PDA

View Full Version : Vehicles (and Stuff)



Pages : [1] 2

Blade_hunter
8th Mar 2008, 11:35
I make this post to talk about vehicles and all sort of them

I want to propose some specific vehicles, some areas or levels have them and i think it can be useful and give more choices

Most of vehicles are unarmed, but they have more uses and we can use vehicles for transportation, create traps, diversions, a sort of wall, and more

I saw in the weapons thread vehicles like jet pack or flying wing, these ideas can enhance the infiltration of a specific building, in DX 1 when we are in the cathedral level this kind of vehicle can be useful to go in the roof tops

some vehicles disables the use of tho handed weapons or all weapons, the use of a grapple launcher can be useful too.

The jump boots like the Paul denton's idea

An Hoverboard
Roller skate, skate board
Cars
Bikes
Truck, bus ....
Some Mechs

The big drawback of using vehicles is making the game too easy and when we are on foot we are so vulnerable

Some vehicles can be carried and others not, we have maybe the autonomy can makes the game more interresting and gives some limits to certain vehicles like the jet pack for exemple
We can use a sort of compressed hydrogen or a jerrican to give the fuel in the vehicles if the vehicles use it and must be refueled ....

Nathan2000
8th Mar 2008, 14:54
Yeah, vehicles can add much to the game's gameplay if they're made right. They should have not too much firepower (if any) and be vulnerable to heavy weapons.

I'm not sure if advanced technologically vehicles like hoverboard match the mood of Deus Ex. Sure, the technology exists (spy drone), but I doubt, it will be widely available, unless the game's set in far future. I like an idea of bikes and motorbikes.

And I dream of a quest to disable a military bot, pick it up with a forklift and sell for scrap.:D

jordan_a
8th Mar 2008, 17:42
(Thread added, New! Vehicules (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=75920) )

I absolutely am against the use of vehicules because I believe it takes a lot of time and resources to make it believable and useful.

There is only one game I know of where it was interesting, sufficient thus well implemented, Omikron : The nomad Soul (french VG :rasp: ) where you could take a cab/taxi and that was it. This system was adequate because you just called it and took it: you couldn't drive it.

But I do hope the developers focus on the essential then look into it if they have time. :whistle:

IcarusIsLookingForYou
8th Mar 2008, 18:10
Anytime I think of vehicles in a game I think of Halo and I start to feel sick. They just don't seem practical in a game like DX. You can't throw in a jeep with a chaingun in there because it would turn any segment you use it in into an over-the-top action sequence. Motorcycles are interesting, but what would you possibly need to outrun on one? It sounds like a setup for a really cheesy chase sequence on rails. I've already voiced my opinion on jetpacks on another thread...

The only game I've played that's done a good job with vehicles is Half Life 2, and even then the vehicle segments were far too long (the ones in Episode 2 were awesome). It's totally possible to implement vehicles in DX3, I just think it's more important for the devs to focus more on the factors which made the original great than on adding things for the sake of throwing something new in.

mouse
8th Mar 2008, 18:24
DX3 (should) takes place in an urban setting, that means, there should be publice means of transportation (subway, cabs, etc...). I don't see the need for player-driven vehicles, unless contrary to our expectations DX3 has a very nonlinear gameplay like GTA and supports really huge city maps. Remember Boiling Point? I liked part of the gameplay...cars, freelance work, factions.... though the game itself sucked and was unplayable.

jordan_a
8th Mar 2008, 18:37
there should be public means of transportation (subway, cabs, etc...). I don't see the need for player-driven vehicleAbsolutely.

IcarusIsLookingForYou
8th Mar 2008, 18:47
Absolutely.

Seconded. Such a thing would lead to DX3 being designed around an open world architecture, and that would be the best news ever.

Azrepheal
8th Mar 2008, 19:13
...skate board...

Manderley: And heres your ops bonus, 1000
JC: Aw, sweet, man - Im gonna kit out my board with some kickass flame decals BOOYA!
Manderley: Pardon?
JC: ...nothing... :whistle:

Angel/0A
8th Mar 2008, 23:52
The only vehicles I want are black helicopters. :D

jd10013
9th Mar 2008, 03:23
when I hear vehicles I think half life 2. and I think the vehicle missions were the worst part of that game.

defiantly no vehicles in DX3

v.dog
9th Mar 2008, 04:02
I don't think it's a valid argument to say "HL2's vehicles sucked, therefore DX3's will as well". They are two very different games, from two very different developers.

That being said, I can't see there being a place for them is they stick to the current style of gameplay. However, If they depart for larger, free roaming environments (ala GTA), vehicles could be useful.

What it really comes down to is this: if the vehicles are useful, fun, and more or less ubiquitous (ie: not a gimmick- 'here's your vehicle level') , then I'd say go for it. Do them only if they can be done well, and aren't just another bullet point on the features list.

mouse
9th Mar 2008, 10:24
Manderley: And heres your ops bonus, 1000
JC: Aw, sweet, man - Im gonna kit out my board with some kickass flame decals BOOYA!
Manderley: Pardon?
JC: ...nothing... :whistle:

ROFL


I don't think it's a valid argument to say "HL2's vehicles sucked, therefore DX3's will as well". They are two very different games, from two very different developers.

that's right... I actually enjoy vehicles if you can use them to freely roam vast maps. Imagine you have a urban map with suburbs, downtown, old city core etc., connected by freeways. In a non-linear game where you choose the order of your missions that would be fine. On the freeways there could be stops like gas stations, malls etc....Nevertheless it would be easier to implement a subway/cab system where you can enter the city sub-maps at certain entry points (subway stations). As an agent in an urban setting you should be independent but also inconspicuous. Doing speed races/chases on freeways is not very inconspicuous...

minus0ne
9th Mar 2008, 20:06
I assume there'd be bonus xp points for hitting pedestrians :D I don't think it'd serve the game though. DX had a black heli/Jock, but not one you could pilot yourself, and that's how it should stay. Might be cool if you could use taxis or public transportation (and it'd be cool if during transit the game could seamlessly load other areas while you walk around in the subway/train carriages, talk to some NPCs or buy some some goods).

IcarusIsLookingForYou
9th Mar 2008, 20:22
that's right... I actually enjoy vehicles if you can use them to freely roam vast maps. Imagine you have a urban map with suburbs, downtown, old city core etc., connected by freeways. In a non-linear game where you choose the order of your missions that would be fine. On the freeways there could be stops like gas stations, malls etc....Nevertheless it would be easier to implement a subway/cab system where you can enter the city sub-maps at certain entry points (subway stations). As an agent in an urban setting you should be independent but also inconspicuous. Doing speed races/chases on freeways is not very inconspicuous...

What you're pitching is GTA: Deus Ex. Although I'm all for an open world, free roaming environment, I think throwing in player controlled vehicles would turn DX3 into something that isn't DX. If the devs made the game as you've suggested, it would end up being a game that's trying to capitalize on the success of that "other" free roaming game. I say if you want to play GTA, enjoy IV when it comes out next month.

On the other hand, a real time taxi/subway system, which allows you to see the sites while you travel and interact with others, would be most interesting...

pauldenton
10th Mar 2008, 08:32
The only vehicles I want are black helicopters. :D

no boat then?

you wouldn`t get very far in DX!

i remember the first time i got to the boat and the helicopter, my imagination was running wild - cool, whats gonna happen here then, wow! what a great cool looking chopper this is gonna be awesome - what happens - NOTHING! it was just a cut scene. i was deeply disapointed by this.

i think a few pieces where you have to reach a certain area using a vehicle yourself or as part of a team rather than using a cut scene is fine, being a co pilot with jock in a few situations could have been a great adition if it were not overused.

im getting tired of all those who rubbish any new ideas by using straw men - poor implimentations of such ideas to back up their narrow minded views. lets be positive and think of ways in which they could work, open our minds.

if you still dont like the idea fine but give the straw men a rest.

v.dog
10th Mar 2008, 08:51
What you're pitching is GTA: Deus Ex. Although I'm all for an open world, free roaming environment, I think throwing in player controlled vehicles would turn DX3 into something that isn't DX. If the devs made the game as you've suggested, it would end up being a game that's trying to capitalize on the success of that "other" free roaming gameMaybe, maybe not. Deus Ex already borrows heavily from other genres (notability, RPGs and FPS), what's one more to the mix, if it's done right?

However, it does pose a dilemma; Player choice and free-roaming environments is an idea that often at odds with the con that makes Deus Ex Deus Ex- a tightly woven, rich, and compelling story. Can you keep the mystery alive while the player spends their time cruising around town? That's something only the devs can answer.

jd10013
10th Mar 2008, 13:14
im getting tired of all those who rubbish any new ideas by using straw men - poor implimentations of such ideas to back up their narrow minded views. lets be positive and think of ways in which they could work, open our minds.
.

If I want to play a flight sim, I'll play a flight sim. Personally, I'd rather the devs focused their time and money on other, more important things. Using examples from other games is not a straw man. Its an example of what your asking for. Your asking for levels that need a vehicle to get through. vehicles that you use to explore the game world. Well, thats exactly what HL2 did, and it worked ok for that game. But, I still found it more of a chore than enjoyable or innovative. driving a car around a map, or flying a copter around just isn't DX, and IMHO it just doesn't feel right, and wouldn't work. No matter how hard they tried, it would just come off as eidos trying to bogart HL2.

gamer0004
10th Mar 2008, 15:31
I'd really like to have an additional form of transport: a train from the USA to Europe. There are actually plans for that. They want to build one giant undersea tube/tunnel with trains going to the USA and back. I wouln't want misions there, as it is a too small area with way too little variety.
But It'd be cool if you could go to the station, look inside the enormous tube and see a gigantic train depart into the big dark hole... And take the next train to Europe!

mouse
10th Mar 2008, 15:40
Maybe, maybe not. Deus Ex already borrows heavily from other genres (notability, RPGs and FPS), what's one more to the mix, if it's done right?

However, it does pose a dilemma; Player choice and free-roaming environments is an idea that often at odds with the con that makes Deus Ex Deus Ex- a tightly woven, rich, and compelling story. Can you keep the mystery alive while the player spends their time cruising around town? That's something only the devs can answer.

Vampires 2 (Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines) offers a rich story and some free roaming. There're multiple city maps connected by a cab system, so once you accessed a map during the storyline you could travel to and from that map to get to the main quest locations. The city maps themselves offered parts of the main quest and branching side quests...

jd10013
10th Mar 2008, 15:56
Vampires 2 (Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines) offers a rich story and some free roaming. There're multiple city maps connected by a cab system, so once you accessed a map during the storyline you could travel to and from that map to get to the main quest locations. The city maps themselves offered parts of the main quest and branching side quests...


that was a nice feature in VTMB. It was also done pretty well in SS2, with an elevator instead of a cab of course.

mouse
10th Mar 2008, 16:18
that was a nice feature in VTMB. It was also done pretty well in SS2, with an elevator instead of a cab of course.

alas that there're so few RPGs in modern/scifi settings

Azrepheal
10th Mar 2008, 17:13
They want to build one giant undersea tube/tunnel with trains going to the USA and back. I wouln't want misions there, as it is a too small area with way too little variety.

Are you kidding? That could be used to great affect! If it was tying in with terrorist attacks from DX1, a mission to get through the train to diffuse a bomb on route to the US or Europe could be /very/ nice. Not to mention the underwater factor - if the train was sabotaged halfway along the trap and a section of the tunnel was breached (to drown you / someone/thing youre protecting) and you had limited time to restart the train before a wall of water hits you, it could make for an excellent time-critical mission.

But I agree with a few sentiments above - free roaming wouldnt feel Deus-Exy enough - set vehicles between locations ala the subway in DX1 I think are fine, but with a map big enough to 'roam freely' the devs would have to sacrifice a lot of the little bits and pieces (newspapers, atms, books, sidequests) that make it FEEL like Deus Ex, lest they become too hard to locate (sidequests) or repeated too often (how many people are going to have the same book)

And yes, I know there would be ways to get around these problems, but it still wouldnt feel like DX - afterall, you are supposed to be a super-agent, not a tourist!

gamer0004
10th Mar 2008, 20:11
Excactly: It would be great for a time-critical mission. But that simply means lots of action and little thinking - and that is NOT what DX is!
It should always be possible to sneak for instance. And that would be impossible in a tube like that.

Blade_hunter
10th Mar 2008, 22:21
The freedom in DX is the more important aspect of this game, the first game inovates on this therms, but when i found some vehicles in good runnig state, i can't move the car or drive it and i've futrated on it ....
The vehicles in the game are only optional to use, you arn't forced to use them.
some vehicles are used to make a travel like the vehicles in DX 1 but use some realistic options makes the game better.
Use some subway stations to make your own travel like the reality
You wait the metro, the bus or something like this, you enter on it and get out when you want like a real passenger, you can talk to the others Travelers, collect some informations, make some deals, solve some problems with people, take the control if it's possible of the transport or other things ....
You can use a mobile phone to call a Taxi and use the taxi and pay the driver after going where you wanted or stole the taxi if you don't want to pay the taxi driver.
You can buy a vehicle, stole this, or get your own with the intermediate of your faction if you choose one.

I think the vehicles if they are introduced to the game must be an element for choices, and liberty

For exemple the main options for vehicles are

-Use
-Carry
-Move



Fore little vehicles like roller skates, skate board, surf board, hover board, jet packs, folding bikes and other kind of this vehicles

-Put it on your inventory
-You can jump simply on them, the skate board can run a bit, but you must use it if you want a continuous run

For normal bikes you cant put it on your inventory for it's size but it can be used like the previous vehicles

For vehicles like cars and some trucks

-Go at all places, or hidding you in the trunk (it can be useful to spy some people :D )
-Make hitchhicking and use the car as a passenger, the driver of the car can refuse your destination if it's so for of it's main travel
-Refuel the vehicle (it depends if we want limited use of a vehicle ....)
-Change your place iside the vehicle without getting out of it (except the trunk of course if the car is a sedan type)
-Use some options of the vehicles like the radio, the windows, change the gear, the lights and maybe more
-Break the windows inside the vehicle with you hands, feet
-Use a one handed weapon if you drive the car or the bike
-Use a two handed weapon if you are a passenger of vehicle like a car
-If you are one a tow of a truck of a car or of a truck you can move like in a normal room
-You can make the same if it's a motorbike (but you can't go into a trunk of course)

In vehicles like transport network vehicles (bus, train, tramway)

-You can go inside and pay a travel or if you have a transport card you use it to use the transports, the travels between each stations must be short of course (1 - 2 minutes)
-Like the cars you can go everywhere in this kind of vehicles and use the seats, stay standing or move in the vehicle like a room but with some physical effects

For vehicles with 2 places and more

-Threaten the driver to go where you want to go
-Change your place with the driver
-Throw the driver out of the vehicle :D
-Use the passengers to help you (yo can give them a weapon and tell them to fight your target)
-Call a specific person to get in your vehicle

For carring or movig vehicles it depends on their weight and size some vehicles if we want to move them we must use a specific bio mod and get sufficient strengh to do it.

Most of these exemples can be realized in real life or in a movie, I don't say all of them must be added to the game, but some of them should be added if We use vehicles. some ideas can complete this of course and some of these options doesn't exists in GTA and some other games ;)

pauldenton
10th Mar 2008, 22:53
I'd really like to have an additional form of transport: a train from the USA to Europe. There are actually plans for that. They want to build one giant undersea tube/tunnel with trains going to the USA and back. I wouln't want misions there, as it is a too small area with way too little variety.
But It'd be cool if you could go to the station, look inside the enormous tube and see a gigantic train depart into the big dark hole... And take the next train to Europe!


Cool idea, i like that a lot! :cool:
i was just thinking of trains too, a huge tunnel would be great and fits DX well! you can have anything going on, on a large/massive train system, perhaps you have to find a spy on the train and kill him?or avoid people trying to kill you on the train, if you are struggling and have to hide/run you will be hoping you reach your destination in one piece and can escape.

a lot could happen on a train and on the roof etc, perhaps it gets blown up? the tunnel floods in a second trip through and you have to find a side tunnel escape route - countless options - better than a cut scene in my view.

jordan_a
10th Mar 2008, 22:58
Oh my god I really hope they won't do any of those... things. :D

First it would be a very expensive and long process for Eidos and moreover the character has a mission to do, period.

Like I said: focus on the ESSENTIAL.

Subway, cab or bus to another area with automatic schedules why not, but no driving, please.:rolleyes:

pauldenton
10th Mar 2008, 23:10
Are you kidding? That could be used to great affect! If it was tying in with terrorist attacks from DX1, a mission to get through the train to diffuse a bomb on route to the US or Europe could be /very/ nice. Not to mention the underwater factor - if the train was sabotaged halfway along the trap and a section of the tunnel was breached (to drown you / someone/thing youre protecting) and you had limited time to restart the train before a wall of water hits you, it could make for an excellent time-critical mission

lol i just read you post after making mine in responce to the original train suggestion and it appears we had pretty much the same ideas.:eek: obviously i like your suggestions too! wouldnt it be cool?:cool:

Blade_hunter
11th Mar 2008, 21:17
For some of people are against driving vehicles and wants use only transports i say why not but the driving option is not bad and should be added to the game
if you don't want to drive but you want use vehicles to get in a destination in less time, you can use taxis, make hitchhicking, or use the subway's to do a travel.
If you want drive a vehicle use a vehicle you want to use.

In this fact all players can use the vehicles and in a manner like each player wants !
If you like trains, metro you use the subway
if you like taxis you use a taxi
if you want to drive you can drive all vehicles
If you don't like vehicles you don't use them (you use them in specific cases like DX 1 for exeple)

My idea is to get this feature keep the choice of the uses of the vehicles or use only your feets

jd10013
11th Mar 2008, 22:11
For some of people are against driving vehicles and wants use only transports i say why not but the driving option is not bad and should be added to the game
if you don't want to drive but you want use vehicles to get in a destination in less time, you can use taxis, make hitchhicking, or use the subway's to do a travel.
If you want drive a vehicle use a vehicle you want to use.

In this fact all players can use the vehicles and in a manner like each player wants !
If you like trains, metro you use the subway
if you like taxis you use a taxi
if you want to drive you can drive all vehicles
If you don't like vehicles you don't use them (you use them in specific cases like DX 1 for exeple)

My idea is to get this feature keep the choice of the uses of the vehicles or use only your feets


there's no way the devs are going to code 4 methods of transportation into the game. If they include driveable vehicles into the game, they'll make you use them. And a lot of us want an RPG type game. not a driving or flight sim. It detracts from what DX is.

DX IS NOT about driving cars, or flying helicopter. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it just isn't what DX is.

Angel/0A
11th Mar 2008, 23:18
DX IS NOT about driving cars, or flying helicopter. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it just isn't what DX is.

I never said I wanted to be the one who was controlling the helicopter. That's why I specifically said "black helicopter" a la Deus Ex because you didn't control it, it was a connection point between maps/levels.

Kneo24
11th Mar 2008, 23:39
Connection points are a better way to go. A lot of current games use them. They have you hope into a vehicle and someone does the moving for you, or it cuts to some sort of cinematic sequence after the next area loads.

Vehicles are more of an effort for something that probably won't fit in with the atmosphere. Besides, it's the future, and a sequel to a future. Hopefully they have their public transportation systems figured out where a person doesn't need to drive.

jordan_a
11th Mar 2008, 23:45
And a lot of us want an RPG type game. not a driving or flight sim. It detracts from what DX is.Amen to that.

Frankly Blade_hunter if you were in charge of the game we would wait a loooooooooong time to play it. :D

What you are proposing can only hurt the concept:
-it takes time
-it requires additional costs
-it fragments the team

SemiAnonymous
12th Mar 2008, 00:24
If there are any sort of vehicles, lets just keep it relatively simple. Dunno how many of you have played the Zodiac mod, but there are several points where you can ride a little tram sort of thing. If something like that is used, maybe expand it a bit, that would be fine. However, if we get jeeps and what not...they had better work well with the scenario, or I and most likely everyone else will be pissed. Hell, I'd be pissed anyways, but not as pissed if they failed miserably.

Kalai
12th Mar 2008, 11:19
You do realize that the train you are talking about is going to have to be running in a vacuum tube and not a tunnel. It is supposed to be (much) faster than a concorde and thus the mere friction of air would impede its progress too much. Not to mention the heat generated. So if a bomb goes off in there its not going to be so much of a wave of water that needs to be outrun as a sort of sucking sound as the tube implodes...

Article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain

mike-rs
12th Mar 2008, 12:09
As good as vehicles are they only work well and are fun in some games such as car racing games, flight simulators or in games that involve nothing more then killing stuff with no thought to the consequences (raw FPS's). I can't see them working in other games. There isn't the time, resources or opportunity to add the details that are necessary in an immersion game to make a vehicle believable and useful.

I think STALKER was a brilliant example of this, while there was the opportunity and the developers did end up making vehicles that were usable they couldn't be accessed, without hacking the game, because they just were not needed. The maps were large, detailed and interesting, but they were able to be navigated on foot. Any vehicle would have just been a hassle to deal with and only removed a couple of seconds from navigating the maps. Plus you would have missed so much by hooning around.

As good as vehicles can be if done right, I would rather the developers spend their time writing interesting articles to add to newspapers, or making up a story for that doctor you occasionally see in a clinic somewhere by reading through their personal e-mails.

pauldenton
12th Mar 2008, 15:50
[QUOTE=mike-rs;737541]As good as vehicles are they only work well and are fun in some games such as car racing games, flight simulators or in games that involve nothing more then killing stuff with no thought to the consequences (raw FPS's). QUOTE]

taking another angle, horses seemed to work pretty well in oblivion, you can ride it, or you dont have to? and that doesnt fit the genres you suggested?

mech hybrid horses?

while DX is not oblivion and im not sure about suggesting the use of mech hybrid horses for transport it may be interesting for just a scene/map or two at some point?

or another idea could be riot police on mech hybrid horses for crowd control etc, may be interesting if the game is a more basic prequal? then again maybe not - just throwing it out there for more thoughts/ideas?

perhaps you have to steal a mech horse hybrid and a riot police overcoat and helmet, mix in with the riot police to get through to the next checkpoint under disguise? or take another route?

gamer0004
12th Mar 2008, 16:30
Dx is not a free-roaming game. So no driving, please...

