PDA

View Full Version : DXHR Interview at IGN



Pages : [1] 2

ramiyohay
6th Oct 2010, 16:21
http://pc.ign.com/articles/112/1125874p1.html

beastosterone
6th Oct 2010, 16:33
Crusaders of complexity?

Jesus what has this industry become... -_-`

MaxxQ1
6th Oct 2010, 16:36
IGN: Where I've been hearing complaints is regarding the "boss"-like setup that you end the E3 demo with, with an enormous augmented bastard showing up and starting to beat up Jensen.

[Hasty discussion between Jonathon and PR types]

JJB: Alright. If I had to answer that based on what we've shown so far, I'd say that there is nothing in there that tells you that you have no choice but to fight him. Alright, you have no choice about getting hit in the face. But that's it.

Interesting. You don't have to fight Barrett.

Or has this already been mentioned?

NKD
6th Oct 2010, 16:49
Interesting. You don't have to fight Barrett.

Or has this already been mentioned?

I think there was some speculation but this is the first thing I've heard approaching confirmation about avoiding that fight. Of course I always thought being able to postpone or avoid certain "boss" fights was a given.

Corpus
6th Oct 2010, 17:14
I bet if you convince tong to help you, his buddies will come in and help in some way.

Bluey71
6th Oct 2010, 17:40
That is the most promising interview I have seen yet for this game.

Irate_Iguana
6th Oct 2010, 17:56
That is the most promising interview I have seen yet for this game.

Why? The first page is complaining about complainers. The second page is them hyping hacking without saying ANYTHING about it, missing the point about dumbing down, rehashing the renaissance theme, saying nothing about how they are approaching the concept of transhumanism in the game. The only good thing about this interview is the quote by Jonathan Jacques that we can totally use out of context.

Coyotegrey
6th Oct 2010, 18:08
Why? The first page is complaining about complainers. The second page is them hyping hacking without saying ANYTHING about it, missing the point about dumbing down, rehashing the renaissance theme, saying nothing about how they are approaching the concept of transhumanism in the game. The only good thing about this interview is the quote by Jonathan Jacques that we can totally use out of context.

Is this what you want? Let me know and I'll do what I can to deliver...as soon as I get back from NYCC.

Ashpolt
6th Oct 2010, 18:10
Well, it's nice that they finally got round to acknowledging the fan backlash, at least about health regeneration (even though I think third person is now the more widely disliked "feature.") I like the way IGN then says "I think a cover system and regen health are the logical next steps for the series" (and JJB agrees) without giving any explanation whatsoever as to why they're the logical next steps. Good job, guys! (That's more of a criticism of IGN than JJB, but JJB could've picked up on it and run with it.) The only thing that really worries (above and beyond what we already knew) is this:


Our game actually used to be more complex.

In context, he could be talking about the hacking minigame, but I don't believe so. Have EM just admitted openly to dumbing down their game?

[EDIT] @ Coyotegrey's post, above: any chance we could finally get some shots of the HUD / menus? Even IGN mention you need to release a menu shot in this article, and they're pretty much the champions of dumb gaming. If they want menu shots, well....

Irate_Iguana
6th Oct 2010, 18:12
Is this what you want? Let me know and I'll do what I can to deliver...as soon as I get back from NYCC.

It's a small part of what I want to know about this game, but I am curious about it. Especially because we were led to believe that you wouldn't need to install augmentations. Adam is now going to be augmented. No choice about that. I'm really wondering how you are going to approach the issue while the main character, and a large part of the storyline by extension, are already firmly set in one camp by virtue of his forced augmentation. I especially want to know if you manage to make the anti-transhumanists likable and not a bunch of fascists.

Coyotegrey
6th Oct 2010, 18:21
[EDIT] @ Coyotegrey's post, above: any chance we could finally get some shots of the HUD / menus? Even IGN mention you need to release a menu shot in this article, and they're pretty much the champions of dumb gaming. If they want menu shots, well....

Unfortunately all I can say is that we'll deliver it when it's ready and the time is right. The game's constantly undergoing little changes as we polish it for the final release, and, for better and for worse, we want the HUD to be absolutely perfect before it's publicly revealed.

Coyotegrey
6th Oct 2010, 18:27
It's a small part of what I want to know about this game, but I am curious about it. Especially because we were led to believe that you wouldn't need to install augmentations. Adam is now going to be augmented. No choice about that. I'm really wondering how you are going to approach the issue while the main character, and a large part of the storyline by extension, are already firmly set in one camp by virtue of his forced augmentation. I especially want to know if you manage to make the anti-transhumanists likable and not a bunch of fascists.

I'm interested in all this as well. Being still fairly new to the team, and travelling, I'm still piecing together this game's history, what's included, etc.

I'll definitely try to address your suggestions ASAP when I get back to the office. Thanks for the honesty.

Ilves
6th Oct 2010, 18:38
I especially want to know if you manage to make the anti-transhumanists likable and not a bunch of fascists.

This one sits very high on my things-I-hope-HR-will-do-justice list. :thumb:

mad825
6th Oct 2010, 19:02
And then at the same time we've got the hacking augmentation upgrades that help you, and the software and viruses you can get.



so this means that it's going to be like a mini version of Uplink or Bioshock's "plumbing"?..something else?:scratch:

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 19:11
This one sits very high on my things-I-hope-HR-will-do-justice list. :thumb:

Yes. Me too.

There is some hint to this in the article we just read. He says you can have some very deep conversations about transhumanism, but the game never tells you which side is right or wrong. This says to me both sides will seem likable in their own ways.

I mean, if you have one guy saying "Transhumanism is good", and he pets a kitten and kisses a baby, and another saying "Transhumansism is bad" and he lights the kitten on fire and steals candy from the baby...

Call me an EM lacky if you really want, but I think they're smart enough to know that's the same as telling the player which side is right and which side is wrong. :)


IGN: So from a development perspective, how do you justify making a game where a player might only see 60% of it on a given playthrough?

JJB: The justification comes the minute somebody asks you to make a sequel to Deus Ex! [Laughter] At that point you're safe, you're cool. It's like, "You're sure that's what you want?"

This is a wonderful answer, and one I feel has far-reaching implications for the game. It's an important mindset for a game post-IW, I'd say.


so this means that it's going to be like a mini version of Uplink or Bioshock's "plumbing"?..something else?:scratch:

EM has used the Uplink comparison openly in previous articles... so I'm guessing it will be quite similar.

Ilves
6th Oct 2010, 19:51
There is some hint to this in the article we just read. He says you can have some very deep conversations about transhumanism, but the game never tells you which side is right or wrong. This says to me both sides will seem likable in their own ways.

Let's have some samples of these "deep conversations"! I'm so ready to find out on what level HR is going to be tackling these moral issues.

Outlook for being able to set kittens on fire in a DX game: generally good.

Pretentious Old Man.
6th Oct 2010, 20:01
His reaction to Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 (or implied reaction), gives me much hope.

JCpies
6th Oct 2010, 20:03
Is the guy being interviewed wearing a hat?

Just realised...

'All the hate.. all the violence... all the lies. All of it has a source...' The DX3 forums!

SageSavage
6th Oct 2010, 20:18
IGN: Well, this is what surprised me seeing Human Revolution at GamesCom. You guys are absolutely bringing Deus Ex back, right down to the grid inventory. And then there's the new hacking minigame - this is complex stuff!

JJB: But playable. Our game actually used to be more complex.

Interesting remark (as Ashpolt pointed out already).

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 20:18
Let's have some samples of these "deep conversations"! I'm so ready to find out on what level HR is going to be tackling these moral issues.

Outlook for being able to set kittens on fire in a DX game: generally good.

I'm almost frightened to get too much content before I actually play the game.

But maybe in the form of a playable Demo, they could do this. In the Deus Ex demo, you got a small hint of the depth at which conversations were going to take place... and it was glorious.

Ilves
6th Oct 2010, 20:21
^ For me, proper, integral gameplay footage would do just fine. :)

JCpies
6th Oct 2010, 20:22
I just want Adam's coat irl, that's all I need to be immersed.

Dead-Eye
6th Oct 2010, 20:28
This biggest thing that worries me is this:

This is still a first-person shooter, and it's possible to have a lot of fun just shooting. So if you choose not to augment your hacking abilities or whatever you can still shoot your way through the front door.


Isn't that what Deus Ex was totally not about? I mean I like the idea of deciding human augmentation is wrong, but shouldn't they have skill trees for the players that go the Luddite rout?

SageSavage
6th Oct 2010, 20:36
Isn't that what Deus Ex was totally not about? I mean I like the idea of deciding human augmentation is wrong, but shouldn't they have skill trees for the players that go the Luddite rout?
I think they have to draw the line somewhere but I guess you will still have many of the non-violent access routes open even when you play without any augs. Could make for interesting decisions, btw. Is being anti-Transhumanism worth it to kill people? It's okay if there's not always a perfect "Happy End"-solution available.

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 20:39
Isn't that what Deus Ex was totally not about? I mean I like the idea of deciding human augmentation is wrong, but shouldn't they have skill trees for the players that go the Luddite rout?

Ideally, yeah. I sort of rolled my eyes at that point in the interview too. Sure, you can choose not to augment, but suddenly there is no way to build your character in any fashion. So this "choice" is not feasible if you still want to play it as an RPG Shooter.

Pretentious Old Man.
6th Oct 2010, 20:43
No real reason not to upgrade the arms, though. After all, they're already robotic, there can be no moral reason for not upgrading them further.

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 20:49
No real reason not to upgrade the arms, though. After all, they're already robotic, there can be no moral reason for not upgrading them further.

:lol:

On a purely rational level, you have a point. But on an ideological one, you won't want to help the Industry with your patronage, will you?

Pretentious Old Man.
6th Oct 2010, 20:55
:lol:

On a purely rational level, you have a point. But on an ideological one, you won't want to help the Industry with your patronage, will you?

There is no room for ideologues in the world of Deus Ex. :rasp:

Shralla
6th Oct 2010, 21:00
Did nobody else basically poop themselves in rage or at least mild annoyance when they read this?


IGN: To me, the regenerating health and cover system seem like logical steps forward for the series.

I mean what the ****, really?

Tverdyj
6th Oct 2010, 21:05
Did nobody else basically poop themselves in rage or at least mild annoyance when they read this?



I mean what the ****, really?

that's pretty much the reason nothing that comes out of IGN's mouth is worth listening to.

As for the interview, i'm being made hopeful by the fact that the devs criticize others for dumbing down and streamlining games.
It remains to be seen if they are being sincere or hyppocritical, but for now they certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt for that.

it's also good to hear that they acknowledge our rage over the regen issue, even if they do nothing about it.

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 21:10
There is no room for ideologues in the world of Deus Ex. :rasp:

Of course, of course. It's not like the whole DX world was built on ideologies...

:D

Shralla
6th Oct 2010, 21:11
I didn't expect them to change anything. It's too late for that.

But I just don't see what's so "logical" about going from a locational/health-pack based system to a full-body regenerating health model.

Pretentious Old Man.
6th Oct 2010, 21:21
Of course, of course. It's not like the whole DX world was built on ideologies...

:D

It's not my fault you're morally inflexible.

And yes, I do mean the augmentation project.

:nut:

Blade_hunter
6th Oct 2010, 21:26
The Demo tells nothing about if we have to fight Barrett or not, but the infos I've got from previous interviews told that we have to fight the bosses and kill them, that's pretty accurate. I have also read that we can avoid to kill anyone except for the bosses.
This wasn't thought with the demo showing Barrett, where there is no reason to conclude a such thing without seeing the rest of the fight. Only the infos told this. I don't know what Belletete was thinking about how we got these conclusions for a such thing.
As for not telling anything, that's a bit the purpose of the article, unfortunately. :hmm:
Because Actually his response doesn't seem to confirm or deny anything

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 21:30
It's not my fault you're morally inflexible.

And yes, I do mean the augmentation project.

:nut:

Me? I didn't know we were talking about ourselves, here. Hmm... I don't even know where I stand on the whole transhumanism thing.

I guess I'm not a fan of surgically altering yourself unless it's really necessary. But in all honesty, the lines for what's necessary are hard to distinguish.

But that's just for real life. In a game like Deus Ex, I'm going to build the best character to fit my needs.

Pretentious Old Man.
6th Oct 2010, 21:32
I was just trying to find ways of getting in intro quotes, actually.

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 21:48
The Demo tells nothing about if we have to fight Barrett or not, but the infos I've got from previous interviews told that we have to fight the bosses and kill them,

For God's sake, just stop. I've been patiently cautioning you against jumping to conclusions on this. The short and incredibly un-revealing sentences concerning the Boss fights in Human Revolution have been universally silent on what you can honestly expect.

But time and again you've made these foolish statements about what the Boss Fights will be, and how restrictive they'll be.
I've tried... Oh! how I've tried to explain that we honestly don't know enough to draw those conclusions. But you've latched onto these purposefully vague phases and sworn by the Lords of Kobol as to their full meaning.

Now we have Belletête contradicting your premature conclusions, and you're honestly going to argue how perfectly reasonable your over-reaction was? Vague yammering is never enough to be as certain of a thing as you've been.

So, settle down, and let us all discover the truths of Human Revolution together, as more and more information is released. Pretty please? :flowers:

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 21:50
I was just trying to find ways of getting in intro quotes, actually.

Oh crap! I see it now.

Okay, let me get into the proper head-space...

---------
Well, it's hard to be as flexible as you robotic old men.
---------

Best I could do. :o

WildcatPhoenix
6th Oct 2010, 21:56
I think you will probably have to deal with Barrett eventually, but maybe not right at that moment in Shanghai. Maybe the player's decisions can lead to a showdown elsewhere (much like in the original, where you might fight Anna Navarre in the 747, in the train station, or in UNATCO HQ, or Simons in the Ocean Lab or Area 51).

I would be very happy if this were the case.

Ilves
6th Oct 2010, 21:59
I don't want to kill Barrett. :( Dude's not evil, just misunderstood. And the punch to the face, that's just how manly mans express their affection, am I right?

Blade_hunter
6th Oct 2010, 22:02
Pinky, that wasn't a premature conclusion, it was based on information from interviews, not about the demo or even any thought of mine.
Other than that, his response is pretty vague, and if there was no information before I wouldn't even post about that except for asking about it.

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 22:55
Pinky, that wasn't a premature conclusion, it was based on information from interviews, not about the demo or even any thought of mine.

"You have to fight and kill the Bosses"

It's true that statement means you have to fight and kill the Bosses. But what does that mean? It's a vague statement.
You drew very firm conclusions from it, and you would not allow for there to be a wider realm of possibility. I know, because I've had conversations with you on this very topic of Boss Fights.

Your conclusions were absolutely premature, because they were founded on vague phases and powerfully incomplete information.

Next time I council you to patients before demanding you know the final and full truth of something, at least think about it before blowing me off. :)

Blade_hunter
6th Oct 2010, 23:26
That wasn't only this, but this one confirms pretty much somethings. I've read that the bosses will be fought in closed areas before this information, but unfortunately I can't find the link anymore.
And the phrase saying "You have to fight and kill them" was the other information that pretty much said the rest, because if Dugas said there will be boss fights, and you can fight them and kill them, then I wouldn't tell a such thing. Even if they only said only kill.
As for possibilities if you have to fight and kill there will be a low chance to have much possibilities.
I'm not great in English but "have to do something" is the meaning of being forced to do something, as far as I know.

As for knowing everything about them that's not the case, in fact I know much more about the impossibilities rather than how exactly it will be.

EDIT: missing detail, it was also said that Adam has to fight during the game, and after talking about the bosses it was said we have to fight and kill them.

Pinky_Powers
6th Oct 2010, 23:40
Here's what you need to think on for the future...

You and I read all the information available, and I still said we don't know the full truth of this yet. And now, lo and behold, we find out there's strong possibilities for player choice in these instances. Something you said many times is "out of the question" based on the "information you read".

What kind of choices will we have? I don't know. It's more vague suggestive drivel. But it sounds like we're still dealing with a Deus Ex game here. :cool:

Rindill the Red
6th Oct 2010, 23:57
I didn't expect them to change anything. It's too late for that.

But I just don't see what's so "logical" about going from a locational/health-pack based system to a full-body regenerating health model.

I don't have my panties in a bunch about the regenerating health... I could care less, just so long as I can crank the difficulty to the point where one or two good shots kill me (head shot instant kill) (with no augmentations), and I can do the same to my enemies when realistic (no augmentations).

Though it is interesting to note that Halo, the series that essentially introduced regenerative health, originally used a combination system of health + health-paks and regenerating force-shield.

They went to totally regenerating health as they continued the series and yet for their final (and best) entry in the series they went back to the original system.

If they are to be "logical", we are likely to see something along the lines of: Deus Ex 3 = full body regenerating health, Deus Ex 4 = localized body health pack system + some regeneration, Deus Ex 5 = localized health pack system.

No, but really, regenerating health is a generic fps shooter mechanic, while localized health pack system is an rpg thing. Recent releases demonstrate this in Fallout 3 vs. Call of Duty.

pringlepower
7th Oct 2010, 00:04
I think you will probably have to deal with Barrett eventually, but maybe not right at that moment in Shanghai. Maybe the player's decisions can lead to a showdown elsewhere (much like in the original, where you might fight Anna Navarre in the 747, in the train station, or in UNATCO HQ, or Simons in the Ocean Lab or Area 51).

I would be very happy if this were the case.

Wait train station?

Blade_hunter
7th Oct 2010, 00:15
Pinky, you are just wriggling here :hmm:

As for complex health systems it's used in shooters, RPGs and simulators, I don't mind the kind of games where they appeared, I liked the feature because it added more depth to the game.

Yes the train station in battery park, just before encountering Gunther.

Fluffis
7th Oct 2010, 02:03
IGN: To me, the regenerating health and cover system seem like logical steps forward for the series.

JJB: That's exactly what we think.


Translation:



IGN: We think regenerating health and cover system are great, because we think that anything that everyone else is doing now is the best way to go the industry has grown up.

JJB: That's exactly what we think.


Seriously... How are these things "logical steps forward"? They're just re-treading the same damn steps that developers have been taking for years now.

"We're going to jump off a cliff, because all the other developers are doing it!"

Can't they just accept that some people don't think that the most logical step forward, for a prequel to a game that was as ahead of its time as DX was, is using the same things that everyone else does?!

KSingh77
7th Oct 2010, 02:16
Please let the devs jump off a cliff cause everyone else is doing it.

Gordon_Shea
7th Oct 2010, 03:11
Translation:



Seriously... How are these things "logical steps forward"? They're just re-treading the same damn steps that developers have been taking for years now.

