PDA

View Full Version : Let there be skillpoints again!!



Brambo
2nd Feb 2008, 16:37
It may not be very realistic but I liked that part where you had to divide your earned skillpoint. The Augmentations where very different too in IW, you could have all the augmentations in the first part of the game already. I did like the augmentationcannisters where you only had two choices. I Wish that this may chanche in the sequel.

jd10013
2nd Feb 2008, 19:12
It may not be very realistic but I liked that part where you had to divide your earned skillpoint. The Augmentations where very different too in IW, you could have all the augmentations in the first part of the game already. I did like the augmentationcannisters where you only had two choices. I Wish that this may chanche in the sequel.

One of the things I like about the skill system was it made secondary goals worth completing. That to me was on of the bigger failings of IW. Sure, it had plenty of side quest, but there wasn't really any big reward for completing them. Usually just money, which you always had 10x what you needed. In DX, those skill points were quite valuable. getting them in small amounts (usually less than 200), and needing a couple thousand to get past all but the first level of any skill; the player was really motivated to earn them.

SomaMech
2nd Feb 2008, 22:42
It may not be very realistic but I liked that part where you had to divide your earned skillpoint. The Augmentations where very different too in IW, you could have all the augmentations in the first part of the game already. I did like the augmentationcannisters where you only had two choices. I Wish that this may chanche in the sequel.

Skillpoints should be part of every DX game IMO. DX is an RPG at heart and I hope the developers aren't scared to keep some of the more classic RPG elements of the first game.

minus0ne
3rd Feb 2008, 01:19
It may not be very realistic but I liked that part where you had to divide your earned skillpoint. The Augmentations where very different too in IW, you could have all the augmentations in the first part of the game already. I did like the augmentationcannisters where you only had two choices. I Wish that this may chanche in the sequel.
I'd like them back too. Though what you say about augs holds true for both IW and the original (you already have all your augs in Hong Kong).

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 01:44
If DX3's augs are nanotech then skill points would be cool. I'm sure nanobots can evolve in ways without having to visit a lab and get a tune-up. If they are mech augs, then skill points would be weird. I magically got stronger mechanical joints!

AaronJ
3rd Feb 2008, 03:13
I personally didn't like the skillpoints.

jd10013
3rd Feb 2008, 03:17
I personally didn't like the skillpoints.

are you sure you really like dx? I'm not being critical, but reading some of your posts give me the idea your more of a doom, corridor shooter type of gamer. Dx isn't that. Its not an FPS, it's not a shooter. It's a hybrid type game that about 40% rpg, 40% adventure, and about 20% shooter.

minus0ne
3rd Feb 2008, 03:19
If DX3's augs are nanotech then skill points would be cool. I'm sure nanobots can evolve in ways without having to visit a lab and get a tune-up. If they are mech augs, then skill points would be weird. I magically got stronger mechanical joints!
Why would skill-points upgrade an augmentation? We're talking about the skill system, which wasn't tied in in any way with the augs.

AaronJ
3rd Feb 2008, 03:19
That's ridiculous

That will be my only response to you.

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 04:12
Oops. I glazed over the original post and thought this was about skill points for augmentations. :nut:
Sorry everyone for my confusion.

HamburgerBoy
3rd Feb 2008, 05:08
I liked the skill points in Deus Ex, but don't think they are anywhere near necessary. To be honest once I had Computer to trained, and Pistol and Sniper to master I just stockpiled them. Skillpoints weren't the reason I did the sidequests, it was that they were genuinely fun and rewarding in of themselves to complete.

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 07:04
I like skill points as a type of incentive to explore side quests. But I think gaining points and arbitrarily using them to potentially boost skills you have never used is weird. Say I amassed a ton of points and decided to use them all up on lockpicking and even though I've never picked a lock suddenly I'm an expert. :scratch:

Maybe if skills were broken down into a few fields and you have a skill point types associated with each field.
Then if you do something that requires some skill in a side quest you will get skill points associated with that particular field of training, then you can distribute those points only to what skills are in that field.

Edit: Scratch that last part. How about you don't even just choose what skills to boost. Once you have gained say, weapon skill points, when you are using a particular weapon and using it well enough (like achieving a certain level of accuracy), it will automatically draw from your pool and get better. So even if you earned a bunch of weapon skill points you won't be able to go into a menu and make a skill better.

Basically I'm not a fan of sitting down and picking what the main character is going to get better at without the player actually trying to get better at it as well. But I like the incentive for exploring that points provide.

Zegano
3rd Feb 2008, 07:31
I really wouldn't recommend such a dramatic change for the skill points system. A lot of developers have ideas which seem amazing and fun on paper, but then end up annoying and useless when implemented. Just today I read an interview with one of guys who made DX (didn't pay attention to who it was) and he said that when they first tried augs they made the game really dull, so they had to add limited energy levels and such. If they do change anything, I'd prefer just a small improvement to such a proven system.

Edit: I like the different experience points types though. Say exploring underwater or climbing over a complex obstacle course gave you athletics points, or stealth points for going through a level without setting off alarms. But for weapons would you gain points just for shooting? I like the organic growth, but it discourages exploring.

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 08:51
I was thinking about how someone would gain weapon points.
They might get some each time they find a new type of weapon or new type of weapon upgrade, or if they find an NPC teaching other NPCs how to use firearms and then the player watches the demonstration on firearm use. Or even if the player finds topics on terminals about weapon use and weapon types. Just the more they go out and see and do the more ideas they get for better weapon use.

The skill points would just represent inspiration in a particular field in order to potentially get better in the skills within that field. They'd still actually have to use specific skills to better them individually. Once they use up all that inspiration, they'd have to explore the world some more to get more inspiration.

It's bordering on skill farming which I'm not comfortable with. Although, I can't stop thinking about if there are interesting and new ways to implement skill point systems. Anyhoo, I'm just passing the time having fun. I'm sure the devs already have everything worked out that they are wishing to do with the game.

gamer0004
3rd Feb 2008, 10:21
I don't like the idea of a demonstration in firearms use...
Why do people keep forgetting that you're a million-dollar worth agent who's had years of training?

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 10:32
I'm not an agent! I'm just a regular person. :(
I don't know who the main character in DX3 will be.
It could be a toaster oven for all I know.

Red
3rd Feb 2008, 10:44
RedFeather1975, so you suppose a player who wants to train swimming, should spend like... 2 hours moving around in the first puddle of water he sees, just to upgrade his swimming?

That system fits to some games. Like Morrowind and Oblivion, where you actually have that "sandbox" approach and, of course, a *****load of skills from which you can choose. They couldn't have pulled it off with any different type of "leveling".

That style does NOT fit in DX in ANY way. Versatility was alway the key in DX. That's why universal skillpoint system should stay as it is.

humbug
3rd Feb 2008, 11:36
I liked the skill system in DX and I hope they bring it back for DX3. I liked the fact that you got skill points for exploring, and even when you've played through the game several times you still discover new hidden areas. I'm sure I still haven't gotten all the skill points available in the game, just out of interest does anyone know how many skill points there are?

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 12:33
Red, that's not what I meant! :eek:
I do not like skill farming or training.

I meant a system where as you explored you gained inspiration to develop fields of training which would be represented by skill points associated with that field.

The process of deciding what specific skills in that field you wished to spend the points on, would be use of the particular skill at a level that shows the player at least knows how to use it. You could level up a sniper rifle just by getting a couple of headshots in a row. Simple as that.

It was only meant to avoid a system where a player could stockpile skill points the whole game, then near the end go into a menu and make the main character a master at using a sniper rifle when they've never even fired a sniper rifle before. Or even more unrealistic, stockpile potential to get really good at something, use a particular skill a lot through the entire game and it doesn't get any better until the end when the player uses all those points to magically become a master.

I did not mean it to sound like I wanted skill progression to be more time consuming. I simply was trying to think of a way to offer incentive to explore and do side quests, while making skill progression less artificial and realistically immediate.

Red
3rd Feb 2008, 13:04
The process of deciding what specific skills in that field you wished to spend the points on, would be use of the particular skill at a level that shows the player at least knows how to use it. You could level up a sniper rifle just by getting a couple of headshots in a row. Simple as that.

And this is exactly what I was talking about. Sandboxing. Grind grind grind a task, and you advance in skill, which governs the task. Morrowind, Oblivion anyone?

So, instead of swimming for 2 hours, you could swim 2 minutes (or ok, after completing an objective while somewhere on the way to the objective you went for a swim) and be offerred skillpoints for Swimming. (In your words, you would be offered points in the field of Acrobatics (The Elder Scrolls wink wink), which governs -> jumping, rate of speed, swimming and let's say, mantling).

By the way, have you ever played The Elder Scrolls game? You are describing the very system that TES series use.

I just think that such system wouldn't fit in in a DX game. Including the training by NPC's among other things.

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 13:10
TES is different. Your character level is the cap for skills.
You just repeatedly use all your skills to reach the cap.

This is only to ensure that whatever skills players use the most in the game will use up their skill points in that field. Once the player gets weapon skill points through side quests or hidden bonuses (eg. data terminal research), if they start using their sniper rifle the most, that's it, they just used them all up on sniper rifles and not their other weapons.

Their actions decided what got better, not a menu choice. Now the player will have to find more side quests or secret bonuses to get more skill points.

I only suggested it because there are players who are not wanting skill points because of how they are normally used in a system that breaks immersion.

Red
3rd Feb 2008, 13:17
Actually, your character level is rising along with the skills. If you build up, let's say Marksmanship, you're good at shooting with the bow. In your case, Sniping/Sniper rifle. But you can still suck in Long Blade combat, since you haven't grinded enough to build it up (let's say this is Pistol in DX system).

And the stuff you described in your second paragraph is already possible with the existing skillpoint system of DX1. It'd just ruin it to fragment it into "fields".

Edit:
In reply to your added content to the last post:
I believe that DX1 system does not break the immersion since we are still talking about the future and nanotechnology. And the thing is nanites can do whatever you tell them to do, so, if you tell them to do something better (ie. upgrade skill with skill points), they are reprogrammed to become better in that particular skill. So, it's not an immersion breaker. And that's why it's good. You can invest your points in anything you want, depending on the situation in the game. If you found out in Hong Kong, that you can go swimming in the sewers, you could just upgrade swimming to the next level with the skill points. And it doesn't matter how you earned them.

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 13:24
Edit: Oooooh. You are saying the player is collecting stuff to tell the Nanites to make the player's skill better. If that's the case then they can do whatever and get away with it.
Nevermind then. lol
I did not realize that as I assumed it was an arbitrary edition for character progression with no real backstory.

Red
3rd Feb 2008, 13:28
Well, that, fellow poster, is a thing of choice! You have to think twice before you use up your points. And the emphasis is on think. And that's why DX1 stands out in front of all other games. Same goes for the augs being permanent. It's about choice. No turning back, If you screwed it up, live with it, or reload a savegame ;)

Ai karamba, you are editing posts faster than I can type :D

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 13:31
Actually what I described is less choice. You have no choice once you get skill points. You can't save them unless you purposely refused to use skills associated with that field.
What you want is the choice to decide what the main character gets better at without actually having to play that way. :confused:

Red
3rd Feb 2008, 13:34
Yes, I know you were descibing that, and yes, I was contradicting that. :D

RedFeather1975
3rd Feb 2008, 13:36
My head hurts Red. No more suggestions from me on changing things from the original. I promise. :(

Edit: I do edit a lot! I have gotten chastised for it in the past. I'm a nut Red. I went back and edited all the 'you's from a topic and replaced them with 'the player' because I did not want to sound confrontational.
I worry too much.

jd10013
3rd Feb 2008, 14:46
yes you do. There's nothing wrong with a little change. heck, I don't want another DX just with better graphics. It's the complete removal of things like skills that some of us don't want.

Xcom
3rd Feb 2008, 15:39
My head hurts Red. No more suggestions from me on changing things from the original. I promise. :(

Don't worry. Personally, I happen to agree with you almost completely.

matches81
3rd Feb 2008, 16:11
I generally don't like the "learning by doing" approach in games, because it seems to an invitation to do the most stupid things. Take TES for example: Choose Athletics as a main skill and simply jump all the time, to increase that skill and your level right with it. Works with other skills in that game just the same. I hate it.
That said, I somewhat like RedFeather's idea. However I would revert the process: You get skill points just like you did in DX1. What skills you can raise however is determined by your actions in game: If you use your sniper-esque weapons a lot, you can raise that skill using your skill points. Hack a lot and you're allowed to raise your computer skills. However, I don't know whether that approach would work properly in DX, though, as it would require a pretty free gameplay, too.
And seeing how there actually is a rather consistent explanation why you can develop the skills in any way you please, I don't know if such a restriction is even necessary.

Oh, and it would sadly require less thought. I actually like that I, as a player, can think about what character I want to play, instead of my actions determining my character for me. Perhaps I want to play the Rambo-type this time, but due to habit I still play a bit stealthy. I wouldn't want my character to gain skill in stealth skills, just because I'm too "dumb" to play otherwise. The argument against a free skill-system that you can max a skill you never use is somewhat irrelevant for me: If you do that, you're stupid anyway and don't deserve otherwise. ;) Let me as a player, and not my actions, decide over my character.

Xcom
3rd Feb 2008, 17:46
Perhaps I want to play the Rambo-type this time, but due to habit I still play a bit stealthy.

Heh.. happens to me too. Sometimes I think you can't really play as Rambo type in DX. Sure, you can choose whether to avoid obstacles or eliminate them, but stealth is always kind of required, even if you only use it during approach. Just blindly going in guns blazing never worked for me, especially later in the game in higher difficulty settings.

Brambo
3rd Feb 2008, 18:34
I like skill points as a type of incentive to explore side quests. But I think gaining points and arbitrarily using them to potentially boost skills you have never used is weird. Say I amassed a ton of points and decided to use them all up on lockpicking and even though I've never picked a lock suddenly I'm an expert. :scratch:

Maybe if skills were broken down into a few fields and you have a skill point types associated with each field.
Then if you do something that requires some skill in a side quest you will get skill points associated with that particular field of training, then you can distribute those points only to what skills are in that field.

Edit: Scratch that last part. How about you don't even just choose what skills to boost. Once you have gained say, weapon skill points, when you are using a particular weapon and using it well enough (like achieving a certain level of accuracy), it will automatically draw from your pool and get better. So even if you earned a bunch of weapon skill points you won't be able to go into a menu and make a skill better.

Basically I'm not a fan of sitting down and picking what the main character is going to get better at without the player actually trying to get better at it as well. But I like the incentive for exploring that points provide.

Haha didn't check my post for just a couple of moments and now there are so many responses :)

But I argee with RedFeather about gaining skillpoints whithout having actually experience with it is a little odd. Maybe you know about 'Hidden and Dangerous' part 2 where you had a similair way of gaining skillpoints.
Though: It must be restored one way or another in the third part(IMHO;) )

tanonx
3rd Feb 2008, 19:57
Eh. I think the old skill point system was just fine. Why? Cause it was fun. Not really realistic, but I know I hate to do some skill I'm horrible at untill I magicly get better in a fraction of the time it'd really take. Congrats! You've swam for 24 hours! You can now jump on water and hold your breath ten times longer than a normal person!

jd10013
3rd Feb 2008, 20:03
But I argee with RedFeather about gaining skillpoints whithout having actually experience with it is a little odd.

It's not about how you get them, Its about their actual function. the skill system is what give the game its RPG elements. It's what (if done properly) allows different people to play the game different ways. want to sneak through most situations? then you invest your skill points in computer, hacking, lock-picking and low tech weapons. want to shoot your way through? then its riffle and pistol.