GruntOwner
12th Mar 2008, 16:40
I'm opposed to vehicles. The main reason being that if i'm supperagent 101, I'm not going to want to have to drive a vehicle when I could much better make my plans. Even if they were only optional, how would you balance them against not using them? Crash the car through the front gate or spend half an hour hiking through the sewers, avoid the guards and finding a hospitable airvent? Not so much a choice as an idiot test. DX was easy to navigate, but detailed with the alleys and connections. Everything was a land mark, connecting to an option. Having a huge open environment kinda sucks if only 3 of the ares in it are anything other than filler for the driving sections. It wastes time and money better spent on actual interactable fluff, and as for the idea of time critical levels, that's not how I play, and it's not how other people play. If people want to play like that then give them the option: try to restart the train by repairing the computer, but draining so much RAM in the process that the saftey locks stop, or go to the engine room, do what needs to be done with the bots and get the hell out of there. If the game randomly told me "someone has kersploded the train, are you a bad anough dude to repair it in less than 45 seconds" before throwing me in a dark, chaotic train with frenzied passengers already distrustful of the guy in the trench coat looking for ammo, I'd feel just a tad shafted. At the end of a mission I want to get in a chopper, enjoy my little moment of relief then get back on track with the planning, not trying to remember where I left the city. As for oblivion, it allows you to be distracted by offering an embarresingly short campaign that is almost un-replayable, so it has to spam you with a huge map just so you don't get tired of mr emo ranting about joo joo. If I was running around DX and found a criminal hideout that had been previously referenced, I'd think "wow". If I found 20 of them then I'd have to question who the hell put them there. Oblivion is a dungeon crawler, Deus Ex is not. There is no need for transport with which you can find your own little areas, as for the GTA refernces, GTA does it so you can drive around madly slaughtering everyone in a constantly respawning city and then let you drive around for ages trying to shake the fuzz. Definitely not Deus Ex.
There is one way that I could hate the idea more, and that is the gimicky application of vehicles. If I see a scateboard that exists for anything other than distracting npcs with noises, then the game loses a lot of credibility in my books.

Blade_hunter
19th Mar 2008, 21:37
I don't want DX become a sort of GTA like but this feature enlarge the game experience, and not all areas has vehicles and all roadable zones, I prefer use vehicles for transportation, and some action scenes with arn't bad.
But the use of vehicles must be a choice of the player and not a mission which forces the player to use the vehicles.
The action with vehicles is envolved and adds more uses for vehicles ....

IceBallz
22nd Mar 2008, 06:49
(Thread added, New! Vehicules (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=75920) )

I absolutely am against the use of vehicules because I believe it takes a lot of time and resources to make it believable and useful.

There is only one game I know of where it was interesting, sufficient thus well implemented, Omikron : The nomad Soul (french VG :rasp: ) where you could take a cab/taxi and that was it. This system was adequate because you just called it and took it: you couldn't drive it.

But I do hope the developers focus on the essential then look into it if they have time. :whistle:

I'am with you. Better to lay focus on other more intresting things, then vehicules. Vehicules are better used in GTA and other car driving games, but Deus Ex 3 should be a pure adventure game in it's best feeling of gameplay. Vehicules often bring down many games in their atmosfear and gameplay feeling. This should be working like cab/taxi, like Jordan A says. Or like in Deus Ex 1, with choppers. This would be a big waste with time and resources into gameplay, to bring loads of vehicules to the game. So i say no to bikes, motorcycles, buggies, cars, trucks, tanks and all other things with stearing wheels and bars.

IcarusIsLookingForYou
22nd Mar 2008, 17:28
[QUOTE=mike-rs;737541]As good as vehicles are they only work well and are fun in some games such as car racing games, flight simulators or in games that involve nothing more then killing stuff with no thought to the consequences (raw FPS's). QUOTE]

taking another angle, horses seemed to work pretty well in oblivion, you can ride it, or you dont have to? and that doesnt fit the genres you suggested?

mech hybrid horses?

while DX is not oblivion and im not sure about suggesting the use of mech hybrid horses for transport it may be interesting for just a scene/map or two at some point?

or another idea could be riot police on mech hybrid horses for crowd control etc, may be interesting if the game is a more basic prequal? then again maybe not - just throwing it out there for more thoughts/ideas?

perhaps you have to steal a mech horse hybrid and a riot police overcoat and helmet, mix in with the riot police to get through to the next checkpoint under disguise? or take another route?

Horses? You've got me at another near loss...

I don't know what version of Oblivion you played, but I found the controls on horseback to be absolutely wretched. That's besides the point...

Although I guess horses are technically applicable in a futuristic/near futuristic setting, it seems more like a gimmick than an integral gameplay mechanic. Just like the mech armor and jet pack, you suggest that the horses only be used for a scene or two. Why divert time and resources to a game mechanic that's only going to last minutes? This "little something to add variety" would take weeks, possibly months, of programming.

In order to make the use of vehicles a viable option, it must become a core focus of DX3's gameplay, at which point it would cease to be a DX game. I'm going to stop myself here because I feel like I'm just repeating what plenty of people have already said.

gamer0004
22nd Mar 2008, 19:51
Why, for heaven's sake, would ANYONE EVER want to build a mech horse? They'd be inefficiënt, dangerous, scary and unpleasant to "drive".

Blade_hunter
22nd Mar 2008, 21:54
For me it depends of the size of the area (levels)
For me the vehicles is the element that give something like a living society
The vehicles apears in high number in modern citys
Low number in devatated locations, or in locations like villages, deserted zones, forbidden zones like the area fifty one
More later we've got some mechanized soldiers, and in DX1 we have MJ 12 commandos and some security bots and maybe mechanized armors
The vehicles are only an optional way and if the vehicles are armed they have a limited ammo and fuel, and we must find supplys to recharge it
In some places the vehicles can't be sed because the street is closed for vehicles but you can use a vehicle to go near the place where the mission is
I've played an old game called SIN and Wages of SIN and theses games uses some vehicles but they arn't the main function of the game but an optional way, and sometimes I used it and sometimes not.
Vehicles should be good but It depends how the devs add's them to the game
I think I have my own vision because I don't want a GTA like but another gameplay with vehicles, but the main game still on foot, and sometime we can use vehicles to make an assault and the ennemies can use vehicles too.
The thing is i don't want vehicle sequences as some FPS' uses and I don't want a GTA system.
If the vehicles adds an innovation to the game I don't thik the vehicles are bad as you expect.

pauldenton
23rd Mar 2008, 01:56
Why, for heaven's sake, would ANYONE EVER want to build a mech horse? They'd be inefficiënt, dangerous, scary and unpleasant to "drive".

so you have one then? interesting!

in your argument you made half the case for why they may be good in a game!

in the USA the police have been known to line one end of a street with mounted police, the streets were dangerous and crowded, the police on horses marched down the street telling everyone to go home - the street was soon clear and calm. dangerous and scary the police on horses appear to be, but effective too.

sounds like a plausable DX crowd control situation, perhaps as i said you have to go undercover and steal one and join the riot police about to go on a raid as a way to get through an area, this could also leave you with a possibility that you may have to beat or kill friends to get through an area undetected or make a run for it and risk death and a blown cover or perhaps you can tip friends of also at a risk to yourself.

no one is suggesting you ride through the whole game like the lone ranger on a mech/hybrid hoarse, but i can see a few interesting possibilities where a scene or two could be cool and fresh.

pauldenton
23rd Mar 2008, 02:00
For me it depends of the size of the area (levels)
For me the vehicles is the element that give something like a living society
The vehicles apears in high number in modern citys
Low number in devatated locations, or in locations like villages, deserted zones, forbidden zones like the area fifty one
More later we've got some mechanized soldiers, and in DX1 we have MJ 12 commandos and some security bots and maybe mechanized armors
The vehicles are only an optional way and if the vehicles are armed they have a limited ammo and fuel, and we must find supplys to recharge it
In some places the vehicles can't be sed because the street is closed for vehicles but you can use a vehicle to go near the place where the mission is
I've played an old game called SIN and Wages of SIN and theses games uses some vehicles but they arn't the main function of the game but an optional way, and sometimes I used it and sometimes not.
Vehicles should be good but It depends how the devs add's them to the game
I think I have my own vision because I don't want a GTA like but another gameplay with vehicles, but the main game still on foot, and sometime we can use vehicles to make an assault and the ennemies can use vehicles too.
The thing is i don't want vehicle sequences as some FPS' uses and I don't want a GTA system.
If the vehicles adds an innovation to the game I don't thik the vehicles are bad as you expect.

i agree, good post.

IceBallz
23rd Mar 2008, 02:16
I really disagree to vehicules. Like i see Deus Ex gameing, it's a huge indoor game. Like been mostly in facilities, like headquarters and other buildings. There is no need for a human with augs to use wheels to move, he's faster enuff, more flexible and more silent on his fixed legs. So there is no need for waste loads of time and resources to make any vehicules. Only to transport to place to place. But not more.

Lay this resources to build up a charactistic feeling to our charachter (E.M.I.L.E). Like more actionbased feel and view to his almost limitless movement. Set movement speed into scroller on mouse. Then you can accerelate from 5km/h to 100km/h in 10seconds. Then you don't even need wheels in the Area 51 zone, you can run over the desert and in cover of the night.

Blade_hunter
23rd Mar 2008, 15:10
The most important part of missions are indoor but to infiltrate a building you begin outdoor and there is some guards, and attacking ennemy positions needs to be creative the vehicles adds something new to the game.
In DX 1 I remeber when you use a scramble granade in a bot to attack soldiers, the soldiers armed with anti-bots weapons use the to neutralize or destroy the bot.
DX is'nt an indoor game only, DX is an opened gameplay FPS.
You have indoor and outdoor infitration, action missions
The vehicles arn't a compulsory element of your action methods, they are an additional element.
And ennemies with vehicles are present sometimes and you can stay on foot using your items or use a vehicle too
the vehicles can be motorized an unmotorized
You can be a super agent or a sort of superhuman your have some weaknesses, in a vehicle you have other adventages and weaknesses too.
I want use vehicles like a tool, and vehicles are a part of a life.
If in area 51 you d'ont need wheels you use your bio mods, but if you want to use a vehicle you use it.
Anyway DX is not a game with a defined gameplay, the game is an opened gameplay Game.
But to use vehicles the game needs large opened areas and actually in a game this is Technically possible, and large opened areas give more options to make a non linear game, and not only in little change in the story, but a more important changes. DX 1 was a important step to an opened gameplay some other games too, but some classics with new stuff can made a new great game I think.
I know some games wants to make a sort of DX with vehicles and these games stay poor for some of them, but Is not for that reason DX 3 will fail.
If the game introduce well this elements the game goes to be a good game.
I think most elements of the game are only options and you can adress each situation with different options.
DX 1 has a great level design, because it's level design gives you more options to accomplish your mission. Unlike DX 2 gives sometimes less options because its levels are too small...

IceBallz
23rd Mar 2008, 16:59
Okey. Now i'am with you too. Sounds fine for me. So far this outdoor parts in gameplay gets big enuff, to been driven on. It's okey. But if maps gets small, like in DX:IW. The wheels would be useless and only take resourses from our dear devs. I really hope the devs goes for size, gameplay value in first place and last for "you know what". Well i say it again, gra¤hi¤s. :mad2: huhu !!!

c37579
23rd Mar 2008, 22:00
i think that vehicules would ruin the game to be honest, i think that they should be in it, but the player can do nothing with them, maybe break a window to steal that 5 credits some one left in there, but that should be it

besides the maps in DX were plenty big enough, and the ones that even HAD roads only had a few hundred feet of them if that

who in their right mind would buy a car to drive 100 feet in a straight line to a dead end! plus how would it get there?

anyway, back to the serious stuff if there are vehicules, just make it so they have things in to steal, and you can maybe press the horn or something, nothing too extravegant, or time consuming, this could also suit everyone, seeing the "fully functional cars" in the game would be ok, the keys are non existant so you couldnt go anywhere, but they add a bit of decore

as for the horses that could give a few funny moments, if the police have them and the player cant
"hey nice horse mind if i give it a go?"
"err... sorry, this ones... going to the cleaners"
just wondering what would happen to them in the rider dies, just have a random horse wandering around?

First post by the way, awesome forums :D

Mand'alor The Unholy
23rd Mar 2008, 23:01
I think that if vehicles were added into the game then they would have to play a VERY minimal part. Like maybe you can take control of a mech or something but not actual drivable vehicles like cars or trucks. Though it would be cool to have AI traffic on the streets that run you over if you get stupid. But I agree that adding vehicles would take time and I think that the other aspects of the game should be focused on and developed. Like augs and the map layout. The environment in whch you play and how everything reacts to the player and how you operate in the world. I liked that you had to actually punch in the codes on keypads and manually log in to your email in the game. It added immersion that I don't think vehicles would add. DX 1 was a freakin' awesome game and you couldn't drive anything.

DforDontAsk
28th Mar 2008, 03:09
GTA 4 is coming out soon people, don't worry. :mad2:

The subway train would be cool. If you could RIDE it. (I'm looking at you, DX2)

Dead-Eye
28th Mar 2008, 04:05
One word, Multiplayer.

Helicopters as enemys would be cool too, make that IW rocket luncher have a good natural enemy.

m72
28th Mar 2008, 07:41
i don't think drivable vehicles are a good idea for DX, aside the usual stealth helicopter:D

jordan_a
28th Mar 2008, 12:11
Helicopters as enemys would be cool too, make that IW rocket luncher have a good natural enemy.Play EA's Battlefield crap. :cool:

Dave W
28th Mar 2008, 23:53
"We should add vehicles back in"
"Yeah, driving down corridors would be real fun"


The subway train would be cool. If you could RIDE it. (I'm looking at you, DX2)
...and DX1? There's no rideable subway trains in Deus Ex unless I missed some massive section of the game out.

Romeo
29th Mar 2008, 02:39
I wouldn't mind ENEMY vehicles, such as the mech-lik enemies from IW. However I think pilotable vehicles strays too far from the games routes. I think the ability to take over technology (pilot the security bot, and more) would be a fair comprimise. And by pilot, I don't mean make into an ally, but actually guide and control the thing.

Nathan2000
29th Mar 2008, 16:49
As for vehicles taking resources, it's true. It takes time and money just like anything else. But it takes time of programmers and artists. It has nothing to do with character design, story or in-game text.

And I'm not quite sure, whether creating vehicles would be so much of a burden. Most 3D game engines have them already implemented, Tomb Raider engine is not an exception - TR:Legend had a motorbike and TR:Underworld is confirmed to have one. Let's not forget about Project: Snowblind, if it really is on the same engine.

IMHO we should stop worrying about resources (the devs know better how to manage it) and focus on their impact on the gameplay. I think vehicles would enrich it.

pauldenton
29th Mar 2008, 21:32
tomb raider legend,

The engine DX 3 will be based on, with DX like scenery, plus motorbike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7qBQP-HRks

v.dog
30th Mar 2008, 07:28
IIRC, it's going to be the new Underworld engine, not the older Legend/Anniversary one.

IceBallz
30th Mar 2008, 12:05
Still wheels should not be so much to the gaming in first place.

Blade_hunter
30th Mar 2008, 14:47
Hum the new underworld engine I think can use the vehicles...

I think the vehicles are a part of a choice in outdoor action
If we enter to a military camp we are always in the outoor and we have some buildings like tents, sentry towers; vehicles like jeeps, choppers, APC's, eventually motorbikes .....

But they can help to infiltrate a building if all issues are closed or are well protected the jetpack, grapple launcher, your biomods or other things can be used.

For me if the vehicles are added to the game we can use them for:
-Transportation
°Driving the vehicles (unmotorized vehicles, and motorized
°Use the transport network (subways, bus, taxis (motorbikes and cars))
-For infiltration, or attacks
°Some ways are only accessible by vehicles and give an other choice to use them or not if we want stay on foot and use an other way
°We can use vehicles to begin an attack, use them as a shield, like sometimes the crates were in DX

For me the vehicles adds only new ways to accomplish an objective, more possibilities, a new way to change locations, and adds more immersion to the DX universe if we introduce a sort of living society...

The vehicles are good if they are well introduced of course

IceBallz
30th Mar 2008, 15:37
Jump over this vehicles. It's just waste of resources into the gameplay in major. I think this vehicles wont give anything of value to gameplay. Better to set all resources to build on more simple gameplay and bigger storyline. There was no need for vehicles in DX1 and not in DX:IW, why should it be need for them now ? Becurse wheels gives nothing of value to the gameplay at all.

pauldenton
30th Mar 2008, 21:35
IIRC, it's going to be the new Underworld engine, not the older Legend/Anniversary one.

ALL are `based` as i said on the same engine.

quote eidos -

"We sat down with Creative Director Eric Lindstrom and Lead Programmer Rob Pavey and let them show off their new darling. "After Legend, we found that we hadn't exploited all of the engine's capabilities," remarks Lindstrom, "but we ended up building lots of new things into it for Underworld anyway." Working from a proven game engine is a huge advantage, but it carries with it the danger of stagnation."

it has been said that there will be motorbikes in underworld also.

again -

tomb raider legend,

The engine DX 3 will be based on, with DX like scenery, plus motorbike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7qBQP-HRks

Larington
30th Mar 2008, 22:11
Yeah, I'd have to say I'm in the 'keep vehicles/transport' minimal camp. Personally my favourite transport game mechanic thus far is the one you get in the Blade Runner game (ahh, theres a classic one), where you can jump into the car and select on a map where to go with new destinations coming up as the story progress'. Plus the car can be taken away from you under certain circumstances as the devs require according to the plot. I'd have no problem with that.

But actual driven vehicles, sorry no, it just doesn't work in my head for what DX is at its core.

(EDIT: With regards to the bit below, I give a much better description of what I mean in a subsequent post, I'm certainly not talking about a whole level being consumed by a shooting gallery)

I could just about see a sequence in a helicopter as a gunner of some sort, almost like an on the rails shooter, but ONLY if that was done well (And arguably theres not much you could do with it to prevent it from feeling like a minigame, unless its something you do as your arriving at or retreating from a heavily defended facilty) otherwise you risk having something that people would rightly call out as being nothing more than a glorified minigame.

For instance I found it odd that with all the firepower apparent on the helicopter, if you disabled the EMP generator at the ambush in DX1 the helicopter didn't actually bother to shoot the remaining troops. Similarly when the chopper was leaving other locations with hostile troops running up to your position.

gamer0004
2nd Apr 2008, 14:33
No I don't like the idea about being a gunner. Not all people like to shoot everything in sight. A situation like that can't be solved with the use of your incredible lockpicks or sneakingk, so it would ruin the DX feeling.

[HP]
2nd Apr 2008, 16:05
there should be publice means of transportation (subway, cabs, etc...). I don't see the need for player-driven vehicles

Ditto! No vehicles, I guess I love DX1 so much, I'm afraid to even imagine something other than the ones I saw on DX1, which is 100% of the game, by foot. Or at least, the possibility to catch a train, or a metro. But not like button -> load, next level kind of train, like the one in IW! ****

IceBallz
2nd Apr 2008, 19:16
No wheelies !!!!

Blade_hunter
2nd Apr 2008, 20:34
Hum for me the use of vehicles isn't bad because we can drive them or simply be transported by them but only by choice not as a sequence like Red faction 2 we use the vehicles and shoot in sight, for me this have no interrest and if the vehicles are for this use I prefer to exlude the vehicles of the game...
For me driving is only optionnal and the vehicles are used for exploration, transportation and other things, we can drive or simply be transported by them following their destinations.

If some armed vehicles are used we can drive them or use an NPC to help us
For me the game must have a wide variety of gameplays, DX1 have them but I propose to have more than DX 1 and some people agree with this because once wants to play as an infiltrator, an other as a powered soldier, an other as an hacker, an other as summoner and more things. The first game was good and the vehicles takes a very minimal part of the game, but they already exists

We can keep some DX 1 features and adds some news but as an option they are ingame but the use is optionnal when you want to go faster in DX 1 we have only the speed enhancement (biomod) in DX 2 we have the same if we add the vehicles we can choose, for some vehicles have the incovenient of the use in outdoor, but a skateboard can be fun to use in indoor used for moving faster and make diversions.

For me the vehicles adds only good things but if the vehicles are a sort of shooting sequence or only used as a weapon this have no interrests.

minus0ne
2nd Apr 2008, 20:34
No I don't like the idea about being a gunner. Not all people like to shoot everything in sight. A situation like that can't be solved with the use of your incredible lockpicks or sneakingk, so it would ruin the DX feeling.
I don't like it either. We're probably both the kind that like to skulk and sneak their way through DX, but there are actually a lot of players that like to shoot everything in sight on their DX playthroughs, with the loudest weapons available. However being a gunner doesn't provide you with ANY choice at all, so that should definately not be done.

I like the idea of subways/trains/maglevs/helis, but drivable vehicles is another thing entirely, DX is not Battlefield or Crysis.

Vasarto
2nd Apr 2008, 21:01
How about a Mech Suit like how Samus from Metroid has. It could make you run faster and could have a plasma cannon for one of the arms...but limited power supply.

Motorcycles are a must
A car
A school bus maybe?
A stealth Copter

Larington
2nd Apr 2008, 21:47
Sorry, should've been more clear when I mentioned this. To clarify, what I'm talking about is something that might run for, say less than two minutes. Point is, if you've gone in gung ho blown up things all over the place, set off the alarms at least once and generally made a big noise, then when the helicopter flies in to pull you out you get an opportunity to take out the mechs/troops/whatever that have just arrived specifically to prevent your escape.

However if you've specifically avoided setting off the alarms, or even avoided killing anyone, then the departure would be silent and you'd probably get the pilot quipping about how you must think your a ninja or something (IE just as the gung ho player gets his brief shooting gallery reward, the stealth player gets a comedy award and/or other rewards that further support the playstyle, like the armoury seargent giving you extra lockpicks). The beauty of it is that by choosing your playstyle, the departure from the location changes based on your preferred playstyle.

What I certainly wasn't suggesting was a whole level consisting of just firing stuff from the helicopter, which is more something we've seen in CoD4, but which, as you rightly point out, doesn't actually belong in Deus Ex 3.

GruntOwner
2nd Apr 2008, 23:02
I'm not sure where this delusion that mech walker based vehicles such as power armour or walkers being economically/tactically viab;e came from, but for heaven's sake, it's wrong. In an urban environment, which is where DX3 will take place, otherwise it's not a true DX game, you want normal wheels or tracks. The costs to strengthen the legs sufficiently would be a waste, not impossible with nano tech but still useless, and it's too obvious a weakpoint. Now I won't say anything else on this subject if anyone can give me a reasonable answer to the following questions:

Why bother? They'll take precious time to code and will only serve to take up the player's time with useless control features and huge maps to justify them, which is just damn stupid if there are only 2 places with any real bebfit to visiting.
How would you balance it? With everyone ranting about them beong a choice, what will stop it being a sinplke question of "do you want to make your life harder?". I can slave away in the sewers and airvents for 30 minutes, or I can crash through the front door with a 4x4. hmm.
Will it add anything to the character for him to have a bike or other vehicle? "Wow JC, you've got a bike, that would totally make you look like more of a badass in the 80s. Would you like hydrolics and neons with that?"