"We're going to jump off a cliff, because all the other developers are doing it!"

Can't they just accept that some people don't think that the most logical step forward, for a prequel to a game that was as ahead of its time as DX was, is using the same things that everyone else does?!

Most people actually prefer regenerating health. There's a reason developers use it: Focus testing, Playtesting, and polling consistently show that experiences with regenerating health, which don't artificially break up gameplay, are more fun for the majority of consumers. If you don't think games should be fun, go play The Path or The Graveyard.

Moreover it is a step forward from the previous games, in which you could spam medkits and be up to full health mid combat, without ever having to worry about running out unless you were a moron.

Tverdyj
7th Oct 2010, 03:24
*takes deep breath*

no, I'm not gonna turn this into another "pc/medkits vs.health regen/consoles" debate.....

Fluffis
7th Oct 2010, 03:28
Most people actually prefer regenerating health. There's a reason developers use it: Focus testing, Playtesting, and polling consistently show that experiences with regenerating health, which don't artificially break up gameplay, are more fun for the majority of consumers. If you don't think games should be fun, go play The Path or The Graveyard.


Talking about being artificial, when defending auto regen... that's rich.



Moreover it is a step forward from the previous games, in which you could spam medkits and be up to full health mid combat, without ever having to worry about running out unless you were a moron.

Instead you just have to walk away for a bit and be 100% again. Hell, after a battle, you just keep walking to the next fight, and you'll be at 100%. No resource management. No searching for something to heal yourself with.

No... you chose the wrong game mechanic to use the word "moron" about.

The main reason why so many people like auto regen is because it is easier. It doesn't require any thought whatsoever. It just happens.

Try harder! Try again!

Tverdyj
7th Oct 2010, 03:29
I can already guess the answer:
"but if it's easy, it's MORE FUN!"

:wallbash:

TrickyVein
7th Oct 2010, 03:48
Hmm. Not so much.

Let's assume that most games that utilize health-regen do not also make use of health-pickups.

While engaging in combat, then, you can either use a medpack - which may include pausing the game in order to do so - or make use of cover to allow your character to heal in order to survive the fighting.

From this simple scenario, health-regen actually forces you to keep fighting. That may be harder for some people than, say, pausing the game and taking your time to patch-up *which occurs pretty much instantly*

It may be more fun, also. That's a good thing from where I'm coming from. Maybe you don't agree? :hmm:

singularity
7th Oct 2010, 06:23
Talking about being artificial, when defending auto regen... that's rich.



Instead you just have to walk away for a bit and be 100% again. Hell, after a battle, you just keep walking to the next fight, and you'll be at 100%. No resource management. No searching for something to heal yourself with.

No... you chose the wrong game mechanic to use the word "moron" about.

The main reason why so many people like auto regen is because it is easier. It doesn't require any thought whatsoever. It just happens.

Try harder! Try again!

Eh -- I DISLIKE it because it makes games easier... I love it because it doesn't break the pacing. How many times did I play Deus Ex, get shot to hell, and know that there were more guards right outside the door, or just in the next area... but hold on guys. I know you're stupid enough to not find me for a bit, so I have to look under every single pillow and every single drawer for a med kit, other wise this next bit is going to be very frustrating. Was it realistic... eh... debatable. Did it take me out of the game? Every time. It made for a handful of interesting scenarios, but nothing that defined the game, by any stretch.

With regen health, every individual firefight can still be just as difficult (true... the game as a whole might be easier... I know... and I hate it too), while it allows you to play at a pace that doesn't take you out of the immersive spot. This encourages you to -- you guessed it -- play the game however you want. In DX 1, if you can't find a medkit under a random bed, you would usually be forced to stealth past a part rather than choose how to tackle it. This (along with horrible shooting mechanics) meant that the only character really worth playing was a stealthy one. For a game that promoted free choice so much, its mechanics kind of painted you into a corner in a lot of regards, especially on harder difficulties. EDIT: TrickVein pretty much hit the nail right on the head, as far as I'm concerned.

I understand people arguing that health should "be a resource" and there should be consequences for your actions (I've said that one a hell of a lot, personally) -- but I can easily see both sides of this coin. Having it be a resource, in a long, story-driven game that encourages you to play how you want, means the game is going to drag its feet a fair bit, and will hamper everyone who chooses a more agressive character. I'm saying, there are other things that you can make resources out of (energy, ammo, EXP, invintory space etc.) that would afford the game an element of strategy, while not punishing gun-slingers, and not causing the game to dip to a snails pace after every little skirmish.

Also -- I must remark, it has been said in old interviews that there will be healing items of some sort -- and the extent of the "regen health" is not known -- simply that it will involve "regeneration." I'll wait to see it before I really comment on it.

(more) on topic: I think the article was great... good interview, with the obvious nugget here being the issue of fighting Barrett. If we have choices in regards to major fights, I'm excited.

Romeo
7th Oct 2010, 06:46
I have to say, at first I was worried about health regen. Now I'm downright angry about it. The fact that the devs sport the flag of complexity and individuality in one answer, only to bow down and say health regen and cover are "getting with the times" is beyond hypocritical. Beyond that, some of it sounded inspiring (Hacking system, conversations, transhumanism theme) but that first page has still got me all riled up.

Pinky_Powers
7th Oct 2010, 07:19
You should punch someone, Romeo. You should punch someone right in the eyeball!

Romeo
7th Oct 2010, 07:22
You should punch someone, Romeo. You should punch someone right in the eyeball!
Ugh, I should've read this before Hockey so I could've vented my frustration. God, it just seems so callous the way he makes it sound like it's everyone else's problem for hating regen, and like it HAS to be done or some such nonsense.

Pinky_Powers
7th Oct 2010, 07:30
I certainly prefer the Deus Ex system. But I'm not against regen. I just hope they make it better than your average system... make it a nice long system while in combat.

Irate_Iguana
7th Oct 2010, 10:54
What I liked best about the interview bit about regen health is how JJ totally missed the fact why having only 2 hp in your arm was actually important in DX. And how he nicely confirmed that locational damage is not present in HR.

Ninjerk
7th Oct 2010, 11:09
I have to say, at first I was worried about health regen. Now I'm downright angry about it. The fact that the devs sport the flag of complexity and individuality in one answer, only to bow down and say health regen and cover are "getting with the times" is beyond hypocritical. Beyond that, some of it sounded inspiring (Hacking system, conversations, transhumanism theme) but that first page has still got me all riled up.

We've been together for almost two years now, R, and I've never seen you so... passionate.

Anyways, nothing's been said here that I didn't want to bring up.

Brockxz
7th Oct 2010, 11:23
It's funny how they talk about complexity in games and he disapproves Bioware move to streamline Mass Effect and Dragon Age but in the end they are totally fine with health regen system that is the core of streamlining for health systems in games :D I don't understand them. It's like he talks one thing and thinks/do the opposite.

Ninjerk
7th Oct 2010, 12:00
Actually, there's one thing I want to say (I've already forgotten if it's been said or not) about the introduction to the interview. Why does this interviewer insist that mainstream game reviewers have any integrity?

Blade_hunter
7th Oct 2010, 13:44
It's funny how they talk about complexity in games and he disapproves Bioware move to streamline Mass Effect and Dragon Age but in the end they are totally fine with health regen system that is the core of streamlining for health systems in games :D I don't understand them. It's like he talks one thing and thinks/do the opposite.

That's even why I don't understand the hype after a such interview. I can see that the conversations and the hacking minigame sounds interesting at least on the paper but that's all. You know Irate Iguana there was confirmation that the complex health system was dropped from much more old interviews, as for explaining game design choices, Belletete isn't the person who will explain them.

WildcatPhoenix
7th Oct 2010, 13:52
Regarding health regeneration:

The game that really started it all (Halo) actually had a well-balanced system, in my opinion. The original, and now Halo: Reach, use a combination of regenerating shield and health packs. The shield will recharge in a matter of seconds, but your health is permanent and must be replenished through consumable health kits.

So how could you apply this to Deus Ex? Using the miracle of videogaming pseudo-science, you throw together some gibberish about self-sealing armor (I remember one of my favorites from back in the day, Mechwarrior, had a faction with advanced armor for their infantry and starships that could seal small punctures with a kind of gel that hardened in a few seconds). If a serious breach occurs, however, Adam takes real damage and must heal himself.

You could still incorporate location-based damage. Taking severe (or "critical hits," as we RPG enthusiasts call them) damage to your arm could affect aiming, leg damage affects your running, and chest and head damage obviously sends you to that Great Cyber-Renaissance in the Sky.

So there. Compromise.

Blade_hunter
7th Oct 2010, 14:14
I will say much more popularized the concept rather than started, like GOW popularized the cover system

JCpies
7th Oct 2010, 15:03
Ugh, I should've read this before Hockey so I could've vented my frustration. God, it just seems so callous the way he makes it sound like it's everyone else's problem for hating regen, and like it HAS to be done or some such nonsense.

You can always bite your thumb at the devs sir!

GepardenK
7th Oct 2010, 17:25
Eh -- I DISLIKE it because it makes games easier... I love it because it doesn't break the pacing. How many times did I play Deus Ex, get shot to hell, and know that there were more guards right outside the door, or just in the next area... but hold on guys. I know you're stupid enough to not find me for a bit, so I have to look under every single pillow and every single drawer for a med kit, other wise this next bit is going to be very frustrating. Was it realistic... eh... debatable. Did it take me out of the game? Every time. It made for a handful of interesting scenarios, but nothing that defined the game, by any stretch. I agree with you that health-regen doesn’t necessarily mean the game will be easy, but I can’t say I agree on the pacing part. For me health regen breaks pacing – it does so by ensuring that the pacing almost never changes. The game becomes monotonous because no battle has a potential negative consequence for me; I’m always at full strength in the end anyway. There is no reason for me to play smart in order to get away with as little damage as possible; my play style does not matter as long as I win every encounter. And isn’t that the great core idea from original creator Warren Spector: "play style matters"?

Furthermore, I believe that having a choice in how you play the game only feels important if there is a risk involved. For example: playing stealth or social will feel redundant if I just as easily can blast my way through the level. But if I could get permanently hurt (as in no regen) from a gunfight, then the choice of what to do in any given situation would feel much deeper.
It would also deepen the combat itself. What if I was way to hurt to attack at point blank range? Maybe I would have to use that sniper rifle to take the enemy out at range, or find some explosives and lure them into a trap. Suddenly I have to be creative about stuff, even in combat situations. But with health regen, the only reason to use special weapons like snipers and grenades is if A) they are overpowered B) there is no more ammo for conventional firearms (fat chance) C) as a "cool" gimmick.

You see, with health regen even my weapon and gadget choice does not matter. Other than for gimmick reasons that is. Ammo wont matter either because as long as any given situation is "winnable" with a shotgun, then I wont need that minigun. Why not? Because I get out of the situation with full health anyway, so next situation is just as winnable. No need to even cosider stealth or social interaction (other than for roleplay reasons…sight).

What is the fun of making choices if I dont have to cosider the long-term consequences?


With regen health, every individual firefight can still be just as difficult (true... the game as a whole might be easier... I know... and I hate it too), while it allows you to play at a pace that doesn't take you out of the immersive spot. This encourages you to -- you guessed it -- play the game however you want. In DX 1, if you can't find a medkit under a random bed, you would usually be forced to stealth past a part rather than choose how to tackle it. This might be why we have different views. For me, freedom of choice is worthless if everything I do always works anyway. What made DX1 a good game for me was that I had to think creatively about any given situation - and that there was long term consequences for everything I did. No need to play MacGyver or Garret if you simply can morph into regenerating Swartznegger. The reason being that MacGyver and Garret has their own interesting drawbacks to consider, while regenerating Swartznegger dont

Pretentious Old Man.
7th Oct 2010, 17:25
I've yet to hear them explain why they couldn't have regenerating health on individual limbs. I suspect that "because target market wouldn't understand it" would be the honest answer.

WildcatPhoenix
7th Oct 2010, 17:32
I will say much more popularized the concept rather than started, like GOW popularized the cover system

Right. I meant "the game that started the regenerating health craze."

It annoys me to no end how IGN suggests that regenerating health and 3rd person cover are "natural" progressions for Deus Ex. Regen health is mostly implemented for pacing concerns; you don't want players to take a break from the action in order to look for health kits. "No retreat, comrades, onward to the victory!"- that sort of thing.

Deus' pacing is much more deliberate. I'm not saying regenerating health or cover stealth is absolutely incompatible with the format, but it needs to be complex. Using a combination of cover stealth and lean keys, for example, or the above mentioned regen health/med pack combination would be a MUCH better system, in my opinion.

mad825
7th Oct 2010, 17:39
With regen health, every individual firefight can still be just as difficult (true... the game as a whole might be easier... I know... and I hate it too), while it allows you to play at a pace that doesn't take you out of the immersive spot. This encourages you to -- you guessed it -- play the game however you want. In DX 1, if you can't find a medkit under a random bed, you would usually be forced to stealth past a part rather than choose how to tackle it. This (along with horrible shooting mechanics) meant that the only character really worth playing was a stealthy one. For a game that promoted free choice so much, its mechanics kind of painted you into a corner in a lot of regards, especially on harder difficulties. .

never bothered me, all it means to me is that I'll have to use a good/rare weapon ammo to get past that stage also to take advantage of the environment.

I could only ever see this problem occurring where you can't save anywhere and load back to the same spot, where you get sent back to the beginning of the level/checkpoint.

Dead-Eye
7th Oct 2010, 19:29
Please let the devs jump off a cliff cause everyone else is doing it.

lol.


I've yet to hear them explain why they couldn't have regenerating health on individual limbs. I suspect that "because target market wouldn't understand it" would be the honest answer.

Regenerative health and localized damage don't feel like they would mix well. Although if it was something more along the lines of what Wildcat said (I.E. Regenerative Armor) I would be all for it. Infect regenerative armor sounds like the best type of gameplay mechanic for Deus Ex. You can go all rambo and you can always take a few hits but if you suck at going ranbo then it's time to start considering other options or buy/find more medpacks.

I agree that one of the best things about Deus Ex was the fact that when I was low on health I had to take the sneaking option.

Regenerative armor sounds like a perfect balance between the new and the old.

Edit: I wonder if they already implemented this? I mean the thing that regenerates is you're bioelectrical energy and it dose it in sort of an interesting way. So maybe every time you get hit it's drains you're BE levels. Although that might be too much to wish for.

AlexOfSpades
7th Oct 2010, 19:38
This "too late to change" thing is pissing me off!

Within a week, an expert group of programmers could code a new health system (Since the damage values are probably already made), not by scratch but altering the current codes. As soon as the design artist finished the medkit models and textures, the mappers scatter them around in the maps (Shouldnt take more than a day or two, as i'm a mapper myself).

The game is going to be released in a matter of almost half a year. They DO HAVE time to change it.

Tverdyj
7th Oct 2010, 21:56
by "it's too late to change" hey mean "we've already submitted report to marketing, saying this will boost our sales by 20%, because we will be able to relate to those CoD fans"

pringlepower
7th Oct 2010, 23:19
by "it's too late to change" hey mean "we've already submitted report to marketing, saying this will boost our sales by 20%, because we will be able to relate to those CoD fans"

You're right. Back in the the 90s and early 2000s it would definitely be possible to change a game's health system in a week.

DON_The_Grey
7th Oct 2010, 23:35
JJB: The justification comes the minute somebody asks you to make a sequel to Deus Ex! [Laughter] At that point you're safe, you're cool. It's like, "You're sure that's what you want?"

But if that wasn't the case, I'm sure it'd be really hard to justify it.

I think that's rather a sad statement. Its like DX is the only explanation to develop such a game which is,
as a new game, not possible at all, today.
In other media, like in movies, to argue that actually not shown material is not produced (and paid) is comprehensive.
Scenes are taken 6 times. One makes it, 5 others not. Whole scenes cut away due to editing. nothing new. - I mean, it all depends on budget. Contradictive? -To conclude:
What separates movies and games here is possibility to create a level of interactivity which leads to new dimensions in game design. This is a huge potential seemingly ignored by today's game design due to budget concerns.

"If you want to make a great game, spent money on multipath multi solution approaches and risk somthing!"

Blade_hunter
7th Oct 2010, 23:38
I just don't know why they didn't made something in the vein of fallout 3, in that area.
I mean, selectable views, complex health system, and such things. I will be certain if that was made, people will be much more happier with this game, but I guess, some people seems to be right about these choices...

OwlSolar
7th Oct 2010, 23:46
Keep in mind, we still don't know exactly what the health regeneration system is like. It's still possible for it to be complex and such.

...Admittedly though, not very likely.

Ninjerk
8th Oct 2010, 00:27
You can always bite your thumb at the devs sir!

Do YOU bite your thumb at them good sir?

IOOI
8th Oct 2010, 02:20
I just don't know why they didn't made something in the vein of fallout 3, in that area.

The answer to that is pretty easy. NONE of HR dev Leaders has any experience with RPGs.

Awhile ago someone made a comparision between DX dev team and HR's development experience and there was a great difference in the genre of games developed, but I still believed that EM would be able to deliver something in the veins of DX, since they were consulting DX original dev team.

Personnally, it's definitely the biggest let down after so much anticipation in relation to a game. I've never been a fan of pretty much any videogame (a sympathiser for the most). I'm SO disappointed right now for believing that EM would be capable of doing something of extraordinaire, innovative or even try to maintain the same experience delivered by DX1.
If there's ever a DX4 or any sequel made by the current EM dev team I won't be holding my hopes for it and I won't even participate in forum discussions, present ideas or make suggestions about the game because, from what I realised from this first experience, it's pointless.

Still I'm waiting to see what EM has to show, though not as enthusiastically as before.

Romeo
8th Oct 2010, 04:42
Yes, I was almost hoping to hear about the mysterious "special difference" Rene had mentioned way back when about health regeneration, but I'm under the distinct impression that the system isn't unique any more. And that scares the hell out of me. Makes my platform selection easier though, as I'll be waiting for someone more talented than I to make a mod to make the system better, somehow.

Ilves
8th Oct 2010, 05:55
Keep in mind, we still don't know exactly what the health regeneration system is like. It's still possible for it to be complex and such.

...Admittedly though, not very likely.


I respect and love the people on these boards that ***** on HR, but oftentimes I really want to beat them over the head with your caveat.

You can't have your final verdict ready on something as dynamic as a health system when you haven't seen it in action on footage, let alone experienced it by playing. We know that it's not a full-on health regen, and that there's going to be some catches to it, plus health recovering items to boot. It may all work out just beautifully in the flow of battle, and within the augmentation context. Emphasis on may.