IMO, DX was a little too generous with the skill points, or too generous with the improvements from upgrading; depending on your POV. but to completely remove them is taking one of the most important elements of the game out entirely.

rhalibus
4th Feb 2008, 00:36
For any game, a skill point system that was automatically tied to specific actions would only work if the action couldn't be infinitely repeatable; so you could get a better lockpicking skill for every door you unlocked or a better sniper skill for every successful head shot, but you couldn't increase a swimming skill by swimming back and forth (unless it was limited to one skillpoint advance per location)...

But I think the DX style of unrestricted skillpoint allocation is still the best--I remember early in the game not sniping because it was too difficult; and then when I increased my sniper skill later and was able to take down enemies from a distance it seemed to come at the perfect time...Just like when I found out I could increase my lockpicking skill right when I needed to use an elevator 'cause I didn't want to try jumping down...Skillpoints should still be balanced through the course of the game!

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 07:17
when i played DX i made a mistake, i didnt realise you could use skill points!

yes the much loved skill points - i had no idea!

i played the whole game through twice without skill points.

then a friend pointed out to me that he got past things by hacking the computer. i didnt know what he was on about and then he explained the skill points.

so i went back to the game and played it with the skill points, hacking, super swimming, health etc - you know what - i hated this system!
no longer did i have to find codes i just hacked everything - with no cost!
no longer did i need a breather mask i could swim like a dolphin.

everything was tooooooo easy, i got through the game in a quarter of the time - i explored less, talked less and it felt a lot less unique, and a lot less challenging and involving.

this is not skill points to blame as such but the way they were implimented. but on top of augs they were just overkill! a skills system is not needed at all, it adds nothing in my opinion and the hacking system actually destroyed much of the game.

everything has to have a price or it feels like a cheat, hacking had next to no price, it dumbed the game down.

Draco1979
4th Feb 2008, 07:32
Well what you describe was why this game was so big. You played with out the skill point and like it but hated it when you did. No one told you, you had to use them. Far as the hacking goes I love the hacking part of the game.

RedFeather1975
4th Feb 2008, 08:22
If the hacking part wasn't dumbed down I doubt anyone would use it.
It'd take a long time for players just to learn how to hack and they'd probably find a quicker way of accomplishing something.
Most games try and make things the average player can't do more accessible by using a system that calculates the intricacies of the task automatically. The player only has to worry about stacking the calculations in their favour.
It's part of why we mostly prefer using a mouse to control a gun sight. It's a heck of a lot less complicated than what's really involved in aiming and maintaining accuracy on a target when there is the weight of the gun and gravity involved. Games make these tasks more accessible to people who've never done them in real life.

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 16:10
Far as the hacking goes I love the hacking part of the game.

whats to love? the fact that it is no challenge and has no cost once purchased. not much choice involved other than `look this parts a piece of cake`

once you find the hacking method you presume it is better as it can save other resources that you feel may be needed elsewhere for you to progress, or that you feel hacking may be expected at such a point to progress.

it reduces your motivation to go the `hard` way, that is ultimately far more rewarding.

at least make hacking a challenge, as for people not bothering if it is a little complex or has costs then you have just made the argument to make all games like doom.

it was badly implimented.

tanonx
4th Feb 2008, 16:37
I've never found hacking particularly game breaking. Between the time limits and the lack of use beyond deactivating cameras and occasional bot tricks, I never bothered leveling it up all that much. Disabling the security systems rather helps with the stealth aspect, what with the cameras that you have no chance of dodging.

I think this speaks more to the idea that you can just blow everyone and everything away too easily. Hacking's never earned me much more than the chance to bypass encounters with the proper stealth, and eventualy I found myself with more ammo than I knew what to do with (the pistol, and later shotgun and AR, was my crate opener in my third run, and that was about it unless I felt particularly violent). The 'hard' ways never ended up all that much harder. However, I still found myself dead from time to time, as is the result of choosing fights more than your medpacks can allow.

Also, did you ever get around to opening all the locked doors without skills? All the plot relevant ones are obviously bypassable with keycodes and whatnot, but the real fun ones are a whole different story...

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 16:44
leveling up your hacking skill did allow you to control turrets (set them to enemy anyway) and gave you much more cash at the atm's.

but yea, increasing your hacking skill didn't change the game that much

Brambo
4th Feb 2008, 17:44
It's not about how you get them, Its about their actual function. the skill system is what give the game its RPG elements. It's what (if done properly) allows different people to play the game different ways. want to sneak through most situations? then you invest your skill points in computer, hacking, lock-picking and low tech weapons. want to shoot your way through? then its riffle and pistol.

IMO, DX was a little too generous with the skill points, or too generous with the improvements from upgrading; depending on your POV. but to completely remove them is taking one of the most important elements of the game out entirely.

I could't agree more ;)

One thing about the hacking skill though:
Besides the fact that I did love it........There where sooo many mails to read and even when you had maximum hacking-skill you (Let's say 'I') didn't had enough time to read all of those becouse of the 'intruder detection'. So you did had a advantage when you found the actual login and password.

gamer0004
4th Feb 2008, 19:23
I like the skillpoints and there should be skillpoints in DX3, but the difference between master and untrained should be smaller.

Draco1979
4th Feb 2008, 21:39
Possible skill set points system
When you make you character you can choose from a list on what you want to be trained on to start the game. From what you select you can upgrade from that. now lets say if you want to use a skill you didnt select then you can find a character in the game to teach you it so you can upgrade that as well. In some games I have played you have a pool of skill points and you have to go find a trainer to advance in the area you want to advance. What I am suggesting is to use two systems one base on experiences that you do in the game can be applied the skills you have unlocked from when you made the character and one based one finding some one to unlock a skill , that can be applied by skill points, or increase a skill without skill points but at a cost of money or by doing a side job for the character.

Zegano
4th Feb 2008, 21:55
I think some of you are just suffering from "realism disease." You want the game to be more realistic, but have you really thought through about how would affect the "fun factor?" A lot of these suggestions involve changing the system so that you choose a couple of specialties throughout the game and focus only on improving them. The thing is, the old approach let you do this as well, plus you could go jack of all trades if you wanted to.
If you only upgrade hacking once, then put the points that could be used to upgrade it again into, say, rifles, then you can disable a camera then take out the guard without setting off an alarm. Or you upgrade it twice and change the turret to attacking enemies so you don't even have to take on the guard. All these new systems really do is limit you.

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 22:01
skill points are a nonsense,

skill points - you presume youve been magically trained because you spent these magic points that magically appear in game.
there is no explaination for the points at all - exploration points, from who? why?

biomods and money to buy upgrades are enough to advance and maintain interest in a more realistic game world manner.

i know everyone is worried that to call for the scrapping of skill points would be dumbing the game down. but in this situation there are enough alternatives that cover the issue completely and in a better manner.

skill points is just bloat and a waste of programming time.

biomods - yes, its logical, these can be expanded to cover skills covered by skillpoints.

money to buy goodies - yes its logical, another way to upgrade that gives money more meaning.

skill points - HUH!

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 22:18
skill points are a nonsense,

skill points - you presume youve been magically trained because you spent these magic points that magically appear in game.
there is no explaination for the points at all - exploration points, from who? why?

!

you keep missing the point. a skill system allows you to customize
your character. the ability for different people to play the game different ways. a skill system is what make the game a RPG.

Draco1979
4th Feb 2008, 22:26
While we are on the topic of money why not have some one you can sell items to, to make more money to buy goodies. I never did like how it was a one way street you can buy but you can not sell...... What if you didnt have the money to buy something you needed....like ammo.

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 22:29
What if you didnt have the money to buy something you needed....like ammo.


in DX there were lots of ways. ATM's, or getting into safes were the 2 most common.

In IW most of the "rewards" from side quests were monetary

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 22:38
you keep missing the point. a skill system allows you to customize
your character. the ability for different people to play the game different ways. a skill system is what make the game a RPG.

i think you are missing the point.

you could do the same with augs/biomods and what you purchase.
they give you a selection of alternative play styles which you select depending on the type of player you want to be.

the game already featured this to some degree but could have expanded on it had skill points been scrapped.

i believe IW did this to some degree so i think the game developers agreed on this also, unfortunately IW was broken on so many other levels that the skill points gets unfairly singled out - but it was not the reason why IW was crap.

you could start by selecting some augs from the begining, though personally i would rather the player evolved than dropped strait in as someone great at something and useless at others from the start.

if you really want SKILL abilities then why not just increase your ability the more you use a style, use the rifle a lot and at a certain point you get better, swim a lot and at a certain point you get better. at leasts its logical.

my idea gives the same result but places it in a realistic scenario, i think the skill points system was a pointless hangover from past games.

i dont buy into this RPG, FPS stuff.
its a good game or its not, use whatever methods improve it. especially if it helps to avoid game limiting dogma.

Draco1979
4th Feb 2008, 22:39
It was just a thought I had. I just like to pick up stuff and i hate having to drop it because I need space for some thing.

jd10013
4th Feb 2008, 23:05
i think you are missing the point.

you could do the same with augs/biomods and what you purchase.
they give you a selection of alternative play styles which you select depending on the type of player you want to be.

.

thats what they tried with IW, and the result was you could "change" who you were as often and whenever you wanted. when the characterizations become as changeable as weapons they loose their purpose.

It makes the game unique each time you play, and a lot more challenging. my first dx play through i chose the spy drone. later on I realized that the other one that shot down missiles would have made much more sense, and made dealing with those rocket launching mj12 troops a lot easier to deal with. but I couldn't change it, had to stick with what I had.

In IW, you just changed you aug on spot, and usually had enough spare aug that you could change back if you wanted to. There were no choices. You could be everything, just not at the same time.

thats what people mean when they say the game was "dumbed down"

Zegano
4th Feb 2008, 23:24
Selling stuff would be cool, it would allow you to sell an expensive GEP gun for a pistol and crossbow, less powerful but possibly more in line with your play style. But you have to limit what you can sell in the shops, otherwise there's no point in exploring to find more money.


you could do the same with augs/biomods and what you purchase.
they give you a selection of alternative play styles which you select depending on the type of player you want to be.

...

if you really want SKILL abilities then why not just increase your ability the more you use a style, use the rifle a lot and at a certain point you get better, swim a lot and at a certain point you get better. at leasts its logical.

my idea gives the same result but places it in a realistic scenario, i think the skill points system was a pointless hangover from past games.


Like I said only a little less than an hour ago, its NOT about realism. Its about game balance and having a system that is fun to play. It is possible to come up a realistic system that is as fun or even more fun, but it is very difficult. The idea of augmentations originally sounded really cool on paper, but when DX was first play tested with them they just killed the fun. So the team had to introduce limitations to them like bioelectrical energy. But now your suggesting something which, instead of making things too easy, makes them more difficult. In the first DX I could spend points on guns and then get Aqualung, or I could spend points on swimming and get a Hazmat aug. The removal of skills limits choice, as would limiting their development to well used skills. I found that when playing Deus Ex some skills that I rarely used upgraded was really useful in some places.

I read the book "Masters of Doom," which was a biography on Carmack (who I know nothing to do with DX) and Romero (who hired the entire DX team basically). These guys were hardcore Dungeons & Dragons nerds. Skill points carried over from this, and augs were sci fi versions of magic spells. How is that NOT RPG?

OK, maybe I went a little off topic there, but the fact is that skill points have already proven to be popular with the vast majority of Deus Ex fans, so why anything extreme with a well proven system?

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 23:32
thats what they tried with IW, and the result was you could "change" who you were as often and whenever you wanted. when the characterizations become as changeable as weapons they loose their purpose.

i agree but thats not what i suggested is it!

Draco1979
4th Feb 2008, 23:42
Selling stuff would be cool, it would allow you to sell an expensive GEP gun for a pistol and crossbow, less powerful but possibly more in line with your play style. But you have to limit what you can sell in the shops, otherwise there's no point in exploring to find more money.

The thing for me is that the more I sell the more I want to explore and the games I play that had the option to sell things you had to sell them at lower cost then you can buy them.

pauldenton
4th Feb 2008, 23:53
Like I said only a little less than an hour ago, its NOT about realism. Its about game balance and having a system that is fun to play. It is possible to come up a realistic system that is as fun or even more fun, but it is very difficult. The idea of augmentations originally sounded really cool on paper, but when DX was first play tested with them they just killed the fun. So the team had to introduce limitations to them like bioelectrical energy. But now your suggesting something which, instead of making things too easy, makes them more difficult. In the first DX I could spend points on guns and then get Aqualung, or I could spend points on swimming and get a Hazmat aug. The removal of skills limits choice, as would limiting their development to well used skills. I found that when playing Deus Ex some skills that I rarely used upgraded was really useful in some places.

spector as i said moments ago obviously agreed with me on skill points as that is what he removed in IW.
i think he did a bad job of it as another poster jd10013 explained.

wouldnt it actually be more fun to find a hard to reach aug canister from time to time with identicle multiple choice booster powers than just to get some magic points set off by an invisible trigger?

whats the difference other than believebility?

again if you want to fight a certain way and earn skill ability then it could automatically upgrade that ability through use.

skill points are unbelievable, less fun and redundant.

i dont quite see what point you are making that hasnt already been covered? you certainly havent explained how skill points is more fun that any other booster method.

i can only assume that you have a nostalgic fixation with skill points, as you have still not explained any unique advantage over the methods i have suggested that would be identicle just more realistically implimented.:mad2:

Zegano
5th Feb 2008, 07:07
I have to admit my last post was pretty nonsense, and having actually thought it through now I'm guess I have to change my stance a little. I will admit that organic growth in your skills wouldn't be bad. But completely getting rid of them is still a no no. They are a logical and realistic way of allowing you to improve certain abilities. In some cases they can replace or upgrade an aug (aqualung and swimming, combat strength and low tech) or in other cases they fill a role which an aug can't (rifle skill or lockpicking, although a cybernetic lockpick would be freakin awesome). Maybe you prefer simplifying gameplay, but for me that kind of variety adds depth to the game.

P.S. I thought that spector wasn't involved with IW, just harvey.

Xcom
5th Feb 2008, 14:08
spector as i said moments ago obviously agreed with me on skill points as that is what he removed in IW.
i think he did a bad job of it as another poster jd10013 explained.

I am not so sure. Indeed, Spector wasn't as involved with IW as he was with the original. He let Harvey Smith do the "design" part.

But Spector's philosophy about skills and RPG development in general can be found here:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/game_design/19990115/remodeling_01.htm

It's really interesting read even if it's from 1999.



In a deeply simulated world (or even a modestly simulated one, such as DEUS EX) each game problem should be solvable in a variety of ways. In such a simulation, a skill system like our binary action resolution model makes perfect sense. If you're not a good enough lock picker to open a vault, maybe you're a master with explosives, or maybe you can charm a bank clerk into opening it for you. If you're still thinking in terms of puzzles rather than obstacles, and if your world is two-dimensional rather than deeply simulated, stick with statistics.

He seems to explain the purpose (function) of skills, but given that he mentions "simulated" world, he for some reason overlooks skills acquisition mechanism. Simulation implies believability. IMHO, the game must offer logical explanation as to HOW you became (or could become) a skilled lock picker. As it existed in DX, it was simply a matter of walking around and then "buying" skill. Not very convincing. Becoming "skilled" at something should require some effort, otherwise there is no reward in RPG sense.

matches81
5th Feb 2008, 17:16
From a realism point of view I agree that getting skill points and distributing them any way you want to is a bad thing. On the other hand "organic" skill improvements based on your actions seem more realistic.

