PDA

View Full Version : A lesson from BioShock...



Papy
14th Apr 2008, 22:20
I'm not sure if the point was already talked about, but even if it was, I guess once more wouldn't hurt...

I highly suspect Deus Ex 3 will have some forms of hand holding to make sure everyone can finish the game. All new games seem to have them. But I really hope there will be options to disable all of them.

I will take BioShock as an example. The first time I tried it, it was with Vita-Chambers activated. I simply found the game utterly boring and quit playing quite fast. What was the point of anything since after all the game is practically played in God mode. Why be cautious? Why care about the environment? Why care about plasmids? Well... I didn't and I viewed this game as useless junk. Beautiful junk, but junk nonetheless

With the patch, it was possible to disable those Vita-Chambers. I just gave it another try. I played with every help deactivated, including Vita-Chambers, I didn't use quicksave (only the automatic save between levels) and I avoided looking at the map and hints (which, unfortunately, couldn't be disabled)... and oh my god I now loved this game. The need to survive changed completely how I played the game. Instead of not caring and simply shooting at things, I was going slowly, looking at every details, always trying to find the best tactics depending on the situation. Attacking a big daddy brought a lot of tension. Knowing that dying would mean redoing all the level certainly was stressful (which is a good thing to me), and completing a level was extremely rewarding.

What I hope for Deus Ex 3, are options to disable all hand holding and other features to make sure the player can finish the game without too much effort (for example, automatic regeneration when waiting a few seconds). To me, this is more important than graphics, story or "cool" things.

Vasarto
14th Apr 2008, 22:23
Even though Your a god in Bioshock...same as in prey I had fun playing it once or twice...ONLY for the achivements and the plasmids but thats it!

I agree with you that Dues Ex 3 should have NO HAND HOLDING PERIOD. If its hand holding than make a optional tutorial at the beginning of the game that teaches you how to play and thats it!

pHdeus
15th Apr 2008, 01:21
One important point that you made, intentionally or just in my interpretation is the importance of details to be noticed or not, and to really make the world alive and three dimensional. First are books, newspapers, and various media.

The rats and the flies and crickets. The birds, especially in Hong Kong. Yes the drawers that opened. (didn't I just say that?) Clouds moving, not still; dripping water, just water, steam, fires, electric sparks. Billboards and other signs. The abandoned, the broken, the elegant, the dirty, the immaculate, the industrial, the view at the bottom of the ocean with music painting the same picture.

And of course...cleaner bots

Chemix
15th Apr 2008, 02:02
so making sure that a game is very very difficult is more important than any other aspect? ... the story was the greatness of Deus Ex, an lets hope the devs don't forget that (and it would be very hard to do so if they read these forums). The AI was utterly moronic, running and ducking at random with no real purpose. other than to crudely imitate gunfighting. With a little practice, you could memorize the AI routines and simply gun them down with perfect aim every time, not that I had the time or patience when tranq darts downed over half the games enemies in one shot (and 5-10 seconds).

If you couldn't appreciate Bioshock because of vitachambers, as adverse to quicksaves and auto saves that remove the consequences of your actions (lack of ammo, damage done, etc. etc.) then you were trying to appreciate the forest for the fungus... It's the story that made Bioshock great, not the old school difficulty level of NES games that forced you to keep the console on to maintain progress.

These are the sorts of things that make me think that posts on this board may turn the devs off to suggestions. Posts like "cars in a game + pedestrians + ability to kill pedestrians + consequences = GTA" just outright scare me at the IQ level here.

Paul Denton
15th Apr 2008, 02:29
what made deus ex so good was the strategy involved, and the higher difficulty levels made the game much more interesting. although the AI's were easy to kill, gaming has gotten better and now AI's in games are more sophisticated. So in the new dues ex, if strategy is again incorporated, the game should be harder meaning for more fun. unlike in bioshock when you died you were revived, in deus ex you had to rely on autosaves, if killed. so why not make dues ex different then other newer games and not even have a handicap or some other beginner help or autosaves, just to make the game more interesting. but still have aumentations like healing or ballistic protection to take the place of vitachambers:) .

Inane Mythos
15th Apr 2008, 02:55
These are the sorts of things that make me think that posts on this board may turn the devs off to suggestions. Posts like "cars in a game + pedestrians + ability to kill pedestrians + consequences = GTA" just outright scare me at the IQ level here.
Not to be rude (as I was the person who posted that) but I'll gladly appreciate if you didn't insult my or anybody else's IQ based on a post. A post which is true at that.

On topic though, I agree with you Papy (Are you from TTLG?), games today hold your hand for far too long. Games such as Call Of Duty 2(A so called War simulator) have little to no challenge because of the regeneration of health. Yes games are supposed to be fun but living forever is no fun at all. I think (Think*) it has to do with the mass market today, that market mainly consisting of kids. I've seen a lot of children (Espeially adolescents in the US) scream and shout at a TV and game just because they died or failed or something in said game. It's a shame to see stress being countered with Violence in this day and age where everything is much easier.

