PDA

View Full Version : The lockpicking mini-game: what to do, and what not to do



Pretentious Old Man.
21st Jul 2010, 13:31
Well, odd as it sounds that twenty years from now mechanical locks should be phased out, and then twenty years after that be phased back in again, we know that this is Eidos's intention. Moreover, we know that unlike the old multitool fire-and-forget, we now have to undergo a certain "minigame" to hack past locked doors.

Minigames vary vastly in both complexity, boringness, and relevance. The lockpicking in "Thief" (Deadly Shadows in particular) felt like actually picking a lock, even if it could become mind-numbingly tedious by the end. Oblivion's lockpicking on the other hand, whilst it still used the concept of pins, was an absolute aberration, by common consensus.

Hacking mini-games are more difficult. Hacking in real life is difficult, and requires a great deal of know-how that developers simply cannot expect the average Joe gamer (or even the above-average Joe gamer) to possess. Thus, some abstraction is always required. In my opinion, Mass Effect's numerous hacking minigames are a good example of how not to do it. Shallow, arbitrary, and with no obvious relevance to the real world. Oh, and horrendously tedious.

Bioshock, on the same note, also had a poorly-conceived hacking system (at least in my view). In a botched attempt to make what was increasingly turning into a basic FPS into something more closely resembling SS2, it tried to make hacking something viable. Sadly, it was clearly a thrown-in feature, and could just get tear-inducingly boring by the end. Moreover, there was a serious disparity between PC and console versions in terms of how the minigame scaled with difficulty.

They needn't really have bothered, since SS2 itself had an excellent hacking minigame. I'm not saying it didn't get tedious by the end (it did), but it was both challenging and felt realistic.

Now, what ground is EM going to tread here? Well, let's outline what we know already. First off, no resource management. To better fit the "augs reign supreme" credo that EM is clearly working to, hacking resource management is determined more by whether you choose to pour money and skill points into hacking augs rather than whether you were able to find multitools. Even though I do disapprove of the removal of lockpicking, I have to say that the new treatment of hacking sounds very plausible indeed. It always seemed odd that multitools were disposable, and Deus Ex could turn into a bit of a treasure hunt, not conducive to being a super spy.

Overall, not such a bad thing, then, provided resource management of skills and augs still comes in (which it will). But that doesn't address how the minigame works. Well, from what we know, there is going to be an I/O (Input/Output) system, in which you have to transfer (I assume) data packets from I to O, and remain undetected. The systems run constant detection loops around the device you are trying to penetrate, and you have to get from I to O by taking over nodes and forming an unbroken chain. That's actually fairly impressive, as it is a decent approximation of how hardware hacking works. Even though it's not 100% brilliant, it sure as hell beats Mass Effect 2's ridiculous "match the node pairs up" rubbish, that has nothing to do with any hardware at all.

Will the game become tedious? Well, hopefully not. It seems that augmentations can assist in the process, so hopefully by the end of the game, if you are a hacking character, your sheer l33tness should make hacking a short process.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Sweets?

xsamitt
21st Jul 2010, 14:18
Though I have both Bioshock and ME1 and 2 here I yet to play them,waiting for DX3 to come out to make that new build.Now I know a little of what I'm in for lol.
I really dislike not having lock picking or multitools,it's going to feel really strange since even IW at least gave us more freedom than what we will get this time.But who knows,maybe it will all work out just fine,and these are just the ranting of another old man.LOL

Delever
21st Jul 2010, 14:32
In my opinion original Deus Ex way is very good, because it captures essentials of the need to bypass something: you need ability, resources, and time.

- Ability can be determined by you character's skills or augmentations
- Resources can be items to be consumed to bypass a system
- Time adds risk factor to the process

Hacking process can be improved by displaying a console that you character is typing in, making it more "realistic". All you should care is that your character understands the process. Additional game on top of that is fine, as long as it is simple: the most important thing is time that need to be spent hacking.

I would like to leave this stuff for the character that I control, because I trust him to do the job. Better animation of him doing it would be a plus. Sometimes I suspect that implementing those minigames (where all your screen is innards of the lock) is the way to avoid making complex animations of character hands picking a particular lock type.

Blade_hunter
21st Jul 2010, 15:28
This game won't have lockpicking, the developers wants to make the hacking minigame more prevalent, the only things you can hack are electronic padlocks, computers and terminals with the same minigame
The only details I know it's the fact that's a strategy minigame and most importantly it keeps you in the world.
As for the minigame itself it seems to be a sort of fighting against the CPU where you have to conquest nodes and of course defend your owns to win against the CPU.