From a gameplay point of view I've never seen a game pulling that "organic" thing off properly, TES 3 and 4 being the most prominent examples. Furthermore that "organic" skill improvements require that the game gives you the choice to repeat a process almost indefinitely: If you want to have a high swim skill for example, you could do the MMORPG-thing and repeat the same process over and over again, in this case, swimming in a pool for a prolonged period of time. To get a high skill with your sniper rifle, because you think you might need it later, you have to use that thing very often. You can extend that to every skill.
Problem is: I sure hope that DX3 is not a sandbox type of game. With that assumption in mind I probably won't be able to repeat some actions indefinitely to raise the skills I want, therefore my choice in what type of character I want to play is limited and somewhat dictated by the level designer. Getting back at the sniper example: If the majority of DX3's levels would be wide and open ranges, the sniper would get used often, because it just fits the situation, leading to a high sniper skill, at least if you're reasonable. If most levels take place in closed buildings the sniper rifle wouldn't be used that much, resulting in a low sniper skill, again assuming reason. I simply don't like that idea. If there is a skill system I should have an immediate choice about it. Having level designs somewhat dictate my skill development makes having skills somewhat pointless.
Additionally, "learning by doing" mixes the player's skills with his character's skills. A guy that plays a lot FPSs will deliver far more headshots than another gamer who mainly plays RTSs, for example. Seeing that "organic" skill improvements should take into account how well a guy is using his skills, this would mean that an FPS gamer would raise his gun skills faster than another gamer. Although I admit this doesn't apply to all skills, it never is a good thing to mix the player and the character up. A game should draw a clear line between character and player knowledge, same goes for skills, in my opinion.

As I play games mainly for fun, not for realism, I opt for the more fun way of a skill system: Let me choose what skills to raise, using skill points. If need be, explain it for example by downloading new software into my augmented self, for example, or going to a teacher. I wouldn't mind that. Others probably will. You won't find a skill system that everybody likes.

pauldenton
5th Feb 2008, 19:56
From a realism point of view I agree that getting skill points and distributing them any way you want to is a bad thing. On the other hand "organic" skill improvements based on your actions seem more realistic.

From a gameplay point of view I've never seen a game pulling that "organic" thing off properly, TES 3 and 4 being the most prominent examples. Furthermore that "organic" skill improvements require that the game gives you the choice to repeat a process almost indefinitely: If you want to have a high swim skill for example, you could do the MMORPG-thing and repeat the same process over and over again, in this case, swimming in a pool for a prolonged period of time. To get a high skill with your sniper rifle, because you think you might need it later, you have to use that thing very often. You can extend that to every skill.

there are several ways round these poorly implimented examples. though its still not something i would use in a game, its just an option.

you could make it so that if you used certain methods more to `specifically` accomplish a goal/s at key points you get awarded the skill for what you used at the end of a section.

just shooting into a wall, or swimming in a circle would no longer work.

it can be done effectively in this way.

Draco1979
5th Feb 2008, 20:12
So how many of you are for or against my teacher ideal? I still think there should be some form of a skill point but at what level.
I am just going to give two examples:

1 sniper rifle for ever kill you make you get a point to the rifle skill and for ever head shot you get 1.5 or 2.

2 swimming if you swim you cant swim in circles but if you swim from point a to b you increase your swimming. With this in mind in DX1 the ocean lab map if you swim to get in then you increase your swimming by x points.

Now would this type of skill points please most of you on this topic?

pauldenton
5th Feb 2008, 20:51
So how many of you are for or against my teacher ideal? I still think there should be some form of a skill point but at what level.
I am just going to give two examples:

1 sniper rifle for ever kill you make you get a point to the rifle skill and for ever head shot you get 1.5 or 2.

2 swimming if you swim you cant swim in circles but if you swim from point a to b you increase your swimming. With this in mind in DX1 the ocean lab map if you swim to get in then you increase your swimming by x points.

Now would this type of skill points please most of you on this topic?

experience gained skill is ok in its way, how much it would appeal to me in game im not sure.

another teacher idea!

i think a real animated teacher in the game could be cool in certain situations, someone who shows you how to get better results from equiptment or better methods that need to be trained and shown through an animation.

i wouldnt want some crappy `hocus pocus now you are trained` nonsense, why not some real training in some way - something you are taught and you remember?

not sure how practical that would be in game or if anyone would like it?

but still, anyone want to run with that idea - flesh it out?

jd10013
5th Feb 2008, 21:00
So how many of you are for or against my teacher ideal? I still think there should be some form of a skill point but at what level.
I am just going to give two examples:

1 sniper rifle for ever kill you make you get a point to the rifle skill and for ever head shot you get 1.5 or 2.

2 swimming if you swim you cant swim in circles but if you swim from point a to b you increase your swimming. With this in mind in DX1 the ocean lab map if you swim to get in then you increase your swimming by x points.

Now would this type of skill points please most of you on this topic?

nothing wrong with it per se, but it could get difficult on the programming side, and the balance side. the placement of EVERYTHING would have to be squared with the skill system. and on top of that, a lot of skills could be abused. But it sounds alright, just the implementation might be a head ace. Not sure the devs would be willing to put that kind of time into a skill system.

matches81
5th Feb 2008, 21:43
So how many of you are for or against my teacher ideal? I still think there should be some form of a skill point but at what level.
I am just going to give two examples:

1 sniper rifle for ever kill you make you get a point to the rifle skill and for ever head shot you get 1.5 or 2.

2 swimming if you swim you cant swim in circles but if you swim from point a to b you increase your swimming. With this in mind in DX1 the ocean lab map if you swim to get in then you increase your swimming by x points.

Now would this type of skill points please most of you on this topic?

I would not be pleased by that. That's almost exactly the way a skill system should not work, imho.

1: If every kill or any certain amount of kills using one weapon increases the corresponding skill, the level design effectively governs what skills you get. See my last post for an explanation. Including headshots as some kind of weighting for that "learning process" mixes the player's capabilities as an FPS gamer with the in-game character, which is just as wrong as the in-game character suddenly gaining player knowledge.

2: If swimming in circles doesn't help getting a higher swim skill, the whole "organic" learning process is just as unrealistic as a normal skill point system.

So, no, I would no be pleased by that.

@pauldenton:
I already suggested an NPC teacher as a possible explanation for why I can raise skills any way I want to. The Might & Magic RPGs have done that quite a long time, for example. In a current game the presentation of the teacher could be far better, of course, but the basic idea is nothing new and for me it works. Software updates would be another possible explanation for skill points that I can distribute however I want to. Do I understand you correctly that you're not against a skill point system per se but want a proper explanation for it?

gamer0004
5th Feb 2008, 21:45
What about getting skilled in area's you use to accomplich your goals?
So shooting MJ12 commando's who are in your way of reaching a computer you need to hack to reach your goal would increase your rifleskill, but killing an innocent guy on the street wouldn't.
Same thing for swimming. If you swim to another part of the map in order to get to Lebedev for instance would increase your skill. But not depending on how much time you spend swimming, but depending on which way you choose. Swimming in the Hong Kong canals for no reason would not increase your skill.
Or when you decide to turn a camera off with hacking, your hacking skill improves. Or you can blow it up using your GEP gun, improving your demolition skill. But when you blow up a turned off camera, you'd only get skillpoints for hacking, as it is of no use to destroy the camera.
Every obstacle should earn skillpoints as long as they need to be passed. So when you sneak past a camera that will earn you skillpoints.

In this system, you combine both the old skillpoints for accomplishing a goald and they automatically depend on which skill you use to to so.

Besides that, I think that skill's shouldn't make such a difference as in DX1. It should be rewarding, but not in such way that while you can't shoot an elephant when 2 feet away in the beginning, you can hit a tin can 200 feet away when you've upgraded your skill.
As an augmentated agent you've already had lots of training, but off course when using your skills in action they would improve a bit, but not much, as it can't get that much better.

I think that this system is the best, however: it will be hard to implement it in the game. Because what obstacles are important for reaching your goals?
Ans they'll have to come up with a system that makes it impossible to earn skillpoints by going back and using an alternative route to get skillpoints from that one.
But it's possible, I think.

BTW: I think lockpicking and using multitools should always improve your skill, as you'll run out of them when using on normal locks.

Zegano
5th Feb 2008, 23:14
As an augmentated agent you've already had lots of training, but off course when using your skills in action they would improve a bit, but not much, as it can't get that much better.


I think JC was only about 21 in Deus Ex. The fact that he was an augmented agent doesn't mean that he was some kind of savant, he and his brother just had physiology that was compatible with nano augs. When you first play as him he's fresh out of the academy. Thats why you distributed skill points at the beginning, to show what skills he had been taught and specialized in. He still hadn't had any real combat experience, just some time at the shooting range and reading text books.

matches81
6th Feb 2008, 00:12
In this system, you combine both the old skillpoints for accomplishing a goald and they automatically depend on which skill you use to to so.

I think we simply disagree about the basic workings of skills:Some people seem to prefer skills somewhat reflecting their playstyle, I prefer to actively choose my skills and therefore deciding about my playstyle.



Besides that, I think that skill's shouldn't make such a difference as in DX1. It should be rewarding, but not in such way that while you can't shoot an elephant when 2 feet away in the beginning, you can hit a tin can 200 feet away when you've upgraded your skill.
As an augmentated agent you've already had lots of training, but off course when using your skills in action they would improve a bit, but not much, as it can't get that much better.

Seeing how you were an agent just out of training in DX1 I don't see that "lots of training" really applying. He is still a "newbie" in a way, and as Zegano said, you're basic training was reflected in the initial "character build".

I don't know whether there will be something like character levels or the likes, but if there are, they would offer a way for another skill advancement system: Every level advancement you're allowed to raise every skill by a certain amount (by 1 for example). Now I'd combine that with your idea of rewards for reaching critical goals using a certain ability: If you used your stealth ability for such a goal for example, that adds to the ability to increase the stealth skill(s) and you're allowed to increase your stealth skill(s) by 2 in the next level advance. So, basically you're allowed to increase your skills by a certain small amount every time and your recent playstyle adds to that allowed amount of skill advancement. Could work, I think.

Zegano
6th Feb 2008, 03:06
Or you could make using a certain skill discount its cost next time you upgrade it. But I think what the 'realists' want isn't so much an improvement over the previous system in terms of gameplay as a removal of the abstraction within the game, something more natural and perhaps more 'behind the scenes.' But that raises the question: If the skill system becomes less apparent, then players could fail to recognize its existence, simply assuming that the game upgrades them as they progress, and what would it do that sense of character progression? A lot of people like seeing that their character is growing more powerful. This is a pretty difficult subject really, each time someone posts something I find myself changing sides, as though there isn't so much a 'right' way to go as simply different paths of preference. I don't like it, I feel like a sheep:mad2:

tanonx
6th Feb 2008, 05:56
as though there isn't so much a 'right' way to go as simply different paths of preference.

GASP! We shall call these strange things 'opinions'!

I liked the old skill setup. Quite simply, augs don't 'magicaly' make you better with a gun, or hacking, or anything else skills would be more suited for. If it 'makes your program better', why the heck didn't they make it work well the first time around? Further, skill points being applied in uniform numbers let you upgrade less versitile skills faster. Split between master of rifle and trained of swimming shouldn't be the same increment.

Also, I want to play my guy how I want to play him. Not how the program says I want to play him. 'Oh, you don't want rifle, you spend more time sneaking, have lockpicking instead'. Yeah, I'd like to use rifle more often, but my aim's been at untrained for a while, so I get killed a lot. I wish I could use rifle, but I guess me not being a great FPSer precludes what I want in this game. Which reminds me, in IW, courtesy of skill removal, everyone was an instant Master with every weapon. No aim reticle. Better than permanent slow aim I guess.

If you really want realisim that bad, just have some kind of nanite chit that will 'magicly' improve your rifle, swimming, or other skills via modifications. Only so many nanites, so you'll have to save them up. Static amounts, find them in places you'd get exploration points for, or occasionaly in obvious spots in exchange for the critical location bonus. Yes sir, they build, umm, new neural pathways to increase... uhhh... Rifle related brain patterns. That's right. Why were you not loaded full of these when you were in training if they're so common as to be scattered around like this? Hmmmm... Economy breakdowns!

Red
6th Feb 2008, 07:04
I completely agree with matches81. That's just the thing I was trying to point out but I'm not so good at rhetoric as he is. :)

gamer0004
6th Feb 2008, 10:11
Seeing how you were an agent just out of training in DX1 I don't see that "lots of training" really applying. He is still a "newbie" in a way, and as Zegano said, you're basic training was reflected in the initial "character build".

Don't get me wrong, I loved the skill system in DX1. But, as not everyone likes it, I suggested this sytem in order to satisfy every fan :)

J.C. Denton was a newbie, but with lots of training anyway. While fighting you'll start to know your gun better, but you don't really improve aiming or something like that. Ask some soldiers. Fighting mostly improves the way you react.
No, augs don't improve his aiming. But, like I said so many times before, he is a million-dollar project. He is one of the 2 (with Simons 3) nano-augmentated agents.
Do you really think they'd send him untrained into battle?
And you've all done the training, haven't you? So you know he gets trained in every aspect, which is off course the only reasonable thing to do. Why send in an agent who doesn't even know how to hack or use multitools?

Red
6th Feb 2008, 10:17
Because it's still a game, not SimLife gdmit... An excellent game, which hit the bullseye with the skillsystem.

Xcom
6th Feb 2008, 13:29
Some people seem to prefer skills somewhat reflecting their playstyle, I prefer to actively choose my skills and therefore deciding about my playstyle.

Perhaps I am missing something, but what is the difference?

1) I do task A => I get skilled in task A
2) I get skilled in task A => I do task A

It appears to be a circular pattern. Does it really matter in what order it starts? You always choose your playing style. :scratch:

tanonx
6th Feb 2008, 16:13
That reminds me a bit of the old Everquest skill system. Not so much in how it functions as the messages I'd get.

You fail to do Task A.
You fail to do Task A.
You fail to do Task A.
You fail to do Task A.
You fail to do Task A.
You do Task A.
You fail to do Task A.
You fail to do Task A.
You fail to do Task A.
You do Task A.
You have gotten better at Task A (4/100)
You fail to do Task A.
ect...

The skill buy can make up for deficiencies in your actual playstyle. I tend to use them to augment my weak spots more than to pour more onto my strengths.

matches81
7th Feb 2008, 01:31
Perhaps I am missing something, but what is the difference?

1) I do task A => I get skilled in task A
2) I get skilled in task A => I do task A

It appears to be a circular pattern. Does it really matter in what order it starts? You always choose your playing style. :scratch:
In a way you're right, it is a somewhat circular pattern. I can decide about my playstyle both ways. The difference is: With classic skill improvements (I distribute my points any way I want) I can actively decide about what playstyle I want to do in the future and just use my skills after that instead of having the skill system somehow evaluating my actions. With an automatic skill system I almost constantly have to think about how I should play to get the skills I want. I'll probably have to "force" some skills like hacking, probably resorting to countless fruitless retries until I finally succeed and get my skill increase, while some others will almost "just happen", swimming for example. Furthermore, if I happen to have more ammunition for a specific weapon my skill with that weapon will probably be higher, and so on. Those are the problems I see with those automatic skill improvements and I guess those would be more pronounced with a somewhat linear game, i.e. not a sandbox like Oblivion. In a somewhat linear game my skill improvements probably will be dictated or at least "guided" by the level design...

before this becomes more of a rant than anything else: I simply prefer making a conscious decision about my skills and then using those skills, living with that decision, instead of just playing the game and hoping the skill system will do the right thing for me, or, even worse, having to force some skills by changing my playstyle.

Xcom
7th Feb 2008, 15:06
before this becomes more of a rant than anything else: I simply prefer making a conscious decision about my skills and then using those skills, living with that decision, instead of just playing the game and hoping the skill system will do the right thing for me, or, even worse, having to force some skills by changing my playstyle.

No need to rant.. hehe.

I think I understand what you're saying - it's just that, IMHO, the skill system is not meant for this.