It's not about being difficult, but being a challenge.

*Not blaming it on kids, but if you've been around as much as I have you'd notice.

Papy
15th Apr 2008, 06:12
Vasarto : I disagree. I think it's better if a game can suit as many people as possible. Having optional hand holding systems is, to me, a win-win situation.


Chemix : I'm sorry to say, but I think it's you who do not see the forest for the trees. Let me put it this way... would you play with "Deus Ex : The text adventure game"?


Inane Mythos : Yes, I'm the one from TTLG. From time to time, I come to this forum to escape and find some peace. ;)

Inane Mythos
15th Apr 2008, 06:36
Inane Mythos : Yes, I'm the one from TTLG. From time to time, I come to this forum to escape and find some peace. ;)
Aha, I hear ya. The place can get a little 'Rowdy' every now and then. Especially CommChat :p

Chemix
15th Apr 2008, 09:53
the story of Bioshock was presented through an immersive visual and audio environment, as was Deus Ex, albeit Deus Ex had a lot more side bits that weren't as obvious (books). And since when does GTA's system of "justice" mirror the worlds? In GTA, 2 Pedestrians ran over, nomatter where you are, gets you a 1 star warning level where cops will try and knock you unconcious with nite-sticks. In real life, when somebody finds out, you go to jail for a very long time, if not life, and that's just civilians, an agent of an international agency would cause an international incident, so there would be serious reprocussions for any vehicular manslaughter.

Tracer Tong
15th Apr 2008, 11:09
DX1 NEVER had hand-holding elements. Let's keep it that way.

Fen
15th Apr 2008, 11:48
Deus ex had a decent tutorial. It taught you everything you needed to know about the game. However when the tutorial was over, they set you off, and let you discover the way you were going to approach this game.

This was a perfect forumla. Give an extensive tutorial so players dont start the game with absolutely no idea what they are doing. However once the game starts, its up to the player to choose how they progress through the game.

Vasarto
15th Apr 2008, 14:15
Vasarto : I disagree. I think it's better if a game can suit as many people as possible. Having optional hand holding systems is, to me, a win-win situation.

Yes Im sure that never having to die is a good thing but if you cannot loose in a game and your just givin the answers to any and all parts of the game than It not only robs the game of its potential but it makes the game too easy as well. If my hand is being held than im not even playing the game im just doing what the computer tells me too without having to worry about loosing at all. I am not a god I am THE GOD. Thus everyone and every challange the game has to offer is so far below me I cannot loose.

I already know what to do and when to do it and where to do it and HOW to do it becuse the computer holds my hand so and thus im not playing a game im working at a job im not getting paid for.

When the devs like those whom made prey and other games that hold your hand too much like...Ill use oblivion for an example. It makes the game too easy and thus looses any and all replay value it had. I loved Oblivion but with its map markers always guiding you to the point where you need to be and telling you exactly what needed to be done it made missions really easy. Plus in the easiest game setting...Even noob gamers can beat the game which is a bad thing.

Any real gamer Hates noob gamers becuse they play these sorts of games and believe themselfs to be good at video games and they always brag on and on about how good they think they are. So in short, Whenever devs deciede to base the game entirely around hand holding whether it be that you cannot die or it tells you what to do all the time and how to do it and when to do it than it just robs the game of anything it could of had to make it a great game.

Deus Ex 1 was a shinning example of telling you what needed to be done but
letting YOU do it instead of the computer doing it for you. Example would be something like eehh.

:You need to get to the top and hack into the computers. After that you need to send a signal to the other terrorist groups.

It went something like that but im referring to when you betrey unatco and
do what paul asked by sending the info to the other terrorists so they wouldn't get caught.

Paul told you what he needed to get done and he did not hold you hand or kept telling you what to do. If your anything of a competant player than you pretty much already knew what needed to be done by common sense and thinking and Im sure you never took too many chances with the guards...unless you stun prodded them all like I did like a crafty mother!


The game or the characters in the game can tell you what needs to be done but they should in no way hold your hand and tell you how,when,why or where to do it.Also I think it would be a very bad idea if they made it so that
you can never die or not die very easily. Becuse that too robs any and all games of its potential it could of had. I do not want deus ex to be more like

Bioshock or Prey I want it to be more like deus ex 1 but a little less of them telling me what needs to be done. So If I already know I need to hack into the computers I dont want a them to contact me and tell me that I FOUND the computer that I need to do it on...LET ME FIGURE IT OUT ON MY OWN!:mad2:

Papy
15th Apr 2008, 18:13
the story of Bioshock was presented through an immersive visual and audio environment, as was Deus Ex, albeit Deus Ex had a lot more side bits that weren't as obvious (books).
What you fail to realize is that most of that immersion feeling is due to the gameplay. It is due to what you do, not to what you see. A game with bad graphics can be immersive (look at a screenshot from Ultima Underword as an example), but I game with bad gameplay cannot. Of course we all have different ideas about what kind of gameplay we find interesting, mostly depending on our personal abilities, but it remains that gameplay is what define a game.