I have a average idea of what it could be, but really I have a too low amount of info to estimate how exactly it will work ...

IOOI
21st Jul 2010, 16:06
In my opinion original Deus Ex way is very good, because it captures essentials of the need to bypass something: you need ability, resources, and time.

- Ability can be determined by you character's skills or augmentations
- Resources can be items to be consumed to bypass a system
- Time adds risk factor to the process

Hacking process can be improved by displaying a console that you character is typing in, making it more "realistic". All you should care is that your character understands the process. Additional game on top of that is fine, as long as it is simple: the most important thing is time that need to be spent hacking.

I would like to leave this stuff for the character that I control, because I trust him to do the job. Better animation of him doing it would be a plus. Sometimes I suspect that implementing those minigames (where all your screen is innards of the lock) is the way to avoid making complex animations of character hands picking a particular lock type.

EM could've made lockpicking similar to Fallout's mechanics. It would've been good enough, I think.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Lock
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Lock_picking

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 16:10
In my opinion original Deus Ex way is very good, because it captures essentials of the need to bypass something: you need ability, resources, and time.

- Ability can be determined by you character's skills or augmentations
- Resources can be items to be consumed to bypass a system
- Time adds risk factor to the process

Hacking process can be improved by displaying a console that you character is typing in, making it more "realistic". All you should care is that your character understands the process. Additional game on top of that is fine, as long as it is simple: the most important thing is time that need to be spent hacking.

I would like to leave this stuff for the character that I control, because I trust him to do the job. Better animation of him doing it would be a plus. Sometimes I suspect that implementing those minigames (where all your screen is innards of the lock) is the way to avoid making complex animations of character hands picking a particular lock type.

So instead of actually doing something yourself, as the player, you prefer your avatar to do it all for you? Does this extend into conversations and shooting as well?

I'm all for more complexity. Human Revolution has stripped a little of it out. It felt good to see some balance return with the Hacking mini-game and the Conversational Combat. Only actually getting my hands on the game and playing it for myself will determine if these systems are good or not. But they do seem rather promising.

hem dazon 90
21st Jul 2010, 16:11
I like how uplink does it's hacking

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 16:21
The only details I know it's the fact that's a strategy minigame and most importantly it keeps you in the world.
As for the minigame itself it seems to be a sort of fighting against the CPU where you have to conquest nodes and of course defend your owns to win against the CPU.


Why do I get this ugly feeling of "Checkers", or something similar?

Irate_Iguana
21st Jul 2010, 18:14
So instead of actually doing something yourself, as the player, you prefer your avatar to do it all for you?

When it comes to playing minigames that most likely will bore me after the first attempt, yes. I've never seen a minigame, apart from Pazaak, that kept me interested for more than two times. They are either boringly easy or frustrating thanks to randomisation.

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 18:17
When it comes to playing minigames that most likely will bore me after the first attempt, yes. I've never seen a minigame, apart from Pazaak,

Even that one annoyed me something fierce, after a while - but, granted, that had more to do with the sound than actual gameplay.

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 18:51
When it comes to playing minigames that most likely will bore me after the first attempt, yes. I've never seen a minigame, apart from Pazaak, that kept me interested for more than two times. They are either boringly easy or frustrating thanks to randomisation.

This is kinda the point though. It's something you have to do, if you choose to do it. It's part of the consequence. You don't always have to hack in System Shock 2 or Arkham Asylum, but if you do this tedious thing, you are rewarded in some way; direct entry, mostly.

The industry in general already sides with you on this. Most games have removed all things that make for the slightest challenge.

Mindmute
21st Jul 2010, 18:54
You don't always have to hack in System Shock 2 or Arkham Asylum, but if you do this tedious thing, you are rewarded in some way; direct entry, mostly.

The point of a game isn't to bore you, though. It shouldn't challenge you and then reward for beating that challenge, not numb your mind and then reward you to try to make up for it.



I've never seen a minigame, apart from Pazaak, that kept me interested for more than two times.

I liked it too, but always got the idea the npc were cheating...

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 19:22
I liked it too, but always got the idea the npc were cheating...

The only thing I've read about it, from an official source, is that "officially" the NPCs don't cheat... I'd say that leaves it wide open for them actually cheating. It may not just be imagination. :) I've certainly felt the same way on many occasions.

PizzaNo1
21st Jul 2010, 19:50
Wow, thats how ive been feeling also! Damm cheating npc's!