To illustrate, consider some tactical shooter games. Before you go on some mission, you may be given a briefing and then a choice of what weapons/gear you want to take with you. If you want to be a sniper, you'll take a sniper rifle. In a way, you are choosing your specialism for the future. However, choosing a specialism (or playstyle for that matter) doesn't say anything about how good or bad of a sniper you'll be. That is what your "skill" determines (in case of tactical shooters, I guess it's your real gaming/aiming skill).

In DX, however, not only are you saying, "I want to be a sniper", you are also determining that you'll be an excellent sniper.. or hacker.. or lock picker, etc. because you are essentially buying skills. I guess somebody can see that as a good thing -- perhaps because it's somewhat easy and convenient -- but personally, I have some problems with this.

Brambo
7th Feb 2008, 19:21
How about the augmentationcannisters? Should there be cannisters which can be used to any augmentation OR sould the cannisters consist of a couple of limited AND defenite choices? Personaly I agree with the latter ;)

Zegano
9th Feb 2008, 00:30
Should there be cannisters which can be used to any augmentation OR should the cannisters consist of a couple of limited AND definite choices? )

I prefer having a variety of specialized cannisters like in the first Dues Ex, although perhaps you could have a variety of universal cannisters. Something like the difference between normal and black market in IW, only you'd have more variety like military, industrial, espionage, black market, or even skill cannisters like someone suggested earlier.

Grunt
9th Feb 2008, 21:55
I haven't read all the posts, but most of them, so I might be repeating something, but why not implement the mini-games from Deus Ex spiritual predecessor, System Shock in order to make hacking for example more interesting? If I remember correctly, there was a mini game, can't remember exactley what you were supposed to do, when you would hack a security system for example. Why not reviving that, making every lockpicking, or hacking attempt a small game in itself, don't know how though, I'll leave that to some one more imaginative. Skill points could boost your proficiency in the game or atleast speed or whatnot. And another thing, couldn't there be various items around the game world that could boost certain skills (like the books in Fallout for example, for those of you who've played it). Just my two cents.

Lo Bruto
10th Feb 2008, 01:25
Skill points are crucial IMO.
They were the only thing that made me kill greasels to avenge that French lady's dead cats. :D

Zegano
10th Feb 2008, 01:41
Hacking and picking locks was pretty boring, so I wouldn't complain if it was a mini-game. However it shouldn't be overly complex or take too long, otherwise there will be situations where your picking a lock when a guard comes across you, and you think "that puzzle was so stupid." Maybe if the lockpick worked the same as in the first game, only you had a simple little mini-game which you use to speed up the process, like guessing the numbers on locks in Anachronox or reloading your gun faster in Gears of War by taping a button at the right time. You could either focus on doing it faster by playing the game or focus on being aware of your surroundings. If nothing else, the system for picking locks in Thief 2 (or whichever one was the one I played) was pretty good.

matches81
10th Feb 2008, 01:54
No need to rant.. hehe.

I think I understand what you're saying - it's just that, IMHO, the skill system is not meant for this.

To illustrate, consider some tactical shooter games. Before you go on some mission, you may be given a briefing and then a choice of what weapons/gear you want to take with you. If you want to be a sniper, you'll take a sniper rifle. In a way, you are choosing your specialism for the future. However, choosing a specialism (or playstyle for that matter) doesn't say anything about how good or bad of a sniper you'll be. That is what your "skill" determines (in case of tactical shooters, I guess it's your real gaming/aiming skill).

Well, my view on this would be that in a tactical shooter my character is perfect in everything, or as good as he can get. I still had to aim in DX, IIRC. So, being a master with the sniper rifle only took the problems, that my former lacking aptitude as a character introduced, away, basically leaving me with a standard shooter handling.



In DX, however, not only are you saying, "I want to be a sniper", you are also determining that you'll be an excellent sniper.. or hacker.. or lock picker, etc. because you are essentially buying skills. I guess somebody can see that as a good thing -- perhaps because it's somewhat easy and convenient -- but personally, I have some problems with this.
True, buying skills is somewhat easy and convenient, at least on the actual gameplay side of things. I don't have to actually train a certain skill, I just have to buy it. I can understand why the idea of the "organic" or "natural" type of skill increases of "learning by doing" is favored by some: It's more realistic and requires less suspension of disbelief. And it sounds like fun. In actual games? Not so much. Not played one that pulled it off properly. Even in the highly-praised TES games this system fails in many ways, at least in Morrowind and Oblivion, don't remember how Daggerfall or even the original TES were in that regard. These games are complete sandboxes and should have had any thinkable opportunity to fix the system, but it still doesn't work properly. (Some may disagree with me here on that one. ;) If you're interested why I think the skill system in Morrowind and Oblivion is a failure, just ask, I'll post my main grudges against it gladly.)
Anyway, TES left aside, I still think a "learning by doing" approach ideally comes with a sandbox type of game, which gives you every opportunity to raise any skill you want. As I surely hope that DX3 won't be a sandbox type of game, I simply don't see that approach working in it. The skills learned would always be affected greatly by the level design, available ammo and so on.



@Grunt:
That mini-game idea always sounds like fun. But let me give you an example: Bioshock featured a "Pipemania" clone for hacking, which, compared to the mini-game from System Shock 2 for hacking, is highly intriguing. The tonics you had (roughly an equivalent of an expendable character) affected how many broken tiles, alarm tiles and so on existed, thus making the mini-game easier or harder. Still, it got very tedious really quick. Hacking became a chore and the only way out was not to hack, or at least to cut down on it drastically.

I'm not really a fan of one certain mini-game for a certain task, because it's most probably going to end up like Bioshock: Fun for the first few times, that's it.
I'd much rather see the hacking skill affecting your interaction with computers in the game in general and I think the way DX1 did that was great: Low hacking skill meant you had very little time working on that computer before being detected, a higher hacking skill meant more time and more options. That could be combined with the occasional mini-game for specific tasks, e.g. a Mastermind clone for hacking codes with a certain amount of digits, some sort of logic puzzle to short-out some devices and so on. I think that, if you're going with the mini-game approach, you absolutely need diversity in them. If you can't provide diversity, it's probably better to leave them out and find another way.

Kratosaurion7
10th Feb 2008, 02:59
<-- wants skill points badly.

Zegano
10th Feb 2008, 05:34
If mini-games are too tedious and the old way of hacking is too boring, maybe while you wait you could see something cool, like pieces of code running down the screen Matrix style, although probably a little more complex than that.

gamer0004
10th Feb 2008, 12:07
That mini-game idea always sounds like fun. But let me give you an example: Bioshock featured a "Pipemania" clone for hacking, which, compared to the mini-game from System Shock 2 for hacking, is highly intriguing. The tonics you had (roughly an equivalent of an expendable character) affected how many broken tiles, alarm tiles and so on existed, thus making the mini-game easier or harder. Still, it got very tedious really quick. Hacking became a chore and the only way out was not to hack, or at least to cut down on it drastically.

I'm not really a fan of one certain mini-game for a certain task, because it's most probably going to end up like Bioshock: Fun for the first few times, that's it.
I'd much rather see the hacking skill affecting your interaction with computers in the game in general and I think the way DX1 did that was great: Low hacking skill meant you had very little time working on that computer before being detected, a higher hacking skill meant more time and more options. That could be combined with the occasional mini-game for specific tasks, e.g. a Mastermind clone for hacking codes with a certain amount of digits, some sort of logic puzzle to short-out some devices and so on. I think that, if you're going with the mini-game approach, you absolutely need diversity in them. If you can't provide diversity, it's probably better to leave them out and find another way.

What if you'd only have to play a minigame when you try to hack a cumputer that's really well secured?
And that that would depend on your skill?
For instance, when you're untrained, you can hack personal computers without having to play the mini-game, but for all securitypanels and computers of companies you'd have to play.
At trained, you wouldn't need to play the minigame for the computers of certain companies, but you'd still need to play it for security panels and so on.

Xcom
10th Feb 2008, 14:40
If you're interested why I think the skill system in Morrowind and Oblivion is a failure, just ask, I'll post my main grudges against it gladly.

Okay, I am interested. Please proceed... :D

Red
10th Feb 2008, 15:33
Me too. Your posts are always an interesting read, matches.

(This has nothing to do with the fact that I totally agree with you on this particular topic :D)

Papy
10th Feb 2008, 18:00
From a realism point of view I agree that getting skill points and distributing them any way you want to is a bad thing. On the other hand "organic" skill improvements based on your actions seem more realistic.
I agree with you on about everything, except for the realism of an "organic" skill system. The idea that jumping 50 times in the air suddenly makes you a master acrobat is not realistic at all. Training takes months and even years, not a few hours. I'd rather have a clear abstraction than an unrealistic (read failed) attempt at realism.



What about getting skilled in area's you use to accomplich your goals?
Then, as matches81 said, your skill becomes a function of the map. It can work with immense levels where there is a lot of choice about what you can do, but even Deus Ex levels were not big enough for that kind of system.



Perhaps I am missing something, but what is the difference?

1) I do task A => I get skilled in task A
2) I get skilled in task A => I do task A

1) I do task A and task B and task C and task D (even if I need to do only one) and then I get skills in everything! Rinse and repeat and I get a "wonderful" game about level grinding where I don't have to think at all.
2) I get some skill points and then I must choose between A, B, C or D. I can't rinse and repeat and I get a game about having to choose, about having to think.

Even if you use a kludge to avoid level grinding, you end up with a snowball effect forcing you to use again and again your initial skill choice. Let's say you have a situation where you can choose between sneaking and shooting. You judge the probability of success for both, and, although they are quite close, you decide to go with sneaking because you are low on ammo. As a result, your sneaking skill is increased. The second time you face a similar situation, you still have to choose between sneaking and shooting. This time you have a lot of ammo, but since your sneaking skill is better, it still means your chances of succeeding with sneaking is better than with shooting. So you decide to, once again, go with sneaking. Which means your sneaking skill gets even better. Repeat that a few times and you end up in a situation where, even if you like to shoot once in a while, you can't because you're not skilled enough. All this because of your initial choice.



Hacking and picking locks was pretty boring, so I wouldn't complain if it was a mini-game. However it shouldn't be overly complex or take too long, otherwise there will be situations where your picking a lock when a guard comes across you, and you think "that puzzle was so stupid."
Actually, it was not the puzzle that was "stupid", but your timing. Having said that, I love mini-game but only when they are used in parsimony. If for the whole game there is only 20 or 30 locks to pick, then a mini-game is great. If there is 150, then don't even think about it. A mini-game once per hour is great, the same mini-game every 5 minutes is utterly boring.

Xcom
10th Feb 2008, 21:27
2) I get some skill points and then I must choose between A, B, C or D. I can't rinse and repeat and I get a game about having to choose, about having to think.

I question "having to choose" part when you can simply ignore skills entirely and still be able complete the game without much trouble. Simply invest all your initial points in Computer skill, because that is the only skill that can't be replaced with something else, and then forget about them. Your shooting can be improved by weapon mods, and augs take care of your sneaking. Unless it's not "complex" enough... :whistle:

By the way, I am not advocating for organic/grinding skill system (or whatever you want to call it) instead of universal skill system. My position is that the game (taking the original as the template) simply doesn't provide, how shall I say, sufficient RPG platform for ANY skill system to make sense one way or the other.

**puts on ballistic armor**

Papy
10th Feb 2008, 22:02
I question "having to choose" part when you can simply ignore skills entirely and still be able complete the game without much trouble.
And I question your "question". I doubt a lot of people could finish Deus Ex on realistic "without much trouble", without investing in their skills, on their first play. Anyway, if that's the case (and again I strongly doubt it), the problem is not with the skill system but with the overall difficulty of the game.

Skills with Deus Ex did have a strong impact on your character abilities. Using a sniper riffle at untrained and using one at master level was really night and day. Having to spend 5 lockpicks instead of one also made a pretty big difference as their was not enough resource in Deus Ex to bypass an upgrade in skills and still do whatever you wanted.

So, yes, the game did provide more than enough "RPG" platform for skill to make sense.

matches81
10th Feb 2008, 23:52
Okay, since 2 people were actually interested in my opinion about the TES skill system's flaws, here they are:

------------------------------ TES rant begin ------------------------------

Tying level advancements to the advances made in your "main" skills is, to put it mildly, a stupid design decision. For me it's the most important issue with the TES games and makes them FUBAR more or less: Simply pick Athletics or any other omnipresent skill as your main skills and off you go: You'll increase your character's level faster than you can keep track, quickly leaving the complete world behind you. Okay, Oblivion tried to cover that imbalance up by simply making the whole world just as strong as the character, but in my opinion that was even worse, as they tried to hide a broken character system using another broken idea.
I agree with Papy on the other most annoying flaw obviously: Your skills increase far too easy. Hitting a weak enemy 20 times with a stick shouldn't increase the according skill. Jumping 20 times shouldn't increase my athletics skill. Simply put: Menial tasks that are well within your current abilities should never help you increase your skills. Only actions bordering on the possible for your character should do that. That's how we train specific abilities: We begin with easy tasks, do them until they are set in stone in our mind / body, then go on with more difficult tasks that challenge our abilities. The easier tasks then are only repeated as a warm-up process, if at all. Doing that in a game would be very, very tedious, I think noone would argue about that. So, the process is presented sped up to the point where it becomes a farce, which is where I'm back with TES:
Due to the fast learning curve of your character, who obviously is a genius at about every task he ever approaches, you always end up with a jack-of-all-trades. Now, having the ability to become a jack-of-all-trades is a good thing for an RPG, if the player chooses to do so and if that resulting jack-of-all-trades is far worse in every area than a specialist in that area. The problem is: The character in TES gets overpowered way too easily, so even if your jack-of-all-trades is worse in all areas than a specialised character could be, that difference is only of numerical nature, because even the sword-swinging, fireball-toting, bullseye-shooting thief is way above every requirement in the game's world in every area far too soon.
That results in a problem for an RPG: The question is no longer what character you want to play, the question is more like "when do you want to do what part" because everything is reachable for your character: You can easily be the head of all guilds in those games, meaning you're supposedly the best mage, the best thief, the best fighter and the best what-not in the whole world. All because of that nice "learning by doing" approach to the skill system that doesn't present any disadvantages for doing everything.

Okay, I guess those flaws not only arise from the skill system in TES, but from the cooperation between some systems in the game. Still, for me the skill system is the root of evil in that series: Simply put it allows you to do everything without any disadvantages, which is a really bad thing for an RPG, because it completely voids any choice you might want to make about your character.

------------------------------ TES rant end ------------------------------

back on topic:
@Xcom: I haven't played DX1 for a long time, but I remember that I didn't find it that easy. Might be because I was pretty young when I played the game or just because I was stupid, I don't know, but I really liked the benefits some skills gave me. Even if DX1 was too easy for the skills to be worthwhile: That issue could easily be fixed by upping the difficulty, couldn't it?

Xcom
11th Feb 2008, 03:30
And I question your "question". I doubt a lot of people could finish Deus Ex on realistic "without much trouble", without investing in their skills, on their first play. Anyway, if that's the case (and again I strongly doubt it), the problem is not with the skill system but with the overall difficulty of the game.

All right, all right.. I'll rephrase that. I didn't mean to say it was easy without skills, but it was nonetheless possible. I am sure a lot of people had difficulties in realistic mode regardless of their choices with inventory, augs or skills. That also depends on people themselves, you know, not only on what game throws at you.


Skills with Deus Ex did have a strong impact on your character abilities. Using a sniper riffle at untrained and using one at master level was really night and day.

I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that your augmentations and your inventory had (could have) the same impact on your abilities, and as such, skills were for the most part redundant.


Having to spend 5 lockpicks instead of one also made a pretty big difference as their was not enough resource in Deus Ex to bypass an upgrade in skills and still do whatever you wanted.

