PDA

View Full Version : DXHR: The Only Hope For Hybrid Games Today



FlyingDove
9th Oct 2010, 21:53
Games have been so limited for a long, long time. It wasn't until games like Ultima and Elite that nonlinearity began to make its way into the games industry. That was the 1980s. In the 1990s is where it all truly took off. GTA became one of the best selling franchises of all time after GTA 3. We also had titles that were greatly unappreciated, particularly ones like DX1, System Shock 1 & 2, and others. Seeing how more sandbox games and nonlinear narrative-based games are coming out, there might be hope for more replayability in games. Unfortunately, blending together various genres is still challenging, especially for a game similar to DX, and few people are interested in such titles.

DXHR might be the most complex game of 2011, whether you like its changes or not. Which game can take it on in terms of replayability? Gears of War? Crysis 2? The other big titles are largely linear compared to DXHR, and don't do a very good job of blending genres together. Hopefully, Eidos will market DXHR more than any of its other games, which will result in sales that are the standard for big titles. As long as it succeeds commercially, I think that we should be able to see hybrid games take over shooters in the next 5-10 years, in terms of sales.

mad825
9th Oct 2010, 22:21
DXHR might be the most complex game of 2011, whether you like its changes or not. Which game can take it on in terms of replayability? Gears of War? Crysis 2?

Dragon Age 2?

I would say thee second or third most "complex" but then again we dont know what to expect from DXHR

Facebyface
9th Oct 2010, 22:27
One game that I'm drawing quite a bit of parallels to in a bit of design mindset, and it's easy to see why, is Witcher 2. They're both going with ethical dilemmas that effect the story later on and have a stealth focus that at times will be required and can be done throughout most of the game. Both games I'm interested in enough to pick up, both have gorgeous graphics, both are on PC, and both tout the way you play mattering.

So, no, Deus Ex is not the only hope. It's been slowly coming back into focus with audiences and 2007 was a perfect time to announce such with games like Fallout 3 and Mass Effect beginning to try and combine playstyles. They didn't get close to the ambiguous mindset of Deus Ex but they helped draw a line for this new game to surpass. There's many other developers looking to head in this sort of direction, but I'm glad a tried and true tested formula for hybrids is going to show what can be done.

NKD
9th Oct 2010, 22:35
I think people are getting tired of plain ole fast-paced shooters, with the exception being the Xbox Live smack-talkers, and to a lesser extent, the competitive FPS players on the PC. And even among those crowds, compare something like Bad Company 2 to Quake or Tribes. Even most of those players have moved on to slower paced and sometimes deeper games, albeit marginally.

People who enjoy primarily single player or cooperative experiences don't want repetitive shooters. They want something interesting with a little depth. No, most of them don't want some kind of weird first person simulator where you have to press 10 different keys to kill a bad guy while stealthing, but they do want something more than what is being offered by a lot of developers.

People need to remember that gaming has changed in the last decade. You have a ton of people gaming that are normal folks, not hardcore people who make it their primary hobby or their entire life outside of work or school. Are these people stupid? No, they just can't justify spending more hours on unproductive activities. They want a deep game, but they don't want a punishing game that eats their time away and gives them nothing for it.

Nobody wants to mention that though. People only mention when some super hardcore genre or franchise becomes more accessible. They don't talk about the fact that a lot of very simple genres and franchises have become more complex over the years. It's simply a new middle ground being established. Yeah, the really hardcore people won't like it, but what are our choices? We don't have any. The industry changes based on the demands of the customer base, and of that customer base, we're a pretty small minority.

There will still exist niches on either side. Crazy hardcore stuff like Dwarf Fortress, which I've been playing religiously, and all the super casual Facebook crap. But the majority is going to be somewhere in between, because there's where the balance of buying power and willingness to spend is reached. Hardcore gamers are very loyal and will buy your product before they'll buy food for their kids, if you meet their demands, but they are a small group and don't have a lot of collective purchasing power. The Facebook crowd is huge in number and easy to please, but very unwilling to part with any large amounts of money. The middle offers a bit of both.

