PDA

View Full Version : Too late now but take-downs should have been a skill.



Dead-Eye
24th Sep 2010, 03:45
I don't hate take-downs but I think the main complaint is that they are too easy. I think it would be more fun if they were a skill that the player needed to upgraded. Every time you preformed one it had the chance to fail dependent on skill + lethality + A.I. detection. If you had a low skill, wanted to take a non lethal approach and they had already seen you. The chances of successfully pulling off a take-down would be low. On the other end of things high skilled, lethal attacks to the unaware would result in success. A failed take-down could still stun the the enemy for a second or two but it wouldn't kill/concussafie them. Adam would be pushed back and the player would need to do something else quickly in order to stay alive.

Without this the game will just feel too easy. You run up to someone and hit a button to kill them. That's fun, and it looks cool, but it makes the player too powerful and pretty much ruins the whole RPG side to this FPS/RPG. RPGs are fun because you grind. Now I'm not a huge fan of grind, but RPGs need grind to be considered RPGs else we end up with something like Bioshock which frankly isn't an RPG at all, it's just another boring shooter. I will say however that it's one of the things that made Deus Ex so powerful; I didn't feel like I was grinding because the grind was invisible. Yet it was still there.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to make all undetected, single target, take-downs work with a low skill as a reward for remaining stealthy. However multi-take-downs from stealth should require some skill, and detected take-downs should be a gamble. Bosses would probably be the only ones that take-downs never work on.

Again, I hope the developers we're smart enough to implement this already because as Dugas said "the game is already done".

NKD
24th Sep 2010, 03:49
I imagine that getting into position for takedowns will be easier depending on the augs you have, and how far upgraded they are. For example, if you don't have the cloak, or it doesn't last long enough, or whatever. If they enemy has got his back to a wall, looking down a wide open hall with no cover, you might not be able to take him out quickly unless you have the wall punch aug, or can get down the hall way quick enough while cloaked. What if you dont? There are all kinds of possibilities. We'll see if that's what they've done.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "detected" takedowns. I wasn't aware they were just letting you run around auto-killing people even after being detected. If so, that's pretty bad. I rather assumed that you couldn't use the takedown functionality if the enemy was attacking you. I guess I missed that. :/ Bummer.

OwlSolar
24th Sep 2010, 03:57
I'm not sure if this is true or not, but I heard that takedowns can be upgraded, but only so you can get more enemies with them.

I disagree that they make the game too easy. The challenge, as it always has been, is to get close to the enemy. I'd really hate to go to the trouble sneaking up on them and failing because of random numbers.
I also disagree about RPGs being about grind. Grinding is what RPG developers have been trying to get rid of for ages. It's boring, adds almost nothing, and wrecks the difficulty curve. I think that development is what they need, as in starting weak and getting stronger. Although your idea seems to be along these lines, so I apologize if that's what you meant.

And why can't takedowns work on bosses? I really want to stab Barrett in the face. :( Maybe they can at least do damage.

tartarus_sauce
24th Sep 2010, 05:24
"You run up to someone and hit a button to kill them."

Like in the original Deus Ex. Plus, if you sneak up behind someone, it's kind of hard to **** it up- especially if you're already an elite badass with extendo wrist blades.

Romeo
24th Sep 2010, 05:31
I dunno Tartarus, I kinda like Dead-Eye's idea. Maybe a "melee" skill branch. Still, there's hope that augs will more or less dictate takedowns. Personally, I'm going for a stealth/ranger combination my first run anyways. Sneak up close enough I can't miss, then pop 'em in the skulls.

singularity
24th Sep 2010, 05:42
I was against the whole "1 button kills it all" approach until about a week ago when I decided to play through Splinter Cell Chaos Theory again. For those who haven't played it -- 3rd person stealth game, regarded as the best in the SC series by many. And it features a system where 1 button will either kill or knock out any person in the game. Any one. Doesn't matter angle, if they have detected you, what armor they are wearing -- *schwip* goes the knife, and it's all over in the blink of an eye. All the time, every time, no exceptions so long as you are an arm's length away or closer. No recharging, no "special ability"... if you can get to him, he's gone, either because you grabbed him, knocked him out or used the magic knife button.

And the game makes it work. Really, really well. I still feel vulnerable, because after only 4 or 5 bullets I die (which isn't a lot when enemies pack submachine guns), and I am vastly out-numbered, but I feel powerful... because I know if I get within kissing distance, your ass is mine, even if it all goes south at the last minute.

I've seen that it can work. It's just a matter of if it will be pulled off in DXHR... we all remember the recent AvP take-downs, eh?

Pinky_Powers
24th Sep 2010, 05:51
I don't hate take-downs but I think the main complaint is that they are too easy. I think it would be more fun if they were a skill that the player needed to upgraded. Every time you preformed one it had the chance to fail dependent on skill + lethality + A.I. detection. If you had a low skill, wanted to take a non lethal approach and they had already seen you. The chances of successfully pulling off a take-down would be low. On the other end of things high skilled, lethal attacks to the unaware would result in success. A failed take-down could still stun the the enemy for a second or two but it wouldn't kill/concussafie them. Adam would be pushed back and the player would need to do something else quickly in order to stay alive.

Without this the game will just feel too easy. You run up to someone and hit a button to kill them. That's fun, and it looks cool, but it makes the player too powerful and pretty much ruins the whole RPG side to this FPS/RPG. RPGs are fun because you grind. Now I'm not a huge fan of grind, but RPGs need grind to be considered RPGs else we end up with something like Bioshock which frankly isn't an RPG at all, it's just another boring shooter. I will say however that it's one of the things that made Deus Ex so powerful; I didn't feel like I was grinding because the grind was invisible. Yet it was still there.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to make all undetected, single target, take-downs work with a low skill as a reward for remaining stealthy. However multi-take-downs from stealth should require some skill, and detected take-downs should be a gamble. Bosses would probably be the only ones that take-downs never work on.

Again, I hope the developers we're smart enough to implement this already because as Dugas said "the game is already done".

I would really like it if this is how the system worked. This is a fantastic idea! :thumb: :thumb:

Both Assassin's Creed and the new Splinter Cell has a potentiality for failure in their melee. If you are detected, the enemy can block your insta-kill attack. This makes waiting and planning your move a matter of serious consideration. And it's wonderful.

Hammich
24th Sep 2010, 07:29
I was against the whole "1 button kills it all" approach until about a week ago when I decided to play through Splinter Cell Chaos Theory again. For those who haven't played it -- 3rd person stealth game, regarded as the best in the SC series by many. And it features a system where 1 button will either kill or knock out any person in the game. Any one. Doesn't matter angle, if they have detected you, what armor they are wearing -- *schwip* goes the knife, and it's all over in the blink of an eye. All the time, every time, no exceptions so long as you are an arm's length away or closer. No recharging, no "special ability"... if you can get to him, he's gone, either because you grabbed him, knocked him out or used the magic knife button.

And the game makes it work. Really, really well. I still feel vulnerable, because after only 4 or 5 bullets I die (which isn't a lot when enemies pack submachine guns), and I am vastly out-numbered, but I feel powerful... because I know if I get within kissing distance, your ass is mine, even if it all goes south at the last minute.

I've seen that it can work. It's just a matter of if it will be pulled off in DXHR... we all remember the recent AvP take-downs, eh?

that's the thing though, with regenerating health and the bioaugmentations that are a staple for the deus ex series, unless you are playing a harder difficulty setting it may be difficult for you to feel as vulnurable

OwlSolar
24th Sep 2010, 07:37
Then play a harder difficulty setting.

Irate_Iguana
24th Sep 2010, 08:48
Then play a harder difficulty setting.

Upping a difficulty setting is no cure for a poorly implemented gameplay feature. It is similar to saying that one should play with their eyes closed if they think Realistic is too easy.

AlexOfSpades
24th Sep 2010, 11:31
Upping a difficulty setting is no cure for a poorly implemented gameplay feature. It is similar to saying that one should play with their eyes closed if they think Realistic is too easy.

:thumb: Thought the same.


This "too-late-now-since-the-game-is-done" really offends me.

I should have joined the forum long time ago, and tried to help the game. I have a billion of ideas that could perhaps help something, but i dont even post them since they will be meaningless.

Bluey71
24th Sep 2010, 11:38
I disagree that they make the game too easy. The challenge, as it always has been, is to get close to the enemy.

Rubbish.

In this game you are able to see around corners without exposing yourself. Getting closer to enemies will be a lot easier with this little whiff of game design genius. Wheres the challenge in that?

mad825
24th Sep 2010, 11:58
I was against the whole "1 button kills it all" approach until about a week ago when I decided to play through Splinter Cell Chaos Theory again. For those who haven't played it -- 3rd person stealth game, regarded as the best in the SC series by many. And it features a system where 1 button will either kill or knock out any person in the game. Any one. Doesn't matter angle, if they have detected you, what armor they are wearing -- *schwip* goes the knife, and it's all over in the blink of an eye. All the time, every time, no exceptions so long as you are an arm's length away or closer. No recharging, no "special ability"... if you can get to him, he's gone, either because you grabbed him, knocked him out or used the magic knife button.

And the game makes it work. Really, really well. I still feel vulnerable, because after only 4 or 5 bullets I die (which isn't a lot when enemies pack submachine guns), and I am vastly out-numbered, but I feel powerful... because I know if I get within kissing distance, your ass is mine, even if it all goes south at the last minute.

I've seen that it can work. It's just a matter of if it will be pulled off in DXHR... we all remember the recent AvP take-downs, eh?

Splinter Cell≠Deus Ex

Choas theory may feature "1 button kills it all" but it's not the most logical choice/action to do but only really becomes useful when it's 1-on-1 not 1-on-5 during an emergency, Deus ex:HR makes the 1-on-(2-5 or more) possible.

using this "1 button kills it all" in Chaos Theory removes the ability to interrogate the suspect which in turn gives you very useful Intel.

xsamitt
24th Sep 2010, 12:47
Rubbish.

In this game you are able to see around corners without exposing yourself. Getting closer to enemies will be a lot easier with this little whiff of game design genius. Wheres the challenge in that?

I agree....The rush and risk of peeping is gone now.:hmm:

Kodaemon
24th Sep 2010, 13:03
:thumb: Thought the same.


This "too-late-now-since-the-game-is-done" really offends me.

I should have joined the forum long time ago, and tried to help the game. I have a billion of ideas that could perhaps help something, but i dont even post them since they will be meaningless.

Sorry, but this is strikes me as arrogant. We've been sitting here since 2007 (ignore my join date, long story), constructively criticising, giving advice, suggesting solutions to perceived problems, just to be utterly ignored. And here you come, and think your ideas so awesome they could have changed anything?