*sigh* I know skills made it easier to perform certain tasks, but let me ask you this: what if there were enough resources? What if you could buy lockpicks freely? Would you have still needed lockpicking skill? I don't think so. If the need for a skill can simply be eliminated by offering player more items -- I am not even talking about extra augs -- doesn't it make you wonder why it's there in the first place? If you just want to create complexity, then there is plenty of ways to confuse players with seemingly important choices. As Spector himself once said, just give player the choice between a dozen of different pistols and make him/her wonder which one is better, but ultimately, a pistol is a pistol; and it's something different than a shotgun. Unlike Warren, I don't think this rationale only applies to weapons. :D

And generally, it's not just skills that raise questions in my mind. There are other little things that just don't make sense. I mean forget realism, I'm talking plain common sense. For example: a multitool is a DEVICE, why is it one-use only? Surely it doesn't (shouldn't) just vaporise after you've used it once? Of course, if it didn't, then Electronics skill would have become entirely useless. Why can't you just put a silencer mod on a normal pistol, why do you need separate "stealth" pistol? I don't know if I am the only one who's bothered by such things, but I AM. :p

This is something where, in my opinion, Deus Ex differs greatly from TES. I don't remember ever thinking about such stuff when I was playing it. Maybe it's because TES is a total fantasy... I am not quite sure.



That results in a problem for an RPG: The question is no longer what character you want to play, the question is more like "when do you want to do what part" because everything is reachable for your character: You can easily be the head of all guilds in those games, meaning you're supposedly the best mage, the best thief, the best fighter and the best what-not in the whole world. All because of that nice "learning by doing" approach to the skill system that doesn't present any disadvantages for doing everything.


I must say I that I partially agree with your analysis. I agree that it can happen even though I don't feel that it must happen.

I guess you can look at it from various angles. If you disable player's ability to be the jack-of-all-trades or punish him for doing so, then you're automatically limiting his experience, and I am not only referring to tactical choices. If a player chose to be a mage, but wants to play Thief Guild questline after 100 hours, would it be better to force him to start another game and choose stealth orientation? I don't know, but I think it can be a tough call for developers.

On the other hand, as the player, I think you also realize that you don't have to do everything simply because you can. I'd say that certain self-discipline for role-playing is required because, frankly, I don't think programmers can compensate for everything. Even though you can technically level up quickly by sort of exploiting some skills, why would you want to? TES is not MMORPG where your actions can affect other human players, so ... it's really up to you.

The thing is: even in spite of supposedly flawed skill system, TES is more character-driven sandbox whereas Deus Ex is entirely story-driven (adventure). The skills in TES and subsequently your character's level basically define what you are, how influential you can be in that world and what you can accomplish; not only how. The world effectively changed as you grew more powerful. In Deus Ex, skills and augmentations are essentially just extra "tools" which in addition overlap each other's function. They don't affect who and what JC Denton is -- story does, and your story-related decisions. Pimping out your skills and augs, while gave you more abilities, didn't really make you any more "significant" than you were without them.

For me personally, that is a major difference with TES where you couldn't just disregard skills completely.

matches81
11th Feb 2008, 11:07
I guess you can look at it from various angles. If you disable player's ability to be the jack-of-all-trades or punish him for doing so, then you're automatically limiting his experience, and I am not only referring to tactical choices. If a player chose to be a mage, but wants to play Thief Guild questline after 100 hours, would it be better to force him to start another game and choose stealth orientation? I don't know, but I think it can be a tough call for developers.

On the other hand, as the player, I think you also realize that you don't have to do everything simply because you can. I'd say that certain self-discipline for role-playing is required because, frankly, I don't think programmers can compensate for everything. Even though you can technically level up quickly by sort of exploiting some skills, why would you want to? TES is not MMORPG where your actions can affect other human players, so ... it's really up to you.

Agreed, you can look at it from various angles. I think there is a reason why every pen and paper system I've seen so far goes to a great length to assure that player characters are at least somewhat balanced. A proper ruleset doesn't leave balancing to the player. The ruleset's main purpose in my opinion is to deliver balance, the rest is up to the role-playing. If the rules fail to deliver that one thing, the rules are pointless and we could just scream "you're dead because I hit you with my uber-lightning-sword!", "No! I'm not, I'm invincible to lightning!" like we used to do as childs :). At least I would consider a system, that too easily allows for a vastly overpowered character, a flawed one. Just saying "hey, the player can take care of balancing his game" is a weak excuse for the inability to design a proper RPG system, in my opinion. I'm not advocating, for example, a strictly class-based system or anything like that, that would restrict the player unnecessarily, but even if the system grants the player lots of freedom, it should still put restrictions and / or disadvantages on him, and I don't see those in TES.
In my opinion, if I chose to be a mage and go through all the trouble it should be to become the head of the mage's guild, I, as a player, should have made up my mind about my character. Now, as you rightfully say, a player in an RPG has to have a certain self-discipline, but that only goes so far: In a pen and paper RPG the game master and the ruleset would put me through serious trouble if I suddenly fall completely out of character to become the thief's guild's master. TES does not. It actually encourages me to completely disregard the character I'm building up. As you probably guessed, my answer to the question whether or not a player should start a new game if he wants to go into a completely different direction is a clear and resounding "yes, in a role-playing game he should". That's called actual replay value and a game like Oblivion would lend itself just perfectly to that, if I couldn't do everything with a single character.
Problem is: computer games obviously try so hard to appeal to almost everybody that they go through great lengths not to scare away the casual gamers with things that would require them to sit back and think about something for more than a split second.




The thing is: even in spite of supposedly flawed skill system, TES is more character-driven sandbox whereas Deus Ex is entirely story-driven (adventure). The skills in TES and subsequently your character's level basically define what you are, how influential you can be in that world and what you can accomplish; not only how. The world effectively changed as you grew more powerful. In Deus Ex, skills and augmentations are essentially just extra "tools" which in addition overlap each other's function. They don't affect who and what JC Denton is -- story does, and your story-related decisions. Pimping out your skills and augs, while gave you more abilities, didn't really make you any more "significant" than you were without them.

For me personally, that is a major difference with TES where you couldn't just disregard skills completely.

Of course, a direct comparison between TES and DX is pretty pointless. As you put it, TES is a "more character-driven sandbox". I agree: It's not just "more character-driven", the whole world revolves around the player. I only used TES as the most prominent example for that "learning by doing" approach.
The story-driven approach is inherent to every good RPG I played, be it computer-based or pen & paper (I've not played lots of pen & paper by the way). Additionally, many RPGs offer several ways to reach basically the same character through items, skills and character stats. I don't see a problem in that. It adds versatility and, if the player chooses to, adds the possibility for a character to be incredibly strong by focusing on that aspect, but unable to utter a coherent sentence, or be a just above average jack-of-all-trades. DX did the same, more or less: You could either concentrate on a specific area, becoming exceptionally good at it, or you could diversify, getting slightly better at everything. I like that.

It would be great if the game actually required you to make good use of your skills, but that's mostly another design issue. I don't think it's wise to supposedly remove the skill system from a game because some players did just fine without the skills. I'd consider that the easy way out. The better solution would be take skills into account more in the next game. ;)

Xcom
11th Feb 2008, 16:44
It would be great if the game actually required you to make good use of your skills, but that's mostly another design issue. I don't think it's wise to supposedly remove the skill system from a game because some players did just fine without the skills. I'd consider that the easy way out. The better solution would be take skills into account more in the next game. ;)

I think that's the problem. It's also the reason why I put DX and TES next to each other. In my humble opinion, statistical skills only really work in a sandbox-like open world; anywhere else and it starts looking like a gimmick. The skill mechanics can be argued about -- no question about it, but at no point (in TES) will you doubt the necessity of having (upgrading, training) skills.

So, I am not against skills, I just don't see how the system can be implemented so that it has greater meaning. Of course, I am only referring to the original game, so in some way, it's pointless to speculate because we just don't know what kind of world (3rd environment) DX3 will be set in. If peoples in Montreal can come up with system that works in that particular world, then I'll be very happy.

By the way, thanks for the nice discussion, matches81. :thumbsup:

matches81
11th Feb 2008, 17:13
By the way, thanks for the nice discussion, matches81. :thumbsup:
no problem, you're welcome ;)



So, I am not against skills, I just don't see how the system can be implemented so that it has greater meaning. Of course, I am only referring to the original game, so in some way, it's pointless to speculate because we just don't know what kind of world (3rd environment) DX3 will be set in. If peoples in Montreal can come up with system that works in that particular world, then I'll be very happy.
Agreed, I'd be very happy, too. And I think it would be achievable: DX1 already had several solutions to many problems. Making them overall a bit harder would help a lot, I guess.Make the approach that requires no specific skill really hard overall for the player or resource-hungry, and put in some really nice "shortcuts" using the skill system. Also, skills could be referenced in dialogs: The player character could for example know when an NPC is lieing to him (yes, I would love lieing and deceiving NPCs) about a security system's capabilities if he is a trained hacker, or the player character can ask more specific questions, and so on. There are lots of ways to make skills more useful / colorful in a semi-linear FPS/RPG like DX3 hopefully is going to be.

The only problem is: The game has to remain solvable for every character, which, as for every cRPG, means that the game cannot absolutely require any skill at a certain level. So, no game absolutely requires skill advancements, skills always only make the whole thing easier. The only question for me that remains is how well the skills are integrated into the overall gameplay.

Papy
11th Feb 2008, 19:16
what if there were enough resources? What if you could buy lockpicks freely? Would you have still needed lockpicking skill?
No, I wouldn't. But we are talking about Deus Ex here, not about a game that only exist in your imagination. "What if" doesn't prove or even show anything. You could use any example of a meaningful skill in any game, and with a few "what if", I will show you how meaningless they "really" are.

I agree, you could get to similar results using different methods, the same way you could have a similar results with a pistol and a shotgun, but the whole point of Deus Ex was offering choices, instead of leading the player to do what the developers wanted him to do. In a way, redundancy was the point. You may say it's unnecessary complexity, but you are forgetting that Deus Ex was not Chess. I'm the first to say Deus Ex was a deep game, but the truth is Deus Ex depth is almost exclusively an illusion provided by its complexity. Remove complexity, and you end up with nothing.

You know what, I could talk for hours about game theory. But I'll do something better : Ladies and gentlemen, I present you Invisible War!

BTW, if you never remember thinking about "such stuff" when playing a TES game, it's because you don't have to think much when playing those games. You only do what you feel like, without worrying about anything. A TES game is really a Barbie house, and your character is the doll with which you're having your imaginary tea party... Personally, I would define having a tea party with a doll as pretending, but not as role playing.

Also, the reason you don't doubt the necessity of skills with a TES game, is because your skill is the only thing you don't directly control. You can decide to go west or east (or both if you feel like it), you can decide to be a mage or a thief (or both if you feel like it) but you can't decide to suddenly have all your skill at 100 (even if you feel like it). You have to work for it. Basically, "gaming" with a TES game, means making your stats go up. No wonder you can't imagine a TES game without stats!

Xcom
11th Feb 2008, 20:54
But we are talking about Deus Ex here, not about a game that only exist in your imagination.

That's not entirely true. All talks here take place in anticipation of Deus Ex 3 which does exist in our imagination. In case you didn't know, we have a separate forum for Deus Ex (general discussion). While we may analyze DX (bash IW *sigh*) -- it's all in the context of the upcoming game.


In a way, redundancy was the point. You may say it's unnecessary complexity, but you are forgetting that Deus Ex was not Chess. I'm the first to say Deus Ex was a deep game, but the truth is Deus Ex depth is almost exclusively an illusion provided by its complexity. Remove complexity, and you end up with nothing.

I am glad you at least acknowledge there was redundancy. Was it the point? I believe that it was not, but I guess our views differ here. I also agree that the game wasn't Chess, but then I am not the one who keeps repeating about DX making you think. Its depth didn't only come from clicking buttons in (skill) menu while doing extensive thinking there, I am sure the story, setting, level design and non-linear nature had something to do with it too.


BTW, if you never remember thinking about "such stuff" when playing a TES game, it's because you don't have to think much when playing those games. You only do what you feel like, without worrying about anything.

I am extremely delighted that I don't have to think in TES all the time. You know, sometimes being able to do what you want can be perceived as FUN...by some weird folks. :D You, on the other hand, do seem to be focused on "thinking" only.

Papy
12th Feb 2008, 04:42
That's not entirely true. All talks here take place in anticipation of Deus Ex 3 which does exist in our imagination. In case you didn't know, we have a separate forum for Deus Ex (general discussion). While we may analyze DX (bash IW *sigh*) -- it's all in the context of the upcoming game.
A specific example, is still a specific example, no matter the context. You can't say "look at Deus Ex as an example", and then say "but I was not talking about Deus Ex" at the same time. An argumentation doesn't make any sense if you change the context in between.

Obviously, as you said, our views of the game differ completely. I'd even say our views about what constitute a game differ. To me, stories, settings, level designs are means, not goals. They are in a game to support the games, but they are not what the game is about. They are part of the "entertainment", they certainly can enhance the overall experience immensely, but they are not the defining characteristics of a game.

I guess my problem is I'm fed up with light entertainment, and I want a "real" game for a change. In the long run, light entertainment is not "fun" to me, it is just boring. I can tolerate, even appreciate, light entertainment for a short period of time, like the 90 minutes of a pop corn movie, but after that I'm bored. I did enjoy Morrowind and Oblivion for a few hours. For both game, the first 2 or 3 hours were great, then the next 5 hours ranged from good to tolerable, and then I stopped playing because I was bored. A 5 hours long Oblivion would have been a great game, a 50 hours long Oblivion is just utterly boring.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying light entertainment is boring for everyone, I'm just saying that I, personally, find it boring and not "fun" enough. I never associated "games" with "relaxing". It's a question of culture I guess.

pistolpete_1980
13th Feb 2008, 10:46
I think skill points felt great when you recieved them.... even when you were lost, you got points for exploring, so all was not lost! hehe

Deathraven
13th Feb 2008, 11:49
Skill points are one of the BEST things of DX1. It was a huge mistake not to have it in DX2. As some of you said it made it more worthwhile to do secondary objectives. Also I think it is more realistic since the hero is not all powerful and great. Its nice to excel at certain things.

Bring back skill points!

Fatality
13th Feb 2008, 14:42
I understand where people are coming from with the arguments about skillpoints being unrealistic, but I still think they should be put back into DX3. It sets an attainable goal, for example: If I know I will enjoy using the sniper rifle, it's going to make me complete more side-quests in order to gain the skillpoints to augment my rifle skill. This in turn has an immersive effect. It makes you think about your preference, gets you involved in the game and further it's just useful in customising your own character in even more detail.
Augmentations are like the tools at your disposal, but skill points are the nuances of your gameplay, what you chose to invest in to develop the aspects of the game you identified with the most.

((Edit: I noticed a comment about the depth of the game being an illusion of it's complexity. I'd have to comment that while the words are indeed not synonymous their connotation is very similar, in other words its depth and it's complexity are very related characteristics - it's depth and it's complexity are so intertwined conceptually that it's difficult to seperate them from each other or gauge the relationship between them. Indeed if it is truly complex, that alone should grant it's depth, unless you mean that kind of pretentious/self-important surface complexity))

Papy
14th Feb 2008, 05:50
The meaning of a word is always subject to personal interpretation. Having said that, I do make a clear distinction between "depth" and "complexity". Chess is a simple, but deep game, while Civilization is a complex game, but with very little depth.

Depth and complexity describe two different forms of process for decision making. Depth is about planning and, let's say, a recursive form of thought process, while complexity is about finding a solution, among many, for an immediate and isolated problem. The thought process for complexity is iterative, not recursive.

madeye
22nd Feb 2008, 02:46
I think that the addition of skills would work and makes sense.