I think if people stop drinking the Hatorade they will see that DXHR is looking to be a far more complicated affair than most games. I doubt if there are more than 2 or 3 games released per year with the level of complexity being talked about in DXHR. 2 or 3 out of hundreds. No, it won't be exactly what we wanted down to every detail, but I stopped expecting to get exactly what I want when I was 3 or 4.

Pretentious Old Man.
9th Oct 2010, 22:37
I think people are getting tired of plain ole fast-paced shooters,

On the contrary, I want them back. We've not had a decent properly paced shooter in years now, thanks to the consoles.

Facebyface
9th Oct 2010, 22:41
On the contrary, I want them back. We've not had a decent properly paced shooter in years now, thanks to the consoles.

Here we go again...

It's not just consoles. It's the inability to design a level tightly and to have A.I up to par with what they want to do. I know how hard it is to make something that is well designed, but professionals don't get that excuse. We do need another good, fast paced shooter. That's why I wait for the next iteration of Half-Life.

Tverdyj
10th Oct 2010, 00:26
Dragon Age 2?

I would say thee second or third most "complex" but then again we dont know what to expect from DXHR

Witcher 2

spm1138
10th Oct 2010, 00:28
Seeing how more sandbox games and nonlinear narrative-based games are coming out,

EVE Online?

GepardenK
10th Oct 2010, 00:45
Here we go again...

It's not just consoles. It's the inability to design a level tightly and to have A.I up to par with what they want to do. I know how hard it is to make something that is well designed, but professionals don't get that excuse. We do need another good, fast paced shooter. That's why I wait for the next iteration of Half-Life. Or next iteration of Serious Sam. Those enemies dont need AI:)

azarhal
10th Oct 2010, 00:46
Here we go again...

It's not just consoles. It's the inability to design a level tightly and to have A.I up to par with what they want to do. I know how hard it is to make something that is well designed, but professionals don't get that excuse. We do need another good, fast paced shooter. That's why I wait for the next iteration of Half-Life.

The problem is that dev are forced to developer for the console (you know all the talk about the PC is dead) and console controls just don't work for a face paced first person shooters (unless it's on rails). Consoles also bring level design limitations (aka lots of loading screens). There was also that Japanese game developer who said that nobody wanted to play shooters on the PCs...

I'm not sure what happened to A.I. though, that one should have improved over the years. Although, I did read one game designer's blog who said that players don't want dynamic realistic A.I., they want something static that will always happen in the same order at the same time (he's a MMO designer and work on Star Wars: The Old Republic).

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 01:09
and console controls just don't work for a face paced first person shooters (unless it's on rails).

Apparently you've never played Halo Death Match.
Fast, twitch shooting, with jumping and strafing and high octane craziness. And no rails to speak of.

If you can play against real-life meth'ed out savages on the console, they can damn well make a singleplayer campaign in the same vane.

Golden Eye was pretty fast in multi, too.

I was also playing Doom II on the 360 over at a friend's house the other day. And that was surprisingly comfortable on the gamepad.

pringlepower
10th Oct 2010, 01:34
Apparently you've never played Halo Death Match.
Fast, twitch shooting, with jumping and strafing and high octane craziness. And no rails to speak of.

If you can play against real-life meth'ed out savages on the console, they can damn well make a singleplayer campaign in the same vane.

Golden Eye was pretty fast in multi, too.

I was also playing Doom II on the 360 over at a friend's house the other day. And that was surprisingly comfortable on the gamepad.

Well I've been playing some Quake live (Quake III in a browser) since its release a few weeks ago for mindless fun, and if that's the sort of pace people are looking for... I'll stick to the unholy CoDs and Halos.

It's more of the insane, on crack, jump 500 feet into the air, make Halo look like bullet time pace. Not saying it doesn't take skill, but it's a little too crazy for me.

azarhal
10th Oct 2010, 01:40
Apparently you've never played Halo Death Match.
Fast, twitch shooting, with jumping and strafing and high octane craziness. And no rails to speak of.