Blade_hunter
8th Oct 2010, 09:24
The answer to that is pretty easy. NONE of HR dev Leaders has any experience with RPGs.

Awhile ago someone made a comparision between DX dev team and HR's development experience and there was a great difference in the genre of games developed, but I still believed that EM would be able to deliver something in the veins of DX, since they were consulting DX original dev team.

Personnally, it's definitely the biggest let down after so much anticipation in relation to a game. I've never been a fan of pretty much any videogame (a sympathiser for the most). I'm SO disappointed right now for believing that EM would be capable of doing something of extraordinaire, innovative or even try to maintain the same experience delivered by DX1.
If there's ever a DX4 or any sequel made by the current EM dev team I won't be holding my hopes for it and I won't even participate in forum discussions, present ideas or make suggestions about the game because, from what I realised from this first experience, it's pointless.

Still I'm waiting to see what EM has to show, though not as enthusiastically as before.

Yeah, I see what you want to say there, and I feel the same.
As for complexity it will be only a bit more than a classic RH, but saying that big complexity will come about it, sorry, we know that the complex body style health system has been dropped, also it's full on regenerating health, not partial, that's 100% plus something more so HP bonus or quasi immediate recovery.
We don't know how exactly it is, yes, but second what I read the regenerating health plays a major role, instead of minor.
@Romeo, we don't know if there is an SDK, also the fact there is DLCs reduces drastically to have something like this.

Irate_Iguana
8th Oct 2010, 10:52
You can't have your final verdict ready on something as dynamic as a health system when you haven't seen it in action on footage, let alone experienced it by playing.

Every post here comes with that disclaimer. People just don't bother to put it in writing. All opinions and statements are made on what we have available now and our own projections based on that. If they change something opinions might change. Just look at the lines that Barrett uttered.

motsm
8th Oct 2010, 11:25
Yes, I was almost hoping to hear about the mysterious "special difference" Rene had mentioned way back when about health regeneration, but I'm under the distinct impression that the system isn't unique any more. And that scares the hell out of me. Makes my platform selection easier though, as I'll be waiting for someone more talented than I to make a mod to make the system better, somehow.Same. Unless the health regeneration system is like nothing I've ever seen or heard of before, I won't be buying the game until it can be completely disabled. With the difficulty level of most multiplatform shooters, you probably wouldn't need to implement another health system anyway, just beat the game on a single health bar.

AaronJ
8th Oct 2010, 12:27
enormous augmented bastard

Hahahahhaa, quite the elegant description

Gaunt88
8th Oct 2010, 12:51
There's no way they could change the health system in a week. Even if altering the code only took that long, they'll have been playtesting, tweaking and optimising every single encounter in the game with health regen in mind for months. Just altering the code without even more extensive playtesting would most likely result in a rather broken game.

So when they say it's too late to change it, I think they really mean it's actually too late.

AlexOfSpades
8th Oct 2010, 13:01
They have an entire squad of the best programmers, modellers, artists and playtesters available, staying in the same office for probably 6 or 8 hours of work. Daily.

I'm a mapper, and a programmer, and i believe its possible to be done in a week. If not, dont worry, they have MONTHS left.

They could do it in two weeks. Three weeks. Its possible.

GepardenK
8th Oct 2010, 13:08
^Yes, but they wont :) :(

The idea behind DX:HR seems to be: Splinter cell + Gears of War = win. My point being that every playstyle is just as effective always. There is no need to think about what might be the best idea in any given situation... No more "damn Im hurt, need to snipe or sneak by theese bastards" situations (unless scripted of course...)

I think they try to make every part (action, stealth, social etc) as fun as possible, but forgets to look at the big picture and the dynamic between the playstyles.
I can see why health regen would be a good idea if this was pure action only, but its not...

Gaunt88
8th Oct 2010, 13:10
@ AlexOfSpades: If that's the case, I'll bown down to your actual experience :) Maybe it can be done in a few weeks.

Still, I'm not surprised they won't rework a mechanic that's probably already close to being finished. Why spend all that time and money fixing something that, in their and many fan's eyes, isn't broken when there's so much other stuff to get finished and polished?

AlexOfSpades
8th Oct 2010, 13:13
^Yes, but they wont :) :(

The idea behind DX:HR seems to be: Splinter cell + Gears of War = win. My point being that every playstyle is just as effective always. There is no need to think about what might be the best idea in any given situation... No more "damn Im hurt, need to snipe or sneak by theese bastards" situations (unless scripted of course...)

I think they try to make every part (action, stealth, social etc) as fun as possible, but forgets to look at the big picture and the dynamic between the playstyles...

You're right.

Most unfortunately, you're right.

I remember having to change my playstyle from Plasma-gunner to sneaky Assassin because my medkits were over. I felt a little like James Bond, expert in any combat situation. It was cool.

Now since Adam Jensen is virtually immortal as soon as you stay on your defensive, well, you will only change your playstyle if you just feel like so. There's no actual danger or challenge.

):

I hope someone high up in Eidos is there reading this and thinking... "They're disappointed.. we must... change this, there's still hope.. !"


ok probably its no happening and i'm just being naive again

edit - Gaunt, you're quick to reply!


Still, I'm not surprised they won't rework a mechanic that's probably already close to being finished. Why spend all that time and money fixing something that, in their and many fan's eyes, isn't broken when there's so much other stuff to get finished?

Exactly.. ):

They can, but they wont.

Well. I think the game will be good anyways.

Gaunt88
8th Oct 2010, 13:19
(That's because I'm sitting here procrastinating when I should be studying =P)

Same, I'm really looking forward to it. I seem to be in the relative minority that doesn't hate health regen.

I'd rather EM spend the time polishing and perfecting their game than going back over old ground and "fixing" the heath system.

AxiomaticBadger
8th Oct 2010, 14:31
I've got too say I find it hilarious that one of the arguments against regeneration is that allows you to adopt the playstyle you enjoy instead of forcing one on you.

One thing I feel we should keep in mind is that HR has augmentations, so there's a good chance that we'll have the ability too fine-tune the regeneration rates and limits in-game, with improved regeneration being accessable at the cost of othe,r more tactical abilities.

Ilves
8th Oct 2010, 15:31
Every post here comes with that disclaimer. People just don't bother to put it in writing. All opinions and statements are made on what we have available now and our own projections based on that. If they change something opinions might change. Just look at the lines that Barrett uttered.

Some elements of a game can be reasonably judged like that: a character's design, a musical track, a voice actor's performance. But consider all the elements that come into play when judging the merits of a health system: combat mechanics, AI, situation & dramatization... For me at least, all the write ups I've read on the health system so far were less than comprehensive. Sometimes a little reservation is in order.

Fluffis
8th Oct 2010, 16:11
I've got too say I find it hilarious that one of the arguments against regeneration is that allows you to adopt the playstyle you enjoy instead of forcing one on you.

One thing I feel we should keep in mind is that HR has augmentations, so there's a good chance that we'll have the ability too fine-tune the regeneration rates and limits in-game, with improved regeneration being accessable at the cost of othe,r more tactical abilities.

You wouldn't find it so hilarious if you considered the fact that DX took care of it with an aug, effectively giving you the choice of regen or medikit. Because people around you are considering that.

The HR devs could both have the cake and eat it... just as in DX. Instead, they paint themselves into a corner, by choosing one over the other... and end up with a pissed-off fanbase.

WildcatPhoenix
8th Oct 2010, 17:36
The HR devs could both have the cake and eat it... just as in DX. Instead, they paint themselves into a corner, by choosing one over the other... and end up with a pissed-off fanbase.

Exactly. This huge wedge between the developers and (much of, but not all) of the fanbase could've easily been avoided by making regenerating health an aug. Why make it an issue at all?

singularity
8th Oct 2010, 22:05
I agree with you that health-regen doesn’t necessarily mean the game will be easy, but I can’t say I agree on the pacing part. For me health regen breaks pacing – it does so by ensuring that the pacing almost never changes.
...

Furthermore, I believe that having a choice in how you play the game only feels important if there is a risk involved. For example: playing stealth or social will feel redundant if I just as easily can blast my way through the level. But if I could get permanently hurt (as in no regen) from a gunfight, then the choice of what to do in any given situation would feel much deeper.
...

You see, with health regen even my weapon and gadget choice does not matter. Other than for gimmick reasons that is. Ammo wont matter either because as long as any given situation is "winnable" with a shotgun, then I wont need that minigun. Why not? Because I get out of the situation with full health anyway, so next situation is just as winnable. No need to even cosider stealth or social interaction (other than for roleplay reasons…sight).

What is the fun of making choices if I dont have to cosider the long-term consequences?

This might be why we have different views. For me, freedom of choice is worthless if everything I do always works anyway. What made DX1 a good game for me was that I had to think creatively about any given situation - and that there was long term consequences for everything I did. No need to play MacGyver or Garret if you simply can morph into regenerating Swartznegger. The reason being that MacGyver and Garret has their own interesting drawbacks to consider, while regenerating Swartznegger dont

See the problem here is that I know you're right. Seriously - I've been wanting more "consequence" to my "choices" ever since I played DX1 and GTA3 back in the day. I truely enjoyed several instances in the original DX where I was down on my luck, running low on ammo, had my left arm gone, about to die and was able to scrape out of a difficult situation by being resourceful. I guess what I was trying to convey is that a regen system isn't ALL doom and gloom. The pacing can be affected more by story than by firefights, and other finite resources can help make the game strategic, even with the inclusion of regen health.

And you can definitely have a regen health system that makes things like choices in weaponry matter. Look at Halo - the game that popularized regen health (as stated earlier). It also popularized the "2 weapon only" system, and your weapons mattered -- if you decided to grab 2 long-range weapons and close-quarters lied ahead, you might be very screwed. If you grabbed a rocket launcher and ran out of ammo, you were generally screwed. If you didn't have an energy weapon and came upon elites, you were screwed. A very limited invintory meant that, even with very few consumable resources (health -- which didn't count on legendary, grenades and ammo), you still had to be very strategic, pick when and where to fight and always be mindful of what you were carrying... all in a game that only had 8 weapons and regen health and was fairly linear.

Think about it in DXHR now -- if there are heavily armored enemies that you would want a heavy weapon to take down, but filled your invintory with small silenced weapons, then you probably would favor to sneak by these walking tanks. If you fail, these guys will probably blow you to bits quickly, making the stealth tense, and giving you a sense of risk. If you want to fight, just like in Halo -- you could probably take them with a large amount of planning and took them by surprise... you would just be kinda screwed and expect to restart over and over, waste a lot of ammo, potentially alert other enemies... the reward being you could loot their corpses for more ammo, better guns, and maybe cash/ a key -- if you actually win. From that point, you can move on to the next location, choosing if you want to use stealth, talk these new NPCs down, or use your new, big guns to blow them to hell... Here, we see risk, reward, choice, consequence, and strategy -- all with a regen health system.

Now in this same scenario, if you had silenced weapons and only 25% health in a non-regen system, there might be no possible way for you to take these armored NPCs... now you don't even have a choice in the matter... crawl into the vent, pray for a med-pack.

Remember -- I agree with you here... I want location-based damage, and I would prefer a health system that used med-packs of some kind.
But, on a similar note to what you touched on -- I want my RPG choices to matter in a BIG way -- i.e. what skills I specialize in dictate what buildings I can enter, what parts of the world I can explore, what missions I can take, etc. When it comes to small scale encounters, skirmishes, firefights, and simple decisions like "do I stealth, shoot or talk" inside of this building or on this mission, -- I want my skills to make a difference, but I don't want something to hold me back from making those smaller decisions.
Regen health could be a limiting factor in this equation.
And as you said - this might be where we disagree in some regard.

I'm just trying to say, we can still have a game that is largely true to the DX feel, and still very fun, even if regen health is done Call of Duty style. It just has to be implimented correctly.

Jerion
8th Oct 2010, 22:11
(That's because I'm sitting here procrastinating when I should be studying =P)

Same, I'm really looking forward to it. I seem to be in the relative minority that doesn't hate health regen.

I'd rather EM spend the time polishing and perfecting their game than going back over old ground and "fixing" the heath system.

Yeah, it's a minority around these parts to be sure.

I'm gonna spend some time this weekend collecting some thoughts together on how they've adjusted the overall mix here.

Pinky_Powers
8th Oct 2010, 22:14
I hope someone high up in Eidos is there reading this and thinking... "They're disappointed.. we must... change this, there's still hope.. !"

lol. I doubt that will happen, because they know it's not true.

According to reports, running and gunning is very brutal, and play-testers are dying all the time (in-game, not physically). If this is true, and if it's also true that a few well-placed shots will kill you. And NPCs with grenades will kill you. And flanking will kill you...

If they come on the forum and read posts by people who have never played their game, who are claiming HR is a cake-walk, what do you think their reaction is going to be?

":rolleyes:"

Of course, if everything we've been told is a lie, and the game is a breeze, then maybe you're right and they'll freak out and change the health system and remove cover and and all that.

-~::Edit::~-
There was a point made earlier about how there is no consequence to choosing the "gun through the front door" approach. singularity did a good job with that, but I'd like to point out a few things also.

This is something that has been brought up in a few of the major interviews as well. They have asked the Devs this very question. Why bother to sneak, or talk your way in, when blowing in guns ablaze is the straightest path? They say that it's very, very difficult to do. It's punishing.

In the Detroit Police Station demo, it was brought up in at least one of the previews I read, that the Demoer had died more than once... except that he had GodMode on so he really didn't die. I'm not sure how this was indicated to the journalist... I wasn't there... but it sounds like taking on a PD full of angry cops is not the wisest path you could take.

Fluffis
8th Oct 2010, 22:25
lol. I doubt that will happen, because they know it's not true.

According to reports, running and gunning is very brutal, and play-testers are dying all the time (in-game, not physically). If this is true, and if it's also true that a few well-placed shots will kill you. And NPCs with grenades will kill you. And flanking will kill you...

If they come on the forum and read posts by people who have never played their game, who are claiming HR is a cake-walk, what do you think their reaction is going to be?

":rolleyes:"

Of course, if everything we've been told is a lie, and the game is a breeze, then maybe you're right and they'll freak out and change the health system and remove cover and and all that.

The real problem for them is that they, like us, won't know how hardcore/difficult/medium/easy the game really is, until they release it. No amount of play-testing can compare to thousands upon thousands of people (from the Hardcore Superstar to the Casual... damnit :mad2:...) getting their grubby little hands on the game for the first time. That's when they really find out... if their play-testers are crap. :D

And of course regen makes the game easier than the lack of it. It's in the very nature of the game mechanic. No amount of ":rolleyes:" is going to change that.

jcd3nt0n
8th Oct 2010, 22:30
I want this regen! :mad:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6032/regend.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/i/regend.jpg/)

Fluffis
8th Oct 2010, 22:33
I want this regen! :mad:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6032/regend.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/i/regend.jpg/)

I'll say a hearty "Amen!" to that.

NKD
8th Oct 2010, 22:37
And of course regen makes the game easier than the lack of it. It's in the very nature of the game mechanic. No amount of ":rolleyes:" is going to change that.

That depends heavily on what the regen is replaced with. If you take a game balanced around regenerating health, and then just shut it off, then yeah it's going to be more difficult. But it's just as easy, if not easier, having a huge health pool and thirty medkits on standby that can be used instantly while firing your weapon and circle strafing the enemy.

You can make any health system difficult and challenging. There's nothing inherently easy or difficult about any given health system, since that's just half the equation. Your ability to survive is equal parts health conservation and enemy damage output.

A game with medkits isn't very challenging if there are millions of them and you can use them whenever. Conversely, a game with regenerating health isn't particularly easy if you die in three shots and cover isn't invincibility.



I want this regen! :mad:

*Image Snipped*

Invincibility you mean? Yeah, real challenging ;) Especially with maxed out power recirc and 30 bio cells on standby.

jcd3nt0n
8th Oct 2010, 22:41
Well then, since the game is in 2027, no nanotecnology, no regen of any kind! Just medkits, candy bars, soda, beer, whine LOL! :lol::nut:

http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/485/armsshotoffregrowthemwi.jpg (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/armsshotoffregrowthemwi.jpg/)

NKD
8th Oct 2010, 22:47
ROFL. That picture is great.

jcd3nt0n
8th Oct 2010, 22:51
http://memegenerator.net/JC-Denton :nut:

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9852/walkintowomensrestroomg.jpg (http://img375.imageshack.us/i/walkintowomensrestroomg.jpg/)

Pinky_Powers
8th Oct 2010, 22:53
I want this regen! :mad:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6032/regend.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/i/regend.jpg/)

Yeah, me too.

xsamitt
8th Oct 2010, 23:16
I want this regen! :mad:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6032/regend.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/i/regend.jpg/)


Ahh the sweet memories.It's what DX is made of.It's historically correct.

Fluffis
8th Oct 2010, 23:21
That depends heavily on what the regen is replaced with. If you take a game balanced around regenerating health, and then just shut it off, then yeah it's going to be more difficult. But it's just as easy, if not easier, having a huge health pool and thirty medkits on standby that can be used instantly while firing your weapon and circle strafing the enemy.


But that's only possible if there's a ton of medkits. That wouldn't be balancing the game. However: a game balanced towards medkits will be, inherently, more challenging than a game balanced toward regen; because if you are careless, and can't find the medkits or overuse them (if there is, say, nothing stopping you using a medkit while you're at full health, for instance), you'll be screwed. With regen you just have to wait, and you'll be at 100%. You can always be at 100% before a fight, as long as you survived the last fight. With medkits, you can't be sure of it. You can finish a fight with 1% left, and be in some serious ****, if you haven't been able to manage your resources.



You can make any health system difficult and challenging. There's nothing inherently easy or difficult about any given health system, since that's just half the equation. Your ability to survive is equal parts health conservation and enemy damage output.

A game with medkits isn't very challenging if there are millions of them and you can use them whenever. Conversely, a game with regenerating health isn't particularly easy if you die in three shots and cover isn't invincibility.


Paraphrasing Starship troopers: "Your enemy can't use a medkit, if you disable his head." In most "medkit games" you can also be killed in three shots, or less. In fact, there is usually a greater risk that it will happen because of the medkits.

Auto-regen does make games easier.
No matter what you say, there simply is no way around that. It's a fact.
If a game doesn't have any other way of replenishing health they have to make the game easier, than they'd be free to do if there was a way for you to dispense health yourself, in order for you to have a chance whatsoever of surviving. The alternative is a system where you regen all the time, and that would border on god mode.