First, the devs are hinting that the game will include not only enhanced humans but totally synthetic ones (ie, the fetus from the movie). If this is the case, then there should be an extremely complicated brain/machine interface. Perhaps the brain is synthetic too. If this were so, then it would be easy to run programs alongside the synthetic human's consciousness. Some of these programs could include skill enhancing "artificial intelligence" that enables the synthetic to do things that he would not normally be able to do. Having skills would be like upgrading the operating system on a computer or installing better programs.

My second point is that you tend to be more adept at doing something you enjoy. Assuming the player character is even remotely human (which he most probably will be), he will have tendencies to like or dislike doing certain actions like hacking or firing a weapon.

Lastly, I believe that adding more control over the player character enables the player more immersion into the game. It also lets them feel like they are customizing a their character into the type of hero they want.

Blade_hunter
22nd Feb 2008, 15:35
I like the DX 1 skill system , but I don't know if we can use the skills to ables our character to use a special weapon or a special item. this made some skills more useful; for exemple, we have a rocket launcher and we can't use it if we haven't the required skills like some heavy weapons level and explosives weapons level.
or conserv the same system of DX1 and give only an easy use for a weapon only when you have an high weapon skill level.

I want to propose these skills

Character skill

-Strength increases your strengh and ables you to carry more items on your inventory, use carrectly the heavy weapons, and carry heavier objects
-Endurance increases your general resistance and your hit points
-Agility increases your general speed and your jump height
-Biomod ability increases your bio electrical energy, reduce a bit the consumption of a few biomods
-Swimming able you to swimm and increases your speed, agility and your air capacity under water.


Abilities

-Electronics ables you to hack some keypads and other electrinic devices and repair some electronic devices
-Mechanics ables you to lockpick and repair znd hack some mechanical devices
-Computer ables you to hack and use some computerized devices
-Environemental training ables you to use some wearable devices and gives you a better efficiency of each device
-Medicine increases the benefits of all medkits and all other healing items and decreases some bad effects of the alcohol and drugs

Weapon skills

-Low tech for most of melee and throwing weapons it ables you on higher skill level to use two low tech weapons in the same time like the knives
-Pistol for pistols, mini crossbows and other ranged weapons of this type it ables you when on higher skill level to use two weapons at the same time
-Rifle For rifles, rocket launchers, miniguns and other medium to heavy weapons and some lighter weapons can be used as a one handed weapon like the two handed SMG's or some shorter carabines

-Ballistic for the standard weapons.
-Energy for energy based weapons.
-Explosives for all explosives devices.
-Chemical for biological and chemical weapons.

Some weapons skills needs to use some character skills (like the strengh or the agility) to be used correctly or be used it depends of the gameplay of the game the character skills doesn't replace the biomods, but they can give some extra bonus to our character

to use correctly a weapon it depends of the weapon type they needs 1 skill level to 3 skills to be used for exemple to use a knife the level one of low tech and ballistic skills, you don't need any upgrade to use the knife, but if you upgrade these skills you have better use of this weapon.
To use a rocket launcher you must have an high strengh skill and little rifle and explosive skill
To use a sniper rifle you must have a big rifle skill and some ballistic skill
To use the minicrossbow you need big agility skill and some ballistic and pistol skill
For an hybrid weapon like the railgun it needs some energy and ballistic skills and high rifle skill

It depends if the game uses the skills to unlock the use of a weapon or only give the right use of a weapon.
The 3 first weapons skill and 2 character skills are used for accuracy and weapon manoeuvrability.
The 4th lower weapons skills are only for damage and eventually the splash damage if the weapon does it

I hope my ideas enjoy most of the readers :)

jd10013
22nd Feb 2008, 21:58
I like the DX 1 skill system , but I don't know if we can use the skills to ables our character to use a special weapon or a special item. this made some skills more useful; for exemple, we have a rocket launcher and we can't use it if we haven't the required skills like some heavy weapons level and explosives weapons level.


Thats the way it was done in SS2 and I found it pretty annoying. I like the dx system where you can use it, but how well depends on the skill level

Caradoc
22nd Feb 2008, 22:01
I like the DX 1 skill system , but I don't know if we can use the skills to ables our character to use a special weapon or a special item. this made some skills more useful; for exemple, we have a rocket launcher and we can't use it if we haven't the required skills like some heavy weapons level and explosives weapons level.
or conserv the same system of DX1 and give only an easy use for a weapon only when you have an high weapon skill level.

I want to propose these skills

Character skill

-Strength increases your strengh and ables you to carry more items on your inventory, use carrectly the heavy weapons, and carry heavier objects
-Endurance increases your general resistance and your hit points
-Agility increases your general speed and your jump height
-Biomod ability increases your bio electrical energy, reduce a bit the consumption of a few biomods
-Swimming able you to swimm and increases your speed, agility and your air capacity under water.


Abilities

-Electronics ables you to hack some keypads and other electrinic devices and repair some electronic devices
-Mechanics ables you to lockpick and repair znd hack some mechanical devices
-Computer ables you to hack and use some computerized devices
-Environemental training ables you to use some wearable devices and gives you a better efficiency of each device
-Medicine increases the benefits of all medkits and all other healing items and decreases some bad effects of the alcohol and drugs

Weapon skills

-Low tech for most of melee and throwing weapons it ables you on higher skill level to use two low tech weapons in the same time like the knives
-Pistol for pistols, mini crossbows and other ranged weapons of this type it ables you when on higher skill level to use two weapons at the same time
-Rifle For rifles, rocket launchers, miniguns and other medium to heavy weapons and some lighter weapons can be used as a one handed weapon like the two handed SMG's or some shorter carabines

-Ballistic for the standard weapons.
-Energy for energy based weapons.
-Explosives for all explosives devices.
-Chemical for biological and chemical weapons.

Some weapons skills needs to use some character skills (like the strengh or the agility) to be used correctly or be used it depends of the gameplay of the game the character skills doesn't replace the biomods, but they can give some extra bonus to our character

to use correctly a weapon it depends of the weapon type they needs 1 skill level to 3 skills to be used for exemple to use a knife the level one of low tech and ballistic skills, you don't need any upgrade to use the knife, but if you upgrade these skills you have better use of this weapon.
To use a rocket launcher you must have an high strengh skill and little rifle and explosive skill
To use a sniper rifle you must have a big rifle skill and some ballistic skill
To use the minicrossbow you need big agility skill and some ballistic and pistol skill
For an hybrid weapon like the railgun it needs some energy and ballistic skills and high rifle skill

It depends if the game uses the skills to unlock the use of a weapon or only give the right use of a weapon.
The 3 first weapons skill and 2 character skills are used for accuracy and weapon manoeuvrability.
The 4th lower weapons skills are only for damage and eventually the splash damage if the weapon does it

I hope my ideas enjoy most of the readers :)

I must say that your vision about skill system is great and well thought, but one weakness I can think of is that you have too many weapon skills. I'd remove energy, chemical and ballistic weapons entirely. Because energy/chemical/ballistic can be pistols, melee, rifles, heavy and explosive type of weapons, They don't need specific skill governing their use when you already have character and abillities skills governing weapon skills.

For example: electronic - energy weapons. Mechanics for balistic weapons, medicine for chemical weaponns, enviromental training for melee weapons, computer for heavy weapons (they are quite complicated things aren't they?:). In addition like you suggested character skills like agilty and strength could also have postive effects for handling certain weapon types.

Blade_hunter
23rd Feb 2008, 00:22
I've thinked about the SS2 system and DX 1 system, I've played to the two games and I thinked making something better.
For my skills, yes this is my vision of the skills. But you have probably right some my skill system should be simplyfied for some reasons and the first is some skills can be concentrated to one skill. this will be made each skill more important and more useful

Character skill

-Strength
-Endurance
-Agility
-Biomod
-Swimming

Abilities

-Electronics
-Mechanics
-Chemical
-Computer
-Environemental


Weapon skills

-Low tech
-Pistol
-Rifle
-Explosives

In this configuration the skills should be better.

gamer0004
23rd Feb 2008, 12:45
I like the DX 1 skill system , but I don't know if we can use the skills to ables our character to use a special weapon or a special item. this made some skills more useful; for exemple, we have a rocket launcher and we can't use it if we haven't the required skills like some heavy weapons level and explosives weapons level.
or conserv the same system of DX1 and give only an easy use for a weapon only when you have an high weapon skill level.


You are a million-dollar superagent with lots of training... And then you wouldn't be able to use a rocket launcher? Even I could use one if I knew how to shoot it.
Whatever skillsystem is going to be used, it shouldn't make much difference. I mean, you've already had a lot of training, so using it would improve your skill a bit, but not that much...

Papy
23rd Feb 2008, 14:47
Even I could use one if I knew how to shoot it.
How do you know?

I think you're missing the point that a skill is a representation of abilities, and that include knowledge. Being "a million-dollar superagent" does not mean knowing everything. As far as I know, most policemen, FBI agent, even a lot of people in the army never used a rocket launcher. A rocket launcher is a very specialized weapon, useful only in limited situations, and it doesn't make sense to train an FBI agent to use one. (BTW, I did my two years of military service and I did learn how to use a rocket launcher, although I never had the chance to fire a real rocket)

Anyway this realism talk don't make much sense. Deus Ex was not realistic at all, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like something realistic.

matches81
23rd Feb 2008, 17:56
@Blade_hunter:
I see one flaw with that system of yours:
All your character skills are rather "general", which is a good thing and means they affect a varied range of things, with the exception of "swimming". I'd put that under "abilities", if you really want a distinct skill for swimming.
Using skills as a requirement to use weapons at all might make skills more important, but to me it just doesn't really fit. Basically every weapon in the world is so simple to use that an ape can handle it, so every character in the game should be able to handle about every weapon. I think determining how well the character uses a weapon is the better option, instead of absolutely requiring a certain set of skills to use the weapon to begin with. It just makes more sense.

gamer0004
24th Feb 2008, 15:02
How do you know?

I think you're missing the point that a skill is a representation of abilities, and that include knowledge. Being "a million-dollar superagent" does not mean knowing everything. As far as I know, most policemen, FBI agent, even a lot of people in the army never used a rocket launcher. A rocket launcher is a very specialized weapon, useful only in limited situations, and it doesn't make sense to train an FBI agent to use one. (BTW, I did my two years of military service and I did learn how to use a rocket launcher, although I never had the chance to fire a real rocket)

Anyway this realism talk don't make much sense. Deus Ex was not realistic at all, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like something realistic.

I know that normal agents and soldiers won't get to fire a rocket or even learn how to use one, but J.C. Denton had had extensive training before his first mission. He is a nano-augmented agent and they are made to be able to solve every situation; demolition skill would be a requirement.

Red
24th Feb 2008, 15:36
Well, the player could determine which training courses JC attended by assigning skill points at the begining. So, yes - JC did recieve (basic) training and the player has liberty to decide about the levels of his starting skills.

The lack of being a master at a certain skill is... Well, an element of a progressive RPG. That's also the thing that made DX1 so great. So, all in all I agree with papy on this one:

"Deus Ex was not realistic at all, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like something realistic."

Blade_hunter
24th Feb 2008, 16:13
I just propose it to see if players agree with the idea or not
In SS2 the system makes the game so difficult, but with some interresting things. To use some basic weapons (fire arms included) the basic skills are sufficient, but for a more high tech weapon skills may be needed, the big draw back of this system it's when you want to try a weapon and you spend some experience points on some skills and you don't like the weapon. It makes the system pretty bad ...
I see most of you wants to keep the DX 1 system, why not ? But I think if we use the skills only to give a certain skill level to use correctly a weapon it makes the skill more important and you can use every weapon in the game.
In DX 1 you must have the heavy weapons skill at level 3 to move as fast as when you use an other weapon.
upgrading some skills to use correctly your favourite weapon adds more interrests to upgrade them.

gamer0004
24th Feb 2008, 20:33
Well, the player could determine which training courses JC attended by assigning skill points at the begining. So, yes - JC did recieve (basic) training and the player has liberty to decide about the levels of his starting skills.

The lack of being a master at a certain skill is... Well, an element of a progressive RPG. That's also the thing that made DX1 so great. So, all in all I agree with papy on this one:

"Deus Ex was not realistic at all, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like something realistic."

I liked the skill system, but I would've liked it better if it made less difference. The difference between untrained and master skill was simply huge. And I don't really like that - gameplay wise, and it's a bit unrealistic too but that's less important.

Red
24th Feb 2008, 22:01
Why?

I think that the gap between levels should be large - so that the player would strive for getting every little skill ploint he can get just to reach the Master level. So, I believe DX1 hit the bullseye with rewarding players who wanted to reach Master level no matter what. If there was little difference between the beginning levels and the Master levels... It'd remain just that.

"Phew... I didn't benefit almost nothing this next level of skill... Why bother? I suppose Master isn't any better, too..."

(Damn, I suck at rhetoric... I hope you understand what I wanted to tell you...)

Blade_hunter
24th Feb 2008, 22:26
DX 1 was a good game for the exploration, and explore rewards the player to reach some XP and some useful goodies
It force you to play like an untrained soldier, and later your character is sufficently trained to use his weapon like a master.
use the skills points to use two one handed weapons when you reach a certain level can be good. you upgrade your character to be stronger, and more difficult to kill, it can be sychronized with the difficulty, at the init of the game, the ennemies arn't very hard, but you are weak, at the end you are strong and trained and your ennemies too with better weapons and resistance.
In traditional FPS, it's only your weapons that become better.
In deus ex you gain much; weapons, skills and your precious biomods

And your arsenal can be customized at your manner of play the game
some items are essential like the multi tools, lockpicks , bio electric cells
but the rest is allways different.
The choice and the way of playing DX is the strength of this game

Draco1979
25th Feb 2008, 05:42
Why?

I think that the gap between levels should be large - so that the player would strive for getting every little skill ploint he can get just to reach the Master level. So, I believe DX1 hit the bullseye with rewarding players who wanted to reach Master level no matter what. If there was little difference between the beginning levels and the Master levels... It'd remain just that.

"Phew... I didn't benefit almost nothing this next level of skill... Why bother? I suppose Master isn't any better, too..."

(Damn, I suck at rhetoric... I hope you understand what I wanted to tell you...)

I agree with you to a point on that. Take the sniper riffle, This is one bad mofo weapon in DX world. DX1 this weapon was hard to shoot before the master level. One would think you can shoot and hold a riffle still even if your not trained on it. While I am torn between the snipper riffle issue because it did give me a reason to build up to and gave me a challenge to kill some one. My next issue with the skill system in DX was the pistol even at expert when you had a scope on it the sucker would still move on you and your stuck wondering why did I use all them points. So when people say that the skill system on DX1 was done perfect, I would have to disagree to a point. While yes it was near perfect and was done well, it is still flawed in its own way.

Lo Bruto
25th Feb 2008, 17:26
My next issue with the skill system in DX was the pistol even at expert when you had a scope on it the sucker would still move on you and your stuck wondering why did I use all them points.