If you can play against real-life meth'ed out savages on the console, they can damn well make a singleplayer campaign in the same vane.

Golden Eye was pretty fast in multi, too.

I was also playing Doom II on the 360 over at a friend's house the other day. And that was surprisingly comfortable on the gamepad.

I was thinking of auto-targeting (and over the should 3rd person view now), you know, because you can't look around properly while running with a gamepad...

As for my console shooter experience. I only played one: XIII deathmatch on the Gamecube. I didn't like it.

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 01:52
I was thinking of auto-targeting (and over the should 3rd person view now)

It's nice to know what you were thinking, but what you typed had nothing to do with auto-targeting and you specifically spoke on first-person perspective console games.

Are you possessed by mischievous spirits?

pringlepower
10th Oct 2010, 01:52
I was thinking of auto-targeting (and over the should 3rd person view now), you know, because you can't look around properly why running with a gamepad...

As for my console shooter experience. I only played one: XIII deathmatch on the Gamecube. I didn't like it.

That makes you the perfect person to criticize them, eh?

Jerion
10th Oct 2010, 02:00
I'm not sure what happened to A.I. though, that one should have improved over the years. Although, I did read one game designer's blog who said that players don't want dynamic realistic A.I., they want something static that will always happen in the same order at the same time (he's a MMO designer and work on Star Wars: The Old Republic).

It's kinda true. You can have AI that navigates the environment with lots of awareness, jumps over obstacles, smartly flanks you, runs to cover and ducks behind concealment, but there's a point where sooner or later the player just starts saying, "Can I get shot at, please?"

TrickyVein
10th Oct 2010, 02:00
Apparently you've never played Halo Death Match.
Fast, twitch shooting, with jumping and strafing and high octane craziness. And no rails to speak of.

Halo's game-speed is sluggish compared to most other FPS I've played, especially within a deathmatch type setting. :confused: It just doesn't compare to Quake or Unreal Tournament, for instance. You have provided a wholly misrepresented view of what Halo is like compared to other games in the genre.

Also, gamepads: Leveling your sites to match the elevation of where most of your enemies' heads are isn't very fun.

sonicsidewinder
10th Oct 2010, 02:05
Rail shooters can be pretty cool. Killer 7 sticks to mind due to its damn crazy awesomeness. Plus Cam Clarke lol.


XIII deathmatch on the Gamecube. I didn't like it.

13 was such a good game. :) But yeah, the multiplayer wasn't much fun, even on xbl.

GepardenK
10th Oct 2010, 02:23
It's kinda true. You can have AI that navigates the environment with lots of awareness, jumps over obstacles, smartly flanks you, runs to cover and ducks behind concealment, but there's a point where sooner or later the player just starts saying, "Can I get shot at, please?"
Bah, people have no imagination.

What about AI that actually feels like real people? Not as in MP opponents, but as in real people. Lets say we play DX:HR 2 and I proceed to kick inn a door all action like. There on the other side is a half sleeping guards who suddenly and abruptly wakes in horror. He totally panics and start running down the corridor screaming for backup. When I spray my SMG after him he clumsily jumps behind a table, falling in the process. Sadly he was hit in the leg, and now he is crawling over the floor towards the nearest exit. His friends arrive however; two of them desperately try to help carry their wounded ally to the medic room, while the rest searches the house.... etc etc

What if this happened because of an dynamic AI instead of a scripted scenario? Wouldn’t that just be effin cool??
Also, even your example sounded like a fun combat situation. I think players would like even that, kinda like fighting a modern ninja.

Facebyface
10th Oct 2010, 02:28
Bah, people have no imagination.