Pinky_Powers
24th Sep 2010, 13:12
Splinter Cell≠Deus Ex

Choas theory may feature "1 button kills it all" but it's not the most logical choice/action to do but only really becomes useful when it's 1-on-1 not 1-on-5 during an emergency, Deus ex:HR makes the 1-on-(2-5 or more) possible.

using this "1 button kills it all" in Chaos Theory removes the ability to interrogate the suspect which in turn gives you very useful Intel.

Interrogation was still there in Chaos Theory. You could choose to grab, interrogate, then choose to incapacitate or kill afterword. I would love something like this for DX.

And to be fair, the "2-5" insta-kill would be something like the Claymore Aug, and that comes at a heavy cost. And you can only use it once per-mission before you have to restock it's munition at the Limb Clinic... or something. And let's not forget, having it in the first place is your choice as a player.

AxiomaticBadger
24th Sep 2010, 13:19
I don't think an artificial limit on claymore use is really necessary. First you need to buy the thing, and it'll probably be pretty expensive xp wise, and then you need to get a group of enemies close enough together to make using it worthwhile, and then get into the middle of them whilst keeping your organs internal.

I really don't miss skills. Don't forget we need money to buy augs. So if we instead use our precious money to buy, say, weapons and thier associated mods we have to sacrifice aug potential.

Pinky_Powers
24th Sep 2010, 13:28
I don't think an artificial limit on claymore use is really necessary. First you need to buy the thing, and it'll probably be pretty expensive xp wise, and then you need to get a group of enemies close enough together to make using it worthwhile, and then get into the middle of them whilst keeping your organs internal.

I really don't miss skills. Don't forget we need money to buy augs. So if we instead use our precious money to buy, say, weapons and thier associated mods we have to sacrifice aug potential.

Heh heh. Yeah, I've thought about that too. How often would the Claymore thing really come in handy? Luckily, it never suited my playstyle anyway, so I don't care.

However... "artificial limit?" How is it artificial to run out of explosive devices packed into your arms? :scratch:

WildcatPhoenix
24th Sep 2010, 13:36
Honestly I could be okay with just about any of these things being a skill or aug. 3rd person cover system? Make it like the Spy Drone aug. Then it makes sense for Adam to be able to see around corners or above ladders.

Regenerating health? Make it an aug (you know, kinda like in the first game *hint hint*).

Takedowns? Melee or hand-to-hand combat skill. Improve your skill, increase the distance and/or number of enemies Adam can take down. You could also have an aug for increased melee damage with regular melee weapons.

Then find a way to talk them out of mid-mission cutscenes and you'd have one hell of a Deus Ex game on your hands. :thumb:

AxiomaticBadger
24th Sep 2010, 13:41
^^I was under the impression that it used a plasma forcefield rather than actual explosives.

Mindmute
24th Sep 2010, 13:41
Heh heh. Yeah, I've thought about that too. How often would the Claymore thing really come in handy? Luckily, it never suited my playstyle anyway, so I don't care.

However... "artificial limit?" How is it artificial to run out of explosive devices packed into your arms? :scratch:

Actually, since I've seen it in action, I've been wondering where you'd even go to get ammo for that...
Or how the hell you'd reload it safely...


Leaves me kinda afraid that some ressources will be replenished at mission end/start, but I'm trying to steer clear of that thought...


^^I was under the impression that it used a plasma forcefield rather than actual explosives.

On the gameplay demonstration at PAX they clearly appeared to be red explosive discs.

fchopin
24th Sep 2010, 13:49
Sorry, wrong thread.

InGroove2
24th Sep 2010, 13:56
I don't hate take-downs but I think the main complaint is that they are too easy. I think it would be more fun if they were a skill that the player needed to upgraded. Every time you preformed one it had the chance to fail dependent on skill + lethality + A.I. detection. If you had a low skill, wanted to take a non lethal approach and they had already seen you. The chances of successfully pulling off a take-down would be low. On the other end of things high skilled, lethal attacks to the unaware would result in success. A failed take-down could still stun the the enemy for a second or two but it wouldn't kill/concussafie them. Adam would be pushed back and the player would need to do something else quickly in order to stay alive.

Without this the game will just feel too easy. You run up to someone and hit a button to kill them. That's fun, and it looks cool, but it makes the player too powerful and pretty much ruins the whole RPG side to this FPS/RPG. RPGs are fun because you grind. Now I'm not a huge fan of grind, but RPGs need grind to be considered RPGs else we end up with something like Bioshock which frankly isn't an RPG at all, it's just another boring shooter. I will say however that it's one of the things that made Deus Ex so powerful; I didn't feel like I was grinding because the grind was invisible. Yet it was still there.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to make all undetected, single target, take-downs work with a low skill as a reward for remaining stealthy. However multi-take-downs from stealth should require some skill, and detected take-downs should be a gamble. Bosses would probably be the only ones that take-downs never work on.

Again, I hope the developers we're smart enough to implement this already because as Dugas said "the game is already done".



to keep this thread on point a bit... i thought they made it clear that augmentations (which is one of the primary ways to aquire and use a take down) are inextricably tied to skills. So at the begning of the game you're not gonna just be going up behind people and whipping out your blades (as adam was seen doing in the trailers with the guy in the office).

i think a more legit concern about the take downs (because worrying about the fact that they're in 3rd person is apparently not up for change anymore), is whether they can fail. i mean, if there's no chance that your fancy take down will fail, then THAT seems... well brutally dumbed down.

Dead-Eye
24th Sep 2010, 17:44
^^

I'm worried that the arm aug skill tree is just for lifting things. However, I see what you are saying and it is possible that this idea has already been implemented. It would be a refreshing change of pase if what we have already seen of the demos is just an outrageously over powered Adam that's sole purpose is to wow the Halo crowed. And that the game is actually a well balanced RPG that's nowhere near as easy as they make it look.

They have made hints to this. But every time Dugas dose an interview my hopes get slayed.

Mindmute
24th Sep 2010, 17:46
It would be a refreshing change of pase if what we have already seen of the demos is just an outrageously over powered Adam that's sole purpose is to wow the Halo crowed.

Well if it helps, it has been confirmed that the demos were played on God-mode so he took no damage and with every single aug he had completely maxed out.

nomotog
24th Sep 2010, 18:09
Rubbish.

In this game you are able to see around corners without exposing yourself. Getting closer to enemies will be a lot easier with this little whiff of game design genius. Wheres the challenge in that?

They give the guards eyeglasses so they can tell the difference between a rat and a guy wearing a trench coat. :P

Pinky_Powers
24th Sep 2010, 18:37
Well if it helps, it has been confirmed that the demos were played on God-mode so he took no damage and with every single aug he had completely maxed out.

Yes yes. And they also said the weapons were modded to the max for the demo as well. The rocket launch had the heat-seeker, the crossbow had the trajectory-aid, and the assault rifle... god knows what they had on that thing. :)

lithos
24th Sep 2010, 18:45
Well if it helps, it has been confirmed that the demos were played on God-mode so he took no damage and with every single aug he had completely maxed out.

Probably would've been a long, boring, and embarrassing demo if they died midway through.

InGroove2
24th Sep 2010, 20:56
Probably would've been a long, boring, and embarrassing demo if they died midway through.

true. imagine watching a demo of Liberty Island with low skill level on low-tech with JC constantly missing enemies with tranq darts / zapping an enemy three times with the prod and running... just a little faster with the running aug on the first teir (can you even get that on liberty island?).

would be a snoozer for sure.

Blade_hunter
24th Sep 2010, 21:00
Well if it helps, it has been confirmed that the demos were played on God-mode so he took no damage and with every single aug he had completely maxed out.

It doesn't help, most demos uses god mode and infinite resources ...
The takedowns only fails if you die, also some takedowns belong along some augs
We know that the wall punch is part of the tree of the strength augmentation.
The takedowns are lethal or non lethal second how long you press the button to perform them.
tap once -> non lethal takedown; press longer -> lethal takedown.
You don't need any stealth to perform them, even if it's recommended to avoid any risk of death.
Don't forget also they aren't very limited, in fact there is a portion of energy that is self regenerating. the limit of the takedowns are only on takedown spamming, not in overall limitation.
They aren't using a system with a percentage of failure, they want to reward the players for getting close enough to their foes without dying with a cutscene.

ChrisVCB
24th Sep 2010, 21:15
Actually, since I've seen it in action, I've been wondering where you'd even go to get ammo for that...
Or how the hell you'd reload it safely...


I can imagine the shenanigans now. Adam Jensen walking his date home, leans in a for a kiss at the door, accidentally sets off the claymore and WHOOOOMP. She evaporates into a red mist, and he's left there looking foolish. Adam Jensen, happily married 10 years after the end of DX3, taking the wife & kids to the funfair.....all the excitement and he accidentally trips the claymore aug......all that was left were bloody stumps in clownshoes.....Adam Jensen getting married (again, the last one died remember), the excitement of the wedding day..."You may now kiss the bride"....*click*....

Edit: Although, he'd make one hell of a Sushi chef...

Facebyface
24th Sep 2010, 21:19
true. imagine watching a demo of Liberty Island with low skill level on low-tech with JC constantly missing enemies with tranq darts / zapping an enemy three times with the prod and running... just a little faster with the running aug on the first teir (can you even get that on liberty island?).

would be a snoozer for sure.

But then again, the original Deus Ex was more about the espionage and the conspiracy rather than the action. Not saying that was a bad thing (or is a bad thing for HR) but it's hardly a game you want to get illusions of grandeur over. It was a very different game and even the most exciting stage in the game is still really slow paced in comparison to anything out on the market at that time.

pringlepower
25th Sep 2010, 01:03
But then again, the original Deus Ex was more about the espionage and the conspiracy rather than the action. Not saying that was a bad thing (or is a bad thing for HR) but it's hardly a game you want to get illusions of grandeur over. It was a very different game and even the most exciting stage in the game is still really slow paced in comparison to anything out on the market at that time.

Slow-paced good for the individual experience. Bad for a public presentation.

Anasumtj
25th Sep 2010, 01:09
"You run up to someone and hit a button to kill them."

Like in the original Deus Ex.

You're clever.

Let me fetch you a laminated gold star.

pringlepower
25th Sep 2010, 01:18
You're clever.

Let me fetch you a laminated gold star.

He's an idiot. You don't hit a button, you mash a button.

AlexOfSpades
25th Sep 2010, 01:22
I dont know. It just doesnt... feel... like i'm doing it.


Like Gears of War instant melee kill. A melee kill is when you grab your melee weapon and hack it into the guy's arse.

When you just press B for a special event, it doesnt feel... the same. I dont know.