Strange, my scoped pistol stopped shaking at advanced... maybe a patch issue? Or it was the several accuracy mods? :o

Blade_hunter
25th Feb 2008, 19:14
The sniper rifle is very effective at level 3 with several accuracy augs too
the skills are a sort of determining game style and in DX most of choices aren't bad but some choices are more useful to accomplish certain missions
I think the skills may improve the gameplay and give to your character more abilities with weapons, tools and other items

Draco1979
25th Feb 2008, 23:22
Strange, my scoped pistol stopped shaking at advanced... maybe a patch issue? Or it was the several accuracy mods? :o

Who knows but all in good faith who cares it is still a great game :rasp:

SageSavage
29th Feb 2008, 21:14
Recommended read:
http://home.austin.rr.com/salters/03-01-2002.htm

Blade_hunter
29th Feb 2008, 23:16
Some defaults or non existing options wroten on your site are proposed in my proposal in SS2you need 2 skills to maintain and repair your weapon, in SS2 a weapon become at a poor state after some shots.
Some proposed skills in my own skill system makes some of these skill in only one skill for exemple (in case if the weapon maintenance are used)
The mechanics skill have more uses it be used to lockpick, maintain and repair a weapon, maintain an repair a vehicle (if the game has this feature) you can hack some lock safety deposit boxes (they exists in DX 1)and coded padloks; It enhances your knowlege about projectiles and make projectile weapons more powerful;

The electronics skill, gives you the hability to hack some keypads and other kind of electronic locks, you can use less multitools when you try to hack some keypads , you can rapair all dispensers in the game and hack the vending machines; you can hack the security alarms and movement detectors and modify their action (open an electric door, activate a light, activate the fire alarm insthead of the security alarm, or simply deactivate it) your knowledge about energy make the energy weapons more powerfull.


Some ideas in these games are good and bad but they stay excellent games
I prefered DX intahead of SS2 but the SS2 skill system is more "complete" than DX, but DX adds more interractivity and some actions like openug a chest door for exemple. and the story line of DX is better

GmanPro
29th Oct 2008, 00:25
I liked the skill system, although I admit it was a little raw. I agree that maybe some of the skills should have less difference between beginner and master. But I did like how you couldn't really generalize, some games mess up and allow you to max out every skill, and really you should be forced to specialize in a few skills or consequently have a hard time completing your goals.

Also, I really liked the lock picking and the multitools in DX, I really hope that they use that system again. It was simple yet effective, because if you weren't good at lock picking then you would run out of lock picks and then would not be able to access certain *bonus* areas.

The sniper rifle was awesome too, at the beginning of the game I chose the sniper rifle because I thought it was cool, "I like to pick em off from a distance. Ill take the rifle." :D classic. And I didn't have any skill points into rifles so when I looked down my sights it was shaking all over the place. That was awesome.

spm1138
29th Oct 2008, 00:56
I liked Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory's approach. That's heresy round here, right? :D

GmanPro
29th Oct 2008, 03:45
Didn't they mention something about being able to distribute your skill points towards modifying your weapons? If so how is that gonna work? Should we be able to modify our guns in the middle of a firefight?

"There she is! Set for stun!" :)

Although that's not really modifying your gun so much as flipping a switch on the side on the barrel. But maybe you could modify it before the fight so you could do that?

Or do they mean just increasing your skill with said weapons like in DX1? I'm kinda rambling on a bit here... any thoughts?

DXeXodus
29th Oct 2008, 04:18
They have mentioned that player skill will be the determining factor with regards to weapons (unlike Deus Ex 1). I believe the skill points will be allocated to physical weapon upgrades such as silencers, extended clips, grenade launchers (cringe), scopes, recoil mods, re-fire rate, laser sights etc.

Thats how I understand it at least. I could be completely wrong.

GmanPro
29th Oct 2008, 04:19
lol why the (cringe) with grenade launchers?

DXeXodus
29th Oct 2008, 04:31
Because it suggests a certain type of play style that I don't believe suits Deus Ex. But lol, I just remembered that the assault rifle had HE ammo which is a launched grenade. So I retract my statement. I just don't want Deus Ex 3 to become a pure action game if you know what I mean.

spm1138
29th Oct 2008, 11:51
A grenade launcher/shotgun could totally fit in with the sneaky side because they have wide variety of shells IRL and they're constantly coming up with new stuff:
http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/MEIHUNTIR.PDF

Splinter cell did this but there's a few ways you could go in a more open game world that they didn't.

You could plausibly have camera drones/cameras on parachutes, plastic bullets, door openers, all of the different grenade types (gas, CS, HE, frag, EMP), a grappleing hook (actually IRL I think these are fired with blanks), tracking device rounds, big shotgun, sensor shells etc. etc.

There's even a laser blinding system that goes in the 40mm tube.

You could very easily include such a weapon and make it a "utility" launcher kind of deal as well as having the lethal options.

GmanPro
30th Oct 2008, 00:31
Maybe... but to me this all sounds too much like universal ammo you know? Deus ex was great because it didn't feel like it was all that far off in the future. And besides, if that stuff wasn't around in DX1 then it shouldn't be around for it's prequel.

But maybe you could have one or two experimental type of weapons. Like the Tau Cannon from Half Life 1. But anyway, this is a discussion about skill points. So maybe being able to use your skill points to make your gun do some crazy stuff would be cool.

Yargo
31st Oct 2008, 20:43
I glanced through this thread, and maybe its been said before. But Why not a level up system similar to KOTOR that way you don't "magically" get good at anything.

spm1138
31st Oct 2008, 23:45
Maybe... but to me this all sounds too much like universal ammo you know? Deus ex was great because it didn't feel like it was all that far off in the future. And besides, if that stuff wasn't around in DX1 then it shouldn't be around for it's prequel.

But maybe you could have one or two experimental type of weapons. Like the Tau Cannon from Half Life 1. But anyway, this is a discussion about skill points. So maybe being able to use your skill points to make your gun do some crazy stuff would be cool.

How so?

I'm talking about different ammo types on the basis of what is available right now in real life. I'm being a little fanciful with a couple of items on that list but not many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_mm).

The document I linked is for a real thing, being pimped around to various armies now.

It's actually a bit weird that a force supposed to be "Policing" get launchers and only HE rounds, no gas or baton rounds.

Pete278
1st Nov 2008, 00:04
Because it suggests a certain type of play style that I don't believe suits Deus Ex. But lol, I just remembered that the assault rifle had HE ammo which is a launched grenade. So I retract my statement. I just don't want Deus Ex 3 to become a pure action game if you know what I mean.

If you want to play Rambo style, you should be able to. Nothing wrong with multiple ways to approach a situation ;).

Ihsan
1st Nov 2008, 07:29
If they dont put skill points in (cry) i hope they atleast make things expensive, so doing side quests for money feels really worth it. An extensive upgrade system like STALKER clear sky, to blow your money on, would be very neat.

DXeXodus
3rd Nov 2008, 04:15
If you want to play Rambo style, you should be able to. Nothing wrong with multiple ways to approach a situation ;).


Because it suggests a certain type of play style that I don't believe suits Deus Ex. But lol, I just remembered that the assault rifle had HE ammo which is a launched grenade. So I retract my statement. I just don't want Deus Ex 3 to become a pure action game if you know what I mean.

I already amended my opinion ;)

Gomeril
7th Nov 2008, 00:33
Built-in chips would be more cyberpunk, but skill points are fine by me. RPG is all about hard choices. The jack of all trades is boring. If you can't have everything, you will play the game again to try out a different approach. Besides, a multiplayer coop campaign is much more fun if every player can choose a different speciality. Different abilities, which are hard to get and progress not to quick build motivation. The lack of specialisation and progress is what makes Splinter Cell or Ghost Recon so lame, nearly always the same equipment.
For the same reason, please no bag of holding or The Luggage. The amount of equipment you can carry should be limited and so should be slots for cyberpunk enhancements.
And I don't like a skill improvement system that lets you do stupid repetetitive things just to farm skill points like swimming up and down or punching cows in Jagged Alliance 2 (great game, by the way).

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 00:46
Yeah, I agree. It's a delicate balancing operation for EM. Sometimes I like playing as the jack of all trades in games like his just because it makes it harder. But specialization is key.

I'd be worried about making some skills or augs more useful than all the others if I was EM.

Reminds me of KotOR, where by the end of the game, there was no reason to take anyone with you except for the Jedi. KotOR 2 answered this by forcing you to sometimes use the other characters (although if I remember correctly, you could turn some of them into Jedi if you really wanted to).

Or classic Fallout, where it was generally agreed upon that the best trait combo was skilled and gifted (I think :scratch: ).

Power gaming can be fun, but sometimes I just want to make a bad character on purpose, just so its more challenging.

spm1138
7th Nov 2008, 01:00
You can achieve a similar effect with weapon upgrades and limited carrying capacity.

This limits the players ability to take every approach all at once (and if they've put precious weapons upgrades onto one weapon, their ability to change approaches) but does not prevent them trying different stuff as the game progresses.

I suppose to be fair that's arguably part of the replay value but I can see the argument for not having limits of that kind.

dr_niz
9th Nov 2008, 20:43
I lived and breathed earning skill points early in the game. I sincerely hope they bring them back so we can customize our play styles both with augs and skill points.

Blade_hunter
10th Nov 2008, 01:39
Many games that uses skills like the game SS2 for example, this game use the skills to upgrade and unlock

in DX it's only upgrading except for the computer skill for the hack ability

about weaponry even if we have powerful weapons like automatic guns or overpowered weapons like the GEP gun it doesn't disallow the infiltration

in DX 1 when we have a high level (3 - 4) on weapon skills the game becomes easy in therms of combat

In DX we are a bit forced to use infiltration tactics because we can't fire and strafe without loosing a lot of cartridges, and when we do a combat we must stay in position too much time and be crouched or covered...

I don't know if it's good to alter the time of the target acquiring or not because this factor allow or disallow the brute force tactics ...

the fact if we can reach the 100 % of accuracy or something we can do the tasks with ease even the combat ....

Blade_hunter
10th Nov 2008, 23:02
sorry for double posting but it's to show an interesting vid

Weapons pistol skill 6 :eek:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GCDIfxHcJkw

spm1138
11th Nov 2008, 03:59
Many games that uses skills like the game SS2 for example, this game use the skills to upgrade and unlock

in DX it's only upgrading except for the computer skill for the hack ability

about weaponry even if we have powerful weapons like automatic guns or overpowered weapons like the GEP gun it doesn't disallow the infiltration

in DX 1 when we have a high level (3 - 4) on weapon skills the game becomes easy in therms of combat

In DX we are a bit forced to use infiltration tactics because we can't fire and strafe without loosing a lot of cartridges, and when we do a combat we must stay in position too much time and be crouched or covered...

I don't know if it's good to alter the time of the target acquiring or not because this factor allow or disallow the brute force tactics ...

the fact if we can reach the 100 % of accuracy or something we can do the tasks with ease even the combat ....

You pretty much can brute force the levels if you so desire as soon as you've got rifle skill 3 or a couple of mag upgrades for the pistol in DX1.

It actually looks less desirable to do that in DX3 because the factions will take note of how eagerly you've been butchering your way through their ranks when deciding whether or not to let you ally with them.
Presumably if you want to keep your options open that will be the incentive NOT to stroll through their head office like the fifth horseman with a street sweeper.

And from what they've said I don't think it's going to be like having LVL4 with every weapon either - so no perfect accuracy even on the run.

I'm expecting to have more predictable, controllable weapon effects instead of the randomised cone-fire and caffeine overdose scope movement.

Looking at the sniper rifle for example I'm thinking there's going to be some kind of "hold breath" or activatable weapon stabiliser which you can't run all the time.

IOOI
16th Mar 2009, 17:29
Hi this is my 1st post.
I've a suggestion for meele/hand-to-hand fighting system and i don't know if it should be considered a skill or a weapon. But anyway here i go...
Till now i like the influences from GitS an Blade Runner and if AJ become submitted to some "forced surgical intervention" i'm seeing traces of Robocop. I even like, to some degree, the comparison with MGS.
Either way this game should borrow some of the things that made DX1 great but IMAO it should not be DX1 if that was the case i'd prefer a graphics update.
Some new things, for instance a meele/hand-to-hand fighting system (thats a welcome) must be conceived to do simple combo moves, grab and project oponnents knocking down other NPC's (Streets of Rage style) or destructing the environment (smashing some windows, damaging some walls). Imagine you enter in "Combat mode" and depending of the proximity of your opponent and the part of the body you are aiming at, you could run and perform a jump kick that would make him fly until he hits the wall or you could do a sneak approach and grab is neck till he suffocates or brake it (auchhh).

An example for the "Combat Mode" moves (Streets of Rage style):

-Forward = W
-Backward = S
-Run = shift
-Jump = space
-punch = primary fire
-kick = secondary fire
-grab = action/pick up

-smash (with both hands) = hold punch and release
-strong kick = hold kick and release
-push = aim to the chest + punch
-frontal kick = aim to the chest + kick
-suffocate (from behind or upfront) = aim at neck + grab
-grab and project = aim at sholder/groin/neck + grab then backward + punch
-Jump kick = run, jump, kick
-Jump punch = run, jump, punch
-double-leg kick = hold kick, run, jump, release
-double-punch = hold punch, run, jump, release

For different types of punches/kicks or simple combos you just have to click punch or kick several times. The type of NPC is important for the effectiveness of the move. For instance a kick to the groin = TKO, but if the NPC is a full-augmented cyborg with "dispensable" parts removed he will laugh in you're face... Other example a double-leg kick aimed at the back of an human NPC should be an instant killer (breaking is neck, auchhh 2).

This has to be considered as a "skill" so you could earn skill points to improve the strenght/speed/variety of moves. A fight between human NPC/player and a augmented NPC/player should bear in mind the skill level of both - a player with combat level 3 vs. a NPC combat level 5 have more chances to take a victory than a player with combat level 2 (20% possibility of wining).
Remember that some things like melee combat and picking up objects/corpses were already in DX1 this is only an idea to improve it (if they have the time to implement it well).
If there is any other game that can use hand-to-hand fighting moves in a 1st person view for the PC (besides Mirrors Edge) let me know (really).

PS: I almost forgot about block or defense move. That would do some damage on the arms/augs and lead to regenerate/fix/replace them.

Vasarto
17th Mar 2009, 00:41
YAY FOR SKILL POINTS! I heard from ign that they are going to make Deus Ex III more Action and less RPG Style kind of a game...and that smells of Deus Ex III = Failure to me.

IOOI
17th Mar 2009, 01:26
In DX3 hand-to-hand combat should fit very well with AJ since he his a security guard and if the reference to Streets of Rage is not the best, maybe some of the training used by military forces should be beared in mind. Also the melee combat in DX1 wasn't greatly animated, though it was good enough to use with stealth techniques. I'm not saying that hand-to-hand combat should be the solution to every problem but it can give the player some rush for a minute or two.:p
Based on my suggestion for hand-to-hand combat and in regard to better animation (in 1st person view, mainly) it would be nice to see from the player/NPC some twisted arms or prosthetics with electric sparkles coming out when damaged. Influences for this are Ghost-in-the-Shell and some of the beautiful fighting animations from Mirrors Edge. Anyway it still can be an idea for a future mod.:whistle:

Blade_hunter
17th Mar 2009, 02:08
I think he wouldn't criticize your idea, just what he seems to think about the next DX second some infos

AaronJ
17th Mar 2009, 21:38
I don't like skills systems. That being said, I don't care if there's one in the game or not. I can just type in "allskills", thus skipping over that part of the game.

Or a better alternative.

Caradoc
18th Mar 2009, 22:08
They have mentioned that player skill will be the determining factor with regards to weapons (unlike Deus Ex 1). I believe the skill points will be allocated to physical weapon upgrades such as silencers, extended clips, grenade launchers (cringe), scopes, recoil mods, re-fire rate, laser sights etc.

Thats how I understand it at least. I could be completely wrong.

Ok so we don't have any real skills either.. To me this system sounds rather arcade. First game was a rpg first, action game second. Not the other way around. Being rpg is one of the core reasons why deus ex 1 was such a wonderfull game. If you think about it, you had so many options how to develop your character.

1.Wide range of skills
2.Augmentations
3.Weapon upgrades & various weapon types
4.Different kinds of ammo
5.various tools and misc items that could be used for your own advantage or amusement like lockpicks, multitools, armors, food, alchol, drugs, empty bottles, soda cans even fire extinguishers!
6.Or you could many times solve situation through dialog.