What about AI that actually feels like real people? Not as in MP opponents, but as in real people. Lets say we play DX:HR 2 and I proceed to kick inn a door all action like. There on the other side is a half sleeping guards who suddenly and abruptly wakes in horror. He totally panics and start running down the corridor screaming for backup. When I spray my SMG after him he clumsily jumps behind a table, falling in the process. Sadly he was hit in the leg, and now he is crawling over the floor towards the nearest exit. His friends arrive however; two of them desperately try to help carry their wounded ally to the medic room, while the rest searches the house.... etc etc

What if this happened because of an dynamic AI instead of a scripted scenario? Wouldn’t that just be effin cool??
Also, even your example sounded like a fun combat situation. I think players would like even that.

Projects like Euphoria are taking AI constructs in the right direction. Yes, I know that technically Euphoria is not an AI program but rather a reactionary program but it applies to AI. Calculating in a sleepiness (or "awareness") factor into that sort of thing would be rather interesting to battle with. We're just not at that point yet. The best of AI can try to take cover, get you out of yours, try to avoid your attempts at doing the same, and create chokepoints so we're not yet to the point where we can start focusing on that sort of stuff. AI designed for stealth and battle are a very delicate mix that still needs to be worked out.

GepardenK
10th Oct 2010, 02:42
^Yes, thats true. Force Unleashed was a bad game on so many levels, but damn I had fun playing with that engine!

azarhal
10th Oct 2010, 03:42
It's nice to know what you were thinking, but what you typed had nothing to do with auto-targeting and you specifically spoke on first-person perspective console games.

Are you possessed by mischievous spirits?

Which part of "because you can't look around properly while running with a gamepad..." did you miss? There was a typo with the "while", but hopefully it didn't stop you from reading my answer did it?

Developer added auto-targeting because gamepad don't have the fluidity of a mouse for looking around and targeting something. And now they added the over the shoulder view to expand what you see without having to move the camera at all (more on single player shooter games). Despite these "fixes", the camera movement is still sluggish and nowhere near what the PC mouse can achieve.

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 03:57
Which part of "because you can't look around properly while running with a gamepad..." did you miss? There was a typo with the "while", but hopefully it didn't stop you from reading my answer did it?

Developer added auto-targeting because gamepad don't have the fluidity of a mouse for looking around and targeting something. And now they added the over the shoulder view to expand what you see without having to move the camera at all (more on single player shooter games). Despite these "fixes", the camera movement is still sluggish and nowhere near what the PC mouse can achieve.

What part of Halo Death Match did you not understand? First-person, no autotargetting (or can be turned off), and frantic gameplay. And it all works perfectly fine on the console, using console controllers.

Because third-person games with auto-aim do exist, does not mean consoles can't do great fast-paced FPS.

PS. I do 90% of my gaming on the PC, with mouse and keyboard. I've played all the old classics before they were classics. I know a quality FPS. So don't think I'm just a console fanboy who's never played anything beyond Halo.
I'm using Halo as an example, because there are some tight DM maps in multiplayer that play very much like UT does. All you need is one moment of high-powered chaos to know that consoles can do it quite well... they just usually don't.

OwlSolar
10th Oct 2010, 19:51
On the contrary, I want them back. We've not had a decent properly paced shooter in years now, thanks to the consoles.
Vanquish looks insane.

...Of course, it's a console game. :rolleyes:

Ilves
10th Oct 2010, 20:13
^ I tried the demo for PS3, and it's easily the most gorgeous looking game I've ever had running on that machine. Good fun while it lasted, too, but I don't think I could stomach that insanity for more than 30 minutes.

Anasumtj
10th Oct 2010, 20:46
What part of Halo Death Match did you not understand? First-person, no autotargetting (or can be turned off), and frantic gameplay. And it all works perfectly fine on the console, using console controllers.

Because third-person games with auto-aim do exist, does not mean consoles can't do great fast-paced FPS.

PS. I do 90% of my gaming on the PC, with mouse and keyboard. I've played all the old classics before they were classics. I know a quality FPS. So don't think I'm just a console fanboy who's never played anything beyond Halo.
I'm using Halo as an example, because there are some tight DM maps in multiplayer that play very much like UT does. All you need is one moment of high-powered chaos to know that consoles can do it quite well... they just usually don't.