Blade_hunter
21st Jul 2010, 20:31
I don't think it will be like checkers, I think that's closer to a mini RTS where you have to capture nodes (or flags) to expand your territory until you beat the CPU

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 20:31
The point of a game isn't to bore you, though. It shouldn't challenge you and then reward for beating that challenge, not numb your mind and then reward you to try to make up for it.

Ideally, that is very correct. But in reality, there's not single mini-game in existence that isn't its own form of tedious.

The answer to this is hard to say, but surely it is not to remove all mini-games and simply make the avatar do the work for you.

Is the villainy of this path not apparent to everyone?

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 20:37
I don't think it will be like checkers, I think that's closer to a mini RTS where you have to capture nodes (or flags) to expand your territory until you beat the CPU

No, I know... It was just a chilling thought I had. Actually, it was more along the lines of that game (don't know the English name), where you start with two pieces each, in the middle of the board, and "capture" (switch) any pieces that are between one of yours already on the board and a new one you put down.

FrankCSIS
21st Jul 2010, 20:40
The problem with mini games is that a player which opts for a hacking-stealth-lockpicking path will be confronted with the same game to repeat a hundred times or more. There aren't thirty solutions for this. Variety in types of puzzles is one, dynamic games is another, and finding other obstacles than locked doors to challenge the player's progress would be the third. There is also the possibility of auto-unlock once the game considers you've mastered the skill or unlocked enough of them manually.

Plenty of mini games I feel would not really solve the main issue of how tedious the whole principle is. I'd say a good mix of dynamic games well incorporated with the rest of the mechanics, coupled with new innovative ideas of how to limit or challenge the stealth player would work best. I seriously doubt any mini-game can be designed well enough not to become a pain in the arse after ten times. The reason being that once you've mastered it as the player, it becomes this unnecessary constraint which slows you down ever slightly for no good reason. If it's not challenging anymore, it shouldn't be there, because it doesn't serve the actual purpose of the mini-game anymore.

Blade_hunter
21st Jul 2010, 20:44
No, I know... It was just a chilling thought I had. Actually, it was more along the lines of that game (don't know the English name), where you start with two pieces each, in the middle of the board, and "capture" (switch) any pieces that are between one of yours already on the board and a new one you put down.

You meant the Othello/Reversi game ?
http://www.hobbiestoys.net/board-games/images/Othello-Game.jpg

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 20:50
You meant the Othello/Reversi game ?

Oh. It's called Reversi in English as well? Yes, that's it.

Blade_hunter
21st Jul 2010, 21:23
I don't know, only an English guy can tell. I'm a foreigner as you might be

pringlepower
21st Jul 2010, 21:26
The only thing I've read about it, from an official source, is that "officially" the NPCs don't cheat... I'd say that leaves it wide open for them actually cheating. It may not just be imagination. :) I've certainly felt the same way on many occasions.

In KOTOR 1 the NPC had the advantage since you always drew first... I think. I forget, but the order of turns was in their favour, which they fixed in KOTOR 2.

Edit: yeah first. If you went second, the NPC had more turns, and thus opportunity to bust. That always pissed me off. But with quicksave/load, whatever.

Anyways the hacking minigame's described as "RTS-like" and "inspired by Uplink" which I see as good things.

Irate_Iguana
21st Jul 2010, 21:54
This is kinda the point though. It's something you have to do, if you choose to do it. It's part of the consequence. You don't always have to hack in System Shock 2 or Arkham Asylum, but if you do this tedious thing, you are rewarded in some way; direct entry, mostly.

Why include them? Most minigames don't cost you resources. They require very little effort and often even less investment in terms of skill and equipment. You yourself say that they are tedious. Often they break the flow of the game and there are no consequences for it. Is it just to give the player something to do so he won't get bored while his character does something?

RPGs with dicerolls just have the success of the player depend on a roll of the dice. Not enough skill points? Tough. Hitman just has an animation for lockpicking. Timing in that game is everything. Hoping that Mr. 47 picks the lock before the guard rounds the corner is very exiting even though you don't do anything yourself. In DX you had to spend resources (too plentiful IMO, made the skills useless) or you were on a timer. All these ways provide for excitement in a way without depending on a cheap game to involve the player.



I liked it too, but always got the idea the npc were cheating...

They get a suspicious amount of natural twenties. In part one the round system was setup so that the PC was always put at a disadvantage. They fixed that with alternating turn in part two.