And you can't use a situation where devs screw up and put too many health packs/medkits/whatever in the game, as an argument against the game mechanic itself. That just doesn't make sense.



Invincibility you mean? Yeah, real challenging ;) Especially with maxed out power recirc and 30 bio cells on standby.

... if you choose to take the regen aug, power recirc aug, max one or both and haven't used up your bio cells or bio energy. That's four conditions that need to be met in order for that to become "invincibility". And you can still get one-shotted, by a plasma gun or rocket.

Blade_hunter
8th Oct 2010, 23:35
Circle strafing is only feasible when your weapons' accuracy aren't affected with your movement, and if you haven't cheated AIs filled with 100% accuracy
In Deus Ex it wasn't possible to do this until we have master skill on a weapon category and circle strafing was a tactic I never used in this game, because it was inefficient.
I used cover and lean and even when I was going brutal, I couldn't do any rampage without tossing a grenade that could at least disable a few soldiers.

As for regenerating health it needs a more constant oppression force to be really challengeable, a thing that Deus Ex isn't about. Some games work well with it because of that, some other games prefer to make the regenerating health playing a least important part of the gameplay because of that non constant oppressive force.
As for most of cover games with regenerating health, the AI is often defensive and the cover is often the safe heaven to replenish after being damaged, and we still protected.

And the unfortunate point I have against Deus Ex it's the fact the stealth pistol and the assault gun didn't do enough damage really these weapons weren't good I have to play mods to even enjoy them ...

Pinky_Powers
8th Oct 2010, 23:41
Auto-regen does make games easier.
No matter what you say, there simply is no way around that. It's a fact.

It makes managing your health easier. It does not make the game easier, or the enemies, or infiltrating a fortified compound.
When you're surrounded by hostiles that won't wait patiently for your health to regenerate, your challenge is dependent on your skill and ingenuity, same as always.

Afterword, managing your health is easier with Regen, you're right.

NKD
8th Oct 2010, 23:48
But that's only possible if there's a ton of medkits. That wouldn't be balancing the game. However: a game balanced towards medkits will be, inherently, more challenging than a game balanced toward regen;

That doesn't make any sense, if both are balanced, then both will be, by definition, equally difficult.

because if you are careless, and can't find the medkits or overuse them (if there is, say, nothing stopping you using a medkit while you're at full health, for instance), you'll be screwed. With regen you just have to wait, and you'll be at 100%. You can always be at 100% before a fight, as long as you survived the last fight. With medkits, you can't be sure of it. You can finish a fight with 1% left, and be in some serious ****, if you haven't been able to manage your resources.

You're slanting your argument. You're taking an idealized version of perfectly balanced medkits, and putting them up against the worst type of regen (regen to full, easy to hide and regen whenever you want.)


Paraphrasing Starship troopers: "Your enemy can't use a medkit, if you disable his head." In most "medkit games" you can also be killed in three shots, or less. In fact, there is usually a greater risk that it will happen because of the medkits.

On the contrary, medkits generally offer a large, sudden boost of health, great for counteracting burst damage. (like a headshot) A regenerating health system often only kicks in when you stop taking damage, and cannot do anything about a sudden burst of damage.


Auto-regen does make games easier.
No matter what you say, there simply is no way around that. It's a fact.

Nonsense. If my health regen games offers little in the way of safe places to regenerate, doesn't regenerate you to full, and ensures you're going to die in a few shots, then it's plenty hard. Harder than a lot of games without it.


And you can't use a situation where devs screw up and put too many health packs/medkits/whatever in the game, as an argument against the game mechanic itself. That just doesn't make sense.

Why not? Your argument is based on equally faulty logic, that all regenerating health systems are basically "kill one guy and regenerate to full before taking on the next guy." That's the same as me saying all medkit setups are your guy running around with 30 medkits and the ability to use them while simultaneously firing his GEP Gun.

Neither scenario is true.

Essentially the problem with your reasoning is that you're equating easier health management with an easier game overall. Health management is only one part of the equation. ANY health system can be balanced to ANY level of difficulty by tinkering with the numbers. Saying that your preferred method of health management is the only way to make a challenging game is silly.

Fluffis
9th Oct 2010, 00:39
That doesn't make any sense, if both are balanced, then both will be, by definition, equally difficult.


Nope. Medkits require resource managing. Even if it's made so that you can't overuse the resource, you still have to find it. That adds a level of uncertainty to that system which is completely absent in a regen-only system. 100% health is certain after fights, as long as you survive; the only factor is time.



You're slanting your argument. You're taking an idealized version of perfectly balanced medkits, and putting them up against the worst type of regen (regen to full, easy to hide and regen whenever you want.)


No. In fact I'm using every regen-only system (not regen-to-full after a fight, in a regen-only system would be... strange). Like I wrote in the other paragraph: the only factor is time.



On the contrary, medkits generally offer a large, sudden boost of health, great for counteracting burst damage. (like a headshot) A regenerating health system often only kicks in when you stop taking damage, and cannot do anything about a sudden burst of damage.


Uh... Yes... that's why there will be more big bursts of damage in a medkit game, and less in a regen game. It's part of the game mechanic. Therefore, if you haven't managed your resources properly, you'll be royally screwed in a medkit game. In a regen-only game there will be far less burst damage. When they do happen, you'll be at 100% or close enough, unless you're terminally stupid.



Nonsense. If my health regen games offers little in the way of safe places to regenerate, doesn't regenerate you to full, and ensures you're going to die in a few shots, then it's plenty hard. Harder than a lot of games without it.


If it doesn't regenerate you to full, then there will have to be some other way of getting full health, making the game a hybrid. That's not what I'm talking about here.



Why not? Your argument is based on equally faulty logic, that all regenerating health systems are basically "kill one guy and regenerate to full before taking on the next guy."


Didn't say that... anywhere, I think. Did I?
If you don't have any way of regenerating health while taking damage, the devs have to go easier on you - i.e. make sure you take less damage, in some way.



That's the same as me saying all medkit setups are your guy running around with 30 medkits and the ability to use them while simultaneously firing his GEP Gun.


No, it isn't.



Neither scenario is true.


Of course not, since you twisted my scenario.



Essentially the problem with your reasoning is that you're equating easier health management with an easier game overall. Health management is only one part of the equation. ANY health system can be balanced to ANY level of difficulty by tinkering with the numbers. Saying that your preferred method of health management is the only way to make a challenging game is silly.

It's not the only way. I didn't say that. It's just more challenging to have a system that will, inherently, favour Massive Burst Damage (medkit), over Damage over Time (regen-only).

E.G: In a medkit game, one hit from an MBD may kill you outright, if you're unlucky and don't have full HP at the start of a fight (no medkits left), while in a regen-only game you will be at 100% at the start of a fight (unless you're too gung-ho... or an idiot... or both), making your chances of survival that much better.

You see what I'm getting at here? A big factor in why a medkit-style game will be more challenging is the uncertainty. No resources, and you may well have to kiss your ass goodbye. In a regen-only-style game, you'll never have that uncertainty. You will have full health at the start of a fight, or you can run away and find some place to heal up a bit, before continuing your present fight. In a medkit-style game, that running away will have to be combined with trying to find something to help you heal. If you're in a level you've scoured clean of medkits, you're S.O.L., and will die, or it may take you into the vicinity of more enemies, in which case, you may end up being surrounded... and dead. In a regen-style game, you usually just have to back-track a bit, to find a spot to hide out for a while.

I'm not saying that a regen-style game can't be challenging; I'm saying that a medkit-style game will always be more challenging, all things being as balanced as possible (no "tons of medkits" just lying around, so that you'll always have a full complement).

Blade_hunter
9th Oct 2010, 00:42
So NKD you are admitting that you need a more constant oppression to make the game hard in regards to the regenerating health. That's even why I think it doesn't fit a game with stealth and action components such as Deus Ex.
Regenerating health can be hard but we need certain circumstances to make it hard.

In some games RH make them too easy, while in some others it can enhance the gameplay.

And I want to add the last point Regenerating health can be challenging but only if the gameplay allow it to be that way so having specific mechanics to not make it too powerful.

NKD
9th Oct 2010, 00:59
I'm not saying that a regen-style game can't be challenging; I'm saying that a medkit-style game will always be more challenging, all things being as balanced as possible (no "tons of medkits" just lying around, so that you'll always have a full complement).

All things being as balanced as possible isn't reality, though. High minded theory means nothing. And that's what I've been saying. There are plenty of medkit based games that have piss easy combat (take FEAR for example) and plenty of games with regenerating health where it's a deathfest.

There's more to combat difficulty than health regeneration. How impenetrable is the cover? Is there cover at all? What mechanisms are there to help you avoid damage in the first place? Is there a bullet time mechanic? What about armor or shielding? Can you gain health by attacking enemies? There are dozens of things that combine to determine the challenge level of a game.

A game is designed and balanced to provide a certain level of challenge. Regardless of what health system they use, it's going to be balanced to provide the same challenge based on playtester feedback. If they want the combat system to be punishing, they can do it with either system. If they want the combat system to be easy, they can do it with either system.

Let's say the playtesters are happy with the challenge level of the game right now. If they changed their mind and went to a medkit based setup now, for example, it wouldn't be any harder. They'd rebalance everything to keep the challenge at basically the same level.

jcd3nt0n
9th Oct 2010, 01:32
:nut:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/725/iloveyoue.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/iloveyoue.jpg/)

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1529/yummyze.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/yummyze.jpg/)

Pinky_Powers
9th Oct 2010, 01:39
^... And he wins. :D

Fluffis
9th Oct 2010, 01:39
All things being as balanced as possible isn't reality, though. High minded theory means nothing. And that's what I've been saying. There are plenty of medkit based games that have piss easy combat (take FEAR for example) and plenty of games with regenerating health where it's a deathfest.


But if we start taking those things into account, we also have to talk about crappy developers and stuff like that. It's really neither here nor there, when it comes to this particular discussion.



There's more to combat difficulty than health regeneration. How impenetrable is the cover? Is there cover at all? What mechanisms are there to help you avoid damage in the first place? Is there a bullet time mechanic? What about armor or shielding? Can you gain health by attacking enemies? There are dozens of things that combine to determine the challenge level of a game.


Yes, but all things being equal in those departments, a medkit-style game is still more challenging. Again, it's neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion.



A game is designed and balanced to provide a certain level of challenge. Regardless of what health system they use, it's going to be balanced to provide the same challenge based on playtester feedback. If they want the combat system to be punishing, they can do it with either system. If they want the combat system to be easy, they can do it with either system.

Let's say the playtesters are happy with the challenge level of the game right now. If they changed their mind and went to a medkit based setup now, for example, it wouldn't be any harder. They'd rebalance everything to keep the challenge at basically the same level.

They can't get the same challenge level. A medkit-style has an element of randomness that a regen-style game doesn't have.

Bear with me here.
If we posit this: the same game, with two different healing styles, all other things are as equal as can possibly happen. Typically, you would either take less burst damage (more DoT) or have a greater HP pool in regen games (if you take the same amount of burst damage), since you can't heal while taking damage, though for this example that's just to cover the bases:

Playing a regen-style game, you have set values for everything. There is nothing random about how you will heal. It's automatic.
Playing a medkit-style game, you'll have to actually find all the medkits to even have the same possibility, and even then you still have to rely on your own reactions to time the heals right, when in combat.

There are things about a medkit-style game that can't be predicted, which inherently makes it more challenging, since the devs will have to take the stance that people will find all medkits - because if they don't, the game may well become way to easy for those who do find them all.
However: anyone who plays a regen-style game has the same possibility as everyone else who plays it from the get-go, and throughout the entire game. There is no randomness as to whether or not you'll be able to heal. It's only a matter of time.
Even one missed medkit brings you below the optimal healing performance, which a person playing a regen-style game will have automatically.

Pinky_Powers
9th Oct 2010, 01:54
Fluffis, with a Regen system you loose the randomness of "will I ever heal?" But you gain the randomness of relying on the Regen to heal you in time. Every encounter poses that question.

Also, I argue against your statement that HR means you must have higher HP. It depends on what kind of game it is. If you're playing Gears of War, then yeah, you'll want more HP. But Crysis, especially on the higher settings, you couldn't take very much damage at all.

Dead-Eye
9th Oct 2010, 02:24
Every game I have played with regenerative health became a Stop&Pop shooter vary quickly. There was vary little thinking even on higher difficulties, it was all reactive gameplay... even Crysis (which had a good stealth system.)

I should point out here that the Original Deus Ex had major flaws in it just before shipping and was postponed six months. For the devs to implement a Regenerative Armor and localized non-regan health system, for the devs to fix the head sizes, for the devs to explain there unrealistic cover system through augmentations, I'm willing to wait 6 more mouths.

Pinky_Powers
9th Oct 2010, 02:39
Every game I have played with regenerative health became a Stop&Pop shooter vary quickly.

Every good shooter should be played like that. Except if it's an arcady twitch shooter like Unreal.

If you're fighting against AIs that don't run straight at you, and your HP is not that of a demigod, you are going to play the stop, pop and shoot... it's just more realistic. It has nothing to do with Health Regen, third-person cover, or any of those things.
It's all dependent on whether you're playing a human, or a superhuman, and if your enemies are men, or bulls (I'm looking at you Barrette).

Laputin Man
9th Oct 2010, 02:48
Eh -- I DISLIKE it because it makes games easier... I love it because it doesn't break the pacing. How many times did I play Deus Ex, get shot to hell, and know that there were more guards right outside the door, or just in the next area... but hold on guys. I know you're stupid enough to not find me for a bit, so I have to look under every single pillow and every single drawer for a med kit, other wise this next bit is going to be very frustrating. Was it realistic... eh... debatable. Did it take me out of the game? Every time. It made for a handful of interesting scenarios, but nothing that defined the game, by any stretch.

With regen health, every individual firefight can still be just as difficult (true... the game as a whole might be easier... I know... and I hate it too), while it allows you to play at a pace that doesn't take you out of the immersive spot. This encourages you to -- you guessed it -- play the game however you want. In DX 1, if you can't find a medkit under a random bed, you would usually be forced to stealth past a part rather than choose how to tackle it. This (along with horrible shooting mechanics) meant that the only character really worth playing was a stealthy one. For a game that promoted free choice so much, its mechanics kind of painted you into a corner in a lot of regards, especially on harder difficulties. EDIT: TrickVein pretty much hit the nail right on the head, as far as I'm concerned.

I understand people arguing that health should "be a resource" and there should be consequences for your actions (I've said that one a hell of a lot, personally) -- but I can easily see both sides of this coin. Having it be a resource, in a long, story-driven game that encourages you to play how you want, means the game is going to drag its feet a fair bit, and will hamper everyone who chooses a more agressive character. I'm saying, there are other things that you can make resources out of (energy, ammo, EXP, invintory space etc.) that would afford the game an element of strategy, while not punishing gun-slingers, and not causing the game to dip to a snails pace after every little skirmish.

Also -- I must remark, it has been said in old interviews that there will be healing items of some sort -- and the extent of the "regen health" is not known -- simply that it will involve "regeneration." I'll wait to see it before I really comment on it.

(more) on topic: I think the article was great... good interview, with the obvious nugget here being the issue of fighting Barrett. If we have choices in regards to major fights, I'm excited.


I have to strongly disagree. My first and favorite play through of the original game was a rambo type JC. I really fondly remember the consequences involved in tackling a large group of enemies head on. The fact that I had to sometimes mix how I played up. If I was too hurt and low on resources I'd try to play more low key. Looking for anything to heal myself up was often fun. I remember getting into a hellacious firefight in Hells Kitchen and having to resort to going to the bar there and drinking every ounce of booze there to heal myself. Good times, or crawling around until I'd find a drinking fountain even. Things like this led to exploration and discovery, it was fun. And without it I don't see as much of a reward or driving force to get the player to explore at all. I mean things like this changed how I tried to engage the enemy, It's been said before but it effects my choice of weapon, tactics, style of play. You may think these are bad things. But if I was able to do any of this at will with no serious repercussions then my choice is only really superficial. At least in my opinion.

Dead-Eye
9th Oct 2010, 02:58
Every good shooter should be played like that. Except if it's an arcady twitch shooter like Unreal.

If you're fighting against AIs that don't run straight at you, and your HP is not that of a demigod, you are going to play the stop, pop and shoot... it's just more realistic. It has nothing to do with Health Regen, third-person cover, or any of those things.
It's all dependent on whether you're playing a human, or a superhuman, and if your enemies are men, or bulls (I'm looking at you Barrette).

I'm not ageist Stop&Pop shooting what I'm ageist is Stop&Pop shooting the entire way though the game. There should be points where to player looks that their health (system) and realizes, well shooting my way through is gonna be suicide. Then they are forced to hack, talk, or sneak their way through the next part until they can patch themselves up.

The thing that sounds the most appealing about a hybrid system, like what Wildcat suggested, is that you can play Stop&Pop as much as you would like but overtime, after taking too many hits, you're character is going to become impaired. Movement speed will be reduced, accuracy will be decreased, etc. These are the things that Deus Ex did that forced the player to consider new options. And it's something that Human Revaluation should do to be considered a worthy sequel.

beastosterone
9th Oct 2010, 03:00
Fluffis, with a Regen system you loose the randomness of "will I ever heal?" But you gain the randomness of relying on the Regen to heal you in time. Every encounter poses that question.

Also, I argue against your statement that HR means you must have higher HP. It depends on what kind of game it is. If you're playing Gears of War, then yeah, you'll want more HP. But Crysis, especially on the higher settings, you couldn't take very much damage at all.

No, it isn't.

Unless you think that the binary decision of "do I run backwards to cover or do I sit in this cover" equals random. :rolleyes:

Pinky_Powers
9th Oct 2010, 03:21
I'm not ageist Stop&Pop shooting what I'm ageist is Stop&Pop shooting the entire way though the game. There should be points where to player looks that their health (system) and realizes, well shooting my way through is gonna be suicide. Then they are forced to hack, talk, or sneak their way through the next part until they can patch themselves up.

The thing that sounds the most appealing about a hybrid system, like what Wildcat suggested, is that you can play Stop&Pop as much as you would like but overtime, after taking too many hits, you're character is going to become impaired. Movement speed will be reduced, accuracy will be decreased, etc. These are the things that Deus Ex did that forced the player to consider new options. And it's something that Human Revaluation should do to be considered a worthy sequel.

Don't get me wrong mate, I'd love a hybrid system. Or best of all, the old DX system. But I'm going to argue when I see statements I don't think are true, or fair.