Vasarto
3rd Apr 2008, 03:30
I'm not sure where this delusion that mech walker based vehicles such as power armour or walkers being economically/tactically viab;e came from, but for heaven's sake, it's wrong. In an urban environment, which is where DX3 will take place, otherwise it's not a true DX game, you want normal wheels or tracks. The costs to strengthen the legs sufficiently would be a waste, not impossible with nano tech but still useless, and it's too obvious a weakpoint. Now I won't say anything else on this subject if anyone can give me a reasonable answer to the following questions:

Why bother? They'll take precious time to code and will only serve to take up the player's time with useless control features and huge maps to justify them, which is just damn stupid if there are only 2 places with any real bebfit to visiting.
How would you balance it? With everyone ranting about them beong a choice, what will stop it being a sinplke question of "do you want to make your life harder?". I can slave away in the sewers and airvents for 30 minutes, or I can crash through the front door with a 4x4. hmm.
Will it add anything to the character for him to have a bike or other vehicle? "Wow JC, you've got a bike, that would totally make you look like more of a badass in the 80s. Would you like hydrolics and neons with that?"


So in other words...no vehicles?

Inane Mythos
3rd Apr 2008, 03:48
No vehicles please, it'd ruin gameplay.

Deus Ex is mostly set in cities or urban towns, not deserts and the country side, implimenting vehicles would be just a waste of time. For one you'd crash into every building you saw and if we had a car chase on a busy road then the game would become a racing game.

Vehicles can enhance gameplay but not for every game. Sometimes less is more.

Vasarto
3rd Apr 2008, 18:02
No vehicles please, it'd ruin gameplay.

Deus Ex is mostly set in cities or urban towns, not deserts and the country side, implimenting vehicles would be just a waste of time. For one you'd crash into every building you saw and if we had a car chase on a busy road then the game would become a racing game.

Vehicles can enhance gameplay but not for every game. Sometimes less is more.

hmm...ya I guess your right! Thinking it over I guess Vehicles would kinda ruin the deus ex flavour.

Blade_hunter
3rd Apr 2008, 21:27
I don't think this is a waste of time because some players wants vehicles even some doesn't wants them. For this reason I propose to use them as an option, because if the player wants to use them they can use them and if them does'nt like vehicles driving or something like this they can avoid the vehicles!
For the Items it's the same when you don't like an item you trow it and leave it from your inventory
For the vehicles it's the same

The vehicles adds immesion to the game and new possibilities. I want a long game... If we can made huge levels it's possible.
The vehicles are not a simple shortcut of an other way and in places where you can use them some ennemies are armed against your vehicle or fire some weak points of the vehicle to neutralize it and eliminate you in DX 1 the mechs are a sort of vehicles but they are autonomous and they have a poor AI
Some vehicles can be neutralised with a simple pistol, or EMP devices, a flamethrower on the fuel tank does a good result, the rocket launcher and bombs destroy the vehicle, you can throw some nails or prepare a trap with nails to destroy the tires of the vehicle.
You can neutralize a vehicle with no items too; we can empty the fuel tank or if we have some products we add them to the fuel tank and the vehicle is unable to be used.
We can throw a bomb or kill the driver with a throwing knife .... We can throw Oil on the ground Or freeze the ground with a biomod ....
some ennemies can do some things against vehicles and the vehicles arn't an ultimate way ...

The vehicles are more useful on out doors, but in some places we can use only a rollerskate or something like this ...

The motorized vehicles needs fuel, the unmotorized does'nt need fuel

For me the vehicle is a part of the decoration and a tool that we can use or not

Larington
4th Apr 2008, 20:31
Ok, I can see a trend emerging here, we have the people who have convinced themselves that the game should have drivable vehicles in it, and the people who have convinced themselves that there should not be drivable vehicles in it. I can only see the continuation of this thread going around in circles, so, lets try and think outside the circle, eh?

Lest this thread become pointless, because really, its up to the devs to decide and far as I can guess all the arguments for and against imaginable have now been suggested so theres nothing new to add in this circle.

Blade_hunter
5th Apr 2008, 08:57
I think no of us have sufficient arguments to convince each part as you say;
I have my own vision of the vehicles for the game and some people in favor for vehicles have influanced me and the fact in DX 1 some vehicles are unable to be used and (I've thinked oh It's cool if I can move the vehicle ...)
I know the development of a vehicles system in the game takes time, because vehicles have physics, maybe distort/breakable parts, functions, models ....
The AI have knowledge about vehicles it takes time developement .....

Some people wants only a Travel system In DX 1 we have some parts of this but It's only a way to change levels

Some people against the vehicles says, It's waste of time (because I think they don't want drive them), the game isn't GTA, It's ruin the gameplay, DX is only an indoor game and some others arguments over there

Maybe if a game dev speak over there it can clarify something but sometime the devs says no ideas are bad it depend of their implementation .... and they take a decision but we know it only when we have some news ....

minus0ne
6th Apr 2008, 08:23
Bladehunter - the developers can not both make vehicles an integral part of the gameplay and at the same time make it superfluous for those who do not want to drive them.

It takes them a fair bit of resources to incorporate even basic vehicle functionality in the game, let alone what you're proposing (even Crysis, BF2 or HL2 don't go that far). However it does not suit the game. If you will take a step back and look at the dystopian world that is DX, you'll notice car wrecks - yes, however no traffic (the exception being the boats in HK and military vehicles, even though the latter are immobile). This is probably more than just the result of a technical limitation. DX is a dystopian world (prequel or sequel alike) where resources are limited and allocated to the 'lucky' few (the technocrats and what have you). In such a world cars aren't as 'normal' as they are in our everyday life, least of all in urban landscapes.

And even if they were to make a DX gameworld the size of for example Oblivion's game world (which they won't), what's a car got on a black heli (very fast) or maglev (dito)?

Blade_hunter
6th Apr 2008, 15:49
In the first DX I hundertand why the vehicles arn't drivable. I agree your argument because as you say of the technical limitations and DX 1 is good without driving vehicles and the places arn't maded for them.
In time when they maded DX 1 the vehicles are something useless ....
(We have some games before the 2000's uses vehicles Shadow Warrior/Sin and their uses are very limited but enjoyable in sometimes)
But in a future game (prequel or sequel) they can add them because the game engines support the vehicles or something like this and we must go forward not on rear as DX 2 goes in therm of gameplay (Most of RPG elements disapeared and the size of the levels are tiny compared at the first game).
If I think it's good for the game it's because it enrich the gameplay the vehicles can be used by you or the NPC's and a vehicle ennemy gives an other strategies to the game.
The vehicles are an option for us only as the other items were in DX.
They arn't "superfluous" because they are inside the game and it makes some transports valuable like a bus or a taxi. if you won't drive ...
The driving option is only for the player .... like to choose to use an item rather an other.
In the first game I never use the plasma rifle because I think this weapon isn't effective but it's inside and my ennemies use this weapon ...
In a very large area the vehicles can enrich the gameplay because the vehicles are an other tool to use. For me the vehicles arn't inside the game to be useless, but I don't want a game that forces the players to use a specific item even the vehicles. (In Red faction for exemple in some levels you are forced to use the vehicles or in the sequel they are a sequence ......)
The vehicles can help in certain situations but the vehicles are only a tool like an other
The explosive barrels/TNT crates are a tool too and you use them only if you want to use them.
I don't know if anyone hundertands what exacly I think about the vehicles and they're uses.
A jet pack is a vehicle and we can go in places where we can't go with only our feets without dealing with the guards or if you don't want go on the underground where there are traps and security bots for exemple in this case this vehicle is an option, isn't it ?
Ok, my proposal is ambitious I knew it and I always recognize it; but it isn't for that the game will be bad or it takes ressources for useless functions if it be implemented correctly, uhh ?

GruntOwner
6th Apr 2008, 17:46
The ability to take a vehicle or not does not make it a choice. For it to be a proper choice the options must be equal. Flying over the wall or spending 20 minutes and 6 clips in the sewers in an idiot test. You have not suggested a means of balancing the vehicles against not usiong them, so we're going back to a problem from 2 pages ago. You still haven't adressed the budget and alternative uses issue and ultimately Larington seems to be the only person to make a halpful statement since page 1, and he reamined indifferent.

Blade_hunter
6th Apr 2008, 22:41
The jetpack and other motorized vehicles have limited fuel and they have a resistance this is an inconvenient.
but perhaps my exemples arn't very convincent because they makes the vehicles an more easy solution than use an other alternate way, but the vehicles have they weak points I don't mentioned it in only one post but in a few because for some of us think (It's that I hunderstand) the vehicles are a sort of big armour ... and perhaps the players think here the vehicles are easier than going on feet and think the spirit of the game were lost because all DX games doesn't use drivable vehicles.
Most of FPS's without vehicles when they maded sequels they finally icluded them to the game and give some new stuff to use.
Ok, most of FPS's forget to balance the vehicles and the soldier on foot.
But it can't signify DX 3 doesn't make a balance between each way and sometimes in all DX some ways are harder than others.
If you want I can propose better exemples and perhaps propose other inconvenients, but my english isn't very good as we can see in some posts and it's difficult to explain myself sometimes ....

Vasarto
7th Apr 2008, 02:39
Ok, I can see a trend emerging here, we have the people who have convinced themselves that the game should have drivable vehicles in it, and the people who have convinced themselves that there should not be drivable vehicles in it. I can only see the continuation of this thread going around in circles, so, lets try and think outside the circle, eh?

Lest this thread become pointless, because really, its up to the devs to decide and far as I can guess all the arguments for and against imaginable have now been suggested so theres nothing new to add in this circle.


ya at first vehicles sounded kinda nice but...ehh I forget whom it was but someone said some stuff and now I don't think its such a hot idea after all.

If there are vehicles than I really hope they fit the game and are easy to controll. As long as Deus Ex does not have too much driving involved or
has any chasing missions or run away missions involving the car like DRIVER or MAFIA or GTA. Than I guess I would be ok with it I just wouldn't use the
vehicles.

LeatherJacket
7th Apr 2008, 10:56
I'm not really conviced that vehicles will add much to the gameplay for a game like Deus Ex. Other FPSes add it so as to increase the depth of their standard run-and-gun gameplay. I'd like Deus Ex to focus on creating a world which allows for as much emergent gameplay as possible without wrecking other elements. Vehicles might be quite some work to get right.

However, something like a rare limited-use JetPack item would definitely be fun :). If it lets me swoop and slash through 10 guards with a single slice of the Dragon Tooth, it would be fantastic :D. Things like these while simpler to implement compared to good vehicles they make it very easy for the player to go to places unexpected by the designer (like the LAM climbing in DX1) so puts a lot more restriction for designing the levels. Perhaps they should be restricted to some levels or maximum altitude can be restricted.

pauldenton
7th Apr 2008, 18:24
In the first DX I hundertand why the vehicles arn't drivable. I agree your argument because as you say of the technical limitations and DX 1 is good without driving vehicles and the places arn't maded for them.
In time when they maded DX 1 the vehicles are something useless ....
(We have some games before the 2000's uses vehicles Shadow Warrior/Sin and their uses are very limited but enjoyable in sometimes)
But in a future game (prequel or sequel) they can add them because the game engines support the vehicles or something like this and we must go forward not on rear as DX 2 goes in therm of gameplay (Most of RPG elements disapeared and the size of the levels are tiny compared at the first game).
If I think it's good for the game it's because it enrich the gameplay the vehicles can be used by you or the NPC's and a vehicle ennemy gives an other strategies to the game.
The vehicles are an option for us only as the other items were in DX.
They arn't "superfluous" because they are inside the game and it makes some transports valuable like a bus or a taxi. if you won't drive ...
The driving option is only for the player .... like to choose to use an item rather an other.
In the first game I never use the plasma rifle because I think this weapon isn't effective but it's inside and my ennemies use this weapon ...
In a very large area the vehicles can enrich the gameplay because the vehicles are an other tool to use. For me the vehicles arn't inside the game to be useless, but I don't want a game that forces the players to use a specific item even the vehicles. (In Red faction for exemple in some levels you are forced to use the vehicles or in the sequel they are a sequence ......)
The vehicles can help in certain situations but the vehicles are only a tool like an other
The explosive barrels/TNT crates are a tool too and you use them only if you want to use them.
I don't know if anyone hundertands what exacly I think about the vehicles and they're uses.
A jet pack is a vehicle and we can go in places where we can't go with only our feets without dealing with the guards or if you don't want go on the underground where there are traps and security bots for exemple in this case this vehicle is an option, isn't it ?
Ok, my proposal is ambitious I knew it and I always recognize it; but it isn't for that the game will be bad or it takes ressources for useless functions if it be implemented correctly, uhh ?

bladehunter, your posts are always an intelligent free thinking joy to read.

warren would say he wanted big armed robots in DX and all the naysayers would say `think of the resources` blah blah blah, this game isnt blah blah blah, how could you balance against a crude hulking great robot blah blah blah.

Chemix
8th Apr 2008, 01:13
After reading this board I almost thought I was on the Bioware boards with people complaining about the turret minigames that required them to aim for a couple seconds (I admittedly died the first 3 tries).

Deus Ex had no vehicles that the player could drive because vehicles in 3d games was not feasible at the time and there were much more restrictive limits on level design. Rather than 4 big buildings, we can have dozens now. Night provides a lot of cover to take the load off of mid-tech computers. In the original, making a CITY wasn't possible, so they did what they could with a block and several surrounding half blocks for "hell's kitchen" and it was good, but now they can do so much more. Hopefully, there won't be only hundred foot stretches of road, so vehicles will have more use. Imagine a real military base, with active humvees and jeeps and possibly even tanks, or SWAT trucks and riot police. Having no vehicles just doesn't make sense. They don't have to be an integral part of the game, just something there for the sake of being given that option. I mean, hell, we can read a good section of book, but we can't drive a car? We can save prostitutes and help families get back together, but we can't sit on a subway car and do something? Actions speak louder than words in most cases, but if you like to talk, then you can talk. I'll drive, then talk, then drive again.

My hopes that will be smashed:
- to drive a tank in Deus Ex 3
-to fly at some point

WhatsHisFace
8th Apr 2008, 03:17
You guys want hover roller blades in a Deus Ex game? What are you smoking?

Deus Ex hasn't had any vehicles so far, and has done just fine without them. Deus Ex 3 doesn't need to be a Halo clone, KTHXBYE.

GruntOwner
8th Apr 2008, 14:58
Just because we can have levels the size of a real city it doesn't mean that we should. no one has actually devised a good solution to the resources and time that would be better spent on fluff, and people seem to think that instead of 4 or 5 places of significance with a bit of room between them, there should be a whole damn city with 4 or 5 places of significance. Can someone justify this without saying how they want to drive around to avoid police or just drive around to relax becuase they cba to get the GTA game they so evidently require. Whereas the levls should be larger than IW, the levels in DX were to perfect size. They were easy to navigate by landmarks and could be explored at a casual pace with all relevant buildings withina small distance of eachother. What people seem to want is a whole city with forced driving sections to get to the next useful area which is half way across the bloated map. The small areas were appropriate for the feeling of the game. The gray death would mean urban areas would be quarenteened to an extent to reduce to spread of the disease, Hong Kong was an embodiment of the theme of xenophobia, and the rest and Paris was under martial law with the metro down to hellp enforce the curfew. A dystopian hell hole won't be very convincing if I can find a working car every few metres, and if they're not every few metres then they'll be god awful forced driving sections. If people want to drive around because they like to drive casually, get GTA, if people want vehicles to stomp around killing people, get Battlefield, and if people want vehicles for the sole purpose of justifying processor rapage through unnecessary mapping, get a flight sim. There is no way to balance them against going on foot from what has been seen here if they were to be a choice, and there is no way of making them a "choice" with huge maps that demand driving for 5 minutes just to show that the game has pretty lighting effects and give the player on opurtunity to accidently hit an NPC causing him to become a target.

Blade_hunter
8th Apr 2008, 18:33
I don't know why if this game get some vehicles and a sort of living city it become GTA or only the vehicles and become halo; I'm sorry beu the firsts games that introduce vehicles in a 3D game aren't one of these.
The first 3d game with vehicles I think was Sin (1998) the physics arn't advanced and the PC's are not very powerful at this time.
GTA is GTA it has it's own ambient and own spirit; Halo is a sort of mix between 4 FPS created before ....
And these games haven't DX features you can't infiltrate you must kill to progress.
In GTA SA they adds a sort of RPG elements * la Dungeon siège an the gamers like these new options because it's new to this game and have something fun.

To avoid driving we can use the subway's as in DX 1 we can use the metro to go between different points of a city it's because we are on a huge area thats force the player to drive a vehicle.
To change place when they are far we have the Black Chopper, metro, boat and something like this.
You can use your speed enhancement if you won't use vehicles and run on foot.
We can use a travelator (moving walkway) as a new mean of as a futuristic mean of transportation and can be used to reach some plces in less time than roller skate
I found a video about an experimental travelator in Paris
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJN1X3LeJw
http://www.navily.net/testeur.php

and I found some designs about futuristic cycles
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/5019/vsdvelofuture2qy0.jpg

And inside of one level we can find places where vehicles can't go as some places in DX 1

The first word is the choice, not the
"Oh cheat, We are in huge levels and the vehicles are the only mean to reach a point quickly, I don't like them :mad2:"

I've proposed more than one alternate choice and some people too ...
There are some existing means and new

dxfan94
8th Apr 2008, 21:06
Im sorry but this is not a good idea. The first 2 games were great. i loved walking around making me explore. but things like the inclanator can help. NO VEHICLES PLEASE~~!!!

Nathan2000
8th Apr 2008, 22:34
There is no way to balance them against going on foot

When there is no way, we can always make a path.

Let's say, that we are in Paris at a time of martial law. MJ12 troops have created guard posts, streets are patroled by military bots and there is a buggy with a searchlight making circles around the area (so it is very similar to original Deus Ex). It is very dificult to navigate between guards so we are given a choice to eliminate them. If we capture the buggy, we'll aquire a powerful machine gun, we can attack the troops with. Its drawback is that we can forget about stealthy aproach and our vehicle is a perfect target for commandos' rockets.When we fight bots, it is even better to get out, since they have much stronger armor and higher firepower than us. Finally, because of the buggy's bulkyness, we can't go through all passages.

Oh didn't I mention that we can't use our augmentations while driving? Activating most of them in a vehicle would make no sense, anyway. Does that make the choices equal enough?

I suspect, that combat is the only area, where vehicles are useful, but it is part of Deus Ex, too.

gamer0004
10th Apr 2008, 16:29
Thank you for proving the point that vehicles should not be implemented in DX.
I would always get the buggy (even though I normally go for the more stealthy approach) as it's way more powerfull (it would make killing very easy), way faster (so you could easily evade all rockets) and would protect you. Not IRL but in games it always does.
When you'd walk you would be more vulnerable, slower and slightly harder to hit, but as bots can detect your body heat that would not make any difference.

Blade_hunter
10th Apr 2008, 17:22
When you are on foot you can move with less restriction than vehicles, some vehicles are fast like a buggy, but some others like a truck or enventually a tank are slow and easier to shoot.
Don't say the vehicles are ultimate and you can be killed even if you are inside the vehicle. How ? Most vehicles have a window that allows you can be killed inside the vehicle and the vehicle still not destroyed.
and if your vehicle is destroyed and explode you're dead ...
The buggy is fast and can avoid some rockets, but not all when you go at full speed on a direction because your ennemy has fired rockets when you uses your brakes or try to turn quickly your vehicle does a certain trajectory and can be hit and destroyed more quickly.
We can balance the vehicles and players on foot.
The vehicles aren't an ultimate way
Even if your ennemies uses only pistols they can neutralize/kill you with chances;
Even if in outdoors we have roads, sometimes little pathes are a faster way to reach a position;
Even if we can drive we can use the travel network to reach a point on a city;
Even if we are inside a vehicle the vehicle is not a complete shield;
Even if they exits most of them are useless inside a building;
Even if they have a weapon they have ammo and the ammo can limit the use of the vehicles weapon;
Even if the vehicle is a tank the ennemies are armed against the tank with anti tank weapons like EMP, anti armor, explosives weapons.
Even the vehicles are armored, they make noise and can be detected easily.
Even the vehicles are fast they needs fuel and have restrictions like their size, their manoeuvrabiliy, their crossing abiliy.
In all situations we can balance them

And don't forget in DX most way's can allow's you to win against a situation
Stealth, Brute force, Silent attack

gamer0004
10th Apr 2008, 19:20
When you are on foot you can move with less restriction than vehicles, some vehicles are fast like a buggy, but some others like a truck or enventually a tank are slow and easier to shoot.
Don't say the vehicles are ultimate and you can be killed even if you are inside the vehicle. How ? Most vehicles have a window that allows you can be killed inside the vehicle and the vehicle still not destroyed.
and if your vehicle is destroyed and explode you're dead ...
The buggy is fast and can avoid some rockets, but not all when you go at full speed on a direction because your ennemy has fired rockets when you uses your brakes or try to turn quickly your vehicle does a certain trajectory and can be hit and destroyed more quickly.
We can balance the vehicles and players on foot.
The vehicles aren't an ultimate way
Even if your ennemies uses only pistols they can neutralize/kill you with chances;
Even if in outdoors we have roads, sometimes little pathes are a faster way to reach a position;
Even if we can drive we can use the travel network to reach a point on a city;
Even if we are inside a vehicle the vehicle is not a complete shield;
Even if they exits most of them are useless inside a building;
Even if they have a weapon they have ammo and the ammo can limit the use of the vehicles weapon;
Even if the vehicle is a tank the ennemies are armed against the tank with anti tank weapons like EMP, anti armor, explosives weapons.
Even the vehicles are armored, they make noise and can be detected easily.
Even the vehicles are fast they needs fuel and have restrictions like their size, their manoeuvrabiliy, their crossing abiliy.
In all situations we can balance them

And don't forget in DX most way's can allow's you to win against a situation
Stealth, Brute force, Silent attack

Yes, IRL, vehicles are not that overpowered. Still, they're way better than moving on foot, but nm that now.
"A vehicle is not a complete shield." True, but in games they are (in fact, a car wouldn't protect you AT ALL against firearms). And I'm faitly sure that if vehicles are implemented they won't be realistic. For that you'd need über physics combined with an enormous additional amount of programming to get that right (you're not completely visible in a vehicle, so it would affect the accuracy of the enemy, the amount of damage of crashing into buildings etc.). To get it all balanced out they'd have to make vehicles less overpowered than IRL (where vehicles are always preferable unless under special circumstances), which would probably feel very forced. In games where vehicles are implemented right there are always lots of restrictions, and if not it gets overpowerd (as in project: snowblind for instance). Very often it is shooting-on-rails, or you have to drive from point A to point B and after that you can't drive anymore and so on.
(Battlefield 2 is a good example too BTW. It is very, very easy to use a tank and kill everyone with it. Yes, you CAN be killed when you're inside a tank, but you can kill so many more enemies before you die, so a tank is always prefered above being moral infantry. If you get the tank every time you spawn you will always end up at the top 5, even when you're a really bad gamer.)
So you'd be forced to drive, either because it's overpowered or it simply isn't possible to do on foot. So yes maybe it's possible to sneak out of it. But when shoooting is so much easier and consumes less rescources (like infinite ammo... or ammo from the car that you can only use with the machine gun of the car so it'd be a waste of ammo if you'd not use it), people almost feel forced to do it that way. And that's not how it should be done in a game like DX.