Delever
21st Jul 2010, 22:00
So instead of actually doing something yourself, as the player, you prefer your avatar to do it all for you? Does this extend into conversations and shooting as well?

Are you misunderstanding on purpose?


I'm all for more complexity. Human Revolution has stripped a little of it out. It felt good to see some balance return with the Hacking mini-game and the Conversational Combat. Only actually getting my hands on the game and playing it for myself will determine if these systems are good or not. But they do seem rather promising.

I am for environment related complexity. Games should not contain puzzles, they should contain problems that you can solve by taking knowledge from real world (basically I agree with this guy here (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/i_warrenspectorpt1_270606?page=2)). For example: there is a bot, you need to get through. Different thoughts could occur for differnet players how to solve this problem. Like, "I wonder if I can destroy a bot by dropping TNT on top of it?" or "I wonder if it will be destroed if I lower the platform when bot walks underneath it?" or "Hacking this computer might do something". In case of mini game, what you have is unrelated obstacle between forming a hypothesis for overcomming problem and testing it.

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 22:04
Why include them? Most minigames don't cost you resources. They require very little effort and often even less investment in terms of skill and equipment. You yourself say that they are tedious. Often they break the flow of the game and there are no consequences for it. Is it just to give the player something to do so he won't get bored while his character does something?

RPGs with dicerolls just have the success of the player depend on a roll of the dice. Not enough skill points? Tough. Hitman just has an animation for lockpicking. Timing in that game is everything. Hoping that Mr. 47 picks the lock before the guard rounds the corner is very exiting even though you don't do anything yourself. In DX you had to spend resources (too plentiful IMO, made the skills useless) or you were on a timer. All these ways provide for excitement in a way without depending on a cheap game to involve the player.

Tediousness is a consequence.

You walk by a locked door, you could round the corner and find the front entrance. Or, engage in the mini-game and hack your way in. You think it wouldn't be tedious if you were doing it in real life? But it's a game. So they make it less difficult and less tedious. But it's still a chore.

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 22:10
I am for environment related complexity. Games should not contain puzzles, they should contain problems that you can solve by taking knowledge from real world (basically I agree with this guy here (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/i_warrenspectorpt1_270606?page=2)). For example: there is a bot, you need to get through. Different thoughts could occur for differnet players how to solve this problem. Like, "I wonder if I can destroy a bot by dropping TNT on top of it?" or "I wonder if it will be destroed if I lower the platform when bot walks underneath it?" or "Hacking this computer might do something". In case of mini game, what you have is unrelated obstacle between forming a hypothesis for overcomming problem and testing it.

It's a hacking mini-game. They didn't remove environmental complexity in favor of hacking. In fact, hacking is part of the environmental complexity.

Irate_Iguana
21st Jul 2010, 22:18
Tediousness is a consequence.

You walk by a locked door, you could round the corner and find the front entrance. Or, engage in the mini-game and hack your way in. You think it wouldn't be tedious if you were doing it in real life? But it's a game. So they make it less difficult and less tedious. But it's still a chore.

Tediousness barely registers as a consequence and generally kicks in after thirty seconds. Minigames are a mere moment of annoyance. They don't require anything from your character. Their only contribution to the game is a bit of frustration.

pringlepower
21st Jul 2010, 22:20
Tediousness barely registers as a consequence and generally kicks in after thirty seconds. Minigames are a mere moment of annoyance. They don't require anything from your character. Their only contribution to the game is a bit of frustration.

Depends if it scales to character stats or not

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 22:32
It's a hacking mini-game. They didn't remove environmental complexity in favor of hacking. In fact, hacking is part of the environmental complexity.

You seem to have ignored/missed his last sentence there.


In case of mini game, what you have is unrelated obstacle between forming a hypothesis for overcomming problem and testing it.

And he is quite correct with that. It is something that runs the risk of de-railing your train of thought, and the logical progression of strategy/tactics. Not necessarily, but possibly.

Mini-games are obstructions, on top of the natural obstruction of the door/computer/whatever.

It's another one of those annoying "RPG conventions": You don't have to know those things, because your character does. In PnP RPG this is handled with dice (any DnD game, for instance), a binary system (like in Deus Ex) or in a CRPG you have the possibility of a combo of the two (forcing a lock in FO3, for instance).

Delever
21st Jul 2010, 22:37
It's a hacking mini-game. They didn't remove environmental complexity in favor of hacking. In fact, hacking is part of the environmental complexity.

Minigames bring luck to the ability to do something:

If it fails rarelly, I can live with that. However, no challenge in minigame.
However, if there is a challenge in minigame, I feel like it distracts me from problem in the game.