And the sentiment that HR turns a game into a stop-and-pop, or a straight cover-shooter, is flatly wrong. Cover-shooters are cover-shooters, HR has no baring on that. It's all about how the game was designed. Halo and Gears of War and Mass Effect and Crysis all have HR now, and all of them play very differently. Some are designed to be more of a stop-and-pop. But if you gave Deus Ex health regeneration (which, it DOES HAVE), it's no more a cover-shooter than Dragon Age Origins and it's regenerating health.

Dead-Eye
9th Oct 2010, 03:29
Don't get me wrong mate, I'd love a hybrid system. Or best of all, the old DX system. But I'm going to argue when I see statements I don't think are true, or fair.

And the sentiment that HR turns a game into a stop-and-pop, or a straight cover-shooter, is flatly wrong. Cover-shooters are cover-shooters, HR has no baring on that. It's all about how the game was designed. Halo and Gears of War and Mass Effect and Crysis all have HR now, and all of them play very differently. Some are designed to be more of a stop-and-pop. But if you gave Deus Ex health regeneration (which, it DOES HAVE), it's no more a cover-shooter than Dragon Age Origins and it's regenerating health.

I think the big problem is that the Devs are saying you can do whatever you want. (I.E. Sneak, hack, shoot, etc.) But the big problem I'm seeing is that you can do just one of those things non-stop and beat the game. It's not just about doing what you want it's also about having limited options.

WildcatPhoenix
9th Oct 2010, 03:37
I think the big problem is that the Devs are saying you can do whatever you want. (I.E. Sneak, hack, shoot, etc.) But the big problem I'm seeing is that you can do just one of those things non-stop and beat the game. It's not just about doing what you want it's also about having limited options.

I dunno, Dead-Eye, that's inferring quite a lot from very limited info. It's like complaining about the story- so far, I haven't seen anything all that impressive from a storytelling perspective, but I don't even WANT enough information to make a valid judgment regarding the plot or characters. We won't know if DXHR has a good storyline or not until the game is released, and likewise we won't really know much about gameplay balance or difficulty until we've played it for ourselves.

Pinky_Powers
9th Oct 2010, 03:48
I think the big problem is that the Devs are saying you can do whatever you want. (I.E. Sneak, hack, shoot, etc.) But the big problem I'm seeing is that you can do just one of those things non-stop and beat the game. It's not just about doing what you want it's also about having limited options.

Maybe. But I doubt it. :cool:

I imagine if you hit the game running, you'd find head on combat a nightmare to overcome. But you will be building a character with augs, and eventually you could be quite formidable.

Even from the very first previews we were informed the game lent heavily on Stealth. Rambo was possible, but not all that feasible for most players.

If you look at the Warehouse fight, that would have been ridiculous if Adam hadn't done the claymore. Six or seven guys, all trying to flank you, throwing grenades and flashbangs... and then the Boxguard.

It just doesn't look like a breeze to me without GodMode on.

IOOI
9th Oct 2010, 04:15
Just for the sake of it, I'll post a system that was thought some time ago that would make it possible for Melee/HTH Combat, RH and FBA work together and still be in the lines of DX design.

Melee/HTH system should be good enough to face two opponents at a time. Movements should be more realistic and effective than "flowery" - that means no round-house kicks or backflips.

We've seen in Riddick games that Melee/HTH can work with RH. The only thing left to do would be making it work with locational damage. That could've been done with the implementation of FBA.

Essentially there would be a passive health system displayed by health bars (overall condition or health/minor wounds) and an active health system displaying aug or limb state (major wounds, crippled or broken bones/augs - these would affect aiming, movements and maybe overall capacity to recover to its full capabilities (overall health)).

Overall health would be represented by four bars or a four sectioned bar and would work much like in Riddick. You'd latter would have the opportunity to increase the number of health bars through upgrades. The healing of these minor wounds would be *automatic* much like in Riddick and would be done by a RH aug. To refill the bars you'd need some kind of energy to power the RH aug and food could work too (i.e: after ten candy bars a pip refills).
Aug or Limb state would be represented by the body-outline with each bodypart like in DX. As you'd go replacing your natural bodyparts by augs your resistance to damage would increase in those areas - think of it like armor. To heal these major wounds the player would need to find a safe spot and *activate* healing to remove bullets and other fragments out of the limbs - it would take some seconds.


Head damage would disturb your vision momentarily, but would affect your aiming (making you miss more or spread bullets) untill you healed them.
Crippled arms would affect your aiming and the capacity to wield heavy weapons.
Crippled legs would affect running speed.

The way the PC's capabilities are affected would depend on the limb condition - the more damaged the more the PC's capabilities would be affected.
The limb and aug state could be represented by a colour code for instance:

no color=undamaged or minor damage (no capabilities are affected);
dull orange=normal damage (Capabilities are affected. It'd still be possible to fully recover by yourself.);
bright orange/yellow=high damage (Capabilities are severely affected. You'd still be able to recover by yourself to dull orange state. To fully recover you'll need to visit a clinic or find somekind of medbot.).


With such system and with implementation of FBA there would be better reasons to show off AJ's cool augs and the damage suffered through an *optional* Third-Person view.



This could be *one* of the logical steps for the series to follow and still maintain the same "experience" I'm talking about.

-----------------------------

Notes about other types of damage:

poison damage: *for instance*, the first two hits by poison darts would slow RH rate; Third poison dart would lock the health bar segment (pip) in use, so the next pip would start to be used without the effects of slow RH rate; Fourth poison dart would deplete the previous locked pip;
failed hack damage: would deplete one pip.

Pinky_Powers
9th Oct 2010, 04:43
IOOI, the Health system you described is simply beautiful. I desperately want to see that in a game one day.

IOOI
9th Oct 2010, 05:14
Funny thing is that I discovered that Fallout 2 has a system similar to this.

EDIT: I didn't even mention poison damage (I posted that somewhere.)

Laputin Man
9th Oct 2010, 05:33
Don't get me wrong mate, I'd love a hybrid system. Or best of all, the old DX system. But I'm going to argue when I see statements I don't think are true, or fair.

And the sentiment that HR turns a game into a stop-and-pop, or a straight cover-shooter, is flatly wrong. Cover-shooters are cover-shooters, HR has no baring on that. It's all about how the game was designed. Halo and Gears of War and Mass Effect and Crysis all have HR now, and all of them play very differently. Some are designed to be more of a stop-and-pop. But if you gave Deus Ex health regeneration (which, it DOES HAVE), it's no more a cover-shooter than Dragon Age Origins and it's regenerating health.

It has a cover system and regenerating health, 2 things that are very prevalent in cover based shooters... and oh yeah, it has those gun things too. The ones that shoot bullets. So yeah, I'd say it is much more a cover based shooter than DA: Origins. Not a very good comparison there.

Oh, lol I thought you were referring to DXHR not the first game. My mistake, though the health regen in DX was limited by resources as well.

Jerion
9th Oct 2010, 05:44
It has a cover system and regenerating health, 2 things that are very prevalent in cover based shooters... and oh yeah, it has those gun things too. The ones that shoot bullets. So yeah, I'd say it is much more a cover based shooter than DA: Origins. Not a very good comparison there.

That ignores the social, hacking, and stealth styles of gameplay and the role-playing elements. DX:HR is as much a cover shooter as my iPhone is an email device. Calling it such is missing the greater whole. I think this is the issue Pinky takes with calling it a cover-based shooter.

Edit: I don't think HR fits the traditional FPSRPG category anymore. More accurately for us old geezers who remember the old times, it's an Action Adventure Role Player......or AARP.





:rasp:

Pinky_Powers
9th Oct 2010, 06:01
In the conversation I was having, "cover-shooter" or "stop-pop-and-shoot" was already qualified as a game where the entire experience boiled down to just that. And my stance was purposed game design makes that, not health regen and a cover-system.

The point I made was that Deus Ex had a HR system of it's own, and you took cover a lot. But no sober mind would call it a cover-shooter. And the same goes for Human Revolution. It would have to be designed completely different for it to play like Gears of War, or even Mass Effect... which is itself a very different beast.

Regenerating health won't remove your ability to play stealthily, and it won't cause wave after wave of enemies to fall upon you every time you take cover.

OwlSolar
9th Oct 2010, 06:25
Yes, but all things being equal in those departments, a medkit-style game is still more challenging. Again, it's neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion.
How would you define equal, though? If all the variables were balanced so that both systems had equal difficulty, then, wouldn't they have the same difficulty?

beastosterone
9th Oct 2010, 06:49
Health regen is not a resource, nor does it support complex gameplay. So, no.

Can you give an example of one game that uses health regeneration in a way that the player has to consider every one of his options as a sum of his previous actions?

Romeo
9th Oct 2010, 07:16
Health regen is not a resource, nor does it support complex gameplay. So, no.

Can you give an example of one game that uses health regeneration in a way that the player has to consider every one of his options as a sum of his previous actions?
Yes, this is my biggest gripe: The game has essentially removed the need for me think tactically. Why do I care if I use stealth? I can simply kill anyone I feel like and pop behind something for a couple seconds and voila, I'm a brand new soldier. I'm not saying they needed to keep the health identical to the original, but a comprimise between the two would've been acceptable. What we have now... Well, so far, it looks awful.

Tverdyj
9th Oct 2010, 07:30
Health regen is not a resource, nor does it support complex gameplay. So, no.

Can you give an example of one game that uses health regeneration in a way that the player has to consider every one of his options as a sum of his previous actions?

it is possible that the new Witcher game may do that.

last one had health regen, but it was slow as hell, and there was a lot of resource management involved in controlling its rates via potions.

the new one boasts an "optional" stealth-play option, as well as improved hand-to-hand combat, and i'm assuming they'll keep the regen, since it's actually canonical (the main char is a mutant)

aside from that, as an existing game.... Vampire: the MAsquerade: Bloodlines. once again, the regen was sloooooooow, and didn't really factor into combat in any significant way. there was also added complexity, since "aggravated damage" (claw, melee, fire, etc) would fill up the empty part of your health bar, drastically slowing down, the already slow regen.

note: I am in no way a supporter of regen. But I give credit where credit's due. not to mention both of these games employed hybrid systems, and/or had certain twists....

pringlepower
9th Oct 2010, 07:56
Health regen is not a resource, nor does it support complex gameplay. So, no.

Can you give an example of one game that uses health regeneration in a way that the player has to consider every one of his options as a sum of his previous actions?

Modern Warfare 2. Ammo. Muhahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

motsm
9th Oct 2010, 08:07
How would you define equal, though? If all the variables were balanced so that both systems had equal difficulty, then, wouldn't they have the same difficulty?You'd still have to find the health packs, and manually use them at the proper times. So it still adds something even if you take out all points related directly to combat difficulty.

beastosterone
9th Oct 2010, 08:18
Modern Warfare 2. Ammo. Muhahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sorry, not up to scratch with my console fps lingo. What's up with ammo? Did you run out of ammo in that game or something?

@Romeo - precisely.

Laputin Man
9th Oct 2010, 08:42
In the conversation I was having, "cover-shooter" or "stop-pop-and-shoot" was already qualified as a game where the entire experience boiled down to just that. And my stance was purposed game design makes that, not health regen and a cover-system.

The point I made was that Deus Ex had a HR system of it's own, and you took cover a lot. But no sober mind would call it a cover-shooter. And the same goes for Human Revolution. It would have to be designed completely different for it to play like Gears of War, or even Mass Effect... which is itself a very different beast.

Regenerating health won't remove your ability to play stealthily, and it won't cause wave after wave of enemies to fall upon you every time you take cover.

It didn't really though, it only did if several conditions were met and even then it wasn't infinite, since it was dependent on resources still. And honestly, you're going to claim that the first game was a cover based shooter because there were solid objects you could possibly sit behind? In that case every single FPS could be considered the same. Other things that every cover based shooter has in common is that they are in 3rd person enabling the player to see past the cover and what is around the next corner. Not really so in a FPS. Also, the fact that with the press of a button you can magnetize the pc to a wall or any given object, if it's short they automatically crouch and most levels are littered with waist high structures... at least when a fight is about to break out. DX had none of these really.

I see your point in saying DXHR isn't simply a cover based shooter and I'd agree with you. There is obviously a lot more than that going on. It does seem like the combat is a lot like many cover based shooters though from what I and others have seen though. There are other variables to consider and that may not be the case, only time will tell I guess. But from what I've seen and heard the gunplay looks to be alot like a cover based shooter and it seems like much of the game could be played out like... well just another run of the mill cover based shooters. I really hope this isn't the case though.

Laputin Man
9th Oct 2010, 09:01
You're kind of a pompous jerk you know?

IOOI
9th Oct 2010, 09:44
Updated with colour code and poison and hack damage. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1507024#post1507024)

Laputin Man
9th Oct 2010, 10:24
Just for the sake of it, I'll post a system that was thought some time ago that would make it possible for Melee/HTH Combat, RH and FBA work together and still be in the lines of DX design.

Melee/HTH system should be good enough to face two opponents at a time. Movements should be more realistic and effective than "flowery" - that means no round-house kicks or backflips.

We've seen in Riddick games that Melee/HTH can work with RH. The only thing left to do would be making it work with locational damage. That could've been done with the implementation of FBA.

Essentially there would be a passive health system displayed by health bars (overall condition or health/minor wounds) and an active health system displaying aug or limb state (major wounds, crippled or broken bones/augs - these would affect aiming, movements and maybe overall capacity to recover to its full capabilities (overall health)).

Overall health would be represented by four bars or a four sectioned bar and would work much like in Riddick. You'd latter would have the opportunity to increase the number of health bars through upgrades. The healing of these minor wounds would be *automatic* much like in Riddick and would be done by a RH aug. To refill the bars you'd need some kind of energy to power the RH aug and food could work too (i.e: after ten candy bars a pip refills).
Aug or Limb state would be represented by the body-outline with each bodypart like in DX. As you'd go replacing your natural bodyparts by augs your resistance to damage would increase in those areas - think of it like armor. To heal these major wounds the player would need to find a safe spot and *activate* healing to remove bullets and other fragments out of the limbs - it would take some seconds.


Head damage would disturb your vision momentarily, but would affect your aiming (making you miss more or spread bullets) untill you healed them.
Crippled arms would affect your aiming and the capacity to wield heavy weapons.
Crippled legs would affect running speed.

The way the PC's capabilities are affected would depend on the limb condition - the more damaged the more the PC's capabilities would be affected.
The limb and aug state could be represented by a colour code for instance:

no color=undamaged or minor damage (no capabilities are affected);
dull orange=normal damage (Capabilities are affected. It'd still be possible to fully recover by yourself.);
bright orange/yellow=high damage (Capabilities are severely affected. You'd still be able to recover by yourself to dull orange state. To fully recover you'll need to visit a clinic or find somekind of medbot.).


With such system and with implementation of FBA there would be better reasons to show off AJ's cool augs and the damage suffered through an *optional* Third-Person view.



This could be *one* of the logical steps for the series to follow and still maintain the same "experience" I'm talking about.

-----------------------------

Notes about other types of damage:

poison damage: *for instance*, the first two hits by poison darts would slow RH rate; Third poison dart would lock the health bar segment (pip) in use, so the next pip would start to be used without the effects of slow RH rate; Fourth poison dart would deplete the previous locked pip;
failed hack damage: would deplete one pip.


They actually had the same sort of damage system in the original Fallout game as well, if I understand you correctly. I think this is something the Original DX game tried to pull off and sort of did to an extent. This is more elaborate though and I like it a lot. One question though, what does FBA stand for?

Pinky_Powers
9th Oct 2010, 10:40
Updated with colour code and poison and hack damage. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1507024#post1507024)

It makes me want to get my hands on Fallout New Vegas, for some reason. :D

Blade_hunter
9th Oct 2010, 10:48
They actually had the same sort of damage system in the original Fallout game as well, if I understand you correctly. I think this is something the Original DX game tried to pull off and sort of did to an extent. This is more elaborate though and I like it a lot. One question though, what does FBA stand for?

Full body awareness I suppose, I have a personal vision of health system but his own sounds good

Laputin Man
9th Oct 2010, 11:08
Full body awareness I suppose, I have a personal vision of health system but his own sounds good

Ah, yes that is something I've wanted in DX since playing Breakdown and Riddik. Not something that is implemented in enough FPS games if you ask me. Though in Breakdown doing some of those flips and somersault moves became pretty disorienting.

Blade_hunter
9th Oct 2010, 11:14
Yeah but I always thought it made us felling the thing. I have even a matrix moves mutator in my UT, and I found that very fun to do those flips and side rolls.
Body Awareness isn't implemented enough, I just agree with your statement here.

jcd3nt0n
9th Oct 2010, 12:20
Updated with colour code and poison and hack damage. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1507024#post1507024)

Awesome! :gamer: :thumb: :eek: :cheek: :friends:

azarhal
9th Oct 2010, 13:46
Yes, this is my biggest gripe: The game has essentially removed the need for me think tactically.Why do I care if I use stealth? I can simply kill anyone I feel like and pop behind something for a couple seconds and voila, I'm a brand new soldier. I'm not saying they needed to keep the health identical to the original, but a comprimise between the two would've been acceptable. What we have now... Well, so far, it looks awful.

From what I know, DX.HR health regen is SLOW, So it's not the crappy: stay in cover behind a crate with the A.I. too dumb to circle around to shoot me, wait 5 seconds and I'm at full health. Looks like the game will have a "do or don't" health system: Do I have enough health to go through the warehouse gun blazing, should I wait for my health to regen or should I find a less overt way to finish the job if I don't want to wait?

Also, you don't want to run & gun don't do it, nobody is forcing you to stand around and shoot, but it doesn't mean that others should be forced to crouch and hide if they don't want too either. Stealth is a choice of play style, not a necessity.

Gaunt88
9th Oct 2010, 14:08
Also, you don't want to run & gun don't do it, nobody is forcing you to stand around and shoot, but it doesn't mean that others should be forced to crouch and hide if they don't want too either. Stealth is a choice of play style, not a necessity.

^ QFT. People act like there's some sort of ever-present near-irresistable pressure to play rambo-style that needs to be counteracted for stealth and social to be even possible. "Run-and-gun just became easier. Stealth is dead!"

GepardenK
9th Oct 2010, 14:40
^ QFT. People act like there's some sort of ever-present near-irresistable pressure to play rambo-style that needs to be counteracted for stealth and social to be even possible. "Run-and-gun just became easier. Stealth is dead!"
^But stealth (at least for me) is only fun if I fear being spotted, and I wont fear that if run-and-gun is too easy. Exciting and tense moments only happen if there is something at stake.

