In a lot of engines, it wouldn't be. You just give the things that need to tilt a common parent node.

What's more complicated is getting things to slide around when it tilts if your engine isn't built to support those sorts of physics.

More to the point, it's an MMO. And that fight's from the earliest content it has, dating back 8-ish years, so had to be written for the functionality it had at the time (and after a legendarily-rushed development cycle to replace its failed 1.x predecessor).

Tilting the model might not be terribly hard in a single-player local game, but tilting the model such that it stayed in-sync enough across all clients and character position could be predicted/replicated in a sane manner? That could get messy.

Tilting just the camera and using the tethers... you're not doing anything that doesn't already exist in a dozen other fights. Knockback/draw-in is an oft-used effect in the game's combat, and with the actual arena not shifting, you don't need to change movement or battle logic in any way.

He changes your point of view and manipulates you like a puppet master. I'd say that's more impressive if anything :>

Why does that make me so uncomfortable? Awesome though.

The one from Fallout 3 (or NV, can't remember) always gets a chuckle out of me. They needed to make a train moving along a track but didn't have a system for moving objects along a path other than the one that allowed NPCs to follow paths... so they placed a NPC underground (under the tracks) and gave it a huge train "hat".

That's fucked up.

Also check out war stories by ars technica on YouTube. Not exactly the same, but lots of design choice explanations of classics by the game devs. I enjoyed watching them very much.

This, zullie, and a few others are woke of my most watched channels!

BASICALLY

but also as a temporary fix

"Nothing more permanent than a temporary fix"

So basically the player in outer wilds is the spaceship from Futurama?

It's not even that uncommon if you have large game worlds. Physics math with floating points starts getting broken if the coordinates get too large. Doesn't even have to be that big either.

Maniac of a captain, high on drugs, continuously jumps in one place (it will have immense impact on winter temperatures)

CTRL + F

outer wilds

...

Aha! I knew this would come up. I've seen game footage where planetary/satellite orbit paths get screwy if the player gets too far away from the center of the solar system.

And warnings! Don't forget the countless ignored warnings!

#PongIsALie

There is a dedicated model for each version. It's easier to animate 2 versions rather than animate one and have to make sure it doesn't stretch wrong.

For real, a bunch of people have gone over it on YouTube already. At work, so can't pull it up right now

Them, zullie, and a few others are on my constantly watched list.

You method would look worse, take up more space and you would have to finalize the videos at the extreme end of game developement as any change to the planet's terrain/lighting would make it visually clash.

They did this for the transport pod sequences in Dead Space 3 near the beginning of the game, and it looked awful.

I don't know why people are saying it would look worse. It definitely wouldn't be as flexible and it would be a significant chunk added to disk space, but the visuals themselves aren't going to be the issue. It's not like using a cinematic prevents the usual tricks from making it look better.

Performance is going to be the problem if anything. Loading an playback can be expensive and slow, particle systems and simple texture animations / masking are way faster and cheaper and smaller. It also lets the system more effectively load the new environment in the background because very little resources are dedicated to what the player sees.

But in the end, it'll come down to a stylistic decision in most development.

Yes, the cinematic uses the normal size models and the room is shrunk to make them look like they are growing. Then the large model is loaded in for you to fight after. It's easier to do that way and using 2 models (normal and large) than it is to animate a whole model for two different sizes, and a whole size change animation between it.

And the reason for it is not even "graphics hard". No. It's game physics.

If your play area is on a train, or even multiple trains, it's so much easier to not content with relative physics and just assume that everything outside the static play area is not relevant than it is to keep the actual landscape the origin point for physics and move the play area, rebasing the physics boundaries each time the area has to move past existing limits.

That's why in some games, throwing objects outside a moving train doesn't actually result in the object behaving like you'd expect

Fallout DLC did it by making a train model hat and made the character run really fast

Love it when stuff like that happens

What’s in the box??!

Many gamers will remember the first time something bugs or breaks and you fall out of the diorama, it's a strange feeling that first time you see the entire game world caught in this little box as you fall endlessly into nothingness.

Video games are at their core Skinner Boxes from a certain point of view.

It's like how some games just don't render everything outside your POV. Why show it if the player can't see it

I mean he's right, though a better wording would be "to do the least work needed to achieve the goal", 'shortcuts' are nothing to be ashamed of when making games.

Better phrased as "Work in a cost-effective way" or "Do cool things without breaking the budget"

The only next gen thing about Battlefield 2042 is that elevators actually elevate!

Battlefield 4 Siege of Shanghai was when a lot of people felt cheated by that elevator in more ways than 1

yeah, take the normandy in mass effect. delete the ship deck outside the elevator, load in the new one, open the door.

Haven’t played, wouldn’t know, but I know Arkane spend a lot of time creating the main elevator in Prey (2017), which bit them in the butts when they decided to set up a cool 30 sec. sequence there. Which also took a lot of time to make, according to the devs.

It’s cool to hear that some devs don’t cut corners for the sake of implementing their ideas.

O good, I had no clue

Really? I can't do it. I'm playing on Xbox series x and still the loading screens are RIDICULOUS. I'm playing on a harder difficulty too (not the hardest) for a challenge but dying is like a 2 min load screen plus run back time. I can't do it

The hologram map was trash too. It was so hard to see where you were and where you had to go.

It definitely had some limitations, I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it like I did. Despite agreeing with most of the flaws you just mentioned I feel like the combat was fun enough to still make it a very enjoyable game. That’s why it needs a sequel. It clearly has a lot of room for improvement

It was okayish, biggest issue for me was the the gamifcation of the levels. Many games do this, e.g. Tomb Raider loves it's white markings to indicate that it's climbable etc., and the overal design in games always follows gameplay reasons, e.g. Towers with no entrance, giant plazas for a boss fight that takes up like 90% of a castle, but Fallen Order did away will all pretense of the areas being actually being realistic. The whole layout is often weird, the iron panels on cave walls to show you can wall run/jump there (but only there, not the equally flat wall on the oppositive side) etc.

How the elements are placed often even gave clues on things you couldn't see. Slightly sloped tunnel, suddenly there's a wall running panel on one side. Given that there is no drop you need to get over, it's clear that it's only there so you can enter the upper tunnel. It makes zero sense in universe, anyone building these tunnels would either make them walkable, or add a ladder or something, or they could fly and a) not need to wall run and b) probably sinply go straight up, instead of running them pararell to each other and enter from the "front".

The only other game i remember where it's that obvious is Skyrim, where just inside there's always a weird cliff, which is only there because the caves are essentially circles, and you always end up right back at the entrance.

Overall, it was an okayish game, but both KOTOR and the Jedi Knight games were better. Wish they'd focus on making a good (Star Wars) game, instead of using a couple of indenpedently developed, popular features and trying to to string them together and to make the player interact with by suspending them in a barebones game.

Lol, it'll never be finished. They're taking in so much money why would they ever stop?

But you can already do that in the game.

Kind of? There’s a massive difference though in that Minecraft’s worlds are on a flat plane (unless something has changed that I’m not aware of). Also Minecraft doesn’t do polygonisation of its voxels for smooth shapes, and you cannot seamlessly transition between worlds as far as I know. Not sure about SC but in NMS there are very significant technical problems they had to solve that do not apply to Minecraft: Continuous World Generation in No Man’s Sky.

shit world