Marses
25th Sep 2010, 03:59
Upping a difficulty setting is no cure for a poorly implemented gameplay feature. It is similar to saying that one should play with their eyes closed if they think Realistic is too easy.
Every. Single. Interview. EM has done about the game has stated you can't just expect to run into any situation and expect your health regeneration to keep you alive. They've said four bullets will take you down. Stop being disingenuous, I know you've seen these interviews.

Your bias is really quite startling. You've never played the game and you're already calling a feature poorly implemented all because of your preconceived notions. It's embarrassing.

OwlSolar
25th Sep 2010, 05:50
Upping a difficulty setting is no cure for a poorly implemented gameplay feature. It is similar to saying that one should play with their eyes closed if they think Realistic is too easy.

Yes, it is. Everyone has a different skill level. Difficulty levels are there so that everyone, including Nobel Peace Prize-winning geniuses like you guys, can play at a level that suits them, not specifically for you to handicap yourself. They are built right into the game for that exact purpose. A self-imposed challenge is completely different.
Basically, there is nothing wrong with going right into hard mode when you start a game.


Rubbish.

In this game you are able to see around corners without exposing yourself. Getting closer to enemies will be a lot easier with this little whiff of game design genius. Wheres the challenge in that?
You could see through walls in both games anyway. And my impression was that many first-person games had a peek button that did the same thing.
Besides, many third-person games are stealth games. Are they all cakewalks? No. Being able to see around corners does not automatically break a stealth game. You are making unfounded assumptions based on your own personal biases and jumping to conclusions. Sorry Marses, I didn't see your post.
To answer your question, the challenge is in good level design. If you think the entire game will be hiding and waiting for lone enemies to turn their backs, then... Well, I hope you're wrong. :p That'd be bad level design.
Also, guards can apparently glance behind them now. No idea where I heard that.


I agree....The rush and risk of peeping is gone now.
Thank you for being specific. You're probably right.


Actually, since I've seen it in action, I've been wondering where you'd even go to get ammo for that...
Or how the hell you'd reload it safely...
I'm wondering how the heck you'd use it while wearing a trenchcoat...
As for the limit, it's probably like all augmentations in that you can't use it if you don't have any energy.

jtr7
25th Sep 2010, 06:02
A "peek" button? Is that suggesting a person can't lean and look around a corner with the eyes in their own head, and thinking those who can are doing something unnatural? Wait, what was that about? Oh, a "peek" button that shows AIs positions through walls? Man, I'm glad I missed all that. Damn, this internet connection is slow and intermittent. I can't review anything between button clicks with minutes of non-moving progress bars in-between, and then any misreadings get responded to.



Also, if Adam is supposed to be hidden standing around the corner, then shouldn't his elbows, shoulders and feet not be sticking out into the space he's not supposed to be seen in?



Anyway, it's much more tense having only one's ears to tell how close an AI is around the corner I really can't see down without exposing my position.

OwlSolar
25th Sep 2010, 06:04
I am not suggesting that. I am fully aware that you can, and I don't find it unnatural. What do you really mean?

Pinky_Powers
25th Sep 2010, 06:30
We know that the wall punch is part of the tree of the strength augmentation.

Yes we do. It's something like the second tier of the arm Strength Aug. This is confirmed in interviews/previews.

singularity
25th Sep 2010, 07:13
Anyway, it's much more tense having only one's ears to tell how close an AI is around the corner I really can't see down without exposing my position.

It's also incredibly frustrating. Have you ever played a first person shooter that was clearly not "built" for stealth, but they threw in a stealth level for the hell of it? I'd rather the whole game not be like that. I also don't want them to do what they did in the first DX and purposefully dumb down the AI so you can be stealthy strictly in first person.

If you want functional and advanced AI, and a stealth system that is fluid and dynamic rather than trial and error, then third person is the easiest route to go.

Even look at first-person-stealth in Riddick. It worked with lean keys and visuals to let you know when you were hidden, but it worked because the areas were naturally pitch black (pun irresistable), and the lean was highly unrealistic -- enemies couldn't spot you leaning around a corner, giving it the same effect as a third-person camera.

There is a reason nearly all stealth games today are third person. No one seems to think about that...

Kodaemon
25th Sep 2010, 08:11
I would say leaning comes much closer to peeking than a magical out-of-body experience does.

singularity
25th Sep 2010, 08:21
I would say leaning comes much closer to peeking than a magical out-of-body experience does.

I'd say an "out of body experience" is no more magical than half-mech soldiers, lumbering security robots, enemies who can only see 5 feet away, spy drone augmentations, Dragon-Tooth swords and underground lairs hidden through-out NYC.

Oh, wait -- I forgot... DX is a series built on realism. Not exploration, immagination and enemy exploitation. My bad.

And again -- it might be "less magical" to stay in first person, but it becomes much harder to do stealth...
No one is addressing the issue that most stealth games are third person for a reason.

Kodaemon
25th Sep 2010, 08:51
No one is addressing the issue that most stealth games are third person for a reason.

Yes, third person is more flashy, more mainstream, more popular. Metal Gear Solid is third person. What's first person, Thief? Deus Ex? Pfft, who cares about those.

lithos
25th Sep 2010, 10:02
I dont know. It just doesnt... feel... like i'm doing it.

Exactly. But what they're going for is a) Something that looks really cool in trailers, for advertising purposes, but is actually something you can do in-game, so people don't feel ripped off when they get it (then again, those Goldtooth FMVs are hardly representative of the game,) and b) because in this day and age you're meant to be playing the game, even if it's single player, on a large screen with a bunch of mates, and something that looks good to spectators is more important than something that's fun for the actual player. The player's already got the game - you've got convince his mates to get it now. Peer pressure is marketing gold.

You remember the mid-nineties fad, when CD-ROMs first hit the scenes, and devs had all this cheap storage space and no idea what to do with it? We got a brand new genre called the "FMV game." Instead of actually, say, hitting a guy with a sword, you selected the option "Hit Guy With Sword," and then watched a quaint Quicktime movie showing the actor hitting the guy with the sword. That's what the takedowns seem like. Just press play.

The FMV game died out rather quickly. Wonder why.

NKD
25th Sep 2010, 11:04
You remember the mid-nineties fad, when CD-ROMs first hit the scenes, and devs had all this cheap storage space and no idea what to do with it? We got a brand new genre called the "FMV game." Instead of actually, say, hitting a guy with a sword, you selected the option "Hit Guy With Sword," and then watched a quaint Quicktime movie showing the actor hitting the guy with the sword. That's what the takedowns seem like. Just press play.

The FMV game died out rather quickly. Wonder why.

That's a pretty absurd exaggeration. 90% of a melee takedown in these sorts of games is getting into position. Someone had to be an epic failure to screw up taking someone down in Deus Ex once they were a few feet away.

One guy? Just whack him in the back of the head with a lightsaber or baton.

Two guys? Prod them each once, then each a second time. And there's tons of prod batteries available too!

Three guys, Mechs? You're probably going the wrong way and should be stealthing somewhere else anyway.

I understand you don't like the idea of having a takedown animation play when you get up to the enemy, but not only do you undersell the stealth portion of getting into position, you don't mention it at all. Absurd exaggerations don't make your arguments any more forceful, they just make them laughable.

lithos
25th Sep 2010, 12:31
I understand you don't like the idea of having a takedown animation play when you get up to the enemy, but not only do you undersell the stealth portion of getting into position, you don't mention it at all. Absurd exaggerations don't make your arguments any more forceful, they just make them laughable.

I thought the sneaking up on someone aspect was a given. That's why I didn't mention it. Why do you need to constantly remind yourself of it? Or is it just your only defence of the cutscene mechanism, grasping at straws?

And, yes, the melee attacks were simple in DX. Absolutely. If you can manage to think ahead a bit, use some foresight, you'll realise that repeatedly watching a five-second, elaborate cutscene over which you have no control (and can be killed during, come to mention it) will soon lose its novelty.

How is watching Adam slice and dice gameplay, exactly? I thought this was a game forum.

In fact, I'm willing to bet the thought of having to sit through those little machinimas every time will turn a lot of players off using the stealth mechanic as it's currently imagined in HR.

NKD
25th Sep 2010, 13:01
I thought the sneaking up on someone aspect was a given. That's why I didn't mention it. Why do you need to constantly remind yourself of it? Or is it just your only defence of the cutscene mechanism, grasping at straws?

You're placing the emphasis on the wrong part of stealth gameplay, the kill/takedown itself, and then criticizing it based on that incorrect emphasis. You're the one dealing in straw here, and you're making a strawman out of it.


And, yes, the melee attacks were simple in DX. Absolutely. If you can manage to think ahead a bit, use some foresight, you'll realise that repeatedly watching a five-second, elaborate cutscene over which you have no control (and can be killed during, come to mention it) will soon lose its novelty.

I've never been put off by it in any other game. It took 5 seconds or more to choke someone out or chloroform them in the Hitman games. Provided they give us enough variety (that remains to be seen) It will wear thin a lot less than whacking the 200th NSF soldier in the same exact way.


How is watching Adam slice and dice gameplay, exactly? I thought this was a game forum.

As I said, it's the payoff to the gameplay. You go through the effort of sneaking up to some guy, you are rewarded with a very graphic animation rather than a simple one.


In fact, I'm willing to bet the thought of having to sit through those little machinimas every time will turn a lot of players off using the stealth mechanic as it's currently imagined in HR.

You're gonna lose that bet. The whole reason it's in there in the first place is because people go nuts for that kind of stuff. I understand that you don't like it, but let's not pretend it's going to upset anyone but a few hardcore forumites.

Kodaemon
25th Sep 2010, 13:14
You're not even required to sneak up on the enemy (takedowns are confirmed to work even if you're detected), let alone position yourself correctly. All you are required do do is press a button while close to an enemy.

lithos
25th Sep 2010, 13:16
You're placing the emphasis on the wrong part of stealth gameplay, the kill/takedown itself, and then criticizing it based on that incorrect emphasis. You're the one dealing in straw here, and you're making a strawman out of it.

You're still calling it gameplay. I thought controlling the character(s) was one of the key principals of gameplay.


I've never been put off by it in any other game. It took 5 seconds or more to choke someone out or chloroform them in the Hitman games. Provided they give us enough variety (that remains to be seen) It will wear thin a lot less than whacking the 200th NSF soldier in the same exact way.

I just want to get on with the game. I don't need the developers to be clapping their hands and saying "Good boy!" Maybe they're targeting the game at people with low self-esteem.


As I said, it's the payoff to the gameplay. You go through the effort of sneaking up to some guy, you are rewarded with a very graphic animation rather than a simple one.