Also, why play slow sneaky stealth if there is a clearly faster and better way that also gives you more loot? The only way they can balance this is if they make stealth and takedowns easier and more effective as well (takedowns so that stealth also gives loot regulary). But now we have a game like Splinter Cell Conviction; the sneaky subtlety pace stealth is gone, replaced by action stealth and easy one button animated takedowns.
And yeah, I agree it looks cool, but damn it gets boring fast!

Not saying this is definitely happening to DX:HR, just saying the danger is there...

beastosterone
9th Oct 2010, 14:52
From what I know, DX.HR health regen is SLOW, So it's not the crappy: stay in cover behind a crate with the A.I. too dumb to circle around to shoot me, wait 5 seconds and I'm at full health. Looks like the game will have a "do or don't" health system: Do I have enough health to go through the warehouse gun blazing, should I wait for my health to regen or should I find a less overt way to finish the job if I don't want to wait?

Also, you don't want to run & gun don't do it, nobody is forcing you to stand around and shoot, but it doesn't mean that others should be forced to crouch and hide if they don't want too either. Stealth is a choice of play style, not a necessity.

They called the regeneration on Red Dead Remeption slow as well. What the developers of this game say cannot be taken into consideration. It will be sit behind cover for 5 seconds and you're at full health, I personally guarantee it.

ei the "doesn't matter what I do" health system

WildcatPhoenix
9th Oct 2010, 15:42
I'm not about to start making guarantees regarding the game, but I also find it unlikely your health will slowly regenerate. Just doesn't seem like it's in the cards.

Which is unfortunate because I'd be okay with a system that slowly repaired your health (maybe 1 damage point every 2 seconds, on a 100 point scale- or even better, a graded scale: 10 pts of total health for head, 30 for arms, 50 for legs, and 100 for torso). Your body does naturally heal wounds, and even though this rate of regeneration would be ridiculously exaggerated, we are still talking about a game. I can suspend some disbelief, but I can't tolerate taking a stream of high-velocity rounds from a giant bot, then ducking around a corner for 5 seconds to be miraculously healed.

azarhal
9th Oct 2010, 15:55
^But stealth (at least for me) is only fun if I fear being spotted, and I wont fear that if run-and-gun is too easy. Exciting and tense moments only happen if there is something at stake.

Also, why play slow sneaky stealth if there is a clearly faster and better way that also gives you more loot?

Why would somebody who want to play stealth care if it's slower and bring less loot? It's not a timed collecting game as far as I know. You aren't competing with anybody either, it's a single player game.

That mentality that everything should resolve about shiny things and how fast we can get them, need too die fast! It have been killing gameplay since 2000.

Pretentious Old Man.
9th Oct 2010, 16:18
Why would somebody who want to play stealth care if it's slower and bring less loot? It's not a timed collecting game as far as I know. You aren't competing with anybody either, it's a single player game.

That mentality that everything should resolve about shiny things and how fast we can get them, need too die fast! It have been killing gameplay since 2000.

You miss his point. If one can complete everything easily by just smashing through, why bother doing it stealthily?

NKD
9th Oct 2010, 16:39
You miss his point. If one can complete everything easily by just smashing through, why bother doing it stealthily?

Because there's more to a game than completing it?

jcd3nt0n
9th Oct 2010, 16:51
Because there's more to a game than completing it?

Yes! :thumb: :cheek:

xsamitt
9th Oct 2010, 16:56
Amen to that.

PillsAgainstOrders
9th Oct 2010, 17:16
The health regen is either too fast or too slow..differing by peoples taste.

...Probably too late to propose this now, but couldnt they just make health regen that only reaches certain % of the player's current health after being wounded? For example, I have max health, *Bang!*, 60%, *hides behind a corner*, 85% and the regen stops, thats it. Meds or gtfo.


Because there's more to a game than completing it?Why get scared by a mouse woman?


I know asking meds at this point is pretty dumb, but if they'r going to scatter ammo around the maps then why not some meds too? Or you could just have "check points" for that.:hmm:

GepardenK
9th Oct 2010, 19:18
Why would somebody who want to play stealth care if it's slower and bring less loot? It's not a timed collecting game as far as I know. You aren't competing with anybody either, it's a single player game.

That mentality that everything should resolve about shiny things and how fast we can get them, need too die fast! It have been killing gameplay since 2000.
No, you are not competing with anybody, that’s not my point. My point is that DX:HR should be an experience. It may be okay for you if you like to role-play, but for me the stealth experience will be broken if I don’t fear being noticed. And I wont fear that if I easily can run-and-gun without consequence.

Take something like Amnesia: the dark decent. Its a low budget game hailed by reviewers to be one of the scariest games in history. Even Yatzee liked it. Why? Well, because they make you fear your enemy of course. Your mind does the rest. Its called subtlety. That would all fall flat on its face if Rambo style also was a possibility.

When I play semi-open games like DX or Thief I like to be resourceful and creative. My goal is not to win the game fast, my goal is to find the best solution to any given situation. Thats what makes those games fun for me - being a problem solver. If I was sneaking around all stealthy when I knew that charging inn, guns blazing, would be more effective, I would literally feel like an idiot.
Role-playing that stealth is needed when it’s not just feels dump IMO.

My point being, the game styles should be balanced. Even head on combat should be tactical and have its long term disadvantages (like health loss). Run-and-gun gameplay (or full on regenerating cover shooter) have no place in a game that tries to create an experience.

Slow, epic pace and an understanding of how subtlety works in games are needed for this to be a true DX sequel. It’s the AAA studios disbelief in the player’s creative problem-solving abilities that have been killing gameplay since 2000

Pretentious Old Man.
9th Oct 2010, 19:29
Because there's more to a game than completing it?

But why bother to be stealthy, to go through the supreme effort that this entails, when one could simply CoD one's way through with a minimum of fuss? Finding creative solutions to difficult challenges is one thing, sheer masochism is quite another.

NKD
9th Oct 2010, 20:40
But why bother to be stealthy, to go through the supreme effort that this entails, when one could simply CoD one's way through with a minimum of fuss? Finding creative solutions to difficult challenges is one thing, sheer masochism is quite another.

Because the stealth playstyle is more enjoyable for some people. Your line of thinking here borders on the absurd. Why does anyone do anything that isn't the easiest possible path, in anything? Easy isn't always preferable.

PillsAgainstOrders
9th Oct 2010, 20:53
Because the stealth playstyle is more enjoyable for some people. Your line of thinking here borders on the absurd. Why does anyone do anything that isn't the easiest possible path, in anything? Easy isn't always preferable.It kinda takes the excitement away from sneaking if you know that, if you happen to fail, you can just shoot the witnesses and continue your super sneaky happy adventures.

JCpies
9th Oct 2010, 20:56
It kinda takes the excitement away from sneaking if you know that, if you happen to fail, you can just shoot the witnesses and continue your super sneaky happy adventures.

I agree with you!!! Like when you don't have silenced weapons, and you're caught sneaking around, so you take out the guy and then nobody cares that they heard gunshot(s) in the facility they're meant to be gaurding and they go about their daily business.

NKD
9th Oct 2010, 22:41
It kinda takes the excitement away from sneaking if you know that, if you happen to fail, you can just shoot the witnesses and continue your super sneaky happy adventures.

But you almost certainly won't be able to. Someone will hit an alarm, stuff will hit the fan, and you won't be able to unring the bell. Add to that the fact that you probably have stealth-oriented augmentations and are not very effective in a large firefight, and you're probably going to get your face melted, or at best, simply be unable to get back to sneaking around very easily at all. This probably won't be like Deus Ex where you could unload on someone with an assault rifle and as long as the bad guys were more than 30 feet away everything was cool.

Even if a combat-oriented character is having an easy go of it, that doesn't mean you will.

azarhal
9th Oct 2010, 23:28
No, you are not competing with anybody, that’s not my point. My point is that DX:HR should be an experience. It may be okay for you if you like to role-play, but for me the stealth experience will be broken if I don’t fear being noticed. And I wont fear that if I easily can run-and-gun without consequence.

Take something like Amnesia: the dark decent. Its a low budget game hailed by reviewers to be one of the scariest games in history. Even Yatzee liked it. Why? Well, because they make you fear your enemy of course. Your mind does the rest. Its called subtlety. That would all fall flat on its face if Rambo style also was a possibility.

When I play semi-open games like DX or Thief I like to be resourceful and creative. My goal is not to win the game fast, my goal is to find the best solution to any given situation. Thats what makes those games fun for me - being a problem solver. If I was sneaking around all stealthy when I knew that charging inn, guns blazing, would be more effective, I would literally feel like an idiot.
Role-playing that stealth is needed when it’s not just feels dump IMO.

My point being, the game styles should be balanced. Even head on combat should be tactical and have its long term disadvantages (like health loss). Run-and-gun gameplay (or full on regenerating cover shooter) have no place in a game that tries to create an experience.

Slow, epic pace and an understanding of how subtlety works in games are needed for this to be a true DX sequel. It’s the AAA studios disbelief in the player’s creative problem-solving abilities that have been killing gameplay since 2000

You are still being selfish. DX:HR isn't a stealth games, it's not about making stealth the best way to solve a problem. Stealth is only one of the many possibilities available in the game, the others being combat, social and hacking. Actually, it's more a synergy of these for possibilities. Also, you are using your perception of what DX1 was to define how Human Revolution should work, not the designers' perception of what DX1 was. I suggest you brace for impact on release day or read about perspectivism...:hmm:

And maybe you should read about DX:HR a bit first too...

NPC can revive unconscious targets, NPC can sound alarms if they find corpse, stealth is line of sight and sound based. You can get stealth specific augmentations or combat specific ones. You can't just pop out of your hidden place, kill a guy with an non-silenced weapon and continue on your merry way. You will need to hide those "corpses" and you will need to deal with the opposition if they hear or see you. We also know that group of foes have leaders who should be taken out first (oh noes tactic!) and those leaders can call in reinforcements. Going gun blazing will be way more action oriented then going in stealthily and lots more dangerous. Stealth is always the easiest path, anyway: less ammo consumption, less energy usage, less health loss, etc. What we don't know is if the A.I. is going to be "dumb" or not (it's being 10 seconds, stop the alarm, restart default behaviors).

But I agree that play style should be balanced, it appear we disagree on how that should be done, but then "balance" depends on personal perception, so I'm not surprised.

The AAA studio stopped making multi-solution games because of people who only care about the best solution aka the easy path (which usually resolve around the best loot and the fastest way to get it). Why should they bother making complex games if people always pick the easiest solution? They save money by just having the "easiest" path in the game (apparently, according to the IGN interview in the first post of this thread).

Laputin Man
9th Oct 2010, 23:52
They called the regeneration on Red Dead Remeption slow as well. What the developers of this game say cannot be taken into consideration. It will be sit behind cover for 5 seconds and you're at full health, I personally guarantee it.

ei the "doesn't matter what I do" health system

RDR was a great game I thought, but the RH in it made it too simple in most cases. That and the fact that there was thigh high pieces of cover littering the desert in places where there would obviously be a big shoot out.

GepardenK
10th Oct 2010, 00:25
You are still being selfish. DX:HR isn't a stealth games, it's not about making stealth the best way to solve a problem. Stealth is only one of the many possibilities available in the game, the others being combat, social and hacking. Actually, it's more a synergy of these for possibilities. Also, you are using your perception of what DX1 was to define how Human Revolution should work, not the designers' perception of what DX1 was. I suggest you brace for impact on release day or read about perspectivism...
Wow, hold on a sec. Stealth was only an example. I am not crusading for stealth to be the best option here. I was just displaying my concerns that all the deeper gameplay elements (like stealth, hacking, social, clever gadget use, trap making etc) would all crumble into gimmick-land if head on run-and-gun action was too effective. This has happened before in gaming: see Far Cry 2, Thief 3, Dark Messiah, Bioshock contra SystemShock etc etc.

The thing is that all those "deep" elements (hacking, social, gadget use etc...) are not only fun by themselves, but they also add up to make the player feel like a real special agent. Suddenly this product is a experience instead of just a game. These elements flow with the story and gameworld very well. Combat could have too if it was tactical and agent-like in nature; but regenerating cover shooter? Thats way too gamey, and will probably destroy the atmosphere spawned from fearing your opponents.

Also, DX1 was far from flawless, although it was on the right track. DX:HR was AAA gaming’s chance to get back to and improve on the art of making virtual experiences. Instead this seems to be just another "game". Hell, even Warren Spector has displayed concerns on some of DX:HR`s design choices...


The AAA studio stopped making multi-solution games because of people who only care about the best solution aka the easy path (which usually resolve around the best loot and the fastest way to get it). Why should they bother making complex games if people always pick the easiest solution? They save money by just having the "easiest" path in the game (apparently, according to the IGN interview in the first post of this thread).
Ahh but that’s exactly my point:) The AAA studios don’t seem to get it:
The real idea behind a good multi-solution game is not to give the player several options of gameplay styles. That in itself is pointless, because why not just buy a game that specializes in your preferred playstyle?
No, the real idea is to create challenging situations where the player has to think creatively in order to succeed, and give him enough tools to be able to do so.
In a way you present the player with a situation (like a storage building guarded by security systems, 4 patrolling soldiers and 7 civilians) and then you ask him: what would you do in this situation?

All gameplay elements in the entire game should be built with the idea of making that question as interesting as possible. The player should literally think "yeah, what would I do in this situation?". Its goes without saying then that if any pure playstyle (like full on rambo, or sniping spam) is to effective or attractive in any situation, the question becomes easy and the game dull.

Tverdyj
10th Oct 2010, 00:25
so, when is rockstar finally gonna port it to PC?

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 00:55
GepardenK, that is very well said! :thumb:

The success of Human Revolution is truly going to come down to how challenging the game becomes in full-on combat. And that's going to depend heavily on AI, and how slow your health regenerates.

Stealth also needs to be challenging, and that is mostly an AI thing.
The very simple addition of NPCs who occasionally glance behind them is an immeasurable gift to the stealth player who favors a challenge.

There was talk about the consequence for breaking stealth: and apart from the Boxguard and other reinforcements that might come running, I was thinking about areas that might get closed off to you; doors that get locked and people you may not get to talk to.

Balancing these systems is of the utmost importance. And balancing is what they're doing now. Let us hope they know what they're doing. And let us hope they understand how broad the Difficulty Settings can be. You never need to make a title that a casual gamer can't enjoy. And you never need to make a game a skilled player won't be challenged by.

beastosterone
10th Oct 2010, 00:58
RDR was a great game I thought, but the RH in it made it too simple in most cases. That and the fact that there was thigh high pieces of cover littering the desert in places where there would obviously be a big shoot out.

Well get ready for more of that simplicity because that's what you're getting!


But why bother to be stealthy, to go through the supreme effort that this entails, when one could simply CoD one's way through with a minimum of fuss? Finding creative solutions to difficult challenges is one thing, sheer masochism is quite another.

Indeed. People's answer to this problem always seems to be "well just don't take advantage of your brain, hur". As if, playing blind or with one arm or without assessing obvious situations is the "intended" experience or something.

That's how games are. There's a difference between role playing and realizing the limits and borders of danger in a video game. If you know it's easy to continue to run out in the open, kill two guys, then hide again for 5 seconds ad nauseum - there's no reason why you wouldn't do that. You can't seriously believe that the graphics and sound effects are going to stump you long enough that you'll lose your awareness and start pretending that you can actually lose, do you NKD? That's such a poor excuse it borders on pathetic.

All it takes is to be an able gamer (:rolleyes:) and play any modern game with health regeneration to see the effects of these things. If you can't see it, well, enjoy pretending and being gulled by the loud noises.

pringlepower
10th Oct 2010, 01:16
so, when is rockstar finally gonna port it to PC?

Yes those bastards...

azarhal
10th Oct 2010, 01:16
Wow, hold on a sec. Stealth was only an example. I am not crusading for stealth to be the best option here. I was just displaying my concerns that all the deeper gameplay elements (like stealth, hacking, social, clever gadget use, trap making etc) would all crumble into gimmick-land if head on run-and-gun action was too effective. This has happened before in gaming: see Far Cry 2, Thief 3, Dark Messiah, Bioshock

I'm pretty sure that Far Cry 2 is a pure shooter (didn't play it). So is Dark Messiah, sort of. Although, I remember playing Dark Messiah demo using mostly "stealth" and finding the head-on approach almost impossible...:scratch: Thief 3 was a buggy mess on my PC never finished the first mission and I passed on Bioshock after trying the demo. I'm picky. ;) and I don't remember those games being about multi-path solutions either. Not a point to argue here, I'm just giving my impression.

As for "crumble into gimmick-land if head on run-and-gun action was too effective". :hmm: I'm not sure where you are getting that impression from DX:HR. In fact, what I have seen of run-and-gun looks dangerous, if you don't plan first: running out of ammo, getting to face reinforcements and a more organized group if you don't kill those leaders first, fighting mini-boss (cube-bot with rockets and rails-gun), people hearing you coming and raising the alarms, etc. I prefer crawling in the vent, regardless if it take longer and it's not the best way to finish the mission.

Although, like Pinky said, lots of the gameplay difficulty reside on how the A.I. behave. So far beside the "leader" thing and reviving unconscious foe, we don't know much: do foes try to corner you, do they move around covers if you stay hidden, do they stop looking for you after a while "He's gone. Not our problem." style, etc.


Hell, even Warren Spector has displayed concerns on some of DX:HR`s design choices...

Warren Spector designed Invisible War and Thief 3. :whistle:

pringlepower
10th Oct 2010, 01:29
I'm pretty sure that Far Cry 2 is a pure shooter (didn't play it). So is Dark Messiah, sort of. Although, I remember playing Dark Messiah demo using mostly "stealth" and finding the head-on approach almost impossible...:scratch: Thief 3 was a buggy mess on my PC never finished the first mission and I passed on Bioshock after trying the demo. I'm picky. ;) and I don't remember those games being about multi-path solutions either. Not a point to argue here, I'm just giving my impression.

FarCry 2 was a shooter yeah, but it was open-ended, in that they gave you a gun and then stuck you somewhere in Africa to go do what you wanted. Also you had to take malaria pills.

beastosterone
10th Oct 2010, 01:33
In fact, what I have seen of run-and-gun looks dangerous, if you don't plan first: running out of ammo, getting to face reinforcements and a more organized group if you don't kill those leaders first


Yeah, and this is the reason why you don't know what you're talking about. I'd call you an eidos apologizer, probably.