The fastest, twitchiest deathmatch in Halo could never hope to match what you could get out of UT99, Tribes, or any old Quake game.

That's not a knock against Halo or other slower paced shooters, because I enjoy a number of them. But I don't think any of those other games translate as well to consoles because the accuracy provided by a computer's control input isn't done justice with analogue sticks with fixed turning speeds. And I'm pretty sure if you pitched a match between PC and console players, those with a mouse and keyboard would dominate their opponents.

I'd love to a see somebody disclaunch an opponent mid-air in Tribes 2 with a gamepad.

II J0SePh X II
10th Oct 2010, 20:58
the exception being the Xbox Live smack-talkers, and to a lesser extent, the competitive FPS players on the PC..

While I'd agree that there's a lot of idiots playing fps on XBL, I'd wager that the amount of players with something between the ears, outnumbers the amount of players on PC.

Ninjerk
10th Oct 2010, 21:14
Pinky could you link a youtube video of the deathmatch you're talking about? All the videos I look for are about as fast as Halo ever was (I never thought it was).

NKD
10th Oct 2010, 22:03
While I'd agree that there's a lot of idiots playing fps on XBL, I'd wager that the amount of players with something between the ears, outnumbers the amount of players on PC.

That's probably true. It's easy to forget that a lot of normal decent people play on Xbox Live, not just a bunch of blue-haired otaku teenagers and such.

IOOI
10th Oct 2010, 22:42
People need to remember that gaming has changed in the last decade. You have a ton of people gaming that are normal folks, not hardcore people who make it their primary hobby or their entire life outside of work or school. Are these people stupid? No, they just can't justify spending more hours on unproductive activities. They want a deep game, but they don't want a punishing game that eats their time away and gives them nothing for it.

Nobody wants to mention that though. People only mention when some super hardcore genre or franchise becomes more accessible. They don't talk about the fact that a lot of very simple genres and franchises have become more complex over the years. It's simply a new middle ground being established. Yeah, the really hardcore people won't like it, but what are our choices? We don't have any. The industry changes based on the demands of the customer base, and of that customer base, we're a pretty small minority.

It might not be the best example I'm giving here, but are you saying that Fallout 3 was an exception and no one wants games like that?
Don't you think that DXHR could've had complex game mechanics in the same level and still sell? But then again, no way it would. Since EM devs have no experience with RPGs.


No, it won't be exactly what we wanted down to every detail, but I stopped expecting to get exactly what I want when I was 3 or 4.

...years in the industry?

If that's the case I understand from a developer standpoint, but as a fan... are you mad!? Just because there aren't enough people expressing their disappointement in order to make changes to a game (and expecting a better game or a game more in the lines of its precedent), doesn't necessarily mean that those few ones that are "making the noise" should stop it.
You can't just say "Hey! There aren't enough people disappointed, so STFU!" and expect people to start praising the game.


PS: Good luck White Knight.

NKD
10th Oct 2010, 23:10
...years in the industry?

If that's the case I understand from a developer standpoint, but as a fan... are you mad!? Just because there aren't enough people expressing their disappointement in order to make changes to a game (and expecting a better game or a game more in the lines of its precedent), doesn't necessarily mean that those few ones that are "making the noise" should stop it.
You can't just say "Hey! There aren't enough people disappointed, so STFU!" and expect people to start praising the game.

I never said anyone should stop. They have the right to complain. Well, not a right, but they are allowed to. But they need to realize that they aren't accomplishing anything by it. The developers aren't going to act on the requests of a vocal minority. A unrealistic, or worse, delusional mindset doesn't help anyone.

xsamitt
10th Oct 2010, 23:17
Maybe it might help to think of it this way........If DX:HR isn't your ideal version of DX, you still won't find a game out there that will be as close as a REAL DX title as HR.SO for me it's pretty simple .....Right or wrong I am interested in this title,alot infact.Plus it's miles ahead of IW as far as what a quality DX is supposed to be about.