Basically, I want complexity in the game, not minigame. If minigame is not complex, I prefer it to be reduced down to avatar ability to do the thing.

I think that was the reason of simplifying these things in original Deus Ex. They chose to keep complexity in spacial environment. Creating puzzles for hacking looks like adding complexity in the wrong place.

But oh-well, it might be fine, that is just personal preference :)

tartarus_sauce
22nd Jul 2010, 00:05
I liked Splinter Cell's mechanics on these things. The lockpicking was a fairly realistic depiction of what lockpicking actually entails (I happen to do this for funsies). As to the hacking, I'd like to see a text-based approximation. I'm also against making it resource based; that just leads to a suspension of disbelief.

One of the problems with making it based on player input, like in Oblivion, is that it works well on the first play through, but on the second playthrough it's a game breaker because a veteran player is going to take his level one character and break into whatever he wants. I think the original Mass Effect had a neat, if somewhat obnoxious, way of getting around this- just telling the player outright "you don't have the skill to even start on this lock." Not perfect, but it's minimally invasive. Ideally, I'd make every lock/computer possible to hack, but have the skill upgrade system confer such substantial benefits as to make cracking high level locks/systems practically impossible without investment.

K^2
22nd Jul 2010, 00:43
I've barely caught a glimpse of what hacking is like, but it went very much along what I was picturing. EM seems to done their homework, and came up with something that actually works as well as being very cyberpunk. There is still a chance that it will become too tedious, of course, but barring that, I think everyone will approve.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 03:28
I think everyone will approve.

I've come to learn, there's really nothing that everyone will approve of. :hmm:

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 03:54
I've come to learn, there's really nothing that everyone will approve of. :hmm:

Not even Jesus. And he was super.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 04:07
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h97/Spartanmark117/Jesus.jpg

K^2
22nd Jul 2010, 04:09
I've come to learn, there's really nothing that everyone will approve of. :hmm:
Fair enough. I think majority of Deus Ex fans will approve.

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 04:11
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h97/Spartanmark117/Jesus.jpg

They should make a new Rule 34 about demotivators

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 04:14
Fair enough. I think majority of Deus Ex fans will approve.

I just had a cup of Chai (sp?) tea with nutmeg. ...and I majorly approve. Is that kinda the same thing?

K^2
22nd Jul 2010, 04:19
... Maybe?

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 04:22
They should make a new Rule 34 about demotivators

Nothing that comes from me is a demotivator. Merely seeing that I've replied to ones post has been known to invigorate the hindquarters in strangely important ways.

Also, that image does not qualify as a Demotivator, as it does not demoralize anybody. ...well, Clark Kent might not feel so good about it.

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 04:27
Nothing that comes from me is a demotivator. Merely seeing that I've replied to ones post has been known to invigorate the hindquarters in strangely important ways.

Also, that image does not qualify as a Demotivator, as it does not demoralize anybody. ...well, Clark Kent might not feel so good about it.

Well demotivators have long strayed from their original purpose

K^2
22nd Jul 2010, 07:49
No matter how much you rule-34 the demotivators, they'll just demotivator your rule-34. It's a hopeless battle. Give it up.

Normally, I'd add, "Lets just rule-34 ...", and I even have some good ideas, but I don't want to be b&.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 07:53
No matter how much you rule-34 the demotivators, they'll just demotivator your rule-34. It's a hopeless battle. Give it up.

Normally, I'd add, "Lets just rule-34 ...", and I even have some good ideas, but I don't want to be b&.

Here's a whole bunch of gibberish I don't understand. :(

Irate_Iguana
22nd Jul 2010, 09:20
Here's a whole bunch of gibberish I don't understand. :(

See, the appropriate response would be: LOL U MAD.

But this thread seems to have strayed entirely off topic.

K^2
22nd Jul 2010, 09:28
Here's a whole bunch of gibberish I don't understand. :(
I'd link you, but I'll get b& for that too.

singularity
22nd Jul 2010, 09:38
Sort of on topic...
Rereading Gibson's Count Zero (my personal favorite from the Sprawl Trilogy), and I always thought that a video game -- or at least a "mini game" based around the "hacking" described in Neuromancer/ CZ/ MLOD would be pretty cool to do. A visual representation of you penetrating a system while avoiding/ drilling through walls of defenses the system is setting up to stop you.