What, specifically, have you seen of run-and-gun, and how exactly did you come to the conclusion that it will be dangerous? Considering that the demo's were apparently god mode enabled and we've seen nothing of any organized AI, and that we know nothing about the health regeneration other than there will be permanant health regeneration.

But please, please explain exactly how run-and-gun looks dangerous and where you saw that. We must have missed a new gameplay video or something!

Jerion
10th Oct 2010, 02:16
Yeah, and this is the reason why you don't know what you're talking about. I'd call you an eidos apologizer, probably.

What, specifically, have you seen of run-and-gun, and how exactly did you come to the conclusion that it will be dangerous? Considering that the demo's were apparently god mode enabled and we've seen nothing of any organized AI, and that we know nothing about the health regeneration other than there will be permanant health regeneration.

But please, please explain exactly how run-and-gun looks dangerous and where you saw that. We must have missed a new gameplay video or something!

Inverted: What have you seen that suggests it isn't dangerous with god mode disabled? :tongue2:

Blade_hunter
10th Oct 2010, 02:36
For me the player in the last demo would probably die against the robot, but other than that he won't.

beastosterone
10th Oct 2010, 02:41
Inverted: What have you seen that suggests it isn't dangerous with god mode disabled? :tongue2:

Cover, Health Regeneration, Console release, Third Person see everything awareness, new Target Audience, balanced for a controller, slow unresponsive AI, one button press to kill many enemies...

Your turn. :lol:

azarhal
10th Oct 2010, 02:47
Yeah, and this is the reason why you don't know what you're talking about. I'd call you an eidos apologizer, probably.

What, specifically, have you seen of run-and-gun, and how exactly did you come to the conclusion that it will be dangerous? Considering that the demo's were apparently god mode enabled and we've seen nothing of any organized AI, and that we know nothing about the health regeneration other than there will be permanant health regeneration.

"A few bullets kill you" rule applied to the demo. I though the rule was common knowledge.

Just apply the "a few bullet will kill you rule" to:

Jensen getting shoot at when doing the takedown in the warehouse. (takedown aren't damage free).
NPCs using cover. Jensen need to expose himself to target them (exposing himself to bullets).
Some crates can be destroyed (just don't pick them as cover).
Leaders calling reinforcements and organizing the troops.
Bot with rockets and railguns.

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 02:48
For me the player in the last demo would probably die against the robot, but other than that he won't.

Because he played stealthily. And when he stopped playing stealthily, he took out half the guys in the room before they had a chance. Which is something I imagine would not be possible if he did not drop in through the roof like that. And if he did not have the Claymore Aug.

If you're playing the game your own way, and building your own character, that scene would be unlikely to happen as we saw it in the demo.

So, half the game was done in stealth, and then he used what could only be described as brilliant tactics to wipe out all but three dudes... who he then had no trouble handling.

And then the Boxguard killed him a few times. :)

And all this was in a highly rehearsed demo.

Bushmonster
10th Oct 2010, 02:49
wait, where was that part of the demo played steathily?

beastosterone
10th Oct 2010, 02:58
"A few bullets kill you" rule applied to the demo. I though the rule was common knowledge.

Just apply the "a few bullet will kill you rule" to:

Jensen getting shoot at when doing the takedown in the warehouse. (takedown aren't damage free).
NPCs using cover. Jensen need to expose himself to target them (exposing himself to bullets).
Some crates can be destroyed (just don't pick them as cover).
Leaders calling reinforcements and organizing the troops.
Bot with rockets and railguns.


Yeah, I thought so.

I think you're taking the best case scenario from "a few bullets will kill you" a bit too far. That rule has been thrown around to defend Health Regen ever since it was introduced to modern gaming with no explanation and it has never been proven true.

What they forget to tell you is the "bullets" act like they do in Time Crisis. As in, they could unload a 30 bullet clip into you asthetically, but really you'll only take 2 or 3 ticks of damage, and that's what they actually mean by "bullets". Like how in Time Crisis you can take a whole bunch of yellow bullets until it actually counts as one hit of damage.

So what you're saying about combat being dangerous is born from your assumptions that are not based on logic or proof, and I think you're being too generous.

This is of course disregarding your ability to hide behind cover at will. Cover that will be very liberally placed about each enviroment to cater to the "straight up shooter" style.

Now, obviously I'm basing my arguement on assumptions also. The difference however is my assumptions are based on 4 years of console game history, and unless DXHR suddenly defies all expectations and breaks trends regarding Health Regen, the combat will act exactly as I've outlined.

I can't wait to see who's right. I hope you are. :)

Bushmonster
10th Oct 2010, 03:00
you are also basing it on a rail shooter, nothing like a shooter to base the experience of all console shooters :D

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 03:36
wait, where was that part of the demo played steathily?

I can't tell if you're joking our not.

azarhal
10th Oct 2010, 03:51
Yeah, I thought so.

I think you're taking the best case scenario from "a few bullets will kill you" a bit too far. That rule has been thrown around to defend Health Regen ever since it was introduced to modern gaming with no explanation and it has never been proven true.

What they forget to tell you is the "bullets" act like they do in Time Crisis. As in, they could unload a 30 bullet clip into you asthetically, but really you'll only take 2 or 3 ticks of damage, and that's what they actually mean by "bullets". Like how in Time Crisis you can take a whole bunch of yellow bullets until it actually counts as one hit of damage.

So what you're saying about combat being dangerous is born from your assumptions that are not based on logic or proof, and I think you're being too generous.

This is of course disregarding your ability to hide behind cover at will. Cover that will be very liberally placed about each enviroment to cater to the "straight up shooter" style.

Now, obviously I'm basing my arguement on assumptions also. The difference however is my assumptions are based on 4 years of console game history, and unless DXHR suddenly defies all expectations and breaks trends regarding Health Regen, the combat will act exactly as I've outlined.

I can't wait to see who's right. I hope you are. :)

From my understanding the rule stand equally for both Jensen and the NPCs (at least that how it was announced) and the NPCs sure looked like they fell after receiving 4 or 5 bullets to me. Of course, I expect the difficulty level to change the numbers of bullet required before "dying" here (and the console to be more lenient then the PC to). Do head shot still inflict more damage? I haven't seen any info about that one.

The rest is just a question of developers doing what they said they were doing and hoping they don't pick randomly crappy usability testers that want a easy shooter, but I have no controls over that.

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 04:04
Do head shot still inflict more damage? I haven't seen any info about that one.

If you watch any footage from the E3 demo, you'll see Adam put a well-placed headshot into a smoking NPC with his suppressed pistol. One shot... the man goes down instantly. :D

beastosterone
10th Oct 2010, 04:17
What do headshots have to do with combat being dangerous, again?

You as the player won't take any headshots.


From my understanding the rule stand equally for both Jensen and the NPCs

What do you mean by that? What understanding? What information has led you to believe that the player will take the same damage as his enemies?

Facebyface
10th Oct 2010, 04:20
What do headshots have to do with combat being dangerous, again?

You as the player won't take any headshots.


Where have you gathered this information from?

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 05:07
Where have you gathered this information from?

Far too much of what he says are straight lies. Then a good measure more are assumptions posed as fact.

There’s a reason he is one of the very few on my Ignore List.

NKD
10th Oct 2010, 05:21
Far too much of what he says are straight lies. Then a good measure more are assumptions posed as fact.

There’s a reason he is one of the very few on my Ignore List.

Yeah I stuck him on my ignore as well. He'll be re-banned soon enough :P

hem dazon 90
10th Oct 2010, 05:58
Yeah I stuck him on my ignore as well. He'll be re-banned soon enough :P

Seriously guys, come on I mean he is a jerk yes but hey the only people who go on ignore lists are people who actively hunt down your posts because they don't like your religion or whatever.

beastosterone
10th Oct 2010, 06:10
Oh they put me on ignore? Awesome. Less silly replies to deal with. :)

re: headhots

see: Rainbow 6 Vegas
see: Any console cover shooter
see: Locational damage removed from DXHR
see: Health Regeneration is a single value

Pretty obvious that there you will not be taking any headshots for more damage or insta-deaths. Which invalidates the above point that "jensen will be equal to npc's".

Gaunt88
10th Oct 2010, 06:23
Those dont neccisarily that mean Jensen won't take more damage from headshots. Why can't headshots just take more off his life bar than body shots?

To use an example that may light a few sparks, Halo doesn't track damage to individual limbs, but I've still been headshot-killed by jackal snipers while at full shield/heath plenty of times.

Facebyface
10th Oct 2010, 06:28
Far too much of what he says are straight lies. Then a good measure more are assumptions posed as fact.

There’s a reason he is one of the very few on my Ignore List.

I was gonna say... I'm not the ignoring type, but to him I shall say:

"Just because it hasn't worked in your eyes doesn't mean it can't. Assumptions in favor of demoralizing a potentially good game because you don't like a few things about it is ludicrous. Don't jsut say, 'This is crap'."

Gaunt88
10th Oct 2010, 06:33
I was gonna say... I'm not the ignoring type, but to him I shall say:

"Just because it hasn't worked in your eyes doesn't mean it can't. Assumptions in favor of demoralizing a potentially good game because you don't like a few things about it is ludicrous. Don't jsut say, 'This is crap'."

Well said. Can I put that in my sig? :)

Facebyface
10th Oct 2010, 06:42
Well said. Can I put that in my sig? :)

Certainly sir. Thought it was the general consensus around here anyhow. Phrase it how you wish.

Gaunt88
10th Oct 2010, 06:58
I'd hope it's the general consensus, but there seem to be a lot of people condemning the game outright. Maybe it's just a very vocal few who seem larger than they are.

beastosterone
10th Oct 2010, 07:13
Yeah, because for 3 years and over 100,000 heated forum posts people have only ever said "This is crap". LOL.

And yes, mate, it does mean Jensen won't take damage from headshots. I've made these assumptions and "guesses" ever since the start of the dumbening and I've never once been wrong. The facts are there. Console game history is evident enough. The designer himself said that the combat is very similar to R6:Vegas - how many more hints do you need?

Obviously I hope you're right. I love insta-deaths due to an NPC spoking me in the head. Reminds me that the game is actually entertaining and dangerous, it's a thrill. But can you imagine their non-gamer focus testers thinking it's fun? Can you imagine the developers sitting there watching some soccor mom make a scruntched up face because she didn't have 5 minutes to react to eating 2 tonnes of lead and thinking "let's leave that in for sure! consolers love difficulty and the threat of danger!" - pfft, no.

:(

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 07:18
Maybe it's just a very vocal few who seem larger than they are.

This is all that it is.

There are only like one or two that actually hate the game and refuse to leave the forums. There are a handful more that are disappointed by it and tend to exaggerate in their opinions.

The rest are decently pleased, and it tapers up in that direction until it reaches it own extreme.

NKD
10th Oct 2010, 07:24
This is all that it is.

There are only like one or two that actually hate the game and refuse to leave the forums. There are a handful more that are disappointed by it and tend to exaggerate in their opinions.

The rest are decently pleased, and it tapers up in that direction until it reaches it own extreme.

That's what I've observed too. Just a couple of people who hang around just to be belligerent and offensive, and everyone else is generally reasonable, if a bit overly aggressive with their logical fallacies.

Romeo
10th Oct 2010, 07:25
From what I know, DX.HR health regen is SLOW, So it's not the crappy: stay in cover behind a crate with the A.I. too dumb to circle around to shoot me, wait 5 seconds and I'm at full health. Looks like the game will have a "do or don't" health system: Do I have enough health to go through the warehouse gun blazing, should I wait for my health to regen or should I find a less overt way to finish the job if I don't want to wait?

Also, you don't want to run & gun don't do it, nobody is forcing you to stand around and shoot, but it doesn't mean that others should be forced to crouch and hide if they don't want too either. Stealth is a choice of play style, not a necessity.
It hasn't been listed as slow, nor has there been any indication that it is slow.

And as a gentleman below me pointed out, without consequence the whole rush of stealth is kinda pointless. Why would I care if I get caught? I'll still slaughter every idiot and be fine after.

beastosterone
10th Oct 2010, 07:43
^ exactly.

Stealth is about risk and rewards. It's about consequences for failure and misjudgements. Without any reason to be stealthy and without any consequence for not playing smart, you will never feel a sense of danger. And without danger, stealth is pointless.

In fact alerting gaurds just gets you through the area faster and probably gives you more ammo/items from the subsequent reinforcements.

Games 101

JCpies
10th Oct 2010, 07:55
And without danger, stealth is pointless.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

Laputin Man
10th Oct 2010, 08:50
That's what I've observed too. Just a couple of people who hang around just to be belligerent and offensive, and everyone else is generally reasonable, if a bit overly aggressive with their logical fallacies.

Funny that you quote Pinky of all people and refer to others as being offensive when he himself was offensive earlier in this same thread, for no real logical reason no less. But you quote him and label others of this, hypocrisy.

azarhal
10th Oct 2010, 12:27
What do you mean by that? What understanding? What information has led you to believe that the player will take the same damage as his enemies?

The quote used to talk about "a few bullets" mentioned both NPCs and the player in the same sentence. Hence from my understanding, unless my reading skills are really bad and I missed a word in there. I don't try to find a way to make every features sound bad just because I want to hate the game.


It hasn't been listed as slow, nor has there been any indication that it is slow.

The health regeneration isn't supposed to be like CoD4 (see MyImmortal's F.A.Q.), they still want players to make tactical retreat (to health up) and according to this interview (http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1096065p3.html) from June 2010 there is still health recovery items and now health boosters.


His cover blown, the fight is now out in the open and Jensen unloads burst fire from an assault rifle. With heavy weapons in hand Jensen sucks into cover spots and can hop from one to the other to stay shielded from enemy fire. A regenerating health system is in place, meaning Jensen never has to worry about running low on supplies, but rather must find a safe spot for a few seconds to recover. That being said, the regeneration isn't immediate. Eidos Montreal is still including recovery items for players who don't have time to wait for the regen to kick in as well as ways to boost overall health reserves.

Now of course, everybody could be lying and the game might only have 1 level, 1 gun and not story at all, but I'm not that paranoid.

Blade_hunter
10th Oct 2010, 13:24
It's not immediate, like in any game where there is RH, but fast enough to make you avoid to worry about your resources.
As for the health items they aren't essential, you can just use them to recover immediately instead of waiting the few seconds that the RH needs to refill your health completely
That quote is much more worrisome than reassuring about this. And the point is precisely here. You don't need resources.

Fluffis
10th Oct 2010, 13:41
You don't need resources.

^^^This.



Jensen never has to worry about running low on supplies


Awww... "We can't wet the wittle gamejs wojjy about wunning out of wesouwces."

There's that patronizing feeling I've been talking about. :(

Ninjerk
10th Oct 2010, 14:52
Now of course, everybody could be lying and the game might only have 1 level, 1 gun and not story at all, but I'm not that paranoid.

Fallout 3 has over 200 endings!

Kodaemon
10th Oct 2010, 14:57
And it's actually true, except in a very unsatisfying way.

subtlesnake
10th Oct 2010, 17:06
It's not immediate, like in any game where there is RH, but fast enough to make you avoid to worry about your resources.
As for the health items they aren't essential, you can just use them to recover immediately instead of waiting the few seconds that the RH needs to refill your health completely
That quote is much more worrisome than reassuring about this. And the point is precisely here. You don't need resources.
Well, you don't need *health* resources (between combat scenarios). That doesn't mean there are aren't other resources that you need to manage. If you don't have enough ammo for a given encounter, how are you going to complete it successfully?

Regenerating health (depending on its recharge rate), will help you between each firefight, but you still need to win those firefights, and if you're outmatched, because your character doesn't have the required augs or inventory items, then it's going to be very difficult for you to progress.

Fluffis
10th Oct 2010, 17:33
Well, you don't need *health* resources (between combat scenarios).


That's what he was talking about...

OwlSolar
10th Oct 2010, 19:35
Sounds a bit like Red Dead Redemption's system. Your health regenerates, but you can heal instantly with medicine. For me at least, this has a good side and a bad side. On one hand, you can't really rely on regeneration. There are many cases where you have to use the medicine to avoid being killed. On the other hand, the game itself becomes quite easy if you have a good supply of medicine, which as some would say, defeats the whole point.

Draw parallels to Deus Ex as you will.


Funny that you quote Pinky of all people and refer to others as being offensive when he himself was offensive earlier in this same thread, for no real logical reason no less. But you quote him and label others of this, hypocrisy.
Okay fine, he's offensive too. Point still stands.

beastosterone
10th Oct 2010, 22:21
I'm starting to see the discrepency here. You actually didn't rely on the regen in RDR? You actually "have to use the medicine to avoid being killed"?

Wow... just... yeah. Wow. Ok. 'Nuff said!

Dead-Eye
10th Oct 2010, 22:44
No, you are not competing with anybody, that’s not my point. My point is that DX:HR should be an experience. It may be okay for you if you like to role-play, but for me the stealth experience will be broken if I don’t fear being noticed. And I wont fear that if I easily can run-and-gun without consequence.

Take something like Amnesia: the dark decent. Its a low budget game hailed by reviewers to be one of the scariest games in history. Even Yatzee liked it. Why? Well, because they make you fear your enemy of course. Your mind does the rest. Its called subtlety. That would all fall flat on its face if Rambo style also was a possibility.
It's why Resident Evil 2 was scary and Resident Evil 5 was not. In Res5 I would just shoot anything that thought it was badass because it wasn't. Where as in Res2 a room that just had too many zombies would make me run in the other direction because even that could kill me if I didn't play it safe.

Also when a player dose successfully beat the enemy after being spotted they feel a great sense of accomplishment because they know what they did was not easy. (That's why they had been avoiding it.)




When I play semi-open games like DX or Thief I like to be resourceful and creative. My goal is not to win the game fast, my goal is to find the best solution to any given situation. Thats what makes those games fun for me - being a problem solver. If I was sneaking around all stealthy when I knew that charging inn, guns blazing, would be more effective, I would literally feel like an idiot.
Role-playing that stealth is needed when it’s not just feels dump IMO.
This is how I would play the game too. I was a problem solver and I solved problems much the same way someone else solves puzzles. Deus Ex is like one big puzzle game where the puzzles are made out of characters and actions that all seem grounded in reality.


Because the stealth playstyle is more enjoyable for some people. Your line of thinking here borders on the absurd. Why does anyone do anything that isn't the easiest possible path, in anything? Easy isn't always preferable.
That's ridiculous. Problem solver gameplay is all about finding the easiest way possible to end up with the most ideal situation. Anything else is just screwing around.




