Animation Lock: Why don't you like it?

[SkyeWindbinder]

A lot of that has to do with the simple fact that you can't put a full storyboard on a platter to feed to the fans. For many, that's precisely because it's the meat of the meal meant to be enjoyed later.

Note that you still had "What's the story?" on that list. While I agree that the as a concept is hugely intertwined with the aesthetics of the game (just as camera work or scene display is with the storytelling), it is also... well... story. And as long as the rest are good (good is enough), that'll be the hook that gets me.

I don't know. I think it has more to do with the fast that what pleases Final Fantasy fans most are the story and graphics aspects of the game. I mean, that's what people who create FF games focus on tweaking the most. Because those are the aspects of the game that it's usually built around and for. A huge emphasis is put on gameplay and story. That's what fans of the series clamor for. Not how the game controls. As long as it's at least controllable, awesome. Final Fantasy is graded on mostly aesthetics.

[Shurrikhan]

I don't know. I think it has more to do with the fast that what pleases Final Fantasy fans most are the story and graphics aspects of the game. I mean, that's what people who create FF games focus on tweaking the most. Because those are the aspects of the game that it's usually built around and for. A huge emphasis is put on gameplay and story. That's what fans of the series clamor for. Not how the game controls. As long as it's at least controllable, awesome. Final Fantasy is graded on mostly aesthetics.

I agree with that. I was simply saying that story is as high an expectation, even if not as ostensible a part of the hype for a not yet released game, as aesthetics.

[Alhanelem]

It was noted earlier that aesthetics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive, this is most certainly true.

No, they're not mutually exclusive, but having one most definitely does not mean having the other.

An RPG or MMO (especially Final Fantasy) is on the other end of the spectrum. Aesthetics are a primary engagement tool, and that aesthetic is based on 'Realism' (*see definition above).

err, actually, no, it's not on the other end of the spectrum. Final FANTASY is a FANTASY game. Fantasy meaning stuff that's not real. Magic isn't real. A lot of the things many of the characters do in many of the games is not physically realistic. I think you may be confusing 'realistic" with "natural"- something that looks like it belongs and doesn't feel out of place.

When animation blending is implemented, you will most likely not notice the lack of animation lock. Animations will be blended, such that there isn't a sudden instant change in character's positions when they initiate different actions. Blending creates a smooth transition automatically, without needing special transition animations that lock your character in place (which is what 1.0 had).

In a Final Fantasy game, the 'Realism'(*again, see definition above) always comes first.

False. Many final fantasy games have good gameplay. Good aesthetics come with that gameplay, but that doesn't mean the aesthetics came first.

The TL;DR if your post is: in Fnal fantasy, graphics are everything and gameplay is not important. Even if I agreed, which I don't, this isn't a standard final fantasy game. It's an MMORPG, and gameplay is inherently more important to an MMORPG than a singleplayer one. In a single player RPG, the gameplay is sometimes more shallow because it is only a vehicle to drive the story (and by extension, the aesthetics). However, in an MMORPG, the main story is just the beginning.

Without strong gameplay mechanics, this game will fall flat on its face just like the first one, no matter how pretty the grpahics are or how good the story is.

Soo, once again- In this thread: Gameplay doesn't matter as long as it is pleasing to the eye and the story is good. Everything else is secondary! Read that again. Are you sure that really sounds like a good idea?

[Zantetsuken]

. I think you may be confusing 'realistic" with "natural"- something that looks like it belongs and doesn't feel out of place.

I see that even three references to my definition of 'Realism' weren't enough.

When animation blending is implemented, you will most likely not notice the lack of animation lock. Animations will be blended, such that there isn't a sudden instant change in character's positions when they initiate different actions. Blending creates a smooth transition automatically, without needing special transition animations that lock your character in place.

So what happens to a player who tries to walk away just 2 hits into Chaos-thrust? Do they forgo the rest of the hits or just flail about in midair?

Blending doesn't solve that issue. Either the remainder of the WS animation is cancelled, or the player runs around stabbing at the air while magically hitting the target behind them.

In order to maintain 'Realism' (*see definition above), either multi-hit weapon skills need to go, or animation lock needs to stay in some form.

[Alhanelem]

I see that even three references to my definition of 'Realistic' weren't enough.