Pinky_Powers
10th Oct 2010, 23:23
The fastest, twitchiest deathmatch in Halo could never hope to match what you could get out of UT99, Tribes, or any old Quake game.

Well, first off, Tribes is not nearly as twitchy as UT or QA... not by a very, very long stretch. Secondly, Unreal Tournament, and Quake III Arena are not comparable to Unreal and Quake.
Chew on that for a moment.
They're set in the same universe as their online counterparts, but the gameplay is so incredibly different they cannot be compared by any reasonable soul.

The singleplayer games Unreal, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D operate at a pacing that can be compared to Halo multiplayer. But I agree, Halo doesn't quite reach the heights of frenzy UT and QIIIA do.

So the question was always, can the console deliver a fast paced twitch shooter? If you want one like the best of the old singleplayer games, yes. If you want UT... well, UTIII is on the console and works wonderfully. It's just a bit slower than the frantic nightmare you can find on the PC.

IOOI
10th Oct 2010, 23:32
I never said anyone should stop. They have the right to complain. Well, not a right, but they are allowed to. But they need to realize that they aren't accomplishing anything by it. The developers aren't going to act on the requests of a vocal minority. A unrealistic, or worse, delusional mindset doesn't help anyone.

Well, it will definitly leave a mark on the devs, as it will with some of the fans. And they'll learn next time to be more carefull with what (and how and when) they say.
They are the ones giving their faces not PR and Marketing.

Anasumtj
11th Oct 2010, 16:55
Well, first off, Tribes is not nearly as twitchy as UT or QA... not by a very, very long stretch. Secondly, Unreal Tournament, and Quake III Arena are not comparable to Unreal and Quake.
Chew on that for a moment.
They're set in the same universe as their online counterparts, but the gameplay is so incredibly different they cannot be compared by any reasonable soul.

Tribes can have a considerable amount of twitch. You might not be aiming all over the place like in other contemporary shooters, but perfect timing, aiming, and split-second reactions are necessary for extended base sieges, unstoppable flag runs, or mid-air battles.

Even if we agree that "twitch" may not be the most appropriate term for that series, I think we can both agree that you can't easily replicate the kind of control it requires on a gamepad.


The singleplayer games Unreal, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D operate at a pacing that can be compared to Halo multiplayer. But I agree, Halo doesn't quite reach the heights of frenzy UT and QIIIA do.

Almost the entire discussion has been focused on MP games. Even so, I think you can be afforded a faster pace on the PC for a lot of titles.

UT on the consoles always paled compared to their PC counterparts. Maybe it's fine for console players facing other console players. But once again, you would be demolished if pitted against somebody using a mouse and keyboard. That's why so many console shooters make use of auto-aiming or other conveniences to help smooth over their inherent imprecision. We can dance around this all week and point out plenty of console games do "good enough" on a pad. But there's no point arguing about the potential pacing of a game when it's pretty much unassailable that PC shooters are going to be more precise and play faster (at least if they're being developed with the PC's strengths in mind).

Not saying faster is better. But if you want breakneck crazy action or twitchy headshots, you're not going to find a suitable replacement for your computer.

Shralla
11th Oct 2010, 20:23
While I'd agree that there's a lot of idiots playing fps on XBL, I'd wager that the amount of players with something between the ears, outnumbers the amount of players on PC.

Probably total. Ratio though? No way. Spend two hours playing any game on Xbox Live and spend two hours playing the same game on PC and it's pretty obvious.

ROCK STARTIST
12th Oct 2010, 23:13
Yup, HR is gonna be one artistic complex gem upon arrival, a collectors item for the shelf, as oppose to how a lot of franchises are released year after year, just beat em and sell em back to the store.

It's amusing when everyone always talks about the latest Halo and Modern Warefare games. Although when you tell them Deus Ex, there like "huh?" I'd be damn if this game doesn't get enough recognition, I just hope its promoted correctly rather than just a cool sci fi shooter like Project Snowblind.