Slow, epic pace and an understanding of how subtlety works in games are needed for this to be a true DX sequel. It’s the AAA studios disbelief in the player’s creative problem-solving abilities that have been killing gameplay since 2000 Yup.


and I don't remember those games being about multi-path solutions either. Not a point to argue here, I'm just giving my impression.

You're just not getting it. And I'm not going to try and explain something to a brick wall.


This is all that it is.

There are only like one or two that actually hate the game and refuse to leave the forums. There are a handful more that are disappointed by it and tend to exaggerate in their opinions.

The rest are decently pleased, and it tapers up in that direction until it reaches it own extreme.
That may be true, but I was over at Off Topic forums the other day and it seems like most of the people over there, who all qualify as Deus Ex die hards, have left this forum and really stopped caring what happens to Human Revaluation. They realized early that Human Revaluation was taking a wrong direction and didn't want to stick around to see something that wasn't Deus Ex. So my point being that there are a lot of die hards out there that really hate Human Revalution. They just left. The only die hards I can account for here are Fox and Wildcat.


Fallout 3 has over 200 endings!

And it's actually true, except in a very unsatisfying way.
lol.


Sounds a bit like Red Dead Redemption's system. Your health regenerates, but you can heal instantly with medicine. For me at least, this has a good side and a bad side. On one hand, you can't really rely on regeneration. There are many cases where you have to use the medicine to avoid being killed. On the other hand, the game itself becomes quite easy if you have a good supply of medicine, which as some would say, defeats the whole point.

You actually had to use medicine?

NKD
10th Oct 2010, 23:04
That's ridiculous. Problem solver gameplay is all about finding the easiest way possible to end up with the most ideal situation. Anything else is just screwing around.


So stealth is supposed to be easy?

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 23:07
The only die hards I can account for here are Fox and Wildcat.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Quite a few people here love the original game as much as anyone possibly can. Me included. It's my very favorite game, and has been for ten years.

NKD
10th Oct 2010, 23:16
How do you come to that conclusion?

Quite a few people here love the original game as much as anyone possibly can. Me included. It's my very favorite game, and has been for ten years.

I feel the same way as you. It is my favorite PC game of all time. The stuff Eidos has changed for this release wasn't the stuff I liked about the original anyway. So why should I like this one any less?

The only way this game is going to disappoint me is if its released as a buggy nightmare, is ridiculously short, or can't keep the quality of the content consistent.

For me, what I loved about the original is 90% intact from what we've seen so far.

xsamitt
10th Oct 2010, 23:21
I feel the same way as you. It is my favorite PC game of all time. The stuff Eidos has changed for this release wasn't the stuff I liked about the original anyway. So why should I like this one any less?

The only way this game is going to disappoint me is if its released as a buggy nightmare, is ridiculously short, or can't keep the quality of the content consistent.

For me, what I loved about the original is 90% intact from what we've seen so far.

My gut instinct agrees with this.

As for being a true DX fan I have the T-Shirt....so there.:D

Dead-Eye
10th Oct 2010, 23:43
So stealth is supposed to be easy?

The easiest way to achieve the most preferred resolution, yes.

NKD
10th Oct 2010, 23:47
The easiest way to achieve the most preferred resolution, yes.

I'm glad games aren't actually designed like that. It would be pretty unsatisfying have zero challenge while playing in a stealthy fashion.

GepardenK
10th Oct 2010, 23:52
^
Oh, you mean like splinter cell?

Dead-Eye
11th Oct 2010, 00:02
I'm glad games aren't actually designed like that. It would be pretty unsatisfying have zero challenge while playing in a stealthy fashion.

You just don't understand.

NKD
11th Oct 2010, 00:12
You just don't understand.

Okay. How about you post an actual explanation of why you believe stealth gameplay should not be challenging, rather than a snide comment?

azarhal
11th Oct 2010, 00:12
You're just not getting it. And I'm not going to try and explain something to a brick wall.

Cute, somebody calling me a brick wall, saying I'm not getting it...because I'm responding to a comment that wasn't responding to one of his own in a conversation he never participated in...Awesome!!!!!

To me, DX is just a a FPS/RPG with a conspiracy story that offered a multi-solution path to solve levels and I really hope that DX:HR have different ways to solve levels, more than the first game. With none being the best solution.

Dead-Eye
11th Oct 2010, 00:32
^^ I find it hard to believe that all this is coming from people who actually played Deus Ex.

NKD
11th Oct 2010, 00:36
^^ I find it hard to believe that all this is coming from people who actually played Deus Ex.

In other words, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion and just want to behave like a child. Okay.

Blade_hunter
11th Oct 2010, 00:41
^
Oh, you mean like splinter cell?

I don't know if you think the same a me, but, I just think SC conviction is an example to not follow.

neoWilks
11th Oct 2010, 00:45
Okay. How about you post an actual explanation of why you believe stealth gameplay should not be challenging, rather than a snide comment?
Easiest does not mean the same thing as easy. It's disingenuous to suggest they are the same thing.

Dead-eye is not asking for an non-challenging experience, he's asking for an experience that's balanced all the play styles. If stealthing is moderately difficult and Run 'n Gun is cake, the solution is not to make stealthing easier, it is to make Gunz Blazin' more difficult.

Pinky_Powers
11th Oct 2010, 00:49
Easiest does not mean the same thing as easy. It's disingenuous to suggest they are the same thing.

Dead-eye is not asking for an non-challenging experience, he's asking for an experience that's balanced all the play styles. If stealthing is moderately difficult and Run 'n Gun is cake, the solution is not to make stealthing easier, it is to make Gunz Blazin' more difficult.

I too think this is what Dead-Eye meant. He never asked that stealth be unchallenging.

NKD
11th Oct 2010, 00:55
Easiest does not mean the same thing as easy. It's disingenuous to suggest they are the same thing.

Dead-eye is not asking for an non-challenging experience, he's asking for an experience that's balanced all the play styles. If stealthing is moderately difficult and Run 'n Gun is cake, the solution is not to make stealthing easier, it is to make Gunz Blazin' more difficult.

Which would make them equally difficult, and indicate that stealth being the easiest solution would not be the case in a properly balanced game. As to what Dead-Eye is saying, I have no clue, since I asked for a real response and all he had was snarky and rude comments.


I too think this is what Dead-Eye meant. He never asked that stealth be unchallenging.

He never asked for anything, except that it be easier than running and gunning, which he refused to clarify his position on. If someone doesn't want to participate in a discussion fully, they should not bother. It's a waste of everyones time to read through useless sarcastic posts. If I wanted to read useless sarcasm I'd go to 4chan.

GepardenK
11th Oct 2010, 00:58
I don't know if you think the same a me, but, I just think SC conviction is an example to not follow.
Exactly:thumb:

neoWilks
11th Oct 2010, 01:11
Which would make them equally difficult, and indicate that stealth being the easiest solution would not be the case in a properly balanced game.

Easiest solution for ideal outcomes. That latter bit being the key phrase. In a game like Deus Ex, something as simple as whether or not you conk out that guard or ventilate his brain-can should have different effects on the story. Even if those effects are as basic as someone pointing out your approach and either supporting that or denounce it.

If you can progress through the story in roughly the same way regardless of whether you slip through the ventilation system or explode every NPC you come across, but that former approach takes way more time and effort, then why go through it? Obviously, that's something of an extreme example, but the point is certain styles of play ought to lead to varying outcomes.

Real outcomes, real consequences. Not stealthing just for the **** of it, but because stealthing results in it own unique development. These are the kind of "rewards" EM should be shooting for. Otherwise it's like all those folks who invent stories within open world games, like all those TES players who force themselves to eat food, or go to bed every 24 hours, or live as mountain men. That's all fine and good, but if the gameplay doesn't actually support it, you're just playing make-believe. The important part of video games is that they are able to react to what you do, instead of you having to pretend you're actually making a splash.


As to what Dead-Eye is saying, I have no clue, since I asked for a real response and all he had was snarky and rude comments.

Your question was loaded. Why ought he be obligated to spell it all out for you?

NKD
11th Oct 2010, 01:31
Easiest solution for ideal outcomes. That latter bit being the key phrase. In a game like Deus Ex, something as simple as whether or not you conk out that guard or ventilate his brain-can should have different effects on the story. Even if those effects are as basic as someone pointing out your approach and either supporting that or denounce it.

Well the definition of ideal will vary from player to player. Someone playing one way shouldn't be penalized more than someone playing another way.


If you can progress through the story in roughly the same way regardless of whether you slip through the ventilation system or explode every NPC you come across, but that former approach takes way more time and effort, then why go through it? Obviously, that's something of an extreme example, but the point is certain styles of play ought to lead to varying outcomes.

Variable, but not "Good" and "Best." Each play style should be equally rewarding.


Real outcomes, real consequences. Not stealthing just for the **** of it, but because stealthing results in it own unique development. These are the kind of "rewards" EM should be shooting for. Otherwise it's like all those folks who invent stories within open world games, like all those TES players who force themselves to eat food, or go to bed every 24 hours, or live as mountain men. That's all fine and good, but if the gameplay doesn't actually support it, you're just playing make-believe. The important part of video games is that they are able to react to what you do, instead of you having to pretend you're actually making a splash.

I agree fully, and I think all the approaches to playing the game should be rewarded like that. We don't want a game where there is one right way to play, and that way gets all the good stuff, and everything else is unnecessarily penalized.

I'm not referring to you, but I've seen a lot of people who seem to think that stealth should be the only "right" way to play, and that people who are running and gunning should be forced to explore or drop back into a stealth approach frequently.

Dead-Eye
11th Oct 2010, 01:33
since I asked for a real response and all he had was snarky and rude comments.
That's because I think you're trolling.

What I'm saying is that stealth should, more often then not, give the player a better outcome then guns blazing. That's what I have been saying and that's what a lot of other people have been saying. You seem to think that people will use stealth even when there is no advantage to doing it. While that may be true, it ruins the atmosphere of stealth because all stealth becomes is a road side gimmick that has no real baring on the actually game.

Did you know Bioshock has stealth? Who cares.

To add insult to injury you completely ignore what me and others have been saying and deduce (or at lest pretend to) that I am somehow saying stealth should be easy...

I'm not going to wast emotional energy on trolls.

NKD
11th Oct 2010, 01:37
What I'm saying is that stealth should, more often then not, give the player a better outcome then guns blazing. That's what I have been saying and that's what a lot of other people have been saying. You seem to think that people will use stealth even when there is no advantage to doing it. While that may be true, it ruins the atmosphere of stealth because all stealth becomes a road side gimmick that has no real baring on the actually game.

Why should stealth give a better outcome though? Assuming they balance the approaches so that the level of difficulty is similar, I don't see why stealth should be the "right" playstyle and everything else should be penalized, I.e. with supporting characters dying, or getting a crappy ending.

Risk vs. Reward. Assuming equal risk, the reward should also be equal.

Dead-Eye
11th Oct 2010, 02:03
Why should stealth give a better outcome though? Assuming they balance the approaches so that the level of difficulty is similar, I don't see why stealth should be the "right" playstyle and everything else should be penalized, I.e. with supporting characters dying, or getting a crappy ending.

Risk vs. Reward. Assuming equal risk, the reward should also be equal.
Because stealth is harder.

To put everything into context this was the quote that really messes everything up.

IGN: Wouldn't that be like choosing not to level up in an RPG?

JJB: Obviously you might not get the full experience, but it's doable. It's totally doable. This is still a first-person shooter, and it's possible to have a lot of fun just shooting. So if you choose not to augment your hacking abilities or whatever you can still shoot your way through the front door.
See in Deus Ex when you start out you're character isn't really good at front on confrontation, they tend to mess you up. To avoid losing resources needlessly the player uses stealth. Only after leveling up and getting the right augmentations was the player ready for front on assault.

However EM seems to believe that if a player doesn't want to augment themselves then the default option for that player is combat. I'm saying this is wrong and that the default option for said player is stealth. Only after augmenting and placing points in the right skills should a player be rewarded for front on combat, specifically in combat.

NKD
11th Oct 2010, 02:17
Because stealth is harder.

It really shouldn't be. It should be on par with the combat. From a game design standpoint anyway. Personally I don't mind if its more difficult, and would actually prefer it.


To put everything into context this was the quote that really messes everything up.

See in Deus Ex when you start out you're character isn't really good at front on confrontation, they tend to mess you up. To avoid losing resources needlessly the player uses stealth. Only after leveling up and getting the right augmentations was the player ready for front on assault.

I always saw that as a major weakness of the game. That you didn't really have multiple options early on. Unless you wanted to be really frustrated, you couldn't do a run and gun style of play. People should be forced to play the game one way to be able to play the game another.


However EM seems to believe that if a player doesn't want to augment themselves then the default option for that player is combat. I'm saying that is wrong and that the default option for said player is stealth. Only after augmenting and placing points in the right skills should a player be rewarded for front on combat, specifically in combat.

Both approaches should be viable from beginning to end. People looking for a shooter with RPG elements like Mass Effect are going to be really disappointed if they can't shoot peoples faces off without dying constantly. How would you feel if you were forced to mow everyone down for the first 3 areas because you needed enough experience points to enhance your cloaking aug?

I don't really see it as a choice between one or the other. You can balance the game to make both equally viable, front to back.

pringlepower
11th Oct 2010, 02:22
As Yatzhee says, Stealth shouldn't just be a game of grandmother's footsteps and combat shouldn't make you feel like you f***ed up the stealth

luminar
11th Oct 2010, 02:24
It makes more sense that you should use stealth early in the game and with experience get better at straightfoward combat. If your just starting out sneaking around and getting to a position that gives you the biggest tactical advantage or outright avoiding confrontation is better suited to someone who isn't experienced in combat.

beastosterone
11th Oct 2010, 02:53
^^ I find it hard to believe that all this is coming from people who actually played Deus Ex.

Don't worry about it, man. Posers will be posers.

The fact that you need to attempt to educate these people about concerns and issues that should be blatantly obvious is proof enough that they don't get it. Perhaps if you made a flashy video with many explosions and some rock music you would get through to them, but even then...

All we can hope for is that when the game is released, if it's completely terrible (cover, check, health regen, check, third person, check, ridiculous kill moves, check, moronic cutscenes, check... any deus ex fan can see the little things leading up to a terrible game), that they will see it that way and be as dissapointed as we are.

Of course, internet honor dictates they will stand by their guns regardless, so, perhaps not.

The best case scenario however is that somehow, in some magical way, these players that can't even play Red Dead Redemption without having to rely on medicine and think health regen and third person are good ideas for an immersive video game, can actually percieve the released information on DXHR in a way that us crusty, jaded, skilled individuals cannot - and that DXHR actually turns out to be an amazing game that doesn't take it's players for a bunch of idiots who rely on medicine even with health regeneration.

hem dazon 90
11th Oct 2010, 03:08
Don't worry about it, man. Posers will be posers.





So just because we don't agree with you we are automatically wrong ? Who are you Spoony ?

Dead-Eye
11th Oct 2010, 03:14
I always saw that as a major weakness of the game. That you didn't really have multiple options early on. Unless you wanted to be really frustrated, you couldn't do a run and gun style of play.

Then we are just going to need to agree to disagree.

beastosterone
11th Oct 2010, 03:16
So just because we don't agree with you we are automatically wrong ? Who are you Spoony ?

It goes far beyond simply not agreeing, hem dazon 90

NKD
11th Oct 2010, 03:33
Then we are just going to need to agree to disagree.

Yes sir. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position though. It is appreciated.

hem dazon 90
11th Oct 2010, 04:05
It goes far beyond simply not agreeing, hem dazon 90

How so?

neoWilks
11th Oct 2010, 05:20
Well the definition of ideal will vary from player to player. Someone playing one way shouldn't be penalized more than someone playing another way.

Right, I never qualified "ideal" intentionally. If your ideal outcome is, "Everyone dies," then Gunz Blazin' is likely to be the optimal strategy. If instead the ideal goal is to play as a pacifist, double-fisting Uzi's is not going to be the easiest path to reach your goal. If you are intent on achieving an outcome that runs contrary to how you approach each challenge, you will necessarily be "punished". By that I mean, it will be far more difficult to achieve your goals successfully.


Variable, but not "Good" and "Best." Each play style should be equally rewarding.

Right, when I say "Best" it's always in the context of what you want to achieve. The game should be constructed around this. It should not lead you down a specific "best" ending.


I agree fully, and I think all the approaches to playing the game should be rewarded like that. We don't want a game where there is one right way to play, and that way gets all the good stuff, and everything else is unnecessarily penalized.

I'm not referring to you, but I've seen a lot of people who seem to think that stealth should be the only "right" way to play, and that people who are running and gunning should be forced to explore or drop back into a stealth approach frequently.
I think there are certain segments where pure combat should be more difficult and certain segments where stealth is more difficult. Not simply because, but in the context of what you are attempting. If there is a mission in which you must assault a military base, simply kicking down the doors and unloading your rocket launcher into the first thing that moves should result in a more difficult experience.

Your actions ought to have consequences that make sense. They should not artificially create environments and challenges specifically to accommodate each and every playstyle. These challenging situations might be slightly alleviated by your choice in augmentations---whether you focused on combat or stealth options---but that does not guarantee an easier time of it.

beastosterone
11th Oct 2010, 05:33
I think there are certain segments where pure combat should be more difficult and certain segments where stealth is more difficult. Not simply because, but in the context of what you are attempting. If there is a mission in which you must assault a military base, simply kicking down the doors and unloading your rocket launcher into the first thing that moves should result in a more difficult experience.

Your actions ought to have consequences that make sense. They should not artificially create environments and challenges specifically to accommodate each and every playstyle. These challenging situations might be slightly alleviated by your choice in augmentations---whether you focused on combat or stealth options---but that does not guarantee an easier time of it.

That really hit home for me. Well said.

NKD
11th Oct 2010, 05:40
I think there are certain segments where pure combat should be more difficult and certain segments where stealth is more difficult. Not simply because, but in the context of what you are attempting. If there is a mission in which you must assault a military base, simply kicking down the doors and unloading your rocket launcher into the first thing that moves should result in a more difficult experience.

So long as they don't make you feel like you're being punished for playing in your preferred playstyle, then that's a great idea. It's the jarring kind of "Surprise! Your playstyle until now is completely invalid!" type moments in games like Alpha Protocol that I think players would have a problem with.

Those games where you feel like stealth is a bad idea because of the inevitable unskippable gun battles that will take 20 attempts to win, those are bad games. As are the games where you feel like combat means you failed at the stealth portion of the game, and doesn't stand on its own.

I hope DXHR can hit the middle ground there and offer a variety of challenges for everyone without making them regret their playstyle choice.