GruntOwner
10th Apr 2008, 19:25
The speed aug: why would I want to spend bio energy just because someone wanted a car with no positive effect on gameplay.
No one has managed to justify having huge levels bar showing vehicles off, so we're gonna have huge annoying maps which are awfward to navigate, and basically a far cry form the claustraphobic, justifiabley quarinteened areas. Smaller ares made DX great, they were perfect for the themes and history. There are no reasons to have vehicles, they can't be balanced because I don't what fuel you're using but I don't know any cars that explode under fire. Feel free to counter any of the other objections made over the course of this thread that have gone ignored because they were too logical for you, which is kind of embarressing in some cases.

Blade_hunter
11th Apr 2008, 13:51
In battlefield they are a perhaps a complete shield (I never played to this game) , but in UT 2004 - UT 3 you can shot the driver and the gunner with the sniper rifle or an other weapon, not in every vehicle but in some of them.
The vehicles allows some things you can't do on foot, but on foot you can do some things you can't do with a vehicle.
It's not because some games use overpowered vehicles that allows DX makes the same as battlefield
Ok it allows to uses some ressources, but when you make a car, you can make dozens of them because a car like a city car or a sport car have the same structure, the only differences are the parameters ...
It's not because they made DX 2 that allows DX 3 uses smaller areas the exploration is one of things that mades DX great not small areas ...
And the areas in this game must be larger than the previous games ....
For me the graphics aren't the most important thing, DX 1 have not bad graphics, but it's not better than some older games, but the gameplay of this game is better than games maded before and after.
Yes it's logical for me because we must put the game one forward, not make a game with smaller levels, less items, less biomods, less interractivity and less other elements.
Our PC's now have sufficient power for playing a game with enhanced stuff.
When DX 1 were created, this game uses some ressources more than the base engine game
200 Mhz for UT 99 and 300 Mhz for DX
The graphics is something better in UT but in DX we have larger areas, better physics than all games created before, better interracivity (better than half life for exemple).
Some new stuff are needed for the game but for me the time of making vehicles; it's a waste of time or a time for create an useless stuff or it takes ressources for me it's not a true argument because the base engine of tomb raider underworld have this feature inside the game and even if the game uses an other game engine like the source engine, unreal engine 3 or the cry engine 2;
These games allows the use of vehicles and have a good physics engine.
I don't say the vehicles are essential for the game but they enrich the gameplay if they are inside the game

GruntOwner
11th Apr 2008, 14:32
They'll be using the Crystal Dtnamic Engine, but that's still no excuse to have huge levels just for the sake of it. The levels must be engrossing, which is a lot easier if they're smaller as you can get to know the area like a seocnd home ion a short amount of time. Smaller ares reflected the themes as I've said before and huge levels will make copy/paste mapping unescapable. The levels should be reasonabley sized, but not so big that you need vehicles or augmentations to get around.

Larington
11th Apr 2008, 17:20
Personally, I found the market district/versalife section of the game to have about the right sort of size, plenty of room for hidden nooks and crannies and things to do that are off the beaten track. Heres hoping we see plenty of locations with that sort of scale to them - Though obviously, only if it makes sense to set it up that way, a particular area might suffer for being too big depending on its importance in the plot and such.

Blade_hunter
11th Apr 2008, 19:19
For me greater levels allows less loading screen, more immersion, more exploration and allows to choose if we want to use vehicles or not.
In DX 1 the vehicles are only used to change levels or be a decoration, In DX 3 We can go much forward using travel network with all stuff it can allows on the game. and we can use everything.
You don't need to drive or use vehicles because as I say and others says we can use other means.
In prequel or sequel it can be used because before DX 1 the world is in better state than DX 1 is and in a sequel after DX 1 or 2 it can be a reborn of an other era ...

mike-rs
12th Apr 2008, 09:19
I'm surprised that this is still going on, but then again I'm not.

I still find it amazing that people think that vehicles are possible and or a benefit to a game that is structured around immersion.

Let us all look at what a vehicle is first and then decide how is is possible to include something of its scale in a game that, let's face it, we want the most exploration possibilities.

A small vehicle is about 2-3 metres long and 1-2 metres wide, a small car for instance. Even a small car will accelerate faster then people can run, will top out at speeds much greater then an augmented character and to be fair to the people who spent many hours developing it would need at least 1km of road or more to justify its use. That's a lot. Seriously, a lot of road. Even in the biggest maps on Deus Ex the original such as Paris or the Statue of Liberty there wasn't this much road space. I mean Paris only had 1 street in it anyway and that was not worth it. New York would have been a silly place since even there the car would not have made sense because all you could do is go in circles.

Yes, the immersion aspect of the game suggest that there should be vehicles, but it also suggest that NPC's should know more then three responses to you trying to talk to them, that every computer shouldn't look the same. That every employee, guard and soldier shouldn't be the same model with some different lines that if clicked on enough will say the exact same thing as every other one. How about resolving 1 problem at a time.

I admit, it could be cool to have vehicles, and they would add some different aspects to the game play. But how about you just make them as complex as they are in real life. I am a car driver and I am not about to jump into a tank and start driving it, I would probably destroy the clutch or whatever they have. Just make it that the character never learnt to drive and leave it at that.

But even after this comment the debate will continue. Personally I don't understand it, but I am a uni student so walking back and forth across a campus, into the city for lunch and then back to get some more work done; probably only 2km is normal. Maybe if you have forgotten what legs are used for then a jetpack or segway or car is a necessary part of your life. Somehow I think an augmented super soldier has the capacity to walk, but maybe I'm wrong on this too.

Just another rambling
Mike-rs

Chemix
12th Apr 2008, 10:33
Walking is an option, but it shouldn't be the only option as hopefully this game will have bigger levels than the first (and by that, much bigger levels than the second, which had smaller levels than the first). It adds more gameplay options and provides possible side missions. Imagine using a car to get away from an angry mob of "purists" or get fellow auged people to safety. There are various scenarios where a car is far more useful than running, though it isn't exactly stealthy

Inane Mythos
14th Apr 2008, 04:08
I always thought of the speed Aug as a alternative device to Vehicles. At top level you can move pretty fast and not get hit by bullets, you can use it indoors and outdoors, you can use your weapon while running, you can can take cover at anytime with it on etc.

You don't have to install the Aug, but you have a choice.

Is that not a fair balance?

[Edit]

Also, if you add vehicles you've got to make a bigger map with roads (In Deus Ex anyway), which means you've got to add pedestrians to those streets. What does the game become? GTA. And why? Because It's fact that there are people going to run over pedestrians given the chance. If you make pedestrians invincible to getting run-over then you'll get people complaining that Immersion is broken.

So really the Speed Aug is the Balance and the answer to the vehicles question.

Chemix
14th Apr 2008, 09:49
perhaps there should be consequences for running over pedestrians, like in real life.

Voltaire
14th Apr 2008, 10:22
perhaps there should be consequences for running over pedestrians, like in real life.

But this would lend itself even more to the GTA school of thinking. The devs would be childish to put in vehicles, in my opinion, because it wouldn't be a real RPG anymore would it? :scratch:

Let's face it, DX is just a first-person cyberpunk RPG... not an FPS at all. Adding "vehicules" would negate the genre.

Dave W
14th Apr 2008, 10:53
But this would lend itself even more to the GTA school of thinking. The devs would be childish to put in vehicles, in my opinion, because it wouldn't be a real RPG anymore would it? :scratch:

Let's face it, DX is just a first-person cyberpunk RPG... not an FPS at all. Adding "vehicules" would negate the genre.
Why wouldn't it be a 'real RPG' anymore? Nothing about the RPG genre stops vehicles being part of the game. And Deus Ex IS an FPS/RPG, I don't see what the possible 'cyberpunk' element has to do with the gameplay in the slightest. Not only that but vehicles are still heavily involved in the cyberpunk genre.

Voltaire
14th Apr 2008, 12:37
Nothing about the RPG genre stops vehicles being part of the game. And Deus Ex IS an FPS/RPG, I don't see what the possible 'cyberpunk' element has to do with the gameplay in the slightest. Not only that but vehicles are still heavily involved in the cyberpunk genre.

Maybe I should have made myself clearer. I don't see how vehicles could be implemented responsibly by the devs into a game that relies so much on its immersive atmosphere and at least some believability. I can't think of any RPG game full of non-combative NPCs that feature player-controlled vehicles.

If vehicles were to be involved, they might have to be used in "set-piece" environments seen more commonly in FPSs, and that's really not what most DX fans want :(

Blade_hunter
14th Apr 2008, 12:59
The game isn't an RPG; it isn't an FPS; it isn't an adventure game and it isn't an infiltration game.
This game is the four genres at once.
It's an adventure game because you can explore and you have some control on the story.
It's an infitration game because you can beat a mission with no kills or kill only one NPC and the level design is maded to do it.
The game is an FPS because you play as an FPS and uses weapons like an FPS.
The game is an RPG because you have skills, because you earn experience, because you have an inventory and because you can talk to most NPC's in the game



DX was born because some wants to win without to be good on FPS game and keep the FPS par for the players that wanted to kill.
Each part aren't pushed to the extreme part, but mixed at once they still enjoyable and fun to play

In fact I agree with Dave W post the game isn't one genre

But the question isn't about the presence of the vehicles themselves, and some vehicles to chenge levels are good because they are in the previous games and they add a sort of immersion to the DX universe and is a good pretext to go far away.
It's more if we can drive them or not.

And use a vehicle with pedestrians on their walkway can be immersive
I don't think the DX NPC's will get stupid to run in front of your vehicle to be crushed because they are invicible.
I don't want Invincible NPC's, the NPC's if they saw you running in full speed to them they try to avoid your car.
And if you crush them it's because you want to crush them no ?

In DX 1 when I tried to kill a big bot with the LAW and it was a NPC near him; the NPC doesn't move and be transformed in pieces of meat because in DX 1 the AI wasn't very advanced and the NPC continued to be quiet.
THe game is old and I can hunderstand this thing; In a game like DX 3 I don't think they will made a poor AI ....

Nathan2000
15th Apr 2008, 08:28
Also, if you add vehicles you've got to make a bigger map with roads (In Deus Ex anyway), which means you've got to add pedestrians to those streets. What does the game become? GTA. And why? Because It's fact that there are people going to run over pedestrians given the chance. If you make pedestrians invincible to getting run-over then you'll get people complaining that Immersion is broken.

So really the Speed Aug is the Balance and the answer to the vehicles question.

Deus Ex already has maps with streets and already has pedestrians. It gives us freedom to make our own decisions on how we play it. Some decisions increase immersion, some reduce it, just like in "non-computer" RPG. For example, we can choose to kill everybody in sight, including enemies, civilians and police. What does the game become? Postal. Do we think, the devs should prevent it? No.

And the Speed Enhancement is not an answer to vehicles just like sniper rifle isn't a replacement to rocket launcher. They can be used to solve the same problem, but they are totally different.

Fen
15th Apr 2008, 09:30
Vehicles should exist in deus ex 3. But should not be drivable. This just leads to problems.

A car for example, requires that a person has to travel a long enough distance for the car to be worthwhile. Meaning, there is a huge amount of map that the developers have to add. And all your doing is zooming straight past it. Remember in dues ex, the maps are filled with hidden areas, vent shafts etc. This level of detail would be impossible with levels designed for vehicle transport,

Then we have the problem, or where do the vehicles fit? Would they be something that you use commonly? Or would there be a "car level". The first option would degrade gameplay experience, and the second option would just be a gimick.

Vehicles should be something in dues ex. But they should follow the same path as they have in the previous games. A subway system that you can use to travel around, a helicoptor pilot which could take you places etc. Thats the type of transport that should be used in Dues ex 3. (Also, with the travelling, I think it might add to realism that instead of getting in and then getting a loading sequence, that there actually was travel involved)

Blade_hunter
15th Apr 2008, 12:05
The presence of vehicles don't justify the levels detail, because In DX 1 the some lvels have the sufficient size to get them, the second reason it's. I have played an old game caled Outcast. this game was maded in 1999, this game have huge levels at number of 8 this game use animals for transportation in (DX vehicles) the animals are optional to use, you can play the game on foot, you can speak to NPC's you can fight in first person view if you want (the game was a third person shooter) the levels have some detail and this game was a good experience.
Why a modern game like DX 3 haven't technologies to use Huge levels ?
The computers can use these features
STALKER, has vehicles in game, I never play this game (I see videos on the web), but I see this game is close to DX gameplay concept in some facts
And You talk about a car level, I (and others people favorable to vehicles) never speak about a car level, the vehicles are an integrate part of the landscape. And you can use them as an option.
And why an option will degrade the gameplay ?
Most games with vehicles have enhanced details look at crysis
The only vehicles you are forced to use it's the connection between levels like DX 1
The others inside the city are optional to drive, but present
If you are on a desert or a place with less vehicles and no traffic you can find other means and eventually animals.
DX 3 to be great must have innovations on it like the first game does.
DX 2 was a failure because the gameplay of the first title will be reduced in the sequel. (the physics and graphics are better, but the other good things are disappeared or included to the biomod system).

Blade_hunter
15th Apr 2008, 12:06
Deus Ex already has maps with streets and already has pedestrians. It gives us freedom to make our own decisions on how we play it. Some decisions enforce immersion, some reduce it, just like in "non-computer" RPG. For example, we can choose to kill everybody in sight, including enemies, civilians and police. What does the game become? Postal. Do we think, the devs should prevent it? No.

And the Speed Enhancement is not an answer to vehicles just like sniper rifle isn't a replacement to rocket launcher. They can be used to solve the same problem, but they are totally different.

Good post I agree with

Xcom
15th Apr 2008, 12:35
I have played an old game caled Outcast. this game was maded in 1999, this game have huge levels at number of 8 this game use animals for transportation in (DX vehicles) the animals are optional to use, you can play the game on foot, you can speak to NPC's you can fight in first person view if you want (the game was a third person shooter) the levels have some detail and this game was a good experience.

I remember Outcast. It was pretty cool. In Omkiron, there were also vehicles (hovercrafts).

http://img219.imagevenue.com/loc409/th_64517_omikron001_122_409lo.jpg (http://img219.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=64517_omikron001_122_409lo.jpg)http://img121.imagevenue.com/loc1018/th_64519_omikron002_122_1018lo.jpg (http://img121.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=64519_omikron002_122_1018lo.jpg)http://img155.imagevenue.com/loc1103/th_64524_omikron003_122_1103lo.jpg (http://img155.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=64524_omikron003_122_1103lo.jpg)

Those vehicles were kind of semi-drivable. You could get in, punch in a destination and would take there (real-time) or you could take manual control and drive yourself. You couldn't, however, drive onto the sidewalk and run over pedestrians because of special, alien Sci-Fi safety feature. :p

Inane Mythos
15th Apr 2008, 19:58
Deus Ex already has maps with streets and already has pedestrians. It gives us freedom to make our own decisions on how we play it. Some decisions increase immersion, some reduce it, just like in "non-computer" RPG. For example, we can choose to kill everybody in sight, including enemies, civilians and police. What does the game become? Postal. Do we think, the devs should prevent it? No.

And the Speed Enhancement is not an answer to vehicles just like sniper rifle isn't a replacement to rocket launcher. They can be used to solve the same problem, but they are totally different.
I don't think you're quite getting the point.

I'm all up for freedom, but when a game involves a Hero of sorts, you don't expect him to be running people over. When you played Deus Ex did you go around slaughtering civillians? I didn't and that's because my role in the game was a peace keeper at first and then when I turned over to the NSF I was uncovering a plot. GTA and games where you play as an anti-hero or bad guy, you would end up killing civillians.

And your point on the Sniper Rifle not replacing the GEP gun is absolutely right. BUT you fail to see why. Sniper Rifles are used for long-range targets and GEP guns are used for say Robots and Heavy militia, that IS their purpose. Sure you can use a GEP gun on a single soldier and nobody's stopping you but a vehicle is totally different.
Both the Speed Aug and a Vehicle get you from Point A to Point B faster than walking. A vehicle is big and has massive limitations and for it you'd have to built the level around the Vehicle. The Speed aug is built into you, let's you jump farther and is optional to install.

Why do people NEED vehicles in a game where there are other options?

Blade_hunter
15th Apr 2008, 20:39
Because we want more choice more strategy's and in a vehicle we aren't unstoppable.
More choice is more freedom DX 1 adds some freedom in exploration
I think in DX 3 we can have more freedom than the previous games

GTA is GTA and stay GTA as you say in GTA the fun in this game is killing or try to get the maximum stars and challenge the police

It's not because we have the speed enhancement thats makes the vehicles awful or useless, some players doesn't use the speed enhancement for example,
The vehicles are only an alternate choice and it's madded to go on roads.
The vehicles have their own uses

If we have some enemy NPC's inside a vehicle Unlike a bot you can use the sniper rifle or your simple pistol to neutralize it.
How ?
You fire on the tires they explode and the vehicle becomes useless
You fire on the window you break the window or kill the driver if you use a sniper rifle
Against a bot you can't made it, and if you are in a vehicle you have the same weak points.

Vehicle = more strategy's (It depends how we introduce it.)

I remember an old game called soldier of fortune on a train level you fight an attack chopper and you put a bullet in the driver's head the chopper is going on a few directions and explode when it reaches the ground.

If we have vehicles, bots, mutants, humans this add more strategy's
And to break a vehicle without the GEP gun you can with the shotgun and use the sabot ammo, and if you are on a vehicle and some NPC's uses a shotgun with this ammo, you can die and they have a medium weapon
this things makes the sabot ammo more useful.
The EMP grenades becomes more useful too.
If you have a group of vehicles and to avoid the enemy NPC's to use them against you, you throw your grenade, you made your mission inside the building.
When you try to escape, they sound the alarm
The reinforcements are coming.
The coming guard wants to use their vehicles to catch you because you are outside the building. they go inside and they can't go after you !
You can go far away with you speed aug. and disappear quickly.

If the vehicles are inside you and the NPC's can use them, but sometimes it's better to use them or an other moments it's better to go on foot.
The vehicles can't go everywhere, you can go in most locations

Inane Mythos
15th Apr 2008, 21:43
Ah, I see what you mean. So I should be able to go to Mars via Space Shuttle
if I want to? And blow up entire buildings? Nuke a Continent?

[Edit]
For the record, I'm not against Vehicles in all games. Just Deus Ex. I'm not arguing for the sakes of arguing. ;)

Nathan2000
16th Apr 2008, 11:43
I'm all up for freedom, but when a game involves a Hero of sorts, you don't expect him to be running people over. When you played Deus Ex did you go around slaughtering civillians?
I didn't do that as well, and I'm not going to kill them with vehicles. I have no idea why you think, my attitude would change if the vehicles are in the game. Vehicles alone DON'T make a game GTA.



And your point on the Sniper Rifle not replacing the GEP gun is absolutely right. BUT you fail to see why. Sniper Rifles are used for long-range targets and GEP guns are used for say Robots and Heavy militia, that IS their purpose. Sure you can use a GEP gun on a single soldier and nobody's stopping you but a vehicle is totally different.
Both the Speed Aug and a Vehicle get you from Point A to Point B faster than walking. A vehicle is big and has massive limitations and for it you'd have to built the level around the Vehicle. The Speed aug is built into you, let's you jump farther and is optional to install.

As I have already stated, the vehicles would be useful mostly in combat, unless you really make huge GTA-like maps (But this is not a necessity. Look at cars in Project: Snowblind. If they weren't so overpowered, they'd be just an attractive choice opposed to normal weapons). The vehicles and Speed Enhancement aug are as different as the rocket launcher and the sniper rifle, even though they both can be used in quick travel. This was my point.

Inane Mythos
16th Apr 2008, 12:00
I didn't do that as well, and I'm not going to kill them with vehicles. I have no idea why you think, my attitude would change if the vehicles are in the game. Vehicles alone DON'T make a game GTA..
I'm not saying everyone will, but you're going to get a lot of people who will.




As I have already stated, the vehicles would be useful mostly in combat, unless you really make huge GTA-like maps (But this is not a necessity. Look at cars in Project: Snowblind. If they weren't so overpowered, they'd be just an attractive choice opposed to normal weapons). The vehicles and Speed Enhancement aug are as different as the rocket launcher and the sniper rifle, even though they both can be used in quick travel. This was my point.
...And if there isn't large maps and only normal size maps (Normal for DX and games like it) then there wouldn't be any point in vehicles. And how do you use a vehicle as a weapon? Unless you're doing a drive-by? :scratch:

I just don't see the point in them. Games that did use vehicles properly had massive open areas like in HL2's maps but they served a purpose (Get from point A to B mostly). Not to mention making vehicles and coding vehicle friendly environments is a waste of resources better used on something else.

Fen
16th Apr 2008, 15:19
Not to mention making vehicles and coding vehicle friendly environments is a waste of resources better used on something else.

Exactly.

Would you rather an expansive map with cars, or a smaller map, which is chockoblock full of different pathways, secrets etc.

Voltaire
16th Apr 2008, 15:27
Would you rather an expansive map with cars, or a smaller map, which is chockoblock full of different pathways, secrets etc.

How about both? An occasional map that is clearly more "open plan" than a traditional DX map, with some form of transport present. It would make a change from intense levels of crawling around sewers and aquaducts (did I spell that right?)

I still doubt that vehicles would be implemented into a game similar to the first two.

Blade_hunter
17th Apr 2008, 03:46
Bigger maps is not a pretext to give less details into them look at DX 2 the maps are smaller than DX 1 maps the secret passages in DX 2 are in less number than DX 1 and the mean to find them in DX 2 was too easy because the levels are tiny than DX 1 levels
At this point your example doesn't make any sens bigger levels = more secrets ways and more exploration
Vehicles are an other choice to make transportation
To go into a point I don't want a passage with vehicles and you shoot on sight

I think we must considerate the vehicles in DX as a tool like an other weapons like an other tool or like your hack ability in the game
They have other uses and this is the reason to introduce them to the game.