How about more gameplay as a payoff for gameplay? Want cutscenes, try Metal Gear Solid 4. I've aired my concerns about the cut scenes before, I'm not gonna repeat them. It was my first post on this forum, so I don't know how I'm a hardcore forumite - which I take is meant to be an insult, once I compensated for your style of posting.


You're gonna lose that bet. The whole reason it's in there in the first place is because people go nuts for that kind of stuff.

Which people? And why don't they like gaming? I didn't realise you spoke for every single gamer on the planet.


I understand that you don't like it, but let's not pretend it's going to upset anyone but a few hardcore forumites.

And yet here you are! Why are you here, anyway? Shouldn't you be out teabagging noobs in Halo: Reach?

Bluey71
25th Sep 2010, 13:29
Basically, there is nothing wrong with going right into hard mode when you start a game.
No matter how hard you make it – a bad game play feature is exactly that, bad.



You could see through walls in both games anyway. And my impression was that many first-person games had a peek button that did the same thing.

Go read my post properly. Yes DX1 did have a 'peak' button, but what glossed over was the fact that whilst leaning, you were at risk, not hidden behind a wall regenerating your health etc etc.


Besides, many third-person games are stealth games. Are they all cakewalks? No.

Are they all as an immersive an experience as DX1? No.


You are making unfounded assumptions based on your own personal biases and jumping to conclusions.
Afraid not – the evidence is quite clear to see in the game play videos.


To answer your question, the challenge is in good level design. If you think the entire game will be hiding and waiting for lone enemies to turn their backs, then... Well, I hope you're wrong. :p That'd be bad level design.
Also, guards can apparently glance behind them now. No idea where I heard that.

I take it you have seen the game play videos? And you have seen all the perfectly placed, waist high cover, just where you need it. Right?



Thank you for being specific. You're probably right.

So you are able to see then that we have actually lost something great in this game ;).





If you want functional and advanced AI, and a stealth system that is fluid and dynamic rather than trial and error, then third person is the easiest route to go.

Yes that's right, you've hit the nail on the head and is something that many of us have been saying all along. Third person is the easiest way to go, it is also in my opinion, the lazy way to go.




There is a reason nearly all stealth games today are third person. No one seems to think about that...

Yea, because it's easy right? ;)

I think many people have agreed over the years that DX1 is a thinking persons game – what does that tell you about modern game play mechanics in DX:HR? ;)




That's a pretty absurd exaggeration. 90% of a melee takedown in these sorts of games is getting into position.

Which you can now do by cheating – seeing around corners without being seen, from the get go.How boring.


I understand you don't like the idea of having a takedown animation play when you get up to the enemy, but not only do you undersell the stealth portion of getting into position, you don't mention it at all. Absurd exaggerations don't make your arguments any more forceful, they just make them laughable.

Undersell? No, I think EM is doing a grand job of the underselling the whole franchise by taking the easy way out with the modern day take on lazy development.

lithos
25th Sep 2010, 13:32
Undersell? No, I think EM is doing a grand job of the underselling the whole franchise by taking the easy way out with the modern day take on lazy development.

And tacking-on the name of a well-known and respected series for easy marketing points.

Pretentious Old Man.
25th Sep 2010, 13:39
I don't need the developers to be clapping their hands and saying "Good boy!" Maybe they're targeting the game at people with a low IQ?

fix'd. :rasp:

NKD
25th Sep 2010, 13:41
Which you can now do by cheating – seeing around corners without being seen, from the get go.How boring.

Yeah I never really liked that much. There are some great ways to put looking around corners in-game with augs and such. Like the see-through-walls aug. But instead you get third person cheat mode, or a cheap lean button, or the Deus Ex style where the guards are simply idiots and despite seeing you standing there as plain as day, they are perfectly happy to pretend they didn't see anything if you get back around the corner within a couple seconds.

"Thought I saw something. A guy in a coat. Guess it was nothing."


Undersell? No, I think EM is doing a grand job of the underselling the whole franchise by taking the easy way out with the modern day take on lazy development.

A large team, years of development, and millions of dollars don't seem like laziness to me. Just because someone makes a decision you disagree with, doesn't mean that it isn't the right decision for them to make.

Bluey71
25th Sep 2010, 13:50
"Thought I saw something. A guy in a coat. Guess it was nothing."

And what does this add to the game that TPS doesn't hmm? Something called tension. Maybe it got old after a while but it's a hell of better way of dealing with the situation rather than a full blown cheat cam that is boring to boot.


A large team, years of development, and millions of dollars don't seem like laziness to me.

I think that just proves that no matter how much money you throw at something, it won't turn a bad idea into a good one. Besides, your comment doesn't really answer my statement does it.

Pretentious Old Man.
25th Sep 2010, 13:55
A large team, years of development, and millions of dollars don't seem like laziness to me. Just because someone makes a decision you disagree with, doesn't mean that it isn't the right decision for them to make.

Him and Warren Spector. Just to mention.

NKD
25th Sep 2010, 13:57
And what does this add to the game that TPS doesn't hmm? Something called tension. Maybe it got old after a while but it's a hell of better way of dealing with the situation rather than a full blown cheat cam that is boring to boot.

There wasn't really any tension. After you realized that there was a huge margin for error, stealth became really unrewarding. The stupid AI is just as lame as third person view or a lean key that never gets your head blown off. Better would be to force people to rely on augs, since that's 50% of the game's story, at least.


I think that just proves that no matter how much money you throw at something, it won't turn a bad idea into a good one. Besides, your comment doesn't really answer my statement does it.

Bad in whose opinion? Yours? Mine? It doesn't matter what our opinions are. They haven't made decisions lazily as you said. They've made every development decision for very specific reasons. You and I may not agree with them, but that doesn't make them lazy, it just makes them of a different opinion.


Him and Warren Spector. Just to mention.

I stopped caring what Warren Spector thinks about anything when he shoveled Invisible War out of his studio and then decided to go make Mickey Mouse games. Him and Harvey Smith can go fly a kite.

Bluey71
25th Sep 2010, 14:06
Laziness is laziness - I think most people can see what's happening.

The other point is how this kind of development changes things, peoples perceptions and expectations. Everyone knows this is what happened with IW. But what everyone doesn't think about is how that changed peoples expectations, the expectations of the fan base. I have been here for 3 years now and not once have I seen a similar number of people on this board as I did on the old Ion Storm boards from post release IW times.

I think that game closed the door for a lot of people and when they hear about a new Deus Ex game now, they have no or little expectations for it. A shame.

Irate_Iguana
25th Sep 2010, 14:38
Every. Single. Interview. EM has done about the game has stated you can't just expect to run into any situation and expect your health regeneration to keep you alive. They've said four bullets will take you down. Stop being disingenuous, I know you've seen these interviews.

They also said the PC was the lead development platform, that you could go the entire game without getting an augmentation and that 3rd person would be extremely limited. PR statements say nothing. Regenerating health is the easy way to get out. They won't make it take 30 seconds or longer because then the whole reason for its inclusion will be gone. Either you die immediately or you will survive. It is the same in all games with regen health.



Yes, it is. Everyone has a different skill level. Difficulty levels are there so that everyone, including Nobel Peace Prize-winning geniuses like you guys, can play at a level that suits them, not specifically for you to handicap yourself. They are built right into the game for that exact purpose. A self-imposed challenge is completely different.
Basically, there is nothing wrong with going right into hard mode when you start a game.

You're now upping the difficulty level to get around the fact that regen health + takedown = instant win. That is a self-imposed challenge. You're actively coming up with solutions for a problem that is inherent with the gameplay. The problem doesn't go away you just found something to make it less noticeable. If upping the difficulty level made it so that takedowns don't work if they can see you coming then it would be something other than a self-imposed challenge.



"Thought I saw something. A guy in a coat. Guess it was nothing."

This pisses me off in the originals. You're an armed guard, tasked with protecting a very important and above all secret lab and you don't even bother to react seriously to any perceived threat? Not even if you know that an enemy agent will be coming for you?

lithos
25th Sep 2010, 14:45
A large team, years of development, and millions of dollars don't seem like laziness to me.

I believe Daikatana had all those things, too.

Suck it down.

NKD
25th Sep 2010, 14:52
I believe Daikatana had all those things, too.

Not following you. Daikatana was bad for many reasons, none of which were laziness, most of which were John Romero.

lithos
25th Sep 2010, 14:55
But you're agreeing that it's possible to still make a mediocre game, even given budget of millions, and a timespan of years?

NKD
25th Sep 2010, 15:02
But you're agreeing that it's possible to still make a mediocre game, even given budget of millions, and a timespan of years?

For sure. It's even possible to expend millions and never actually ship anything at all. (Duke Nukem Forever)

But what I'm saying is that blaming everything on laziness is, ironically, lazy in itself. The reason decisions are made, and some games come out terrible is rarely due to lack of effort. It's usually due to decisions made in good faith turning out to simply be wrong.

Duke Nukem Forever didn't fail to release because 3D Realms sat on their ass doing nothing all day. It's because they wanted perfection and started over from scratch a million times over the course of 13 years. The most hardcore amount of effort can still lead to the biggest failures.

If DXHR is bad, it won't be because they were lazy. It will be because they went too far in attracting new players. Time will tell.

Bluey71
25th Sep 2010, 15:20
If DXHR is bad, it won't be because they were lazy. It will be because they went too far in attracting new players.

I am not suggesting the developers are lazy as individuals, I am saying they took the lazy route through development ie third person everything pretty much. You can spend as much cash as you like on a TPS - wont make it any better or more immersive, sadly. Cheat cams are in these days - thats what they thought to themselves and thats what DXHR ended up with.

Anasumtj
25th Sep 2010, 15:53
And again -- it might be "less magical" to stay in first person, but it becomes much harder to do stealth...
No one is addressing the issue that most stealth games are third person for a reason.

A) It's easier for developers to go with a proven formula.
B) It helps identify their game as part of a popular market.

It's not because FPS stealth sucks. It's because too few people even give it a shot and people like you are more than willing to accept that.

NKD
25th Sep 2010, 16:10
I am not suggesting the developers are lazy as individuals, I am saying they took the lazy route through development ie third person everything pretty much. You can spend as much cash as you like on a TPS - wont make it any better or more immersive, sadly. Cheat cams are in these days - thats what they thought to themselves and thats what DXHR ended up with.

I dunno. It seems like it would have been lazier to stick with third person all the way instead of just putting it in for certain parts. Making the transition between third and first person seamless is just making things harder on themselves. If I had been them, I would have gone all one way, or all the other.

I have my doubts that the transitions from First to third and back will be as smooth as they hope.