That being said, I always liked Splinter Cell's minigames. They were all very fast and easy, but they just added a layer of "doing things" to actions that seemed intuitive and non-obtrusive, and fit within the game world -- from picking locks, hacking computers, assembling mines, defusing bombs, cracking safes, etc. -- none of them took more than a second or two, but it was so much better than "push a button to hack computer". Wasn't a fan of Bioshock's (it just made no sense... good sense of risk/ reward, but it felt so detaching) and Mass Effect could have done so much better.

Food for thought, what if the hacking played out like a quick and simplistic real-time strategy game, with some Tron-esque visuals? Forced to manuever your pieces around the system's defensive pieces, and differenct pieces have different abilities... like chess.

Mindmute
22nd Jul 2010, 10:12
I've come to learn, there's really nothing that everyone will approve of. :hmm:

Bacon.
I rest my case.

Rindill the Red
22nd Jul 2010, 11:04
Am I the only one who liked Deus Ex's lack of minigames?

For the hacking, ICE breaker... I always felt like it made sense. In real life, software-based hacks are done almost entirely by a program, not manually.

JC Denton has nano-technology hacking machines/programs in his head/body -- this ICE, he simply activates and then it does it's job, JC just needs to stand there and let it do it's thing.

Any sort of minigame is, well, frankly, unrealistic in an annoying way.

About minigames in general...
I think developers should make them so that they would be fun to play over and over and over again as if they were stand-alone games in and of themselves.

If they fail that, then they don't work as minigames in game and it would do better to just leave them out.

Ashpolt
22nd Jul 2010, 11:07
@mindmute: Ah, but those pesky vegetarians don't like bacon. Or, at least, claim not to. There's only one thing everybody loves...lesbians.

Anyway, on topic, lockpicking / hacking minigame: My only concern is that it doesn't take too long, and by "too long" I mean more than 10 seconds a time. From the way EM have described it, it sounds like we'll be playing a mini-RTS every time we hack, and I can assure you that if it takes 30 seconds or so each time, that will put me off hacking almost immediately. I think Alpha Protocol's door bypass system was good enough: it was quick and simple enough that it didn't distract too much from the normal flow of the gameplay, it was sort of vaguely conceivably something related to bypassing electronic locks, and it could be affected (i.e. made easier or more difficult) by the skill points you'd put into it, in that case by increasing / decreasing the time limit and increasing / decreasing the number of nodes you had to bypass. But like I say, the key point was that it was quick enough that it didn't get irritating: unlike, say, Bioshock's hacking minigame.

K^2
22nd Jul 2010, 13:14
I know some vegetarians who like bacon. I'm pretty sure that's more universal that liking lesbians.

Rereading Gibson's Count Zero (my personal favorite from the Sprawl Trilogy), and I always thought that a video game -- or at least a "mini game" based around the "hacking" described in Neuromancer/ CZ/ MLOD would be pretty cool to do. A visual representation of you penetrating a system while avoiding/ drilling through walls of defenses the system is setting up to stop you.
I really think, that's what they were aiming for. Not the VR bit, but the concept of using viruses to break through ICE, and watching them deploy measures, countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures.

Irate_Iguana
22nd Jul 2010, 14:27
Bacon.
I rest my case.

Muslims, Jews and Hindus can't eat pork and Buddhist monks are to avoid boar.

TrickyVein
22nd Jul 2010, 14:32
But none of those people actually matter.

Mindmute
22nd Jul 2010, 21:00
Muslims, Jews and Hindus can't eat pork and Buddhist monks are to avoid boar.

Just because they can't eat it, doesn't mean they wouldn't find it delicious. It just means they'll never know what they're missing ;)

K^2
23rd Jul 2010, 01:56
Yeah, man. They might not be allowed to eat it, but they can smell it, and they know they want it.

I'm not going to go into my theory of how 9/11 was all about bacon-envy.

Cronstintein
7th Aug 2010, 06:00
Back to mini-games:
I think they're only good if they're done infrequently.
For example in splinter cell: double agent they had a safe-cracking mini-game that got used maybe 5 times all game? That's cool. The lockpicking mini-game was somewhat optional since you could unlock an auto-picker, which was also a good solution.
Mass Effect 2 had the same games done over and over AND OVER and that sucks, even though it's easy.

Bottom line: I'm not super enthusiastic about having every barrier solved with one mini game that it sounds like I'm going to have to do 50+ times over the adventure, blech.

PS- multi-tools were an awesome solution because it let you DECIDE - make this section easier by using the tool or save it for later... that's what makes DX1 so inspired: CHOICE.