Some vehicles are drivable like for example a car
Some others are a transport sequence or the mean to go far away metro, bus, train, plane, jet, space shuttle and some others like these (these kind of means are integrate part of DX)

The vehicles are balanced because they have weak points
Waste of resources I don't think so, you use them or not this is not a waste of resources because some others gamers wants to use them and they adds more credibility to the DX universe.
you saw some vehicles some traffic this adds some life in the game

auric
18th Apr 2008, 04:48
I don't like the idea of personal vehicles to control, it'll definitely demand too much in graphics & stuff, moving cranes & stuff is sufficient, maybe we get to push cars now, lol

But I wouldn't mind having pick up a skate board to boost speed but it'll be noisy.
:D

Blade_hunter
18th Apr 2008, 15:59
On the streets it's noisy but in a carpet I don't think so

Your idea of moving cranes in good because it can be used for a mission for example or for kill / destroy something with crates .... or make some other uses

For the graphics it doesn't change anything because the game engine has a full vehicle support, for a skate it's only an idea, but the skates isn't my favorite idea but if they are inside the game it could be fun
My favorite things are, the cars, trucks, these thigs are better for outdoor uses and the jetpack ....
I see before a mechanized horse and something like this this kind of idea is original.
The bots they are somewhat a form of vehicles and control them is something the same as you drive a vehicle.
I don't understand why I see the vehicle coding as an argument against the vehicles the game engine has this feature a full vehicle support.
When we used the unreal engine 1 and the second engine they don't have a full vehicle support, and the second game is madded for the Xbox this console reduces the technical possibilities of the game.
Now we have an engine and much powered computers and I can see technical limitations as an argument to give less gameplay things.
I don't see why a more enhanced engine and newer PC's can be limited by this kind of features.
Look at crysis, this game uses good physics and has vehicles ...
You use the items of the game as DX 1 has used and this game is the more beautiful actually produced.
Look at STALKER, this game is closer as DX gameplay this game has good graphics; and the games with the Unreal engine 3 what are they? Awful because they has vehicles inside ? No they have good graphics too.
As Nathan2000 said before we don't need to use the same size as GTA maps , if they are more tiny than GTA maps and greater than DX 1 maps this can add some uses with vehicles and we can keep some detailed indoor levels with a lot of items.

some players talk about balances but in DX 1 when you use a turret against an NPC you are invulnerable and the NPC's never shot the turret.

Some people wants to add a new feature to DX (vehicles) with an optional use, with tactics, other gameplay than games mentioned (GTA, HALO, HL2, BATTLEFIELD) and they continue to give these games as arguments against.
We never wanted DX become the same game as the games mentioned before We proposed to use vehicles and keep the DX style.
Less loading screens, more freedom, more tools and more choices.
This feature adds more manners to use the tools ...
the travel system adds more credibility to the game, the others vehicles too.
If a way for vehicles is closed and after your mission it's now open it makes changes the DX world, and you saw the effect of your actions, these things can be used for the subway's.
For me the game graphics isn't the most important thing (look at SOF 3 this game has good graphics and it's not a good game because the gameplay is bad)
DX 1 haven't a very good graphics when the game was produced and this game was considered to be the best game.
I give my arguments and that is my point. I wait to see more interesting arguments ...

Fen
18th Apr 2008, 17:39
How about both? An occasional map that is clearly more "open plan" than a traditional DX map, with some form of transport present. It would make a change from intense levels of crawling around sewers and aquaducts (did I spell that right?)

I still doubt that vehicles would be implemented into a game similar to the first two.

You cannot have "both". The question doesnt allow it. If you make a map bigger, there will be either less maps, or less detailed maps. Its a tradeoff. Where do you want the devs working? They only have a limited time and workpower, so if you have the same amount of large maps as small maps, the larger maps will eneviatebly be less detailed.

Heres what I see happening if free roam vehicles are added. Suddenly you will have large expansive cities. However in this city, you will be able to enter about 5 buildings. The rest of the city will be just buildings with no interior that you cannot enter.

Instead, you could create smaller areas, and have nearly every building enterable, which is much more immersive. It gives the feeling that you are in a small section of a larger place rather than a city which 99% of doors locked and barred.

Take hells kitchen in deus ex 1 for example. There are a few buildings on the street which are boarded up and cannot be entered. But most of the buildings that you are near, you can. Its a much better system than having expansive areas of nothingness just so you can drive through it.

As for changing DX to a more 'open map' feel. You are really moving away from what makes Dues ex, Dues ex. Sure, a lot of the maps felt a little cramped, but we shouldnt create large cities to compensate. They should expand the maps out a small amount, but not to a size that a car would be required to travel along it.

Also one last thing. Yes cars are a big thing to add to a game. You cannot just casually add in cars. I would much rather the work be put into something much better.

Blade_hunter
18th Apr 2008, 20:06
Larger maps aren't inevitably less detailed, why ? because with larger maps you need a less number of maps than small levels.
DX 1 have some large maps, some details are present to the game. in hells kitchen we have some closed buildings, yes but the game for the time when it's builded the game was revolutionary.
Now a game needs to get more detail and greater size.
In Hitman contracts you have some great maps with some buildings ok you have only 3 or 4 buildings you can penetrate inside to use a sniper rifle and assassinate your target or make other things, you have some vehicles inside but you can't drive them this game was madded in 2004.
For Hitman I say nothing because it was an infiltration game.
DX is different In DX you have humans, bots, mechmods (like Gunther Herman), nano augmented people (like you in the game), Cyborgs (MJ12 commandos) and mutants.
If we had vehicles they are an other class of enemies - tools.

Your next reason is the thing present in GTA you can enter only on some buildings but others are closed.
In the game Outcast the levels are large and you can penetrate in most buildings than GTA (I don't play Omikron but I think I try when I find this game).

Of course if you make small levels 100% of your buildings can be unlocked because you have only one or two buildings but I don't think this is an innovation. and the exploration you have no exploration because your buildings are in a small area you have no work to find them.

But in large areas you have some work to find them and this is a form of exploration; and have "expansive areas of nothingness just so you can drive through it".
You say that because you think always big levels = less details
But some actual games use big levels and give more details, but they made less maps and why ? because you can the size of the maps compensate the number of them.
And big maps gives less loading screens and less loading screens adds automatically more immersion in DX 2 you have smaller areas and the loadings screens break the action.

With vehicles you can add more kind of locations than before and you can explore them.

The vehicles are a big thing yes but a part of their coding are with the game engine because the engine will support the vehicles, the big thing is more to make different models, add the vehicles knowledge to the AI and the driving specs.

but the vehicles adds more not less.
And even if the levels are huge you are never forced to use a car, you can stay on foot because some ways are more accessible or use the travel system, it's fast and you don't need to drive and use a car.
And even if the levels are subdivided like DX 1 the maps can be muche larger than DX 1 maps and you can use a vehicle if you want.
The main advantage it's to gives you more choice than DX 1 when you used the metro, because you can choose between more locations like a real metro.

This kind of feature isn't only an useless accessory, this make more immersion to DX universe. because DX is a futuristic game and when you have some destroyed cities, you always find some life, like the desert when we saw a desert we thik there is no life, but there is some life and more than we can imagine.

gamer0004
18th Apr 2008, 20:20
Fewer maps mean less variety. So you'd only have lik the NY missions and HK, and not the rest.

Blade_hunter
18th Apr 2008, 22:53
what you say that I like the HK and the NY levels and not the rest.
I loved the entire game of DX 1; It's not for that reason I mustn't propose something new or something ambitious.
I want DX 3 adds its lots of new stuff, not make the mistake of DX 2.
This game has some good features, but they droped some good things I liked in the first game, like the multiple ammo, the RPG inventory, the great areas, and more
The game has medium graphics, a good physics engine, some interesting biomods, the factions system ...
And why less maps give less variety ?
If the maps are very large the game outcast have only 8 levels and the variety is good because one levels is one world.
If for example the Paris levels are subdivided in some maps, all maps of this group level become one map with the same things. The map become larger than before; do you lose something ?
No, because you keep the entire things you have before, and you win less loading screens.
DX was and stay a good game because some actual games aren't better than DX.
But some new stuff are welcome to enhance the DX gameplay

Fen
19th Apr 2008, 09:35
what you say that I like the HK and the NY levels and not the rest.
I loved the entire game of DX 1; It's not for that reason I mustn't propose something new or something ambitious.
I want DX 3 adds its lots of new stuff, not make the mistake of DX 2.
This game has some good features, but they droped some good things I liked in the first game, like the multiple ammo, the RPG inventory, the great areas, and more
The game has medium graphics, a good physics engine, some interesting biomods, the factions system ...
And why less maps give less variety ?
If the maps are very large the game outcast have only 8 levels and the variety is good because one levels is one world.
If for example the Paris levels are subdivided in some maps, all maps of this group level become one map with the same things. The map become larger than before; do you lose something ?
No, because you keep the entire things you have before, and you win less loading screens.
DX was and stay a good game because some actual games aren't better than DX.
But some new stuff are welcome to enhance the DX gameplay

Ok heres the problem you miss. If you want to have cars in the maps. Then they would have to be totally redesigned. Take Hells Kitchen for example. If you combined everything into one map and removed the loading screens, you still wouldnt have any use for cars. Because the entire map itself isnt large, but instead is just very detailed.

Cars require very large areas, FAR larger than any area we've seen in deus ex so far. For cars to be added, you have to make the levels MUCH larger. When you do this, you must make a choice, do we make the maps with the same level of detail as before and only have a few locations? Or do we leave a lot of area on the maps that arent detailed and keep the same amount of maps?

If you go for detail. Then you are only going to have a couple of locations. You would only get NY and HK because there would be just too much programming required to have any more.

If you go for more maps. Then you are going to have large areas of the map, which are there for the sole purpose of increasing the distance between interactable areas, for the sole purpose of having cars.

Now one thing I would like to add, even though it doesnt really fit into this topic. You say you would like the entire map to be 1, instead of lots of smaller maps. This is unwise. AI works best in smaller areas. The larger the area, the more they tend to do stupid things. This is something that can be seen in all games. Look at oblivion, crysis, these games had huge expansive areas, yet their AI always had trouble with it. Look at FEAR, that game had relatively very small areas, but the AI were very strong. Seeing as the AI will be soo important to this game, I dont think large, unbroken maps are the way to go.

Blade_hunter
19th Apr 2008, 10:35
I never say the maps need to be very very huge to use vehicles and I don't want a system that forces the players to use them
some games like HL2 and Red faction has small maps and they use them ok in these games they are a sequence in most of time but the maps aren't verylarge.

For crysis the AI is not very intelligent yes, but in Farcry the maps are big you have vehicles and the AI is correct, Stalker the maps are big and the AI is correct too and these two games you have vehicles.
The next Farcry as I read in some video game sites, will use a next generation AI and they can take a control of a vehicles with no scripts.
Some AI in some games uses most of time scripts of the maps.
The AI and the size of the maps have something to work yes but it's not for that the AI and the size of the maps are the single thing to make a poor or a good AI,
In RF 2 the maps are the same but some soldiers are intelligent and some others are very stupid
GTA has huge maps and poor AI, in Oblivion I don't know I don't play this game,
In Outcast the maps are very big and the AI is correct, in Chrome the AI is not stupid but we have some random decisions.

Your argument is not valuable because you have only showed games with huge maps and bad AI, I showed the twice examples. and you have only talk about fear but we have some games with little maps and a poor AI too I can tell you an example Mace griffin bounty hunter this game have good things, but the AI is only triggered by scripts and the maps are small because it's a console game.

And if you are not convinced I can compare two games builded at the same period UT and Q3

the maps have somewhat the same size and inside the same games in big an small maps the AI is the same even if I add more bots. and UT as a better AI than Q3; Q3 has better combative bots than UT.

I don't want DX have only one map, but if the game have only 5 major places to visit we can make only five maps, but if it's not possible we can subdivide the levels and keep the very large size; but less loading screens is better than multiple loading screens.
And the AI and the size of the maps isn't the only thing can made a good or a poor AI.

Voltaire
19th Apr 2008, 13:55
A map with vehicles that doesn't force a player to use them is eithergoing to be to hard/dull/trek-for-8-miles without vehicles and to easy/dull/one-end-to-the-other-in-4-seconds.

I'm with Fen. If DX3 is going to be true to the quality, mood and mindset of the series, there will be no vehicles.

Or vehicules for that matter :p

gamer0004
19th Apr 2008, 16:54
what you say that I like the HK and the NY levels and not the rest.


That's not what I meant. If you want to have as much accesible buildings as in DX1, but in maps large enough for vehicles, would mean that you'd only have 2 different maps, like NYC and HK. Or it could be Paris and Area-51. But not all of them whilst large enough for vehicles or with the same amount of explorable things like houses.

Blade_hunter
19th Apr 2008, 17:31
And the submarine base ? It has sufficient space to get some interesting vehicles, the water is sufficient to get a boat, and if we find some Divers in a pneumatic boat they can be an interesting kind of enemies; if they protect an only accessible entrance from the sea, or littles submarine like the first game.
Ok we cant drive it in the first DX but it can be interesting, not for a combat like red faction, but if we want to enter by the underwater, or using a boat (drive or use the vehicle with a driver as an NPC. if you won't drive this can keep the fact as the first game you don't drive.
And using a mobile crane or eventually a forklift truck like the first game in the first mission we have them but we can't drive them.
I don't say we need traffic in all maps of the games, but in the cities we can use this, and in some desert, rural or devastated we can use only a little amount of them in the outdoors.
In the first game we can found trailers (for trucks), forklift trucks, boats (the police boat and the sampans), police trucks, destroyed cars, a metro, the black choppers, attack choppers, cranes (in the docks) and in the boat, submarines. We can't drive them but if we enlarge the size of the levels we can add this feature and the guy's that wants to use an other mean they can.
The vehicles will opens the DX gameplay more than before. this give more elements to a story and can add more variety in a mission :)

c37579
19th Apr 2008, 17:45
i think theres a compromise
have vehicles in the game, but not in any of the maps, so when they release an SDK, people can create mods to add them in
so no vehicles int he actual game itself, just have them programed in, so people can make mods with them in, add them to the maps, etc
that should be good for everyone
either that or have an option to turn them on/off

Nathan2000
20th Apr 2008, 11:33
i think theres a compromise
have vehicles in the game, but not in any of the maps, so when they release an SDK, people can create mods to add them in
so no vehicles int he actual game itself, just have them programed in, so people can make mods with them in, add them to the maps, etc
that should be good for everyone
either that or have an option to turn them on/off

Turning them off is unrealistic - it messes too much with the gameplay. As for implementing them but not using, this is sufficient for me, but even less realistic. It'd be just a waste of resources.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe, that vehicles aren't already implemented in the engine (left alone a motorbike). If they are, adding them to the game will be just a matter of creating meshes, combining them in an actor and configuring.

ikenstein
27th Jun 2008, 08:59
i thought far cry did the whole vehicle thing ok. the odd car and boat but mostly on foot. call of duty 1 also had cars, tanks and stuff iirc. wasnt there also a mission where you are the gunner on a plane?

i dont think you need the game to be gta to have vehicles in a couple of missions.

Matrox[FX-1]
2nd Sep 2008, 13:59
I don't care if DX3 has vehicles or not. As long as if they are implemented they fit into the overall story and not a "oh, we haven't had a vehicle level for a while. We'd better put one in here." type of situation. In DX1 many of the maps were locked down, barracaded off or just had no need for a vehicle. The only vehilces you used were the black helicopter, the subway and the submarine (pretty sure you used it). As stated many times before, the game doesn't need vehicles. If you need to drive something fast in a game get the latest GT or NFS and if you wanna shoot something at the same time, Halo and GTA will feed your addiction.

I vote to keep DX3 an FPS-RPG, not FPS-RPG-Racing game.

Romeo
2nd Sep 2008, 15:33
Well, in a comprimise, how about operating the weapons on some of the existing vehicles, such as a helicopter turret. And a vehicle that no one has mentioned yet is a mech. Not a large one, but about twice the overall size of a person. It wouldn't require a radical re-design of the level, and still it would provide a vehicular experience.

Blade_hunter
2nd Sep 2008, 21:25
DX games have vehicles for level transitions only.
I never wanted a GTA game drive vehicles isn't GTA look at STALKER, they have vehicles and the vehicles in this game doesn't make a GTA like, the main idea of the vehicles is to be a mean of transportation, and if we have a militarized zone we have bots and military vehicles and the enemies can patrol by driving their vehicles, the main thing is to keep the first person view with the vehicles, because it's realistic.
Some vehicles allow us to use our weapons inside them but we can't drive, enemies can do the same.
the only vehicles that we can't do that are vehicles without windows, (tanks, some mechs)
vehicles adds an other dimension to the game even if we can't use them everywhere, because some streets were closed.

I don't want missions that forces a player to use vehicles, if some enemies on foot have explosive, heavy or EMP weapons this balance the fight against them

K^2
2nd Sep 2008, 21:30
The "proper" way of doing vehicles in DX universe is to have a dual-layer engine that handles interiors and exteriors differently. Seamless approach is preferred, but it introduces many problems.

Here is how I would have done it, if I was a code programmer under serious budget and time constraints.

BSP-based engine if possible. City and interior levels are handled identically, but level design differs. On city level, streets act as "corridors" for the engine. This can be used to quickly filter off vehicles and NPCs obscured from view by buildings. Similar approach is used in interiors, but actual corridors are used. The average poly count for both levels is similar. On city level, you'll see buildings, for the most part, from some distance, so they don't need to be as detailed. Streaming can be used to add some detail to nearby buildings, similar to how it is done in GTA. Most importantly, city level is sparse on dynamic objects, and no object can be carried through a transition between city and interior level.

This allows designers to keep high poly counts on interiors, use various physics objects for puzzle solving, etc, without bogging down the city level. Furthermore, different scales can be used, allowing for some extra precision in computing positions etc. for interior objects.

Under this approach there are two limiting factors. First, what kind of optimization routines are used by the engine you start out with. Does TRU engine use BSP or anything like that? Building that from scratch would be very time consuming. Second, do you have the number of artists it takes to build entire cities? That is a lot of work. And without that, it just isn't going to be particularly fun. Try imagining having a vehicle in IW.

Personally, if they aren't going to go for city-scale design, I don't want vehicles in the game at all. What I would like is bot domination to make a comeback. You really don't need a vehicle for transportation. Just as a spy drone or a mobile weapon platform that you can waste without worries for your own behind. Now, if they'll have more interesting "bots" to dominate, it is all that anybody would need. I'd like to see some sort of flying/hovering bot that can be taken to more places.

minus0ne
3rd Sep 2008, 02:31
Well, in a comprimise, how about operating the weapons on some of the existing vehicles, such as a helicopter turret. And a vehicle that no one has mentioned yet is a mech. Not a large one, but about twice the overall size of a person. It wouldn't require a radical re-design of the level, and still it would provide a vehicular experience.
I'm very much against such scripted "on-rails" scenes, but I totally like the Mech idea (if by that you're referring to something akin to the Mech Power Loader in the Alien films), as long as you get to control it.

Other than that I'm totally against vehicles, other than perhaps a drivable bicycle or public transportation (for fast travel between areas).

DXeXodus
3rd Sep 2008, 03:55
I don't believe that drivable vehicles belong in a Deus Ex game. Vehicles should just be a means of transitioning between levels. Either by means of taxi, helicopter, airplane, trains, bus, etc. K^2 mentioned bot domination and I would much rather see this again than any form of drivable vehicle.

Driving a vehicle will, IMO, reduce the immersion of a DX game and make it too fast paced and detached. This is not Unreal Tournament, it's Deus Ex.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2008, 05:33
I'm very much against such scripted "on-rails" scenes, but I totally like the Mech idea (if by that you're referring to something akin to the Mech Power Loader in the Alien films), as long as you get to control it.

Other than that I'm totally against vehicles, other than perhaps a drivable bicycle or public transportation (for fast travel between areas).
If memory serves, there was a Mech in Invisible War as well, and I had always wondered what it would be like to be the pilot in one.

DXeXodus
3rd Sep 2008, 06:22
Anyone played Ridd ick: EFBB? There is an awesome mech level in that game. You truly feel powerful inside that thing. The floorboards broke when you walked over them and the ground shook violently.

Also, Red Faction is a good game to look at regarding vehicles. Especially the mini-subs. Very "Deus Ex" if you think about the Ocean Lab level. Imagine a transitional level between the upper station and lower stations where you could man one of the mini-subs.

gamer0004
3rd Sep 2008, 13:45
Most importantly, city level is sparse on dynamic objects, and no object can be carried through a transition between city and interior level.
This allows designers to keep high poly counts on interiors, use various physics objects for puzzle solving, etc, without bogging down the city level. Furthermore, different scales can be used, allowing for some extra precision in computing positions etc. for interior objects.


That would be very annoying and very FPS like. Puzzle parts and move parts apart from each other. Very annoying.

I mean, I even found it annoying that it wasn't possible to carry crates or bodies with you in the chopper :scratch:

rokstrombo
3rd Sep 2008, 15:30
Imagine a transitional level between the upper station and lower stations where you could man one of the mini-subs.

Imagine a map that was so detailed and a story so fulfilling that you didn't care about driving some little submarine around a sparsely populated area!

One of the great features of the level design in Deus Ex was that the maps didn't usually spread outward. Many areas were re-used, and in this respect they were very detailed. This was very important due to the scarcity of resources. Discovering new environments was less important because of the inevitability of replaying an area when you missed your shots and lost all your health during a battle with an enemy. Being familiar with the environment was critical to your survival.

Also, I believe introducing vehicular game play in a first person shooter is often a waste of resources. It's a lot of work for something that strays significantly from the original concept of the game. It's also unlikely to meet the quality of a dedicated driving game.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2008, 19:11
I have to differ. Using a car analogy to estiblish my point following this:

Yes, a dedicated driving game is going to perform better at driving, but typically the combat will be menial without FPS roots. I cannot recall the last time I used a tank in a racing simulator, or a mech in Need for Speed.