Cronstintein
25th Sep 2010, 20:36
Just to throw my two cents in. I think you can call it lazy because it's the exact system the (lead?) designer used from rainbow6 LV. He's basically copying and pasting his cover system from the other game... I'm pretty sure we can agree that's lazy. Especially since we could have just made xray vision able to be upgraded to low/no energy usage. Or spy drone. Or when a guard briefly sees you he comes to investigate but doesn't set the alarm off instantly forcing you to either take him out quick as he comes around the corner or hide.

Anyway, I don't think it's the end of the world but it's the game decision I like the least. TP takedowns I can deal with but constant zooming in and out... ugh. Especially if it's like RB6LV where they actually jerk your camera in certain situations.

Dead-Eye
25th Sep 2010, 20:43
I would say leaning comes much closer to peeking than a magical out-of-body experience does.
I really hope they say the third person cover is the spy drone. I also hope it can be upgraded to do EMP attacks.



I stopped caring what Warren Spector thinks about anything when he shoveled Invisible War out of his studio and then decided to go make Mickey Mouse games. Him and Harvey Smith can go fly a kite.
Go eat a bagel.



I think that game closed the door for a lot of people and when they hear about a new Deus Ex game now, they have no or little expectations for it. A shame.
I knew when the game was announced that it would disappoint me. The question to me is just how much can it disappoint me? If it's a little then the devs did a good job, if it's a lot then the devs did a bad job. That's where I'm at right now.


Just to throw my two cents in. I think you can call it lazy because it's the exact system the (lead?) designer used from rainbow6 LV. He's basically copying and pasting his cover system from the other game...
Yeah that is lazy. Or maybe uncreative. Dugas doesn't come off as the most creative guy I have seen.

In regards to the OP. I think it would also be a good idea to have said skill (The one that dictates success and failure of take-downs) also increases the speed at which Adam preforms take-downs. With a high skill Adam performs the take-downs quickly. With a low skill it takes more time.

Facebyface
25th Sep 2010, 20:58
I have my doubts that the transitions from First to third and back will be as smooth as they hope.

In this respect, I feel that DX: HR is taking a lot of it's cues from Metroid Prime. I'm actually drawing a lot of similarities in how the two games are presented. Anyohw, I think the transitions can be as smooth as a game made back in 2002.

pringlepower
26th Sep 2010, 03:53
In this respect, I feel that DX: HR is taking a lot of it's cues from Metroid Prime. I'm actually drawing a lot of similarities in how the two games are presented. Anyohw, I think the transitions can be as smooth as a game made back in 2002.

A really really really good game.

Cronstintein
26th Sep 2010, 04:23
In regards to the OP. I think it would also be a good idea to have said skill (The one that dictates success and failure of take-downs) also increases the speed at which Adam preforms take-downs. With a high skill Adam performs the take-downs quickly. With a low skill it takes more time.

Ahh, *that* is a good idea. Success/failure should be based off the player imho, I'd rather keep dice rolls out of it. But if you break it down in terms of opponent level and direction (frontal attack, from rear, etc..) then I'd be on board.

Basic: Can kill fodder mobs from behind and front, all others behind only. (slow)
Moderate: Can kill non-elite mobs from front + rear. Front is slow animation.
Ninja status: can kill every mob from any location quickly.

I'm just not a huge fan of randomness in my stealth.

Facebyface
26th Sep 2010, 04:48
A really really really good game.

Indeed. A game that could be easily considered as one of the best of all time. A game... I have not yet beat >>

zombieturtle01
26th Sep 2010, 06:57
"You run up to someone and hit a button to kill them."

Like in the original Deus Ex.

Uh, except the difference is that you can take out 4-5 enemies at a time with a takedown in DX:HR. That's a pretty big goddamn difference.

Pinky_Powers
26th Sep 2010, 07:08
Uh, except the difference is that you can take out 4-5 enemies at a time with a takedown in DX:HR. That's a pretty big goddamn difference.

If you have that Aug. And if you can manage to get close enough to that many people without dying. And even then, you can only perform it ONCE per-mission, as it needs to be replenished (presumably at monetary cost to you).

You might as well be complaining that you have a rocket launch or grenades.

OwlSolar
26th Sep 2010, 07:55
You're not even required to sneak up on the enemy (takedowns are confirmed to work even if you're detected), let alone position yourself correctly. All you are required do do is press a button while close to an enemy.
Which is sure to be real easy when you die in two hits and everyone is shooting at you.


No matter how hard you make it – a bad game play feature is exactly that, bad.
Bad is a matter of opinion, and whether it was bad or not was never a point of my argument. I was only disputing whether it would be challenging or not.


Are they all as an immersive an experience as DX1? No.
That's your opinion. They definitely were to me. And again, immersion is not the point I am debating. My point was that those games are challenging.
Jeez, this is literally the worst point I've seen not only on this forum, but nearly every single one I've been on, and real life as well. You don't even know what games I'm talking about. You're automatically making assumptions, you're assuming that your ideas are the best, you're assuming that everyone else should share your opinion.
...Okay, I've actually seen worse. Never mind.


Go read my post properly. Yes DX1 did have a 'peak' button, but what glossed over was the fact that whilst leaning, you were at risk, not hidden behind a wall regenerating your health etc etc.
Huh. I thought they couldn't see you while you were leaning. If they could, then what's the point of the button?

Curse those developers. They think we can't manually take a look and go back.
Back in the day, they didn't have these fancy "lean" buttons. You had to walk to the corner, take a peek, and quickly walk back. Now that was real risk! Those whippersnappers are ruining gaming.


Afraid not – the evidence is quite clear to see in the game play videos.
Did you even read my post? I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about those other third person stealth games.


I take it you have seen the game play videos? And you have seen all the perfectly placed, waist high cover, just where you need it. Right?
This is completely irrevelent. Convienently-placed waist-high cover has nothing to do with what I was talking about.


So you are able to see then that we have actually lost something great in this game .
Notice that I never said it was anything great.


You're now upping the difficulty level to get around the fact that regen health + takedown = instant win. That is a self-imposed challenge. You're actively coming up with solutions for a problem that is inherent with the gameplay. The problem doesn't go away you just found something to make it less noticeable. If upping the difficulty level made it so that takedowns don't work if they can see you coming then it would be something other than a self-imposed challenge.
Did you even understand what I said? Or what I was talking about? No, changing the difficulty will not make those "problems" go away. But it will make it more challenging, which was my entire point in the first place.
And again, difficulty levels are not a self-imposed challenge. You're not actively coming up with any solutions at all. The options are presented to you the second you start the game. No wait, before you start the game.
Look, if I decided to play Deus Ex on hard mode, would you call that a self-imposed challenge? Well, of course you would, since I said it.


They also said the PC was the lead development platform, that you could go the entire game without getting an augmentation and that 3rd person would be extremely limited.
...And? If there is proof that any of that is wrong, then let's hear it. And just so I won't have to say it later: assumptions do not count as proof. You mentioned regenerating health and made a few assumptions about it. That has nothing to do with "PR Statements."


I really hope they say the third person cover is the spy drone. I also hope it can be upgraded to do EMP attacks.
There's nothing wrong with you believing that if you want. I'm not being condescending here (at least not deliberately). That's a genuinely good explaination, and it will still stand up even if they say it isn't.


Just to throw my two cents in. I think you can call it lazy because it's the exact system the (lead?) designer used from rainbow6 LV. He's basically copying and pasting his cover system from the other game... I'm pretty sure we can agree that's lazy.
That is actually a good point.
Still, I would argue that if a system is proven to work (I'm not saying that it has here), then copying it isn't laziness. If they copied Deus Ex's system exactly, no one would be complaining.
I heard that Rainbow Six's system is really solid, but I would be impressed if they improved on it.


Go eat a bagel.
It's funny, I literally just did. :)


You might as well be complaining that you have a rocket launch or grenades.
But they make the game less challenging! :(

Bluey71
26th Sep 2010, 09:38
Which is sure to be real easy when you die in two hits and everyone is shooting at you.

If that happens you obviously are not using your waist high cover properly – there's plenty of it around.



Bad is a matter of opinion

Yes it is – and it's my opinion that its bad, and as you can see I am not the only person who thinks that.



That's your opinion. They definitely were to me. And again, immersion is not the point I am debating. My point was that those games are challenging.
Jeez, this is literally the worst point I've seen not only on this forum, but nearly every single one I've been on, and real life as well. You don't even know what games I'm talking about. You're automatically making assumptions, you're assuming that your ideas are the best, you're assuming that everyone else should share your opinion.
I might see your point if I were the only person with the negative view, but since I am clearly not the only person here who thinks EM are on a slippery path, I wont.




Huh. I thought they couldn't see you while you were leaning. If they could, then what's the point of the button?
I take it that's not a serious question?
I'm going to answer it anyway. The point of the peek button was obviously so that you could see around a corner, with some risk of being seen unlike, a cheat cam where there is no risk of being seen – ala RV6 Vegas...



I was talking about those other third person stealth games.
You mean the ones that are not as challenging as DX1 right? Oh wait, you are probably going to say that it's a matter of opinion right? :)



I heard that Rainbow Six's system is really solid
I have played it and it's cr*p and very very boring after a while. That is of course my opinion but as I said earlier, I'm not alone in that opinion.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Sep 2010, 10:02
to lithos:
You have earned yourself a 10 day temp ban. Take a break and read the ToU.

beastrn
26th Sep 2010, 13:30
That was undeserved. If you took offense to that comment that's your own personal issue. He didn't say anything that warranted a ban. It's certainly not a flame either, depending on your point of view.

Bias.


I understand that you don't like it, but let's not pretend it's going to upset anyone but a few hardcore forumites.

I found that offensive. You're calling people hardcore forumites? You're judging me and insinuating that my opinion isn't valid? That's a derogatory comment. I want him banned for 10 days.

lithos
26th Sep 2010, 13:48
Well, I'm still here.

And no, I didn't intend that to be an insult. I thought teabagging was the main game mechanic of Halo.

Bluey71
26th Sep 2010, 15:16
I don't think it was deserved either - even though he's still here.:)

I mean teabagging? Really? Sounds like something my gran would do with her mates on a Thursday afternoon down the social. Why thats offensive to anyone I haven't the foggiest.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Sep 2010, 15:18
That was undeserved. If you took offense to that comment that's your own personal issue. He didn't say anything that warranted a ban. It's certainly not a flame either, depending on your point of view.
Bias.

Just to make it clear, members here press the 'report' button and moderators act upon it. So, no, I didn't personally take offense and there is no bias.

beastrn
26th Sep 2010, 15:21
Just to make it clear, members here press the 'report' button and moderators act upon it. So, no, I didn't personally take offense and there is no bias.

Well, doesn't really make sense to quote him and make a statement in the thread about it then, does it?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Sep 2010, 15:26
I've removed that quote. All is happy again.