And even the level design supported all kinds of various playing styles.

Moreover does this game even have a proper inventory like in rpgs or is every item that we can pick up only for usefull purposes? There was no sense carrying out cigarets, but I did it anyhow because I thought Jc was a smoker.

Well no point crying over it. I hope dev team knows what they are doing. I'm trying to stay postive and obviously not to judge it before playing it, but these news worry me a lot.

GmanPro
18th Mar 2009, 22:13
^^ Exactly. Deus Ex was an RPG in first person perspective. The action elements were there by virtue of it being real time and first person. The design philosophy wasn't, "lets try to merge action and rpg with more emphasis on action." It was "I wonder what an RPG would look like in first person?"

Ninjerk
19th Mar 2009, 01:27
^^ Exactly. Deus Ex was an RPG in first person perspective. The action elements were there by virtue of it being real time and first person. The design philosophy wasn't, "lets try to merge action and rpg with more emphasis on action." It was "I wonder what an RPG would look like in first person?"

To be fair, that development team already knew what it looked like, and intimately. I know Warren Spector, at least, was heavily invested in the development of Ultima Underworld (apparently a game whose gameplay is still relevant) if not the designer (I don't remember since I haven't spent too much time looking into that game).

I'd love to see a hand-to-hand combat system with both lethal and non-lethal moves. Even though it was quite basic, I loved that aspect of F.E.A.R.

Ashpolt
19th Mar 2009, 09:36
I'd certainly like the ability to snap necks or chloroform people from behind, it'd make stealth a much more interesting choice I think. Beyond that, whatever. Your enemies are most likely going to be armed, so I wouldn't take fists to a gunfight. :P

Irate_Iguana
19th Mar 2009, 10:59
Your enemies are most likely going to be armed, so I wouldn't take fists to a gunfight. :P

In a lot of games the melee component is severely overpowered. You can actually bring fists to a gunfight and be better of because of it. The only caveat is that you can get close to the enemy. Since most AI is dumb as bricks that is hardly ever a problem.

Ninjerk
19th Mar 2009, 12:58
In a lot of games the melee component is severely overpowered. You can actually bring fists to a gunfight and be better of because of it. The only caveat is that you can get close to the enemy. Since most AI is dumb as bricks that is hardly ever a problem.

Most developers won't let you die in one shot to the face, either.

Irate_Iguana
19th Mar 2009, 15:58
Most developers won't let you die in one shot to the face, either.

True. In most cases that is actually the cause of the overpoweredness of melee attacks. I wouldn't mind if you were an unstoppable juggernaut when fully augmented towards melee, but in the beginning it should be inferior to a gun.

Blade_hunter
19th Mar 2009, 16:57
If the enemies are in great number (3 - 4) fists are a perhaps a risky decision, but if we are quick we can use melee to disarm our enemies, and even use their body against the group.

For me the skills could allow more kind of moves in that case, a non trained agent can't beat a lot of enemies if he doesn't have skills, but an agent who invested points in melee / unarmed combat can, just like the weapons ...

Ninjerk
19th Mar 2009, 17:53
True. In most cases that is actually the cause of the overpoweredness of melee attacks. I wouldn't mind if you were an unstoppable juggernaut when fully augmented towards melee, but in the beginning it should be inferior to a gun.

Well aimed shots by the AI could mitigate the trivializing effects of auto regen.

Blade_hunter
19th Mar 2009, 20:38
A stealthy approach only ? eh, I can do that with a fast approach in deus ex 1 and 2 (front attack)
if you are slow stealth is the only solution sneacking behind our enemy, but if we are fast we can do that in quick fast attack in deus ex both technics works
sneaking is perhaps easier and requires less reflexes, but I got some good results with fast attacks, since I used well my reflexes

psikoticsilver
20th Mar 2009, 01:18
I miss skill points.

Bring them back!

Blade_hunter
20th Mar 2009, 01:36
It seems they are back but the thing is I'm not certain if the skills are for weapons upgrade second the rumors, or like a "traditional RPG" about the character

LatwPIAT
20th Mar 2009, 07:32
Basic melee combat will be fun, but I hope melee attacks won't be too strong and there won't be any Tekken style clumsy combos.

Melee should have an advantage against firearms only when using a stealthy approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMeooVB3olE

Wrong. At ranges less than 15 meters*, a man with no weapon, or a melee weapon, can run over to an a man armed with a firearm before the latter man can unholster and shoot. Additionally, the unholstering man will not be properly prepeared to fight because he is trying to unholster and aim his gun, so he starts with a disadvantage. This is with normal running speeds.

Now, this doesn't apply to people who have unholstered their weapons allready, but against security guards and unalert police?

*Think it was 15 meters at least. I'd have to look up the "Tueller Drill" or something to check.

Irate_Iguana
20th Mar 2009, 09:05
Wrong. At ranges less than 15 meters*, a man with no weapon, or a melee weapon, can run over to an a man armed with a firearm before the latter man can unholster and shoot.

Normally this is called the 21 feet rule, which would be 6.4 meters. It is not a hard rule, more something to keep in mind.

Blade_hunter
20th Mar 2009, 13:10
Nope use the obstacles in your favor, I often used that tricks.
Quick and fast methods works ;)
In deus ex I got a lot of advantages with a sword (no needs of the dragon tooth even if with the dragon tooth we can defeat more enemies in less time)

susleg
20th Mar 2009, 16:51
May be EVE-Online skill system will be great?

Blade_hunter
20th Mar 2009, 17:16
explain how it works, I didn't know how work the skills on that game

Laokin
20th Mar 2009, 17:31
Why would skill-points upgrade an augmentation? We're talking about the skill system, which wasn't tied in in any way with the augs.

Well in DX 3 you earn experience, if you gain experience you gain experience points. I believe Rene made mention that with these points you could upgrade augmentations.

So are stats back, yeah.... but are they attribute points no, they are indeed skill points like a traditional rpg. Skill points in Diablo raise your magic skills which in this case are 1:1 with augmentations.

Is it different yes, is it a good system.... tried and true.....

So this is why I'm on the fence....

DX had you explore to get your upgrades.... I don't think we will be finding upgrade canisters or anything of that like. It's more find the aug once, upgrade through experience.

They did it like this to keep the advantage of skill points sort of forcing you to complete side quests.... but it sacrifices some exploring (potentially, since we don't know if there are other items that are worth hunting for.)

As long as there is still a reason to explore... I really don't care.

Blade_hunter
20th Mar 2009, 18:02
In system shock 2 your skills were for character/ability upgrades and psi power upgrades, and the psi power were the same thing as the biomods of deus ex except we don't have slot and efficiency limit in a proper sense, and the skills points on that game were an item, those items were placed on many locations,
when we walk to somewhere or activate something DX gave us XP
in SS2 we needed to collect the "XP"

what are the changes ?
Only the form

Imagine we got a "Pick"gun something to pick locks we use some picks to hack the locks as a resource, and the gun is upgraded by XP
more the gun is upgraded less picks were required to pick locks.

Does this system is much different of the DX system ?

I can do the same with an "electronic circuit breaker", that requires some PROMs to hack electronic security panels, padlocks, and any electronic device.

LatwPIAT
22nd Mar 2009, 11:40
Imagine we got a "Pick"gun something to pick locks we use some picks to hack the locks as a resource, and the gun is upgraded by XP
more the gun is upgraded less picks were required to pick locks.

Does this system is much different of the DX system ?

I can do the same with an "electronic circuit breaker", that requires some PROMs to hack electronic security panels, padlocks, and any electronic device.
(Emphasis mine)
Yes. It does change something. The number of options avaliable to the player. In DX, experience was used to expand one set of options, while Aug Cannisters expanded another. Weapons mods expanded a third. In DX3, they have seemingly merged several of these. When I factor in the auto-health-regen system, it seems to me Eidos Montreal want to significantly reduce the resource management in the series.

You know, just like Biomods in DX2.

...and UNIVERSAL AMMO!!!!!11!!one!!!!1!!

Blade_hunter
22nd Mar 2009, 12:10
Depends in my case it changes nothing on its principle, even if in some realism terms use XP to upgrade materials it's a bit strange.
You got an hack tool you can use a ton of upgrades.
But the upgrades allowed to upgrade the character could be missing.
Perhaps it's the thing you want to say about the system though ?

I don't know what they got in mind but the fact is your are on the truth, they want to reduce resource management, and I'm affraid about the upcoming game on that subject

lumpi
22nd Mar 2009, 18:30
(Emphasis mine)
Yes. It does change something. The number of options avaliable to the player. In DX, experience was used to expand one set of options, while Aug Cannisters expanded another. Weapons mods expanded a third. In DX3, they have seemingly merged several of these. When I factor in the auto-health-regen system, it seems to me Eidos Montreal want to significantly reduce the resource management in the series.

You know, just like Biomods in DX2.

...and UNIVERSAL AMMO!!!!!11!!one!!!!1!!

Harvey Smith agrees:

In the DX:IW post mortem, at approximately 2:15 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGIdYl2oN74&feature=PlayList&p=1C297EF70B218203&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2) he starts talking about keeping your audience in mind. The funny thing is, he basically said that his friends and colleges where the ones aiming for simplification (not the mainstream audience us DX fans seem to often blame for the whole discussion :D ). He basically says, you can teach an "XBox Live crowd" to appreciate a complex gameplay mechanic. At least that's what I desperately want to hear out of this.

sakaman
30th Aug 2009, 20:10
I read almost everything in this thread. Will DeusEx3 have skills? I really loved them.

Blade_hunter
30th Aug 2009, 20:50
No skillz :( you have xp but no skills
personally I think they should come back again ...

sakaman
30th Aug 2009, 20:56
How will xp be used? Improving stats,abilities, augs or weapons ?

Blade_hunter
30th Aug 2009, 20:58
augs only there is some info here
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=92755&page=2
read this page and the next you will have some precious informations

sakaman
30th Aug 2009, 21:06
thanks a lot Blade_hunter

Blade_hunter
31st Aug 2009, 14:08
At your service sir ;)

I have an idea about skillz
Why we doesn't use processing units and upgrade them with skill points, processing units are elements made to upgrade our abilities, things that can't be done with mechanical mods
Each processing units allow us to get better ability to hack, buypass, enhance the control of our body, etc ...
The XP will be used to create a better software to get a better control of the hardware processing units and need XP to create an upgraded version of the software who control a particular processing unit, and we can use some hardware to upgrade the processing unit to learn more instructions, act faster, etc ...

For example with an agility control unit we can learn some new martial arts moves and get a better control of them and some other control units we can unlock abilities who need the combination of various control units.
With lockpicking we can learn how to pick some particular locks

I think we can make something good with that kind of thing ...

Hertzila
31st Aug 2009, 17:40
Having skillpoints for better aug use is pretty conceivable from a realistic view actually. Ignoring the "skillpoints are unrealistic," having the system they use now seems allright. Though I do hope/demand that they include lockpicking, multitool and hacking augs.

The software aspect is not of a much use in mechanical stuff, I'm afraid. Reason is that with mechanical stuff your brain "maps" what every nerve impulse does and with training you get better and better with the augs when you learn to control all the nerve impulses. This excludes hacking and similiar "tools" in augs and actual hardware upgrades of course. Ie hacking and possibly bypassing could have software because they are more like tools than actual mimicers of muscles.

spm1138
31st Aug 2009, 18:21
If you want a "realistic" skillpoints system you could have the skill improve as the player uses it.

Hertzila
31st Aug 2009, 19:38
Except it leads to lots of farming. It only works on sandbox or open world games and even then it doesn't work very well. But be it any way of "leveling up," skill with augmentations is prone to raise quickly (at least if real life prosthetics are any indication).

Blade_hunter
31st Aug 2009, 19:56
Same point about that also there is people who suggested that
I know some linear RPGs with that kind of system and it doesn't work well.
also the idea is to make brain implants and brain implants means hardware and software (electronics and programs)
It's not completely realistic but it has some plausibility.

And this can include our famous abilities to hack, pick and such even by getting a total control of our hormones

now some people can say that is idiot, but I think this is a good mean to have our skillz back in a certain form ...

We could have the brain implants for skills and mech augmentations for integrated robotic parts ...

spm1138
31st Aug 2009, 20:12
That's true.

Personally I favour relying on player skill.

I loved what they did in the Splinter Cell games for example.

All the cool little minigames. Picking a lock or hacking a computer under time pressure was fun.

Hertzila
1st Sep 2009, 15:02
I think player skills should be important for the strategic and tactical part, like hiding and shooting, while more simple skills should rely (nearly) completely on PC skills, like lockpick, hack, enviromental, swimming, etc.

@Blade hunter: Or we could have familiarity with different augs (includes augified versions of DX skills) as skills and actual augs for augs. Or even just skills for skills if the devs would change their decisions.
Rarely does software (anything else than basic control stuff) do any good in mechanical augs, or any augs actually.

Blade_hunter
1st Sep 2009, 17:04
The software controls stuff, and better softwares controls better the stuff ;)

Freddo
1st Sep 2009, 21:13
Skillpoints is a plus for any game.

Blade_hunter
1st Sep 2009, 21:15
DX 3 have skillpoints but not the skillz that is supposed to be with the "skillpoints" ;)

Hertzila
2nd Sep 2009, 15:22
Instead we can nickname some of the aug upgrades as skills. From the looks of it some of them are going to be pretty similiar to DX skills.

Blade_hunter
2nd Sep 2009, 15:41
Why not; personally in DX IW the passive biomods were for most of them skill equivalent and the active ones were much more the DX equivalent of the biomods.
I just hope if they use a combined sys tem we can get more choice and more customization options, because I think this is what killed much more that aspect of the game rather than the fact the skills weren't in the game, I mean a system like that should be rich in customization to equals the separate system.

The only point I found good in the new is the fact we have 40 modifications
Now I just hope we have something between 10 - 20 slots

For me their large number is a good sign, now some augs and some descriptions seems to be strange and maybe too much advanced for a DX prequel ...

Red
2nd Sep 2009, 17:37
Yeah, just as Fallout 3 really had 300 endings...

Blade_hunter
2nd Sep 2009, 18:09
Come on red, 300 endings isn't believable at all, that's not the case of 40 augs :/
there is games with 100 + weapons
Ok, nothing proves that is true or a lie, but 40 augs is much more believable than the 300 endings of fallout 3 IMO

I'm not very optimistic about the game but I don't think everything will be a crap

I think there is a chance to have 40 augs, now that's not certain

Red
2nd Sep 2009, 20:35
I'm just saying that the real number of augmentations will be quite lower than promised (DX1 had 18, these 40 will probably be more like 20-25 max). And by experience from other games (well, other games have "skill", "ability" (tonic/plasmid) equivalent of augs), only a half at best will really be useful.

Don't believe the PR to the word.

Jerion
2nd Sep 2009, 20:54
It might be less than 40, sure. Should be plenty of variety though. 40 offers a lot of possiblities and customization- it might offer too much and balancing the four disciplines in the game could become really tough.

Blade_hunter
2nd Sep 2009, 21:06
Mouarf pessimism rules ....

lumpi
2nd Sep 2009, 21:14
Why not; personally in DX IW the passive biomods were for most of them skill equivalent and the active ones were much more the DX equivalent of the biomods.

Well, that's at least partially true. I'm already starting to negotiate with my conscience, to settle for a compromise of what to expect from the game... If we won't have skills (grrr), at least have enough "passive" and "acitve" augs to give you the variety of the original game. "Heavy weapons usage aug level 3"... doesn't sound that bad.

I still think though, that the subtle overlapping of skills and augs, while still being separate awards, offers more variety than an aug-only system. I can't really believe it would "confuse" the average gamer either... But, yea, a large number of different types of augs to choose from is better than nothing.