You say that introducing vehicles detracts from the core experience, but I fail to see how. In the automotive industry, if you have a strong platform, adding things to it is almost always productive, not destructive (I'm speaking of proper modification, not that ricer crap I see everywhere). Similarly, if Deus Ex has already perfected it's combat, the introduction of vehicles will not suddenly mean that the combat will deteriorate in quality. In fact, as best as I can see, it would improve it in almost every way (Variety of enemies, variety in characters, the chance to use something bigger during combat). Now, unless you're planning to use a tank or sports car in a small corridor, the levels need not be adjusted in the slightest (as something like a small mech requires almost no more room than a foot soldiar does). Conversely, the areas where you would find tanks, cars and whatnot should already be opened up, because most people don't make a habit of driving through outrageously claustrophobic areas anyways, therefore adding to realism. Lastly, judging by the fact helicopters have been in both predecessors, throwing in a helicopter combat sequence would not be a stray to me, just as mechs have been in the game before.

From what I can see, the people that are naysaying are doing so out of a "witch-hunt" like philospophy of keeping things stagnent due to fear, rather than opening their minds and wondering how else to improve the game. The question should never be "Should we include this?", but rather, "How do we include this?"

minus0ne
4th Sep 2008, 02:05
I have to differ. Using a car analogy to estiblish my point following this:

Yes, a dedicated driving game is going to perform better at driving, but typically the combat will be menial without FPS roots. I cannot recall the last time I used a tank in a racing simulator, or a mech in Need for Speed.

You say that introducing vehicles detracts from the core experience, but I fail to see how. In the automotive industry, if you have a strong platform, adding things to it is almost always productive, not destructive (I'm speaking of proper modification, not that ricer crap I see everywhere). Similarly, if Deus Ex has already perfected it's combat, the introduction of vehicles will not suddenly mean that the combat will deteriorate in quality. In fact, as best as I can see, it would improve it in almost every way (Variety of enemies, variety in characters, the chance to use something bigger during combat). Now, unless you're planning to use a tank or sports car in a small corridor, the levels need not be adjusted in the slightest (as something like a small mech requires almost no more room than a foot soldiar does). Conversely, the areas where you would find tanks, cars and whatnot should already be opened up, because most people don't make a habit of driving through outrageously claustrophobic areas anyways, therefore adding to realism. Lastly, judging by the fact helicopters have been in both predecessors, throwing in a helicopter combat sequence would not be a stray to me, just as mechs have been in the game before.
While I agree vehicles wouldn't necessarily detract from the immersion or 'DX atmosphere', I disagree on the (black?) helicopter combat sequence. In both games the helis got you from one location to the next, they were never used in some manner akin to MoH: Airborne (crude comparison, but it has aerial combat). If you force the player to fire a minigun from a helicopter (which, in previous games, was supposed to be stealthy) in some on-rails sequence, you'll take that choice out of their hands.

The problem with drivable vehicles as a whole is that it becomes a perk. I think we can all agree DX3 should not aspire to GTA4-like gameplay (or Carmageddon :p ), so the opportunity to drive should be minimised. HL2 had epic vehicular gameplay at points, but even that felt gratuitous at times. So let's say there are a few opportunities to drive throughout the game, one or two times realistically driving from point A to point B (which should be seamless in that case, luckily the engine can handle that), another time perhaps using a truck to ram through a wall (if that's the approach you choose) or a forklift truck to lift a garage door (just throwing out random ideas), I could live with that, but let's not pretend DX3 should emulate Crysis (talk about ackward vehicular gameplay) or Halo. Half-Life 2, maybe, but less of it.

From what I can see, the people that are naysaying are doing so out of a "witch-hunt" like philospophy of keeping things stagnent due to fear, rather than opening their minds and wondering how else to improve the game. The question should never be "Should we include this?", but rather, "How do we include this?"
Agreed. Although, again, DX3 =! GTA4 or Halo.

Romeo
4th Sep 2008, 05:17
I don't think it needs to be used too much, but a quick Mech romp once or twice would be pretty damned fun.

rokstrombo
4th Sep 2008, 05:59
From what I can see, the people that are naysaying are doing so out of a "witch-hunt" like philospophy of keeping things stagnent due to fear, rather than opening their minds and wondering how else to improve the game. The question should never be "Should we include this?", but rather, "How do we include this?"

I agree that vehicle sequences may potentially improve the game. I am just suggesting that in many first person shooters it is not worth the effort. Time, money and technical issues force developers to cut features in virtually every game (Duke Nukem Forever is the obvious exception :)). Implementing drivable vehicles would be a large task, so it stands to reason that core game play would suffer if resources were stretched to include this. I realise this may be a bit defeatist, but I think it is a realistic concern.

I would not call this a stagnant view. I am all for developers taking risks with new game play styles and concepts. I just don't think cramming in features from other games and genres necessarily makes for a better game. It's not like a vehicle map is a new concept. IMO, it is usually an arbitrary, poorly implemented concept.

The Deus Ex concept rocks. I say, keep it as pure as possible while improving on flaws in the earlier games.

K^2
4th Sep 2008, 14:41
That would be very annoying and very FPS like. Puzzle parts and move parts apart from each other. Very annoying.

I mean, I even found it annoying that it wasn't possible to carry crates or bodies with you in the chopper :scratch:
I agree, but you have to consider the fact that DX3 engine is not being written from scratch. This would be the only way to do large enough levels for driving.

Of course, you can then make an argument that it then best without vehicles at all, and I won't argue against that either.

As I said earlier, I'd be perfectly happy if devs simply extend on the bot domination.

minus0ne
4th Sep 2008, 17:00
I don't think it needs to be used too much, but a quick Mech romp once or twice would be pretty damned fun.
I could definitely live with that, though I can't decide whether it'd be more fun to drive a mech through bot domination or to actually enter the mech's 'cockpit'. Both have their charms (bot domination could be more exciting as you also have your player character to worry about).


I agree, but you have to consider the fact that DX3 engine is not being written from scratch. This would be the only way to do large enough levels for driving.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you code game-engines in your free time besides studying quantum mechanics and tensile strengths? Or do you just watch a lot of TV and crown yourself expert in every field? (if that comes across as somewhat antagonistic, that'd be because it is).

Let me get this straight, the only way for DX3 to have vehicles would be to have exterior maps on a different scale than interior maps? Relatively low-poly cityscapes and high-poly interiors? I'm sure that sounds good in your head but it sounds like a massive superfluous undertaking to me. DX3 has no need for GTA-scale cities, and one doesn't need to combine a flight sim engine with an FPS engine to have occasional vehicles (also, that didn't work out so well for Far Cry, where vehicle gameplay almost ruined the game).

I'm sure putting in some vehicles here and there takes time, but it hardly requires the devs to extend the development by three months, or combine several engines.


Of course, you can then make an argument that it then best without vehicles at all, and I won't argue against that either.

As I said earlier, I'd be perfectly happy if devs simply extend on the bot domination.
Extending bot domination wouldn't be that much different for the devs to throwing in a few drivable vehicles (and/or mechs), the (minimal) difference being designing a cockpit/driver's seat, some animations and/or extending the HUD to display information about the vehicle/bot/mech/whatever, possibly coding in some additional collision detection.

K^2
4th Sep 2008, 17:42
Do you code game-engines in your free time besides studying quantum mechanics and tensile strengths?
Far from every field. Let me give you a short resume, so that you can keep it on the record, and check that I don't step out of bounds of my expertise.

I'm not actually an expert on tensile properties. But I have a couple of years of theoretical solid state and condensed matter physics behind me. So I can get good estimates. Someone who is an expert on material resistances could probably give you better results, but I'll be within an order of magnitude.

What I actually do is Theoretical Nuclear Physics. So I can claim being an expert on Quantum Field and Relativistic and High-Energy Physics. I'm not an expert on Gravity and General Relativity, but I know quite a bit of that as well. Basically, if it is Physics, I have been exposed to it.

And yes, programming is my hobby. I even pick up an occasional contract here and there to have something written. I have written relatively simple 3D engines and quite complex physical simulations. A lot of that intersects my need for simulations in research. AI is also fun to play with, and I've taken some courses, but I'm not as well versed in AI as I am in graphics and physics. I know x86, x64, R4900, and 6502 machine language and assembly. I have expert knowledge of C and C++ from over a decade of work on these. I also know over a dozen of other programming and scripting languages, such as Pascal, Java, PHP, Python, Prologue, and a few exotic scripts you've never heard of.

Oh, yeah. I'm also trying to get a Private Pilot's. I've passed the theoretical exam, so according to FAA I know everything I need to know, but I still need to get actual flight hours. TSA making it rather difficult, since I would be classified as an "Alien Pilot".

Any other field I might have snippets of knowledge in are purely from reading a lot of books, but I'm not going to claim any kind of expert knowledge in any of that.

Let me get this straight, the only way for DX3 to have vehicles would be to have exterior maps on a different scale than interior maps? Relatively low-poly cityscapes and high-poly interiors? I'm sure that sounds good in your head but it sounds like a massive superfluous undertaking to me. DX3 has no need for GTA-scale cities, and one doesn't need to combine a flight sim engine with an FPS engine to have occasional vehicles (also, that didn't work out so well for Far Cry, where vehicle gameplay almost ruined the game).

I'm sure putting in some vehicles here and there takes time, but it hardly requires the devs to extend the development by three months, or combine several engines.
What do you want vehicles for? Transportation or mobile weapons platforms? For the later, bot domination works a lot better. It is far more balanced. For former, you need big maps. If you can run across the map in 1 minute, you don't need a frigin' helicopter on that map.

Again, if DX3 team worked on the engine from scratch, there would be better ways of doing it. If you start out with an engine that is designed for something entirely different, the best way of doing it is handling interiors and exteriors separately.

Tstorm
5th Sep 2008, 00:10
Icarus I agree with you 100%.:thumbsup:

Romeo
5th Sep 2008, 03:27
I agree that vehicle sequences may potentially improve the game. I am just suggesting that in many first person shooters it is not worth the effort. Time, money and technical issues force developers to cut features in virtually every game (Duke Nukem Forever is the obvious exception :)). Implementing drivable vehicles would be a large task, so it stands to reason that core game play would suffer if resources were stretched to include this. I realise this may be a bit defeatist, but I think it is a realistic concern.

I would not call this a stagnant view. I am all for developers taking risks with new game play styles and concepts. I just don't think cramming in features from other games and genres necessarily makes for a better game. It's not like a vehicle map is a new concept. IMO, it is usually an arbitrary, poorly implemented concept.

The Deus Ex concept rocks. I say, keep it as pure as possible while improving on flaws in the earlier games.

Good artists borrow. Great artists steal.
That's from Edgar Allen Poe. Let's face it, no game, I mean absolutely NO game coming out today isn't taking something from another game. The difference is in how and why they do it. Call of Duty went modern on it's last iteration, and though that is most certainly nothing knew, it payed off in spades, and added some variety. Besides, it's not really an overly new concept even to Deus Ex, if people are that afraid of change. Vehicles have been in the games all along, just never usuable. And Deus Ex is notorious for choice, you wouldn't have to pilot a mech simply because there's an empty one sitting around.

Fen
5th Sep 2008, 03:34
Vehicles for transport : No
Vehicles for utility : Yes

Transport
If your character walks at 1/10th of the speed of the vehicle. All your going to do is create large sections of very bare map that players are almost forced to use a car to get across. Goes against what Deus ex is about, and really doesnt add anything to the game

Utility
Using a car to ram raid a building, or a forklift to create a climbing structure. Or just to shoot a fuel tank and create a barrier that your enemies cant go past. This could help create new and interesting ways for people to tackle challenges in the game. Just as long as the player still has choice in which way to handle a situation and is never forced to use a vehicle.

Romeo
5th Sep 2008, 03:50
...Or a Mech to conserve personal ammo.

K^2
5th Sep 2008, 04:15
But again, I ask you, why not simply use bot domination for all of the above?

Bot domination preserves balancing, is closer to the cyberpunk and stealth principals, and requires no additional coding for things like entering/leaving vehicle, dashboards, etc. I can't see why you'd rather have an actual vehicle.

DXeXodus
5th Sep 2008, 04:25
^^ I agree completely.

Romeo
5th Sep 2008, 04:27
Because bot domination corrupts AIs, not piloted vehicles, and even if it did, it would be useful for staying out of sight, whereas dashing to a vehicle might being some unwanted attention to you before you're in. It makes sense in both realism, and balance.

K^2
5th Sep 2008, 04:34
And dashing to a bot armed with misiles and surrounded by guards you need eliminated before either of these notice you is not dangerous? I would imagine, an empty vehicle is less hazardous than a hostile AI.

I just recently played through IW, and the way I ended up playing is with Bot Domination, Bot Invisibility, Hacking, and Spy Drone. Yeah, I prefer to let my henchmen do the dirty work.

Romeo
5th Sep 2008, 04:41
That's just it though, if you want to be able to corrupt everything, then it's still fair. Unlike the guy without bot domination, you can hang back away from danger and dominate the bot. The other guy has to sprint to the driver's seat while getting shot at, and then, it's still just one guy, versus the combined force of the bot, and dominator, in the other way. Fairly balanced.

K^2
5th Sep 2008, 04:51
So you now have levels filled with bots and vehicles? Then if it is such a guarded area, why is the vehicle just sitting there unocupied?

Romeo
5th Sep 2008, 05:02
Pilot had to piss. No Mech's past curfew. He forgot his vodka inside.

No, I didn't mean bots and vehicles (although the two could coincide as enemies) I was just saying if you wanted to treat an unoccupied vehicle like a bot it would help with balancing. And for the record, theoretically you wouldn't hop into a Mech until you knew of a threat, otherwise it would be a waste of resources and hard on the components for no use, so while you would keep gaurds, you wouldn't deploy heavy-armors until necessary. =)

Jerion
5th Sep 2008, 08:09
So you now have levels filled with bots and vehicles? Then if it is such a guarded area, why is the vehicle just sitting there unocupied?

Who says the vehicle is unoccupied? It would be on active patrol, and you have to hijack it by snipering the driver and then getting control of it before it smashes into a wall, creating a very loud noise and attracting guards. or you could let it do that and use the crash as a distraction allowing you to sneak past.

I for one would like to see what happens when you throw a supply crate filled with Soy Food into the windshield of a moving armored truck.

Blade_hunter
7th Sep 2008, 00:31
Transport is something like utility no ? and even if a vehicle is much faster than a player, you are never forced to use it, its not red faction, where sometimes they forces you to use a vehicle, in GTA even if the vehicles aren't invulnerable they are a better protection than going on foot because you can't be killed until the vehicle isn't destroyed, In UT 2k4 and UT 3 You can be killed inside vehicles, and in UT they make special weapons to hunt vehicles.
And an other thing about GTA when I got the six stars, I can survive much longer in foot than with a vehicle except the tank (but the tank is a bit invulnerable in GTA)

The vehicles are always faster than players on foot, but their maneuverability, their weaknesses to EMP fields, their size, give to them a lot of inconvenients, and if it's not sufficient we can give them a more realistic mean of work like using gears, forklifts and many utility vehicles haven't gears ,this can make faster vehicles a bit harder to use than slower

vehicle is fast and well protected.
player is maneuverable and agile.

An other thing if have a travel network we can use the metro, even taxis

Romeo
8th Sep 2008, 07:33
Yeah, I'm a little annoyed by the way people assume that vehicles suddenly mean the death of the foot-soldiar. I cannot honestly recall (GTA exempt) the last game that had me use vehicles in order to survive, there's always balance.

K^2
8th Sep 2008, 14:45
Not having to use vehicles and having balance aren't necessarily the same thing.

Balancing vehicles isn't as easy as it might seem. The vehicle skills are so diverse. Simple examples. GTA III through SA are pretty well balanced in terms of flying vehicles for a normal player. That is, they don't give you any serious advantage if you are not a video game ace. I've been playing flight sims as long as FPS, though. If you remember Dodo from GTA III, I managed to use even that to beat at least two missions far easier than it was intended. Never mind the Hunter and Hydra of VC and SA. The mere existence of flight option threw a big chunk of the game out of balance for me.

In a game like DX, where balancing different options is basically what the game is about, such a flaw would be catastrophic. It has been pretty good so far. As I mentioned before, in IW, bot domination was pretty much my way to go. I used and abused vehicles as much as possible. But the limited life time of a dominated bot prevented it from being too unbalanced. On another play through, I was able to achieve roughly equal "walk-in-the-park" feeling using the strength augs instead.

If heavily armed vehicles were present, I'd probably stop using ammo all together. I'd simply end up drawing enemies to whatever area I could manage to get the vehicle to, and dispose of them in short order from long range. The stealth and item management aspects would be gone completely.

Don't misunderstand me, though. I'm not saying vehicles should not be in the game at all. I'm saying that if they are, they should be sparse, and any advantage they give you should come at a cost.

gamer0004
8th Sep 2008, 15:07
If heavily armed vehicles were present, I'd probably stop using ammo all together. I'd simply end up drawing enemies to whatever area I could manage to get the vehicle to, and dispose of them in short order from long range. The stealth and item management aspects would be gone completely.


Same for me. Really screws games for me.

JerichoMccoy
8th Sep 2008, 15:52
I'm all for vehicles in DX3.

Like many have said, there has to be a balance and a choice of whether or not to use a vehicle.

I could picture a scenario where your in a base and there is a logical way to get inside the Mech to wreck havoc for.. I don't know... a distraction for someone else to get inside and do something. However, before you get into the Mech, your face and I.D. has to be in the Mechs database of potential pilots.

So, as a side mission, like in CoR:EfBB (Rid****), he had to input his hand print into the database in order to use the firearms? Use sort of the same technique with a choice of either force, stealth, or negotiation.

With that helicopter sequence, firing the minigun at other approaching enemies, it would feel like a forced sequence HOWEVER, if you were thinking about assaulting a particular area and you had a choice;
A. Use the minigun to take out Sniper and/or Air Targets
B. Drop in from far away and take them out without the Helicopter's support
C. Drop in from Close Range and the Helicopter takes care of Air targets while you take care of the ground forces

Besides, that is where play testing comes to play. If a vehicle fits the scenario of a mission but does not come as a "Take me or you die!", then by all means, include it.

Nathan2000
8th Sep 2008, 20:14
If heavily armed vehicles were present, I'd probably stop using ammo all together. I'd simply end up drawing enemies to whatever area I could manage to get the vehicle to, and dispose of them in short order from long range. The stealth and item management aspects would be gone completely.
Same for me. Really screws games for me.

In DX, I always hack turrets and use them to kill the enemies wherever it's possible, even on supposedly non-lethal playthroughs. But I don't consider the gameplay screwed.

Blade_hunter
8th Sep 2008, 22:35
I think many players can't see vehicles without think into GTA, and balancing vehicles and players on foot can be made and it is possible, but I agree it's not too simple because we must add constraints, like any object and item.
Many items in DX series are a bit ultimate and the guys talk about vehicles by talking about GTA.
GTA isn't a reference about vehicles and the vehicles can be balanced by adding some constraints / weaknesses, and GTA isn't a reference about balance and even vehicles in action games

The firsts vehicles in FPS games are invulnerable and appear in 2.5 D games

Now all features like deformable / breakable parts, players are vulnerable even inside a vehicle, were done since 4 years and maybe more.

The balance can be found and I found the balance, vehicles is not an ultimate item because we can add to them the correct constraints they become balanced.
Balancing vehicles and with the actual gaming features it's totally possible, because the engines and the program modules are most of times ready, because most FPS / TPS engines have vehicle support

K^2
8th Sep 2008, 22:57
In DX, I always hack turrets and use them to kill the enemies wherever it's possible, even on supposedly non-lethal playthroughs. But I don't consider the gameplay screwed.
Yeah, because the turrets are fixed. If you could move the turret anywhere on the map, beating the level would consist of finding a turret, getting to it, hacking it, and the using it to kill everything else.

This is what needs to be avoided very carefully when adding vehicles to DX3, if there will be any.

Zegano
9th Sep 2008, 02:57
Vehicles sounds like an interesting idea, but what does it add? Deus Ex has always been about running around on foot. Vehicles don't add anything to the Deus Ex atmosphere, especially the idea of military equipment. JC and Alex were covert agents, not the US marines. JC's more militant goals were stuff like infilitrate a base to find a key character, item or computer terminal, not drive a tank through the front door and demand Saddam Hussein's immediate surrender. If I did see a vehicle I'd like it to be like the DeSoto from Sam & Max, where you select your destination and you'll automatically drive there. Running over enemies just doesn't seem Deus Ex style.

DXeXodus
9th Sep 2008, 03:55
I agree. Vehicles can just water the game down severely. Bot domination is by far the best option IMO. It was one of the shining point of DX2 and I would welcome it back with open arms.

Nathan2000
9th Sep 2008, 10:22
JC and Alex were covert agents, not the US marines. JC's more militant goals were stuff like infilitrate a base to find a key character, item or computer terminal, not drive a tank through the front door and demand Saddam Hussein's immediate surrender.


WEAPONS: HEAVY
The use of heavy weaponry, including flamethrowers, LAWs, and the experimental plasma and GEP guns.

Master: An agent is a walking tank when equipped with heavy weaponry, capable to win a war in Iraq alone and take Saddam Hussein prisoner.

In other words, I don't think that an addition of tank would be THAT devastating - well, it's just a tank. It can't compete with heavily armed bunny-hopping invisible nanoaugmented secret agent. Especially if it has limited ammo.

But it's fun to drive, though.

Blade_hunter
9th Sep 2008, 13:20
What forbid an agent to use military equipment ?
Just take a look to UNATCO soldiers and agents
They got heavy weapons, Kill and Not kill is a choice, and run with a vehicle and on foot is a choice too.
And what is more difficult ?
Throw a scramble grenade in a bot that kill every soldiers or drive a bot and kill the soldiers.
And more what is more ultimate between drive a bot and use the bot domination?
Driving a bot is less ultimate than the other means, because you die if the bot is destroyed, not in the other cases.
And DX isn't a game where we are limited to use things on our rank, DX isn't an infiltration game with biomods.
Driving vehicles adds new ways and possibilities to the game it adds other alternatives to bots. It adds new enemies enemies that drive vehicles.
This adds new challenges even if you don't want use vehicles.

Romeo
10th Sep 2008, 00:00
This is besides the fact that a railgun would plow right through a vehicle (and perhaps into the pilot) Rocket Launchers and GEP Guns would make short work of a light mech, and a simple EMP grenade could take you from feeling like King Kong to Diddy Kong. It's not hard to balance for vehicles, not in the slightest. Generally, as someone pointed out, the highly manuverable, concealable and smaller target of a person with a GEP gun is over-powered, not the guy slowly moving around in a large and loud bot. As well, as yet another person pointed out, no one is forcing you to take a vehicle. Again, someone mentioned that they'd simply lure the gaurds towards their vehicle, but is that any different than luring them to a friendly turret? And it's not like you can use a vehicle forever: Assuming it isn't destroyed by enemy fire, it's probably not going to fit through 99% of doors, meaning it's sole use is in open areas. Lastly, someone mentioned that they're not a Marine. Personally, I'm not either, so if I were in a situation where there's about ten gaurds to my one, I'd probably take my chances under the relative safety of some extra armor, rather than duking it on foot (Much like a psychopathic Marine) or trying to stealth kill all ten without alerting them (Like a psychopathic SEAL).