Pretentious Old Man.
26th Sep 2010, 16:38
All is happy again.

Popcorn? Please?

:D

zombieturtle01
26th Sep 2010, 19:18
you can only perform it ONCE per-mission, as it needs to be replenished (presumably at monetary cost to you).


Source?

OwlSolar
26th Sep 2010, 19:45
Multiple takedowns use energy, apparently.


If that happens you obviously are not using your waist high cover properly – there's plenty of it around.
Doesn't mean it's easy. Doesn't mean cover will always let you automatically get close to enemies. Yes though, there most likely will be situations where, through good use of cover, you can get close to someone and shank the heck out of them. And even then, it won't necessarily be easy.


Yes it is – and it's my opinion that its bad, and as you can see I am not the only person who thinks that.
It doesn't matter how many people think that, and it doesn't matter whose opinion it is. It's still opinion. Stop stating it as fact.


I might see your point if I were the only person with the negative view, but since I am clearly not the only person here who thinks EM are on a slippery path, I wont.
Clearly, you don't see my point. My point there had nothing to do with Eidos Montreal and it has nothing to do with whether or not people share your opinion, or how many. Did you even read my post, or was it that you had trouble understanding it?


I take it that's not a serious question?
I'm going to answer it anyway. The point of the peek button was obviously so that you could see around a corner, with some risk of being seen unlike, a cheat cam where there is no risk of being seen – ala RV6 Vegas...
I am interested and want to hear more. As I recall, enemies could not see my head when I poked it out out to peek at them, and I got a nice view as well.


You mean the ones that are not as challenging as DX1 right? Oh wait, you are probably going to say that it's a matter of opinion right?
And here you are making assumptions again. You're assuming that all stealth games are less challenging than Deus Ex, and you're assuming that it is because of third-person. Half the things you've said in this topic are stacks of logical fallacies after fallacies.
And yes, it is a matter of opinion. Go ahead, have your opinion. I couldn't care less. But stop stating it as fact.


****
Careful now. You wouldn't want to get a ten-day ban.


I found that offensive. You're calling people hardcore forumites? You're judging me and insinuating that my opinion isn't valid? That's a derogatory comment. I want him banned for 10 days.
Half the people on these forums are doing the same thing, just to different people. You are judging console gamers, "lowbrows," and just about anyone who has a different opinion and insinuating that their opinions aren't valid. From the second I saw this forum, I have seen nearly nothing but derogatory comments.

Mindmute
26th Sep 2010, 19:49
I am interested and want to hear more. As I recall, enemies could not see my head when I poked it out out to peek at them, and I got a nice view as well.


Actually, he's right, you were (partially) visible and vulnerable to gunfire while using lean.

OwlSolar
26th Sep 2010, 19:53
Never mind then.

Pinky_Powers
26th Sep 2010, 21:28
Source?

The first batch of previews from E3. I'll try and find some direct source later... maybe.

lithos
26th Sep 2010, 23:33
Just to make it clear, members here press the 'report' button and moderators act upon it.

Really? Interesting.

singularity
26th Sep 2010, 23:51
4 pages later and we're still on the same topics, eh?

If you'll excuse me, I'll go back to playing Splinter Cell Chaos Theory... you know, that conslole game, in third person with single-button take downs that is absolutely fantastic?

True... it's not the same as DX... but if DXHR had to take some stealthy inspirations from ANYWHERE, I'd prefer it be from SCCT...
Just my 2 cents.

Mindmute
26th Sep 2010, 23:55
4 pages later and we're still on the same topics, eh?

If you'll excuse me, I'll go back to playing Splinter Cell Chaos Theory... you know, that conslole game, in third person with single-button take downs that is absolutely fantastic?

True... it's not the same as DX... but if DXHR had to take some stealthy inspirations from ANYWHERE, I'd prefer it be from SCCT...
Just my 2 cents.

Odd I thought that in the most recent Splinter Cell games, you just pressed a few button combinations and the game played itself for you...



See how easy it is to be snide and add nothing to the discussion (as usual)? I can do it too.

singularity
27th Sep 2010, 00:08
Odd I thought that in the most recent Splinter Cell games, you just pressed a few button combinations and the game played itself for you...



See how easy it is to be snide and add nothing to the discussion (as usual)? I can do it too.

Fair enough -- but first of all -- the most recent splinter cell games were, in fact, horrible. Conviction didn't even deserve the Splinter Cell title.

Second of all, seeing as how this whole thread has degraded into nothing more than PC-elitism, false criticism of third person mechanics, and over-all bashing of a button-take-down system that we have little information on, I firmly believe that showing an indication on where it has worked in the past is certianly contributing to the discussion.

Add to the fact that SCCT (and all the games I point to in my discussions) are already out, have similarities to mechanics featured in DX and are capable of being analyzed (unlike DXHR), I believe I am able to provide a roadmap for many who are simply unable to understand how a given mechanic can contribute or detract from a given game design.

Rather than talk about how "third person mechancs definitely lead to knee-high walls!" and "regen health with insta-kill means the game is way too easy!" and "it should be a skill because how it is currently sucks!" I find it much more valuable to point to an easily identifiable example of how a mechanic has worked in the past. It's far more constructive than being critical of something I have yet to see, feel and play with my own hands (and it's less likely I'll sound like and ass when the game actually comes out). Sorry if the tone was a little sarcastic -- but lets face it, when you're dealing with people who have already made up their mind, you have to shake them a little. Being a little cheeky works well, without being too insulting.

Thanks for your snide comment though :).

Mindmute
27th Sep 2010, 00:16
Second of all, seeing as how this whole thread has degraded into nothing more than PC-elitism, false criticism of third person mechanics, and over-all bashing of a button-take-down system that we have little information on, I firmly believe that showing an indication on where it has worked in the past is certianly contributing to the discussion.


As far as I'm concerned it hasn't.
I'm completely opposed to take downs on any medium, be it the console or the pc and I don't blame consoles for everything since the extintion of the dinossaurs. It's quite possible to dislike it for the feature it is and it's (usual) consequences to the design and pace of the game, rather than the platform it is usually associated with.



Rather than talk about how "third person mechancs definitely lead to knee-high walls!" and "regen health with insta-kill means the game is way too easy!"


People actually complain about HR because it removes one aspect that existed in DX: semi-permanent consequences to engaging in firefights. Because of this, they're afraid the HR will lead DX:HR's gameplay with quick sucessions of combat interluded by one or two corridors (a la Mass Effect).

And despite what you might like to believe, while this doesn't have to be the case a cover system coupled with HR usually leads to a level design of waist high walls.
It's the simplest way of granting the player a way to stay alive and partially mobile throughout gunplay and honestly the gameplay demo already showed this symptom a little (although I'm still hoping that not all areas will be that crate-laden).


Here's an un-snide comment in response to your un-snide comment ;)

singularity
27th Sep 2010, 00:43
As far as I'm concerned it hasn't.
I'm completely opposed to take downs on any medium, be it the console or the pc and I don't blame consoles for everything since the extintion of the dinossaurs. It's quite possible to dislike it for the feature it is and it's (usual) consequences to the design and pace of the game, rather than the platform it is usually associated with.



People actually complain about HR because it removes one aspect that existed in DX: semi-permanent consequences to engaging in firepower and are afraid the HR will lead DX:HR's gameplay with quick sucessions of combat interluded by one or two corridors (a la Mass Effect).

And despite what you might like to believe, while this doesn't have to be the case a cover system coupled with HR usually leads to a level design of waist high walls.
It's the simplest way of granting the player a way to stay alive and partially mobile throughout gunplay and honestly the gameplay demo already showed this symptom a little (although I'm still hoping that not all areas will be that crate-laden).


Here's an un-snide comment in response to your un-snide comment ;)

Haha -- well, it's hard to repond to this post... because I agree with a lot of it...
But lets start with you (and any one else) being opposed to take downs. That's all well and good, and something I can understand, but at the end of the day, it is included in the game. Now there are really 2 stances you can take on it -- you can either choose not to play the game because of this feature/ argue it be removed (which is just fine... there are games I've avoided because of features I didn't like) or you can argue for a stance that has the feature being modified to a point in which you can "live with it". I thought you were pulling for the feature to be modified, not removed, so I am sorry for misunderstanding.

Now the same can be said of 3rd person cover and the level-design process that might evolve from it. I'd prefer a complex, first person system that allowed for stealth, cover and shooting... but nothing I've seen from the third person cover mechanics/ stealth has been a deal breaker for me (I can "live with it"). If the game comes out and it's a Gears of War clone, I'll say otherwise, and I'll be right there trashing the game with everyone else.

In regards to what I've seen thus far, none of it has been completely ruinous for me... so I'm still positive. However, there are things I don't like. For example, I want take-downs to be faster in speed from what I've seen, and like multiple take downs to be limited by energy consumption.
Hence, why I would point to a game like SCCT -- where take downs are fluid and multiple takedowns impossible.

If we are on different sides of the fence on the issue of take downs (me wanting them modified a bit but liking their inclusion, you thinking they should have no place in the game), it will be hard for us to agree on much stated in this thread (the same way it is hard for me to agree with a lot of the guys in the "cutscenes break immersion" camp).

I guess what I'm trying to say, is I'm sorry if I was a bit of an ass on the SCCT comment -- I simply wanted to state, that, for those who are with me in the "take downs aren't a bad thing" crowd, it has been properly done before (in my own opinion) and there is no reason to be so critical of DXHR. For those who aren't in that crowd... well... there's not a lot I can say or do to change your mind.
You (meaning everyone who is opposed to takedowns/ 3rd person) just have to decide if you are going to leave the game behind, or argue for a compromise you can live with (and that probably still won't be implemented... which sucks for all of us, I suppose).

Mindmute
27th Sep 2010, 00:59
Now the same can be said of 3rd person cover and the level-design process that might evolve from it. I'd prefer a complex, first person system that allowed for stealth, cover and shooting... but nothing I've seen from the third person cover mechanics/ stealth has been a deal breaker for me (I can "live with it"). If the game comes out and it's a Gears of War clone, I'll say otherwise, and I'll be right there trashing the game with everyone else.


3rd person in itself hasn't been a deal-breaker for me yet either and it likely won't be. However, I still think that it's role in a stealth game is questionable, since it by design allows you to percieve your surroundings in total safety.
If the angle was narrowed and what you could see was a tad limited (maybe with the inclusion of a peek button, that lets Adam have a broader view at the risk of being detected) I'd be more at ease with it.
For me, it's actually about the ambience and tension it creates than the actual difficulty (for me, those two things add immensely to the immersiveness of a game).