So what happens to a player who tries to walk away just 2 hits into Chaos-thrust? Do they forgo the rest of the hits or just flail about in midair?

Blending doesn't solve that issue. Either the remainder of the WS animation is cancelled, or the player runs around stabbing at the air while magically hitting the target behind them.

Did you see any of this in the videos we've seen? I sure didn't.

The animation lock most of us are complaining about and don't want is the animation lock where you SHOULD be able to move, realistically, but cannot, because you are arbitrarily rooted in place. Where the desired movement isn't logically possible, it still makes sense to keep the player in place. You lock the player not based on the animation itself, but based on when it makes sense to be able to move or not.

Good gameplay mechanics also avoid issues with your second possibility: If the gameplay mechanics are well made and you move in the middle of your attack, if you are not in a position where you can hit the enemy, then that hit misses. simple as that. That is, you design the WS so the hits are actually timed at various points in the attack (to correspond with where the animation is actually "striking"). Then you do checks at these times as to whether the player is facing the target or not.

Animation lock can very greatly in its level of obtrusiveness. In a bad example like XI and XIV 1.0, you can't move for a very long time after an action- a much longer time than is realistic based on the animation. In a good example, the animation itself might move the character (e.g. a leaping attack where your character moves forward towards the target actually moves you there) and the control lockout ends immediately on reaching the target point.

In short- sometimes it is realistic to lock out control- but those lockouts need to be realistic rather than simply being from start to end of a model animation.

In order to maintain 'Realism' (*see definition above), either multi-hit weapon skills need to go, or animation lock needs to stay in some form.

See above. multiple hit attacks are completely and totally doable without having animation lock.

To me, a great example of the animation lock situation is Zelda: Twilight Princess vs. Zelda skyward sword. In the former, you can swing your sword any way you want while on the run. No animation lock and it works perfectly- it wasn't unrealistic at all.. In Skyward Sword, there is animation lock when you swing your sword. This was very frustrating for many people coming off the previous game which let you swing while moving, because every attack stops you dead in your tracks.

Real life human beings aren't subject to animation lock, why should our characters in game be, if you're talking about realism?

[Zantetsuken]

The animation lock most of us are complaining about and don't want is the animation lock where you SHOULD be able to move, realistically, but cannot, because you are arbitrarily rooted in place. Where the desired movement isn't logically possible, it still makes sense to keep the player in place. You lock the player not based on the animation itself, but based on when it makes sense to be able to move or not.

I agree with the above, but too many here are asking for a complete removal of the the animation lock -- throwing the baby of 'realism' out with the bathwater of inconvenience.

Good gameplay mechanics also avoid issues with your second possibility: If the gameplay mechanics are well made and you move in the middle of your attack, if you are not in a position where you can hit the enemy, then that hit misses. simple as that. That is, you design the WS so the hits are actually timed at various points in the attack (to correspond with where the animation is actually "striking"). Then you do checks at these times as to whether the player is facing the target or not.

Even with improved server-client reaction time, I doubt latency will be low enough to allow this many checks per second in ARR.

As I said before, 1.0 latency really made animation lock seem much worse than it actually was. And the fact that battles were designed without latency and animation lock in mind was the only thing that made players aware enough to complain about it.

[Shougun]

I agree with the above, but too many here are asking for a complete removal of the the animation lock -- throwing the baby of 'realism' out with the bathwater of inconvenience.

Like realism, hate animation lock. Imho for a FF game (wild physical feats possible) no animation lock is more realistic then animation lock. Still a weighted system would be cooler (no turning your thrust and hitting still, or actually being able to stop mid way by like 'esc' key or other canceling feature (moving)).

Even with improved server-client reaction time, I doubt latency will be low enough to allow this many checks per second in ARR.

As I said before, 1.0 latency really made animation lock seem much worse than it actually was. And the fact that battles were designed without latency and animation lock in mind was the only thing that made players aware enough to complain about it.

No idea about their server tech, but I know the intense action games actually predict combat in order to make it look like it is happening in the now. I have very little experience with servers but I imagine adding that feature would take a lot of work. SE is against an interesting wall of "needs to be better before release, take your time" and "other games, fresh games, are being released that may have more features then you, hurry up". . .

Still, anybody with that kind of action programming speak up, I have no idea how probable it would be (the real time visual combat) - besides just guessing like most people (and SE resource police'rs drive me crazy lol).