And just as a sidenote, people keep comparing vehicles to GTA. I don't know if you're aware, but GTA is only a fraction of how most games implement vehicles. Many games have a few vehicles to mix things up (FarCry), to allow quick transport from point to point (Much like GTA, or even Halo), or to provide another outlet for a player who might not be suited to a particular event (Say a stealth player taking on an area where stealth is literally impossible). I'm not saying we need a few hundred variations of vehicles, or that I want the game to be a large open-ended city, that's not what I mean at all. Just, having a military-use vehicle or two, in an occasional circumstance which makes sense (Such as a Mech on patrol, or being unloaded in a warehouse) would add yet another dimension to Deus Ex.

Blade_hunter
10th Sep 2008, 01:32
This is besides the fact that a railgun would plow right through a vehicle (and perhaps into the pilot) Rocket Launchers and GEP Guns would make short work of a light mech, and a simple EMP grenade could take you from feeling like King Kong to Diddy Kong. It's not hard to balance for vehicles, not in the slightest. Generally, as someone pointed out, the highly manuverable, concealable and smaller target of a person with a GEP gun is over-powered, not the guy slowly moving around in a large and loud bot. As well, as yet another person pointed out, no one is forcing you to take a vehicle. Again, someone mentioned that they'd simply lure the gaurds towards their vehicle, but is that any different than luring them to a friendly turret? And it's not like you can use a vehicle forever: Assuming it isn't destroyed by enemy fire, it's probably not going to fit through 99% of doors, meaning it's sole use is in open areas. Lastly, someone mentioned that they're not a Marine. Personally, I'm not either, so if I were in a situation where there's about ten gaurds to my one, I'd probably take my chances under the relative safety of some extra armor, rather than duking it on foot (Much like a psychopathic Marine) or trying to stealth kill all ten without alerting them (Like a psychopathic SEAL).

And just as a sidenote, people keep comparing vehicles to GTA. I don't know if you're aware, but GTA is only a fraction of how most games implement vehicles. Many games have a few vehicles to mix things up (FarCry), to allow quick transport from point to point (Much like GTA, or even Halo), or to provide another outlet for a player who might not be suited to a particular event (Say a stealth player taking on an area where stealth is literally impossible). I'm not saying we need a few hundred variations of vehicles, or that I want the game to be a large open-ended city, that's not what I mean at all. Just, having a military-use vehicle or two, in an occasional circumstance which makes sense (Such as a Mech on patrol, or being unloaded in a warehouse) would add yet another dimension to Deus Ex.

Great post I agree with, just take a look to STALKER, we have vehicles and we aren't forced to use them in the game and, STALKER is closer to DX than GTA ...

LatwPIAT
10th Sep 2008, 07:52
In other words, I don't think that an addition of tank would be THAT devastating - well, it's just a tank. It can't compete with heavily armed bunny-hopping invisible nanoaugmented secret agent. Especially if it has limited ammo.


Actually, a heavily armed bunny-hopping nanoargumented secret agent armed with your Standard Issue Big Gun is a lot more effective against tanks.


EDIT EDIT EDIT
Which brings me to another idea. How about a vehicle that rather than being a method of transportation is another method of play? Say, for example, I have a small armored multiped (Like Fuchikoma) that I can ride in, and is armed wih some weapons, but isn't very practical in all situations. I can't enter buildings with it, it's weak against EMO weapons etc. I bring it with me most places, but I can opt to leave it.

Say our dear generic-but-detailed terrorist hold a building. I could sneak in through the back door, I could run guns blazing through the front door, I could access the security and hijack their sentries, or I could use my spider-bot to climb up the wall and enter through the roof. Sure, it's have to be ballanced. (What happens when it breaks down? Why don't I sit in it all times. When is it avaliable, when isn't it?)

Just my thoughs.

K^2
10th Sep 2008, 17:12
This is besides the fact that a railgun would plow right through a vehicle (and perhaps into the pilot) Rocket Launchers and GEP Guns would make short work of a light mech, and a simple EMP grenade could take you from feeling like King Kong to Diddy Kong. It's not hard to balance for vehicles, not in the slightest. Generally, as someone pointed out, the highly manuverable, concealable and smaller target of a person with a GEP gun is over-powered, not the guy slowly moving around in a large and loud bot. As well, as yet another person pointed out, no one is forcing you to take a vehicle. Again, someone mentioned that they'd simply lure the gaurds towards their vehicle, but is that any different than luring them to a friendly turret? And it's not like you can use a vehicle forever: Assuming it isn't destroyed by enemy fire, it's probably not going to fit through 99% of doors, meaning it's sole use is in open areas. Lastly, someone mentioned that they're not a Marine. Personally, I'm not either, so if I were in a situation where there's about ten gaurds to my one, I'd probably take my chances under the relative safety of some extra armor, rather than duking it on foot (Much like a psychopathic Marine) or trying to stealth kill all ten without alerting them (Like a psychopathic SEAL).
I think you are forgetting that DX3 isn't going to be about multiplayer.

Sure, in multiplayer, vehicles have vulnerabilities that a skilled player will easily exploit. But what we are talking about is AI foot soldiers vs a skilled mech warrior.

AI is not well known for stealthy tactics. There are two things that can happen. A straight attack or an ambush. Ambushes are scripted, so if you fell for it once, you simply boot up the game from the previous saved point, and you have the upper hand. In straight up attack, a typical chain gun or small air-to-air mini-cannon will lay down the kind of covering fire that won't let a single AI soldier with a rocket launcher to get within line of sight.

And sure, I understand that a bot can be taken out by simply sneaking around through some back-passages, approaching it from a blind spot, and firing a single direct armor-penetrating RPG. The Mech/Tank/Whatever will be toast.

But do you really think AI will be capable of this?

Blade_hunter
11th Sep 2008, 01:01
Who says an AI must to be the most advanced to be a challenge with vehicles, and vehicles can have weaknesses in single and multiplayer games and can be exploited by the AI without to be the most advanced AI.

I seen some AI's take down tires from cars and they were really stupid in most situations, I see the DX 1 AI take down bots with their grenades or their LAW or their GEP gun, they were stupid only against the turrets.
And I see some AI s shot you down and even put a bullet in your head (in DX 1 and unreal tournament)

Most AIs have tweaks with maps, but some other tweaks are with other things like player and other objects.

And most AI's stay a challenge even in game where you are in vehicles and the soldiers on foot

Romeo
11th Sep 2008, 06:09
Yeah, like Blade Hunter said you don't need a human to take down a vehicle. Bear in mind that a vehicle is hard to hind behind things should the health dip too low, meaning sustained enemy fire should take it down sooner or later. Things like turrets, other vehicles and simply sheer numbers are all capable of taking down a vehicle this way (what I'm going to refer to as "Shredding", from here on in). Shredding ensures that even if the player survives, chances are, his vehicle is going to be severely crippled, barring the opporunity to grab one vehicle and romp through the whole area (assuming it can even fit through all of it). The second way to kill a vehicle is simply with heavy weapons, another thing the AI can handle. A rocket, or railgun round in the chest will probably leave you in pieces, and similarly, if you're disabled by an EMP, you're going to feel relatively silly sitting there getting shot. The last way, and perhaps the only one the AI might struggle to perform, is to kill the player before they get in the mech. If a player can sneak into the driver's seat somehow, that I could see being a slight advantage to the player, because it will allow them to get the first shot off with a powerful weapon, before their opponents could take cover. Still, with the above two ways, it shouldn't be overly difficult to keep things balanced.

K^2
12th Sep 2008, 15:50
The kind of heavy fire you are suggesting would make going through the level without a vehicle almost impossible.

We are talking about the balanced gameplay here. On the same level of difficulty, beating the level with and without a vehicle should be roughly equally difficult. The only case this may be broken is if you need augs/skills to attain a vehicle. In that case, since you invested into these particular augs/skills, this part might be easier, at expense of another level, with no vehicles, being more difficult. Overall, the balance must remain.

If you have a 20 men crew laying down cover fire, while 3 more points bring up EMP and Rocket Launchers, this is not the kind of fortification that you are going to take sans vehicle. You might be able to sneak by, but that's yet another thing to balance.

Romeo
12th Sep 2008, 19:17
I never said you'd do them all at once. All the things I've suggested have already been Deus Ex. A grunt weilding a heavy weapon, or a few turrets in an area, or an EMP weapon nearby (Secondary on the Railgun, and the EMP grenades) or even just an area that had a number of badguys (and not necessarily right in the same spot either. Five groups of three guys can be just as much of a pain as fifteen guys all in the same spot). And as has been mentioned numerous times before, generally these days it seems easier to stay on foot than in a vehicle, so I wouldn't over-fret the balance issue.

Blade_hunter
12th Sep 2008, 21:11
Anyway I think the highest number of vehicles are unarmed, and the armed ones are harder to find an more if they are powerful. I don't think they will put a mech with nobody inside at the entrance of a base to gives you the opportunity to force the entrance with a powerful vehicle, I think the level design have something to do with the vehicles, it's like the weaponry, if they give a minigun with infinite ammo you can kill everybody without any worries, and you kill the game. In DX the rockets were pretty rare except on locations with many patrolling bots. here the rockets were plentiful.
And in a vehicle you can set traps and throw some explosive crates into the enemies.
Many vehicles can't be used in indoors for example we can't go inside a laboratory because it has no vehicle access, the only buildings with vehicle access are factories and some bases and in factories / some commercial centers but many vehicles are small like forklifts, and some cleaning vehicles.

The thing is the vehicles must have a sufficient number of weaknesses to be a challengeable way
Some NPCs must have vehicles too, it will be illogical is it's only us that can use a vehicle and it gives challenges for both players.
and don't forget the vehicles are only in outsides and not everywhere, if we are on devastated streets it will be hard to find a vehicle ready to use because most vehicles were destroyed or in a poor state.
Some vehicles can stay mission vehicles because it's the only way to change levels like the first DX games

Romeo
13th Sep 2008, 08:31
Apart from watching a pilot exit a Mech to quickly "relieve himself", they shouldn't be sitting outside a base. But say you're in a Military warehouse, and they're unloading one, that would be an opportunity. And vehicles already have plenty of weaknesses (see above).

gamer0004
13th Sep 2008, 10:10
The problem is that vehicles are often over powered in games. More (and "free", i.e. doesn't cost you any ammo) firepower, better protection etc.
Of course, a trooper with a GEP gun could easily kill you. But how many of them are there? Besides, a vehicle is faster as well.
Of course, once you're stuck you're in trouble (not like, if you're good, that happens very often) but in most games you can get out very fast and easily survive. But when it takes some time it's frustrating for gamers. Vehicles are not an option in a game like DX.

Blade_hunter
13th Sep 2008, 11:10
Apart from watching a pilot exit a Mech to quickly "relieve himself", they shouldn't be sitting outside a base. But say you're in a Military warehouse, and they're unloading one, that would be an opportunity. And vehicles already have plenty of weaknesses (see above).

Yes and it encourages players to use infiltration tactics, because if they "see" you they take the mech and try to kill you; rob a vehicle is a challenge in this situation.

Vehicles are faster but less maneuverable, and many suggestions were proposed to keep balance like breakable parts
I proposed vehicles that use ammo and even fuel to keep balance with the biomods and standard weapons.

And even if we have a tank with a 120 mm cannon it can be a powerful shell with a small splash area and with a weak splash damage.

McGunnin
13th Sep 2008, 11:44
I thin kit would be good if it were done right. It has to be a open non-linear environment, and it would have to be a lot different than GTA's run up and grap anything you want type thing. They would have to make it where you had to buy or obtain through certain methods, not just grab anything you want anywhere in the game.

Personally I would love to see a more active environment, the problem is I don't know if technology is that far along yet. Most games that are sandbox are open but there are no buildings that you can enter so everything is just outside and not very in depth.

Blade_hunter
13th Sep 2008, 14:38
The technology exists, but rare are the games that combine all existing technologies, Drivable vehicles in FPS games exists since 2.5D games and most persons thinks the firsts drivable vehicles in FPS games were seen at the first time in Halo / Battlefield ... games since 2001 to 2003 and I see them in some 1997/1998 games.

Buying items like vehicles weapons or whatever we can buy exists in old games, I played to OUTCAST (It's a 2.5D game with voxel technology) you can buy your vehicles (Animals) even if you can't grab them and you can buy items too.

In DX 1 & 2 the traders have a very limited supply, in SS2 we have no NPC that can act as a trader, but there is vending machines, in STALKER we have a lot of traders.

I think trading gives more importance to the money because in DX 2 the money have a more limited use than DX 1 even if near the end the money becomes more useless but it was logical in the area 51 to don't find a trader inside after all...

Romeo
16th Sep 2008, 06:36
Vehicles would work, as the people above me said, assuming they're implemented fairly. And as for them being too fast and too powerful, considering how the only vehicle I suggested was a mech, how would that be too fast? Chances are it'd be slower, and it would take a while to enter and disembark. As for being too powerful, with all the thing working against you, it wouldn't be overpowered. It'd just be another option sometimes.

minus0ne
16th Sep 2008, 07:14
Vehicles would work, as the people above me said, assuming they're implemented fairly. And as for them being too fast and too powerful, considering how the only vehicle I suggested was a mech, how would that be too fast? Chances are it'd be slower, and it would take a while to enter and disembark. As for being too powerful, with all the thing working against you, it wouldn't be overpowered. It'd just be another option sometimes.
I'd love to see the looks on our faces when we manage to get inside a vehicle and find out its battery is dead and it won't start :lol:

Jerion
16th Sep 2008, 08:46
Personally, I liked how vehicles were implemented in Crysis: they were a faster way to get around the huge, expansive maps, but they didn't provide a much, if any cover for the player and more often than not the player could go without one. Also, they tended to act as big, rolling targets labeled, "here I am, shoot me!". I think that this sort of thing, if implemented well, would allow vehicles to work well in DX 3.


Not to mention that driving them was a bit of a headache; I smashed into trees as often as I was shot. Of course, that's just driver error.

Blade_hunter
16th Sep 2008, 11:02
Crysis uses most exteriors than interiors and most of times we see only military camps. I think the level design have its place to balance soldier on foot and vehicles, because if DX use most of times ways with easy access to vehicles like cars or even bikes it breaks the balance. I don't know if someone agree with me to this point or not, but I don't think in a city every points are made for vehicles, and for most missions we need to go inside a building with place for pedestrians only.
Some games to balance the vehicles and the foot soldier because they use invulnerable vehicles, they design ways that gives a little area for vehicles and make obstacles where only a pedestrian can pass it, for example a ladder, a grid that you can jump or straight zones that gives the only sufficient space for a pedestrian.
I don't think DX will use large places with all ways open for any vehicles in the game
I don't think if you need to go inside a laboratory your vehicle can take the elevator and you can crush all soldiers / guards inside it and take the precious info and get out without using any weapon, any infiltration tactics.

I don't want to transform DX into a Carmageddon game

DX have sometimes barred routes no ? this can balance the vehicles and the foot agents.
Building interiors are often made for pedestrians not for vehicles, can you enter in a hotel, a clinic or in a bar with your vehicle ?

Anyway the mechs can be used and we can find enemies driving mechs, the vehicles in DX as was my main idea is an optional use, because i never wanted to transform this game into a vehicle based game, it's for that reason I proposed it as optional, I made this suggestion with caution and without the intention to make the other ways useless...

If the other ways are useless I think there is no place for driving, The level design and many other balancing tweaks were suggested to keep it balanced, even with a not much advanced AI

Romeo
16th Sep 2008, 16:14
Yeah, I think Deus Ex would have to do things differently than other games, as it's primarily indoors, which means wheeled vehicles are definately out. Either legged or tracked vehicles could work in slightly open indoor environments though.

Big Orange
7th Oct 2008, 12:12
Enemy opposition using vehicles could be scripted on occasion (ie a helicopter deploys a squad of commandos on the roof of a building your infiltrating) while some vehicles would help you go around a complex much quicker, but are not heavily armoured but fast (around a Page Industries campus or USAF base you could use this (http://www.globalintlgroup.com/images/Vehic/bradshaw_bigv.JPG) to drive down miles of long corridors). A tank or IFV could be useful for breaking in through some heavily fortified building (the scenery could be destructable too).

general kane
7th Oct 2008, 19:32
vehicles are a good edition to the series but i dont think thy would make seiries go gold because it would be a ripoff it would look like any sandbox title like GTA4 and crackdown and besides adding them and using them in all times would be a bad idea unless if the game will take to somewhere distant like mountains and jungles **** ,

i think adding jet packs and other means to climb buildings are an excelent idea and a good feture as will . :)

Romeo
7th Oct 2008, 19:56
I don't think it would be a rip-off of GTA at all. Such a statement would imply that Halo, Far Cry and virtually any other game featuring vehicles would be, as the styles are quite different.

In GTA, vehicles are used to zip from point to point quickly, as well as provide some cover. The game focuses exclusively on vehicles, negating most other choices.

In Deus, the vehicles would be used to provide another outlet to solve a situation (as is explained earlier in the thread), while still providing a certain level of cover. The game would still focus on it's RPG and FPS elements more, as vehicles would only be an occasional offensive choice.

general kane
7th Oct 2008, 23:30
true but what i mean is like there arent any important side missions that aquire you to use a car unless you were in a jungle or a warzone , i think it doesent work because thy will have to expand the enviroment .

Romeo
7th Oct 2008, 23:40
Oh, heavens no. I'm not asking for a complete re-haul of Deus Ex, but we've all seen the mechs and whatnot in the game, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to make some of them pilotable. =)

general kane
7th Oct 2008, 23:45
as i said jungles and Warzones only . :o

Romeo
7th Oct 2008, 23:49
Oh I know, I'm just saying:

There were a few instances where there were military mechs wandering around in DX and DX:IW. I really want to get my hands on one of those.

general kane
7th Oct 2008, 23:54
me 2 :( .

Necros
8th Oct 2008, 00:01
I don't want to see vehicles in the game, I think they aren't necessary at all. Public transportation, like a metro should be there but I don't see why we'd need vehicles, there are other games for you if you want to drive something.

Big Orange
8th Oct 2008, 16:56
Vehicles should not be as integral to DX3, but they should be included to add an extra layer of detail and realism to the locations (you could see scientists going about on Segways), and also provide options to how to avoid or deal with loads of enemies.

Romeo
9th Oct 2008, 06:31
I don't want to see vehicles in the game, I think they aren't necessary at all. Public transportation, like a metro should be there but I don't see why we'd need vehicles, there are other games for you if you want to drive something.
Wow, you're about the 94th person to answer without reading... The vehicles in question would not be cars, and transit, but proper offensive vehicles... Which are already present in the series. Mechs spring to mind, but as this is a prequel, who knows if the technology has truly been refined by the games interpretation of scientific advancement.

DXeXodus
9th Oct 2008, 06:55
I personally think that bot domination is more than adequate as a type of "vehicle" solution. It also gives a valid reason why you cannot run around the whole level and kill everything. Bot domination had a timer which made things more interesting.

K^2
9th Oct 2008, 07:01
I've been saying that for several pages.

DXeXodus
9th Oct 2008, 07:28
So have I. Just thought it needed to be repeated :)

K^2
9th Oct 2008, 15:46
Good. Now lets bring Rene on board, so that we can ensure the victory of our ways.

Laokin
9th Oct 2008, 18:50
Well, if the technology is there mechanics wise, but the software i.e. A.I. wasn't (meaning there has to be a physical pilot), they could do some kind of hotwire skill. It could be executed like bot domination with the added penalty that you yourself are in danger if it fails. You can make it so when you hotwire the bot, they are designed to cause shorts, sort of like those "Kill switch" cars that the police use to nab car thiefs. Make it so it takes the same ammount of time as bot domination, and you have vehicles that serve the same purpose with added risk. It is a prequel so I think not having the A.I. to just have the mech robot police by itself is viable. Just a thought.

K^2
9th Oct 2008, 20:28
The AI in DX and IW was pretty retarded, with absolutely no improvement between the two. Realistically, we can already build bots like these. We don't because they can make mistakes, and a military patrol bot cutting down some innocent civilians would be bad. Nobody seems to care about that kind of stuff in DX universe, though, with all the automatic turrets around.

So there is no story-reason not to have AI-driven bots around. Lets see if there will be a gameplay reason.

Mindmute
10th Oct 2008, 00:19
The AI in DX and IW was pretty retarded, with absolutely no improvement between the two. Realistically, we can already build bots like these. We don't because they can make mistakes, and a military patrol bot cutting down some innocent civilians would be bad. Nobody seems to care about that kind of stuff in DX universe, though, with all the automatic turrets around.

So there is no story-reason not to have AI-driven bots around. Lets see if there will be a gameplay reason.

They sort of care, I remember a quote from the game that went something like this:

'The security bot will shoot at anything that's not wearing a uniform. Earlier it cut down an old day carrying her grocery bags. Man that s@#t ain't right!'


But yes I agree, even by today's standards the technology is feasible, just not that adequate for current security scenarios. I can definetly see some security bots working by 2027 (though they'll probably be rather expensive).

K^2
10th Oct 2008, 01:09
I don't think they'll be expensive at all. That sort of defeats the purpose. I mean, sure, the kind of military bots that might be employed to storm a city, or something, will cost like top of the line tanks and jet fighters. But for private security? Guards are cheap. You need something that will cost you less than hiring real security guards.

As I said, it will probably be a while until we see armed bots, but simple security bots that will use face-recognition heuristics and some other forms of ID to keep a night watch are a very near future. I'm talking 5 years or so. They won't shoot at intruders. Simply set off an alarm and lock the place down. That's really all that you need for most purposes.

Romeo
10th Oct 2008, 02:27
I still think bot domination isn't quite the same as physically risking your life to enter a vehicle on foot. And I don't think cars, per se, should be in Deus Ex, for the most part (not pilotable ones, just cars in general). Here's why:

The pay rates for mechanics are supposed to double in the next ten years (which is less than ten years off the date in Deus Ex 3) meaning that shops will have to elevate their rates drastically to compensate. Thus, keeping a vehicle running will become a luxury not everyone can afford.