For example, I want take-downs to be faster in speed from what I've seen, and like multiple take downs to be limited by energy consumption.
Hence, why I would point to a game like SCCT -- where take downs are fluid and multiple takedowns impossible.


My main gripe towards the take downs is the lack of info we still have on them at this point:


We know that some are limited by energy levels, however we also know that energy replenishes to a certain point, so that could just end up being a cool down.

It seemed too easy in the demo to get close enough to a target to be able to use one, so I'm concerned they could end up being gimmicky or panic buttons for when you think someone might be turning around.

We have no idea on how falible they are or how vulnerable to gunfire Adam is during them.

We don't know if they're instant-win buttons vs any enemy and therefore require little to no upgrading from the player. I wouldn't mind some actual point sinks going into here, for example you'd need a certain level or specialised aug upgraded to a certain level to takedown an enemy in situation A or B.

On how contextual or long they actually are. I'd like if there was a way to influence the takedown and it's success with player-input other than pressing the button to initiate the take-down.


At the moment, those are my major concerns /questions about them.

lithos
27th Sep 2010, 01:07
We have no idea on how falible they are or how vulnerable to gunfire Adam is during them.

You can be shot by NPCs that aren't part of the takedown choreography. We know that much. Since the player doesn't actually control Adam during, that means there's a good chance you'll be dying through no fault of your own. They may as well roll a dice: if it's an odd number, Adam dies. Sounds like fun.

Mindmute
27th Sep 2010, 01:09
You can be shot by NPCs that aren't part of the takedown choreography.

You can be shot, but since the demos were in God-mode, do we know if the shots even have an effect on you?


And in my opinion, Adam being vulnerable is a good thing since it limits the use of takedowns in the middle of the action.
It's still your fault for engaging in what could possibly be a long struggle with an enemy while being shot at.

KSingh77
27th Sep 2010, 01:12
Enemies performing a takedown on Adam.

interesting

Blade_hunter
27th Sep 2010, 01:16
We know that some are limited by energy levels, however we also know that energy replenishes to a certain point, so that could just end up being a cool down.

It seemed too easy in the demo to get close enough to a target to be able to use one, so I'm concerned they could end up being gimmicky or panic buttons for when you think someone might be turning around.

We have no idea on how falible they are or how vulnerable to gunfire Adam is during them.

We don't know if they're instant-win buttons vs any enemy and therefore require little to no upgrading from the player. I wouldn't mind some actual point sinks going into here, for example you'd need a certain level or specialised aug upgraded to a certain level to takedown an enemy in situation A or B.

On how contextual or long they actually are. I'd like if there was a way to influence the takedown and it's success with player-input other than pressing the button to initiate the take-down.


At the moment, those are my major concerns /questions about them.

1/ they all uses energy, also they said pretty much the small regeneration was to avoid too much takedown spamming

2/ probably two sniper rounds which is powerful anyway, certainly not 2 machinegun bullets, at least it also depends on the enemy's aim

3/ they are instant kills, if you don't die during the process they guy(s) will be dead.

4/ there is no specific success or fails, you press long to kill, you tap once to knock.

As for details you have a certain range to do them

FrankCSIS
27th Sep 2010, 02:26
Singularity,

The problem with using the Chaos Theory takedowns as an example is that you're comparing two potentially similar mechanics in games that are built differently. Chaos Theory, which was by far my favourite of the series, is mainly an inflitration game. As such, it played not only with the standard covers (ex: dreaded waist-high walls), but with pretty much everything else which could serve as a barrier between yourself and your enemy, including shadows. Although you can definitely shoot and kill pretty much everyone, the cover system is not primaliry built to be played as a pure shooter, all the time.

Of course, HR's cover system is not primarily built to be a shooter either, but it's built with equal opportunity in mind. As such, the level designs, as well as the cover system, must be able to support a pure shooter approach as well as an infiltration-type gameplay. In other words, the cover system in stealth mode becomes a combat system in shooter mode. Thus, the lethal takedowns can, as demonstrated during the preview, be used in a situation of pure combat, as the non-lethal takedowns could be used in infiltration mode. The potential problem which could arise here is that this equal opportunity design affects the level designs in such a way that third person cover-based stealth, coupled with takedowns, misses the opportunity of being a good system * la Chaos Theory.

Of course, we'll only know when we see it in action.

OwlSolar
27th Sep 2010, 02:32
I don't see why building levels with "equal opportunity in mind" would automatically favor the shooter. That seems to be a contradiction in terms to me.

FrankCSIS
27th Sep 2010, 03:11
I'm saying it can, not that it will. But yes, it can, because level design needs to be done with a shooter-cover-system in mind. You need to be able to velcro yourself to objects in order to cover-shoot. Levels built for both need to provide a barrier which can guarantee bullet protection. As such, they also guarantee being unseen, providing you're not in direct line of sight.

When you couple this guarantee with third person, and so the ability to see AROUND your cover while remaining unseen, and add some fail-proof takedowns, the end result cannot really be the same as a game like Chaos Theory, which was built with pure infiltration style of play in mind. The level designs can hardly be similar to Chaos, unless they willingly penalised the shooter approach.

I just have doubts that you can have both. It's a bit like how levels are always larger in games that offer strict third person, and so games which offer the possibility of both perspectives, at all times, end up with levels built for third person. You can't truly have both in equal measures. The level design of one will eventually trump the other.

So either they built their level to favor stealth, or they built them to favor shooting. We know where DX stood, really. It was mainly an infiltration/exploration RPG, with the possibility of action-based skills. I offer the opinion that by heavily streamlining the possibility of action, coupled with third person cover/combat system, the balance will shift slightly towards action. In the end, it depends on how they built their levels. I just, again, have doubts that you can truly equally offer both.

OwlSolar
27th Sep 2010, 03:37
Okay then. So what, hypothetically, would be wrong if they built it to favor stealth? You say that level design has to be built with a "shooter cover system in mind," but honestly, there's no reason why things to hide behind can't be used as cover in a shootout. You could just design a level for stealth, and have it work just fine as a shooter level. There doesn't have to be a huge disconnect.

And your example of one type of level design trumping another is about first and third person views, and your evidence was that third person levels are built larger. I don't see how this applies to shooter levels vs stealth levels.

Finally, I'm just going to say that streamlining the action does not mean that it will have dominance over everything else. Heck, all they have to do is to improve the shooting mechanics and it will already be streamlined.

FrankCSIS
27th Sep 2010, 03:51
Only blocks can really be used as bullet-cover. Blocks that guarantee being unseen. Blocks offered in copious amounts. Levels built strictly for stealth don't rely on many large blocks. In fact they usually rely on few blocks, because blocks make the shooter approach a possibility. Chaos Theory couldn't be played as a pure shooter, because the levels were not designed for firefights. With the amount of enemies present, and no large amount of potential cover, you couldn't last very long, even if the game allowed you to play it that way. While there aren't a lot of blocks to cover behind, there were tons of ways to hide from an enemy, including climbing and shadows. In THIS design, the takedowns were tense. Saying the same takedowns can work just as well in a design where blocks are offered in large amounts is overseeing the picture, I think.

I offered the example to show that level design affects game design, and vice-versa. What's true for FP vs TP person design is also true for infiltration vs action design.

Streamlining the action the way HR does it offers a dominance in level design, because the streamlining includes a third person cover/combat system. I'm talking about their choices, not streamlining in general.

OwlSolar
27th Sep 2010, 04:12
Only blocks can really be used as bullet-cover.
What.


In fact they usually rely on few blocks, because blocks make the shooter approach a possibility. With the amount of enemies present, and no large amount of potential cover, you couldn't last very long, even if the game allowed you to play it that way.
This point is interesting. You seem to be saying that Chaos Theory promotes stealth by discouraging action. Well of course that wouldn't work in Deus Ex, considering that their whole design philosophy is to give you the choice.


I offered the example to show that level design affects game design, and vice-versa. What's true for FP vs TP person design is also true for infiltration vs action design.
True on the first point, I don't see how the second point automatically applies. My issue is that you actually put forward some decent evidence that third person and first person can't be completely even, which is good. However, just because third person and first person are not completely compatible does not automatically mean that action and stealth aren't as well.


Streamlining the action the way HR does it offers a dominance in level design, because the streamlining includes a third person cover/combat system. I'm talking about their choices, not streamlining in general.
Fair enough. My point is that a third person cover system does not automatically force level design to make the action route dominant.

FrankCSIS
27th Sep 2010, 04:28
Alright, let me put it all back into the context of this thread, and try to phrase it better.

Dead-Eye says the takedowns should be a skill, or at least controlled, because as an action which you can perform all the time, combined with third person views and a prominent cover system, it makes things too simple.

Enters Singularity, who brings, from another thread, the argument that Choas Theory had an "unlimited" takedown system which worked really well, and was still very tense.

Enters me, who ways Chaos Theory had levels which were not designed for firefights, and so did not offer a lot of "cover-system" cover. CT offered SOME blocks, but it also demanded that you either climbed, or hide in the shadows for long minutes to remain unseen and perform a takedown. There was no guarantee of being unseen, because there were not a lot of physical cover to hide behind.

Now, I also claim that a game with a third person cover system, which claims to offer the possibility to be played 100 percent as a shooter, will most likely offer a lot of cover. The design demands it. The warehouse sequence in the demo is an ample demonstration of this. BECAUSE they opted to orient their streamlining around a third person cover system, they will certainly provide plenty of cover to use for the firefights. As Pinky eloquently told me in another thread, the same cover can just as well be used to sneak, and so the cover system is a good sneaking system.

Which is true. But again, we are in the context of this thread. And in this thread, Dead-Eye claims that with such ample cover, coupled with the possibility to see around your cover while remaining unseen, takedowns are too simple. Which brings us back to Singularity, and to my intervention...It's all engineering, really. You can't take one feature from one setting and claim it will work well in any setting. The end result is never the sum of all of its parts.

singularity
27th Sep 2010, 07:12
Singularity,

The problem with using the Chaos Theory takedowns as an example is that you're comparing two potentially similar mechanics in games that are built differently. Chaos Theory, which was by far my favourite of the series, is mainly an inflitration game. As such, it played not only with the standard covers (ex: dreaded waist-high walls), but with pretty much everything else which could serve as a barrier between yourself and your enemy, including shadows. Although you can definitely shoot and kill pretty much everyone, the cover system is not primaliry built to be played as a pure shooter, all the time.

Of course, HR's cover system is not primarily built to be a shooter either, but it's built with equal opportunity in mind. As such, the level designs, as well as the cover system, must be able to support a pure shooter approach as well as an infiltration-type gameplay. In other words, the cover system in stealth mode becomes a combat system in shooter mode. Thus, the lethal takedowns can, as demonstrated during the preview, be used in a situation of pure combat, as the non-lethal takedowns could be used in infiltration mode. The potential problem which could arise here is that this equal opportunity design affects the level designs in such a way that third person cover-based stealth, coupled with takedowns, misses the opportunity of being a good system * la Chaos Theory.

