» Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:36 am
Apparently this sort of interaction is incredibly difficult to program. I remember on the commentary for Half Life 2: Episode 2 that the made up a new system for Alyx (the companion to the PC in the game) to enter the vehicle that was featured. They scripted a system where she would move to one of a handful of entry points using the AI and then execute an animated sequence to move from that point into the vehicle. Keep in mind that this was for that character to navigate merely a single object in the game, If every boulder or tree can potentially be climbed by the player character that at least some of the companions ought to be able to do the same. And even if any companions merely waited for the player to climb back down instead of running around aimlessly like most NPCs in the past have done, I think it would still be difficult to work out a system for the player to navigate the obstacles. Sure, Assassin's creed allowed almost limitless freedom when scaling buildings, but buildings are blockish and square, and brick that protrude at regular intervals that happen to be great places to hold on to are not at all out of place on a plaster facade, however, designing a tree to be climbable while still looking like a tree I think is an effort that would yield too little of a reward. I'd much rather see a beautiful landscape and a fleshed out game world with excellent control, combat and interaction systems, but no climbable trees, than an ugly, buggy, bad game where i can climb to the top of any oak or mountain peak i please.
In game design, everything is a tradeoff. Yes, I'm sure it is very possible to make rocks, trees, and cliffsides that you can scramble up for a better view or quick escape, but the tradeoff is that less time would be spent making a combat system that is effective, a storyline that is engaging, or a game world that is enthralling. Maybe someday, there will be a great game that revolves around swinging from branches and scaling rock walls, but i really hope that that game is not TES 5.