The price of gas is steadily climbing, to the point where many can no longer afford it. Coupling this with the increased cost to fixing a vehicle, there may no longer be a way to keep a vehicle on a budget. I'm aware there are alternative technologies coming out, however the majority of these require purchasing a brand new vehicle to take advantage of, something few can afford. Besides, the shift to things such as hydrogen will be slow, as not everyone wants to see their brawny V8 replaced with a weak hydrogen cell. Even on top of this, technologies for alternative gasolines are proving to cost almost as much, and in some cases, more, than gasoline itself. As a sidenote, engines need to be drastically altered to accept most of these alternative fuels.

Thus, the vehicle itself could become a reason for violence (Jealousy, desire, revolt, poverty, etc...) and would segregate the communities, to a degree. As a result, I think if any cars are present in Deus Ex 3, there should be an explanation as to why, or they should be in the rich districts.

K^2
10th Oct 2008, 03:47
DX already sets up the further divide between rich and poor. So nobody says that poor will have cars. Rich and middle class will still have them, though. Middle class will have electric sub-compacts. They won't be much, but since car will no longer be affordable, and public transit overcrowded, these who can afford these will chose it over riding a train.

Rich will have large chemical-fuel powered cars. They'll run on expensive synthesized fuels, be taxed for pollution, and be a nightmare to maintain. But they'll be a sign of status, and so there will be people willing to pay for all that.

Cars will be extremely rare, but if the environment will be more open in DX, I expect to see a few here and there. I don't think they should be drivable, either, but they should be around.

On topic of bot domination, if EM improves the bot AI, it should be just as risky approaching a bot for domination as it is to capture and operate an actual vehicle. Maybe even more so, especially if you consider limited life time. On that note, I really hope that EM doesn't go with ridiculous Halo-style vehicle capture. Vehicles, if they are in the game, should only be usable if you either find one unoccupied, or if you manage to kill the pilot without destroying the vehicle.

piippo
10th Oct 2008, 06:08
To be blunt, I do not want driveable vehicles in Deus Ex 3. Simply because to expand to that section of gameplay needs a totally new mindset and approach & attention from the development team. I much rather have more on the other elements, than a half-assed element involving driveable vehicles.

As for having them more of as props - sure, I bet there are some vehicles around.

ROCK STARTIST
3rd Feb 2009, 12:04
i think vehicles can spice up dx3, without feelingl ike halo2’ s over the top feel. Especially since ders like 3 cities? They should implement a realistic aspect where the vehicle requires gas. Just another suggestion to the RPG roots.

Dazza
3rd Feb 2009, 13:31
I'd have to say no vehicles either. It just doesn't suit Deus Ex. Although... DX3 will be different...

It would be cool though if Adam has his own personal car, Nissan GT-R or something cool like that =P But if that was the case I want it to be realistic. Get in the car, capable of looking around the car's detailed interior and able to play with the various features within the car.

Man I contradict myself :D

Blade_hunter
3rd Feb 2009, 17:40
I just think the main word of any element of DX is the fact we aren't forced to use an element in the game to progress.

This rule is used for weapon, hacking tools, suits, biomods and any item; right ?

The vehicles will follow the same rule as well, the vehicle isn't needed to pursue our way, we can go on foot and use a big weapon to destroy other vehicles, or eventually use a smaller and break the weak point of the vehicle, like wheels in cars.
we can find an alternate way to avoid the guard or the vehicles / robots or even use some obstacles to be hidden from the patrols and use them to have an advantage point to fight or pass without any combat.
we can use stealth tactics to go close to a guarded vehicle and put some explosives or break a weak point to make the vehicle unusable by its driver

the fuel for vehicles can be a good inconvenient used by ourself or even to make more balance with the other ways like weapons, biomods and other accessories.

For the rest I don't know if DX 3 will have drivable vehicles, but it will be a great thing for the game.

I think DX3 got vehicles for level transitions because we got 5 main locations, but drivable machines, it's an other thing.

The only thing I never want is a passage with a vehicle where we need them to accomplish a task (for example need a mech to kill other mechs / armored vehicles)

I think the players needs to choose their way to neutralize their targets or even avoid them, in DX we got the possibility to avoid fighting or neutralize without any kill ( EMP, weak points, barrage creation, fuel/energy removal, hack, etc...)
the kill is more well known way, but I think all elements of the game must allow different tactics to reach a wanted point

WhatsHisFace
3rd Feb 2009, 18:07
I just think the main word of any element of DX is the fact we aren't forced to use an element in the game to progress.

This rule is used for weapon, hacking tools, suits, biomods and any item; right ?

The vehicles will follow the same rule as well, the vehicle isn't needed to pursue our way, we can go on foot and use a big weapon to destroy other vehicles, or eventually use a smaller and break the weak point of the vehicle, like wheels in cars.
we can find an alternate way to avoid the guard or the vehicles / robots or even use some obstacles to be hidden from the patrols and use them to have an advantage point to fight or pass without any combat.
we can use stealth tactics to go close to a guarded vehicle and put some explosives or break a weak point to make the vehicle unusable by its driver

the fuel for vehicles can be a good inconvenient used by ourself or even to make more balance with the other ways like weapons, biomods and other accessories.

For the rest I don't know if DX 3 will have drivable vehicles, but it will be a great thing for the game.

I think DX3 got vehicles for level transitions because we got 5 main locations, but drivable machines, it's an other thing.

The only thing I never want is a passage with a vehicle where we need them to accomplish a task (for example need a mech to kill other mechs / armored vehicles)

I think the players needs to choose their way to neutralize their targets or even avoid them, in DX we got the possibility to avoid fighting or neutralize without any kill ( EMP, weak points, barrage creation, fuel/energy removal, hack, etc...)
the kill is more well known way, but I think all elements of the game must allow different tactics to reach a wanted point
The only vehicles I want in Deus Ex 3 are trains and helicopters.

K^2
4th Feb 2009, 02:04
You mean helicopters you can fly, or ones used to travel around the world at supersonic speeds?

GmanPro
4th Feb 2009, 02:43
^^ I want to fly that stealth helicopter sooo bad. Unfortunately I think it was new technology during the DX1 time.

Maybe in HL2: ep 3 they will let you fly that chopper for awhile. Man that would be sweet...

itsalladream
4th Feb 2009, 02:51
Pardon me for not going back and reading 221 posts on this topic, so I will use the last couple of pages as my frame of reference.

I would love to be able to hop in to a mech once or twice. I don't play tons of games, but I checked out the demo for Fear II, and the mech was pretty cool (a little over powered though for Deus Ex). I would like to see something like that incorporated.

In the original DE, after you begin changing over to the NSF, it would have been fun if there were a couple more mechs outside the 'Ton, and have the ability to jack one of them (assuming there was room for an occupant), as well as a few places in Paris. The cathedral or whatever it was would have been a good place. I enjoyed sneaking around out there, but to have another way to do it would have been fun as well.

K^2
4th Feb 2009, 03:35
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't all mechs in DX so far been purely AI-driven? I don't think there were any you could have, even story-wise, driven.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a drivable mech in the game, but between that and bot domination, I think I'd prefer bot domination. Hope they give us at least one of the two, though.

itsalladream
4th Feb 2009, 03:52
Yeah, they've been AI. And there would have to be a few changes made (i.e., datacubes), but it would be feasible for there to have been room for a driver.

It wouldn't have been able to be a list minute change. It would have to have been a concept relatively early on. Doesn't change the fact that it would have been cool.

WhatsHisFace
4th Feb 2009, 03:54
You mean helicopters you can fly, or ones used to travel around the world at supersonic speeds?

Instant world travel. I don't want vehicles being part of the gameplay. This isn't Halo here. :thumbsup:

Bloodwolf806
4th Feb 2009, 04:01
No, no, and....No. Thank you!

Blade_hunter
4th Feb 2009, 11:08
The Halo reason and the GTA reason isn't a true reason against the vehicles, because the proposal isn't to make the gameplay like those games
(vehicle based and vehicle passage)
The vehicles must be a choice not an ultimate weapon, or an ultimate way to make transportation.

The active vehicles are AI based, and the passive are level transitions like the boat, the submarine, the stealth chopper and the metro
we got some vehicles as a levels like the 747 and the super freighter
we got level parts like the boats in Hong kong, and in liberty island, or even the sampan that moves in the level being the same travel until we destroy it we got some forklifts but we can use only the fork to put it up and down.
we got some destroyed/crashed cars as a decorations, and some little trucks.

the proposal is vehicle tool and rare are the games that propose this one and more in a balanced way (vehicles with weak points, tactical use, and other uses than transportation)

GmanPro
4th Feb 2009, 17:24
Having a stealth helicopter fly in and pick you up or drop you off is really all that DX3 needs I think. You don't necesarily need to fly it yourself...

WhatsHisFace
4th Feb 2009, 18:00
The people in support of vehicles have to be joke accounts.

K^2
4th Feb 2009, 18:10
Not at all. In fact, I'm going to say that people who are set against vehicles simply did not think things through. Give me a good explanation of why they should not be part of DX, and I'll show you that these are exact same reasons that they can become a solid part of it.

Obviously, turning DX into GTA or Halo is a very, very bad idea. But Bot Domination worked in Invisible War, despite other things that can be said about it.

I don't want to turn this into a blanket argument, so as I said above, tell me why you don't want them, specifically, and I'll give you specific pro arguments to counter yours.

GmanPro
4th Feb 2009, 18:28
What I want is something to add flavor to the story, but not to the gameplay. I don't want to have to hop inside a vehicle and go on a rampage (like in Chronicles of Rid****), nor should the game ever even offer that option.

I consider having Jock fly JC around in his helicopter to be enough. Maybe in DX3 you won't just be transported around in just one vehicle but in several different ones. Plus, I wanna see police cars and SWAT AVs pull up in front of whatever complex you have broken into should you accidentily trip the alarm. You don't have to dive them, but they should still be there.

Blade_hunter
4th Feb 2009, 18:45
The Halo reason and the GTA reason isn't a true reason against the vehicles, because the proposal isn't to make the gameplay like those games
(vehicle based and vehicle passage)

Sometimes some persons blind themselves to keep the same GTA and Halo argument, because they haven't other things to say, I don't suggest to transform DX in Halo or GTA, In what language I must say it ?

Deus Ex ce n'est pas Halo ou GTA, merci de bien vouloir entendre que l'idée est bien différente de leurs applications dans ces jeux que vous aimez tellement mentionner. C'est une voie alternative qui n'exclut en aucun cas le joueur amateur de promenades a pied de plus ils ont suffisamment d'inconvénients pour être équilibré avec le reste et suffisamment pour ne pas substituer un seul élément du jeu, c'est un ajout, pas un remplacement, de quoi que ce soit dans le jeu, un élément dont nous sommes libre d'en faire usage ou non, comme les biomods, les armes, et tout les autres accessoires mis * notre disposition.

Is it better in French ? because my English seems to be so awful that nobody can understand what I wrote

And use a vehicle as a level transition isn't forbidden, and the bot domination as I said before isn't much different than driving vehicles and you take more risks by driving mech than use the mod to control a mech.

DX is an opened gameplay game it's not one focused genre

K^2
4th Feb 2009, 19:57
I consider having Jock fly JC around in his helicopter to be enough.
But what if you now have a chance of taking over controls on approach, and chose to either land quietly away from where you need to go, and approach on foot; or go guns blazing into the center of it all, risk getting shot down, and setting off every possible alarm in the area. Shouldn't that be your choice? Isn't that what the game is about?

Granted, the choice can be simulated somewhat by simply having a dialogue option, but that doesn't simulate the risk you take of flying over the AA systems. The only way to make it work properly is to let the player take on the defenses and attempt to dodge the SAMs.

Think about it, and you'll see that this is the only way to be true to DX spirit. And the only way this wasn't done in original DX and IW is because the engine couldn't handle it. CD engine can handle this, and it's about time that such action became possible in DX.

facepalm
4th Feb 2009, 20:03
Any player controlled aerial vehicle => *BANG!* I just hit an invisible wall. :hmm:

GmanPro
4th Feb 2009, 22:31
^^ Exactly.

I happen to have a very good imagination so no actual flying of helicopters is required or should even be considered. Handling it through dialogue is by far the better choice. Besides, if AJ can fly millitary stealth helicopters effectively enough to dodge anti aircraft fire, then what the hell is he doing being a security guard!?!?!

crimethinker
4th Feb 2009, 22:48
Pardon Blade-Hunter, mais vous avez demande la question, alors je pense que vouz voulez savoir la reponse...

Ton anglais n'est pas mal. C'est le cas que la plupart des personnes sur cette site ne lit pas qu'est ce qu'on ecrit, en n'importe quelle langue! Ils ne vous repondrait pas, ils ont seulement dites qu'est ce qu'ils pensait quand ils ont vu la titre de la topique. Mais faites attention a vos structure de vos phrases - vos deuxieme phrase en francais est beacoup trop long, et je pense que vous avez faites ca deja, ailleurs sur cette site, en anglais.

Pardon pour ma grammaire, je ne parle pas francais vraiment.
Sorry to any mods who wish to tell me that this is an English-only forum, it won't happen again.

Right, to add something constructive, I've said on the weapons page that I think the main player should get a basic car to travel around in, assuming the environment is big enough for such a thing to not be ridiculous. The car should basically only be there for the player to have a place to store the equipment that he doesn't intend to use anytime soon, because I believe the player shouldn't have any more personal inventory space than being able to carry more than 3 weapons, a generous ammo stockpile for each, and about a dozen small items - anything else the player owns should only fit in the car's boot ('trunk', for those of you west of the Atlantic) unless the player wants to incur severe movement penalties.

The car shouldn't have any weapons, or be particularly fast, or be particularly tough. If the player drives like a lunatic and crashes, he should die and be told to load game - this isn't GTA, and the car should only be for normal use. If he takes cover behind it during a fight, he should expect to have to buy a new car.

K^2, you seem to be blissfully ignoring the fact that helicopter controls are very complicated even in games which simplify them (aka, GTA), let alone flight sims. GTA:SA had a whole mission where you pretty much had to learn how to fly a helicopter, because they realised the controls were so different from the foot or vehicle controls that you need to be taught them. That game got away with it because there was so much gameplay beforehand that, by the time helicopters showed up, I was hooked on the game, and willing to put in the time necessary to learn to fly. You seem to want to be able to fly helicopters from the get-go, which is just too much effort if you haven't flown in computer games before.

If you only advocated driving ground vehicles (that are far simpler to learn to drive), then I'd say they aren't necessary, but aren't detrimental either. If you said that there should be vehicles besides bots that the NPCs drive, I agree, but must caution you that the NPC vehicles in Hitman Contracts (another Eidos title!) totally failed to drive in a realistic way. They ran you over and killed you if you so much as put a fingernail in it's path, even if given 30 seconds of warning before the collision, and without the car slowing down or becoming damaged in any way. Unless Eidos put in proper AI (yet another topic I've commented on, though not in the proper thread), it wouldn't work.

GmanPro
4th Feb 2009, 22:58
I still think that the helicopter controls in Battlefield 2 are better than any other game I've played. They weren't really all that complicated, but they were so difficult to learn at first. As frustrating as it was constantly crashing the first few times. It was soooo fun. But this is still Deus Ex and flying your own helicopter is not a requirement of a good DX game.

K^2
4th Feb 2009, 23:31
Any player controlled aerial vehicle => *BANG!* I just hit an invisible wall. :hmm:
Why would there be an invisible wall? Good level design does not make use of these. Something does need to keep you within certain bounds, but this has been addressed in so many games in so many different ways that not to think of a good way to do this would be demonstration of complete inability to design gameplay. Simplest thing would be to set up attractors that pull you back into the playing zone if you happen to leave the boundary while in an aircraft.

K^2, you seem to be blissfully ignoring the fact that helicopter controls are very complicated even in games which simplify them (aka, GTA), let alone flight sims.
I've been flying in sims for so long that, yes, I some time forget that certain people find these things difficult.

Solution is simple, though. Provide auto-pilot that lands you at default location unless you chose to take over. Everyone's happy now, right?

Ground vehicles should, indeed, be limited by same things that bots have always been. Just a bit of careful level design would provide all the limitation one needs.

Blade_hunter
4th Feb 2009, 23:34
Wow I've never expected a non French guy will respond to my little text in French, making long phrases is one of my big defects, but I try to use the most valuable arguments and explain what the proposal mean ....

And GmanPro, why do you say flying your helicopter isn't a requirement for a good DX game
why do you expect from the proposal ?

I think with the proposal you aren't forced to drive any vehicle
the main inconvenient and the realistic fact would be the power supply / fuel to make their use more tactical.

I think if you need to use a chopper or any mean of transportation like it was in DX you can, this proposal doesn't forbid the old use (vehicle for level transitions)
and most levels doesn't have any chopper at your disposal but you can find a forklift, or if you don't want to use it you can make a pile of crates and reach the point you wanted to reach.

I think the vehicles must be well integrated in the game world but it's a big difference between force a player to use something and add other ways, and the vehicle rampage can be possible only if you have a ton of guards in the roadway waiting your arrival and got their death ....

Edit: I forgot some things because they was used in DX and even to avoid the fact we can use an other way than the established by the developers.
the first was in the first level they put an invisible wall to avoid the fact you can join Filben at the dock by swimming, and the other was in some levels when you use your biomods to get out the closed part of the map by jumping over the wall, you got an invisible wall again and a death zone that when you put a foot in the ground you die. and many other games uses the same tricks because you can use a rocket jump for the same thing or in DX build a pile of crates to go in a place that the developpers doesn't want you go or they doesn't want you come back but you can, like when I finish the first NSF mission when I go back to hell's kitchen I find jock in the bar and on his chopper I used the pile of crates trick to return back and install my mods and found jock again on the bar.

Larington
4th Feb 2009, 23:46
Always amazes me the way this thread somehow seems to keep coming back from the dead.

GmanPro
4th Feb 2009, 23:49
^^ Its a characteristic of all good threads I suppose:p


And GmanPro, why do you say flying your helicopter isn't a requirement for a good DX game
why do you expect from the proposal ?

What I meant was, I would much rather be spending that time sneaking around a heavily guarded base/lab instead of flying around trying to find a spot to land. It reminds me of Oblivion. Running around in the wilderness is fun for a little while, but you quickly realize that there is no point to it and you'd rather just fast travel to your destination (man I really wish they had kept teleportation and not included fast-travel).

itsalladream
5th Feb 2009, 00:10
Well, what if they had all of the originally intended sneaking around, and added a few vehicle scenes (without them having felt tacked on)??

GmanPro
5th Feb 2009, 00:27
Hey, if its done properly, I can see it being somewhat enjoyable. But all things considered, I would much rather have an extra 15 minutes of actual sneaking around gameplay than some random vehicle scene. Now it reminds me of Mass Effect. The scenes with the Mako were just bad. Its like they were trying to be Halo, except Halo does it much much better.

The first mission in Left 4 Dead, you get away in a helicopter. One of the missions has a boat as the escape vehicle, and in the last mission, you get away in a millitary AV. Boom. There. Vehicles in the game, without it hampering my gameplay.

WhatsHisFace
5th Feb 2009, 00:35
^^ Its a characteristic of all good threads I suppose:p



What I meant was, I would much rather be spending that time sneaking around a heavily guarded base/lab instead of flying around trying to find a spot to land. It reminds me of Oblivion. Running around in the wilderness is fun for a little while, but you quickly realize that there is no point to it and you'd rather just fast travel to your destination (man I really wish they had kept teleportation and not included fast-travel).
So..... just have interesting levels. Problem solved.

Blade_hunter
5th Feb 2009, 00:36
I think I need to play oblivion to know why most players when I give some ideas they say after that the word "Oblivion"
I think a chopper can be a way or not, the main word is the fact a vehicle must be an alternate choice for the persons that wants to use them, and they mustn't being the easiest way to take, the vehicles must be balanced with the other ways, and if the access from your objective can be made by a roof I think there is so guards in the roof like it was in some levels of DX, and sometimes the mission objective in the lower levels of a building than a high level.
If your are afraid about a vehicle would be a shortcut to a mission, I think not, because it wasn't the Idea.
some persons were afraid about that but I don't think a vehicle should remove the infiltration, DX got some weapons like rocket launchers and most players still play infiltration, why a vehicle should remove the infiltration ?
The infiltration is often a mix between level design and AI
if the level design is poorly made vehicle or not the infiltration way is thrown, because the level design doesn't give you a way to be hidden and stealth
As well as AI if the AI is too aware of your presence how can you infiltrate ?
and If the AI never "hear" you when you make a ton of noise, vehicle or not the infiltration is thrown too.
the moves is a part too but we can use infiltration ways with basic moves like thief because SS2 uses the same engine and the same moves ... some games got the same moves but the infiltration is useless.

I don't suggest the vehicles to make the infiltration obsolete, if want to play both ways that the game could offer and got the same level of challenge but in several domains.

Larington
5th Feb 2009, 01:03
Oblivion basically gives you a massive continent that you can free roam around in, once you've visited a location, you can then 'fast travel' there via the map interface assuming your not mid-air or near hostile creatures/characters.

As such, the game has elements that simulteaneously appeal to and annoy different groups of players. You've got the conquerers, who like to 'win' for whom all of this wandering around just gets in the way of getting to the end of the game and you've got the explorers who really enjoy just travelling around investigating stuff they happen to happen upon. I'm more of an explorer type myself, so I don't really mind all the travelling around, shame about the 'backpedalling player combat syndrome' that occurs in it though.

GmanPro
5th Feb 2009, 01:11
I have nothing against exploration. In fact, exploring Morrowind counts among the most fun I've had playing a video game. The problem comes when there is nothing to see or find. Every cave/dungeon was exactly the same in Oblivion, with even the challenge rating of each encounter being balanced out according to your level. Everything felt the same, it was just Bethesda being lazy. The dungeons even looked the same due to the 'tileset' mapping they are so fond of over at Bethesda. It was more fun in Morrowind when you had to manage your mark and recall spells, and make use of the silt striders and ferrymen transports, and mage's guild teleporting.

Blade_hunter
5th Feb 2009, 17:03
Vehicles wouldn't replace indoors and vehicles isn't here to remove anything, some games vehicles or not got some details or be a pure desert.
Deus Ex is the proof of a non focused genre
And this time the engine has a ready vehicle support, not like before

facepalm
5th Feb 2009, 17:13
Invisible boundaries should be avoided at all costs. It doesn't matter how elegantly you design the system, an invisible wall is an invisible wall, "hitting" one always gives the player the same kneejerk reaction.

Assuming DX3 is mission-driven like it's predecessors (no completely open sandbox environment), I see 3 potential ways the devs can handle this issue:

A) Via a dialogue system as suggested before:

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu90/Build_more_tanks/uscwwe1.jpg

B) Or they can give the player some more control:

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu90/Build_more_tanks/uscwwe2.jpg

and then there's C)

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu90/Build_more_tanks/uscwwe3.jpg

Take your pick.