Of course, we'll only know when we see it in action.

You, see this here could be the deal breaker. Because you're right -- CT and DXHR are completely different games, with completely different aims -- so while CT might be able to pull off awesome stealth, DXHR needs to not only pull off stealth, but also combat (both direct and indirect) in the same place, all at the player's discretion. This means levels and AI that are built differently.

Now, I come off as pretty critical of the original DX, but I really do love the game to pieces (hence, why I'm here)... but once again, something that was in the original that I want fixed for this title is the "jack of all trades" approach. The only thing the game excelled at was choice. The stealth, shooting and RPG mechanics, taken on their own, were lack luster in my opinion. It was the mixing and choice to use them that gave them their appeal... but imagine if the shooting elements and stealth elements were great in their own regard?

Now, level design for CT will (hopefully) look nothing like the level design for DXHR, but the reason I'm still hopeful is that I don't feel CT's take-downs are dependent on level design. I think that CT's system of one-button, tension filled, fluid, unlimited takedown power can translate well in almost any level design (given a few tweaks to keep them from being unbalanced or too much of an "insta-win") -- it's simply a matter of how a developer wants to impliment them. If there are long, narrow, "you should takedown this guy!" hallways, then it's a fail (despite the fact that it worked well for CT). If take downs are able to do what they did FOR CT, and become simply one more tool in a diverse tool box, then they are, as far as I'm concerned, a win. This is why I'm still holding out hope for the system. What I think it will hinge on, rather than level design, is AI... if it can be believable... if it can go from patrol route to firefight fluidly and believably, and if the take-down powers don't just feel like a "use me here" gimmick to use on dumb AI, or in a controled enviornment, I think the odds of it being a "win" go up dramaticly.

But as you said... we won't know anything for sure until a playable chunk of game drops. Then we can judge it for ourselves.

Edit:
Which takes us back to Mindmute, which takes us back to Deadeye, which takes us back to OwlSolar... and then back to Frank :)

OwlSolar
2nd Oct 2010, 01:09
To Mindmute:

Okay, so your point summed up in one sentence is that having a cover system means that there will be cover, and having cover makes stealth too easy?
...I don't see how you made that leap. Firstly, cover does not automatically make stealth easy, no matter if you can see out of it or not. We can agree on that point, right? But of course, it can, if, say, there's too much of it. We agree on that point as well, right?
Well, how much is too much? And how does a cover system automatically make it so that there's too much? There isn't one golden standard for how much cover a game has to have. You can't just say that stealth will be too easy because it's a cover shooter. That's a horrible generalization. Yes, of course it's possible. No one has ever argued against that.
Also, stealth uses cover as well. Say what you want about shadows, height, and groups of hooded monks, but the main way to hide is to have something between you and whoever you're hiding from.

*Completely disregarding the comment about engineering*

Romeo
2nd Oct 2010, 08:21
That is true. Unless one actually "forces" themselves into cover, good 'ole hiding behind a crate will still work, which is what really made the difference in DX1.

beastrn
2nd Oct 2010, 08:39
That is true. Unless one actually "forces" themselves into cover, good 'ole hiding behind a crate will still work, which is what really made the difference in DX1.

Disagree.

I'm sure there'll be many toggled changed the instant you get into that glorious cover.

-Enemies AI routes change
-Enemy incoming fire never hits you
-They throw grenades (or whatever "hey buddy! get out of cover! you're making our game look boring!" thing they have)
-Line of sight will be very binary 1 and 0. As opposed to being out of cover, you won't know if 1 pixel will expose you or not.

etc.

Not to mention the entire experience being designed and based around using cover. Do you really think Eidos would create a cover system and then not force you to use it? heh.

tldr: cover won't be as optional as you think :rolleyes:

Practical Activity: Play Splinter Cell: Conviction without using cover.

Romeo
3rd Oct 2010, 00:11
Disagree.

I'm sure there'll be many toggled changed the instant you get into that glorious cover.

-Enemies AI routes change
-Enemy incoming fire never hits you
-They throw grenades (or whatever "hey buddy! get out of cover! you're making our game look boring!" thing they have)
-Line of sight will be very binary 1 and 0. As opposed to being out of cover, you won't know if 1 pixel will expose you or not.

etc.

Not to mention the entire experience being designed and based around using cover. Do you really think Eidos would create a cover system and then not force you to use it? heh.

tldr: cover won't be as optional as you think :rolleyes:

Practical Activity: Play Splinter Cell: Conviction without using cover.
Presumably, if you're manually hiding behind cover anyways, enemy fire ALSO shouldn't hit you. That's kinda the whole point.
Improved AI response? HOW DARE THEY. I much prefer the computer to simply stay back while I hide behind an object and NOT TRY AND FLUSH ME OUT.
No different than in Deus Ex 1. When in doubt: Use a wall.

Perfect Dark: Zero and Rainbow Six: Vegas both had "button cover" still never used it, games played like any other FPS did.

Didn't play Splinter Cell: Conviction, but that's because the game didn't interest me to begin with.

OwlSolar
3rd Oct 2010, 01:00
Not to mention the entire experience being designed and based around using cover.
I'll start taking you seriously when you stop making unfounded assumptions.

beastrn
3rd Oct 2010, 03:23
Presumably, if you're manually hiding behind cover anyways, enemy fire ALSO shouldn't hit you. That's kinda the whole point.

No, you're missing the point. Play more video games.


Improved AI response? HOW DARE THEY. I much prefer the computer to simply stay back while I hide behind an object and NOT TRY AND FLUSH ME OUT.

Improved is a cute word for it. More like "easy". Ever play Uncharted 2? Similar thing. Out of cover? All the enemies suddenly STOP RUNNING and they STOP MOVING. Presumably to allow you to get into cover. In cover? Oh, we can attack now? Because there's a very small chance you can die? Ok.


No different than in Deus Ex 1. When in doubt: Use a wall.

That has nothing to do with anything.


Perfect Dark: Zero and Rainbow Six: Vegas both had "button cover" still never used it, games played like any other FPS did.

Yeah I'm sure they did buddy. :rolleyes: I'm 100% convinced you never used cover in Vegas... maybe on easy difficulty?


Didn't play Splinter Cell: Conviction, but that's because the game didn't interest me to begin with.

The imperfection is yours. Has no bearing on your perspective. Activity still stands. You should go and get it, then try not using cover. It's exactly the same gameplay as DXHR will be, minus a couple of gimmicks.

Cover will not be optional. Stop using that as some sort of point for why DXHR might not be dumbed down.


I'll start taking you seriously when you stop making unfounded assumptions.

Who are you? I couldn't care less what you think - everything you say is stupid and you'll disagree with anyone that makes you feel bad.

pringlepower
3rd Oct 2010, 03:31
I'll start taking you seriously when you stop making unfounded assumptions.

Eh don't mind beastrn, he's just a cuteypie.

OwlSolar
3rd Oct 2010, 04:03
I can't help myself. It's so horrifying, yet I can't force myself away.

Anyhoo,
Who are you? I couldn't care less what you think - everything you say is stupid and you'll disagree with anyone that makes you feel bad. Considering who this is coming from, this is easily the best post on the entire forum. :D

beastrn
3rd Oct 2010, 05:46
I can't help myself. It's so horrifying, yet I can't force myself away.

Anyhoo,Considering who this is coming from, this is easily the best post on the entire forum. :D

Instead of trying so desperately hard to appear like your opinion is worth a damn, why don't you actually contribute something to this thread? Oh, right - because you have no idea what you're talking about. :whistle:

Feel free to try and prove me wrong, though!

Facebyface
3rd Oct 2010, 05:58
Instead of trying so desperately hard to appear like your opinion is worth a damn, why don't you actually contribute something to this thread? Oh, right - because you have no idea what you're talking about. :whistle:

Feel free to try and prove me wrong, though!

You in yourself have created a fallacy. Who's to say that your opinion of his opinion being worthless is valid if you're making that argument? Before you try and counter with an infinite hole, I'm merely asking a question and not stating my argument one way or the other.

beastrn
3rd Oct 2010, 06:11
A fallacy? Not quite.

I question his ability to have an opinion due to the fact that he (and others like him) never provide any logical information with his arguments. Instead, juvenile baiting is the theme of all of his posts. He's quite happy to derail threads into meaningless personal attacks instead of actually considering the actual core of any one debate. My (correct) assumption is that these type of people are more interested in appearing like they have an opinion, rather than actually having one. And thus said opinion is worthless.

Now - if he would like to back up his initial nonsense, I'm always open to it. The difference is I've got years and years of history and first hand experience (and a bit of common sense) to hold up my "assumptions" that cover will in fact not be as optional as some people are trying to suggest.

Facebyface
3rd Oct 2010, 06:14
Well spoken. You may proceed.

OwlSolar
3rd Oct 2010, 07:41
I question his ability to have an opinion due to the fact that he (and others like him) never provide any logical information with his arguments.
This part was actually rather interesting until the part in paranthesis. From what I know about you, "others like me" refer simply to people who have the same view on the game as me (meaning, they don't hate it). Would that be correct? I can't judge my own posts, but I've seen some very reasonable and logical posts from many of those people. It seems like what you're saying is that what others are saying is illogical because you don't agree with it, considering that's the only reason you're giving here.
Of course, I did make a few necessary leaps here, so I'd be happy if you filled those gaps in. :)


Instead, juvenile baiting is the theme of all of his posts. He's quite happy to derail threads into meaningless personal attacks instead of actually considering the actual core of any one debate.
Personal attacks? Give one example of when I actually insulted anyone. By this, I mean insulted an actual person. I am fully aware that I have been derisive, however, my insults were aimed at comments and points that people made, instead of people themselves.
Anyway, if "juvenile baiting" is my aim, then it certainly seems to be working here.
*Reels in fishing line*


My (correct) assumption is that these type of people are more interested in appearing like they have an opinion, rather than actually having one. And thus said opinion is worthless.
Correct? Interesting. What makes it correct? Is it just because you say so?


Now - if he would like to back up his initial nonsense, I'm always open to it. The difference is I've got years and years of history and first hand experience (and a bit of common sense) to hold up my "assumptions" that cover will in fact not be as optional as some people are trying to suggest.
What would you like me to back up? :)

And you are making unfounded assumptions.

Not to mention the entire experience being designed and based around using cover.
I haven't seen anything from you to back this up. And yes, I have read your posts, and I know what you're saying. Nothing you've said relates to what I quoted.