in the isometric view, with respect to building interiors when viewed from the outside, and NPCs being visible, but a design decision was made to simplify the engine with respect to terrain. Whether this was done to improve gameplay or meet some other contingency I don't know. However, Bethesda is proposing to develop Fallout 3 with a true 3-d engine and -- assuming an isometric view is still an option -- that raises the possibility of doing true line-of-sight.
 
Thank you for explaining it for those who don't know the difference. I just wanted to clarify that certain aspects of other "LOS systems" out there do not suit this style of gameplay. It sucked in Baldur's Gate, it sucked in PS:T, it sucked in ToEE.

A sight system that of Arcanum or Jagged Alliance 2, perfect (except for that stupid LOS addition someone did for JA2 Wildfire that gave away the enemy's exact location without fail as a red square - IDIOTS. Jebus, can you give insight into that insanity?)
 
I actually never thought I'd say this but Fallout Tactics had a good line of sight feature, where the enemies would be grey if you couldn't see them but knew that they were there and of course invisible if you didn't know they were there. You could see all the building tho, including interior if I recall correctly.
 
I really hate fog of war, it's completely annoying and useless outside of RTS games. It doesn't enhance my feeling of discovery in an RPG (which I assume is what it's there for), it just ends up distracting me from the actual game while I clear it off the screen.
 
Didn't they originally use fog of war to limit the CPU usage ie optimize the engine ?
 
Odin said:
Didn't they originally use fog of war to limit the CPU usage ie optimize the engine ?
Click to expand...
Maybe, but that seems kind of pointless - what if you have units placed everywhere on the map, thereby removing most of the FOW? Besides, I used to play Warcraft on a 386, and I don't recall the game running any slower even when the entire map was visible to me. I could be mistaken, however.
 
i'd say, let it depent on your xp, items and perception. when you have a low level or low perception you would see worser. high xp and perception and/or scanners will give you a better sight. i mean looking in houses, not in the plain desert
 
Odin said:
I actually never thought I'd say this but Fallout Tactics had a good line of sight feature, where the enemies would be grey if you couldn't see them but knew that they were there and of course invisible if you didn't know they were there. You could see all the building tho, including interior if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...


Ive got to admit that Ive been thinking the same thing, that was one thing that I enjoyed about Craptics. It would also make FO more intersting, and sneak more useful, as you would have to be careful incase a enemy was around a corner waiting to initate combat and empty a minugun into you.
 
IMO Fog Of War sucks, you feel like sitting in the center of moving hole.
It's true that FOT:BoS has the best sollution. You see only those units your player can see and it's definitely better than view in F1,2
 
Generally I'd prefer "Standard LOS" from the Rattys illustrations in any RPG game, but ONLY if:

1) LOS has a big range. In real life, a human can see more than a mile away, he can't see clearly, but he can (the gray-out critters from FOT). That might be a bit too much for an RPG, but most certainly the LOS should be much bigger than in ToEE, for example. Player's (and all others, but that matter) LOS should have two distances - the closest one where you see everything clearly and the farthest one where you only see buildings and critter outlines.

2) Not an all-around LOS. No one can see in all directions at once. And this would make party formations meaningful outside of battle, and also allow stuff like enemies following you but hiding when you turn around.

3) Memory. If you go in a house, you find a man there, you leave the house and go into another - the man should still show up in the first house in some special rendering, indicating that you *remember* that he's there, though he might have already have gone. Same for items, etc. Ever played ADOM? Now that game would have the perfect one for me - if it had had 1) and 2).

About the sniper characters - LOS should be dependant on perception and - occasionally - on equipment. I.e. - if you have a high PE, you can see and shoot stuff at a further distance. If you equip a sniper rifle, you get a boost to LOS range, but loose it's width (since you're looking through a scope).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top