Any real gamer Hates noob gamers becuse they play these sorts of games and believe themselfs to be good at video games and they always brag on and on about how good they think they are.
I'm a regular runner. My short run is 12 km, and my normal long run is 23 km. Do you know what I say to someone who is proud of himself because he was able to do a 4 km run without stopping once? I say this is a great accomplishment. I don't run because I want to prove something to other people, I don't run because I need to belittle other people, I run because I simply love running. As long as I can do my normal 23 km run, I'm happy. If other people prefer to do a 4 km run, I'll then be happy for them if they can also do what they want.

I hope I will be able to turn off all hand holding with Deus Ex 3 so I can be happy, but I see nothing wrong with other people using those helping features. What's wrong with both of us being happy at the same time?

MaxxQ1
16th Apr 2008, 03:20
Vasarto : I disagree. I think it's better if a game can suit as many people as possible. Having optional hand holding systems is, to me, a win-win situation.


Yes Im sure that never having to die is a good thing but if you cannot loose in a game and your just givin the answers to any and all parts of the game than It not only robs the game of its potential but it makes the game too easy as well. If my hand is being held than im not even playing the game im just doing what the computer tells me too without having to worry about loosing at all. I am not a god I am THE GOD. Thus everyone and every challange the game has to offer is so far below me I cannot loose.

< Snippage >


I think you missed the key word (bolded above) in Papy's post. Options are ALWAYS good in a game - and the funny thing is, they're OPTIONAL! :thumbsup:

DXeXodus
16th Apr 2008, 04:19
I agree with Papy in the sense that there needs to be a formala which allows for the enjoyment of the game by all levels of player. A first time gamer should be allowed to use all of the so called 'hand-holding' features, but, a hardcore gamer/Deus Ex veteran should be allowed to play his game without any annoying helpers such as: little guidance arrow that shows you where to go, Unlimited quick saves, tutorial pop up text, etc. This, for us, only acts as a distracion that reduces the immersion. (look at hitman Blood money: The difficulty levels impacted on certain things like save game amount aswell)

I remember playing DX1 once with all of the hud turned off and no cross- hair. It was downright scary... but it was a highly enjoyable experience nonetheless. DX1 was a great game because it allowed the pain-free adjusting of such settings (among many other things as well).

@Vasarto: I believe that anyone, who considers themselves a 'real gamer' should most definitely not hate noobs because we are all part of a community and by treating other gamers like they are trash is pathetic. We were once all noobs and should thus be patient with those of lesser skill and gaming knowledge.

Larington
16th Apr 2008, 07:55
I think it may be wise to try and boil this down a bit, whats everyones definition of hand-holding?

In my mind, its providing tutorials that explain basics like movement, weapon usage and so on. Things that experienced FPS players already know, but people who specifically play RTS or something else might not be so familiar with the FPS/RPG elements in a DX game.

My suspicion at the moment is that there is more than one definition of the same phrase at the moment...


Also, if Anachronox has taught me anything, an otherwise great games success can be destroyed by a slow first hour and low poly character models (It also had problems with its Miles Sound Drivers/System), shame really, brilliant game except for those minor flaws. Plus a community/fan patch (Done by one of the ex programmers on the project) added taxis to the first section of the game to reduce running about, pity it wasn't there at the games release really. Its kind of funny, just as you need to balance the gameplay, its also wise to find a balance between graphics and gamplay, go to either extreme and you either have a glorified tech demo or dwarf fortress. Heh

DXeXodus
16th Apr 2008, 12:43
'Hand-holding' is things like a 'hint' system that tell you exactly what to do, unlimited save games, little pointer/guidence arrow at the top of your screen. But it can also be those annoying things that developers do to make games more 'Accessible' such as the infamous universal ammo and general dumbing down of things.

I think the definition is clear here... hand holding is everything that DX2 did and DX one steered clear of.

As I have said before.... incorporate a 'hand-holding' system... but please, let us turn it off so we dont need to be insulted by being taught how to look around with the mouse (or analog sticks) or how to move from point A to point B.

Tracer Tong
16th Apr 2008, 14:02
Deus ex had a decent tutorial. It taught you everything you needed to know about the game. However when the tutorial was over, they set you off, and let you discover the way you were going to approach this game.

Again, even the tutorial had secret things (i.e. the openable block in the wall in the tutorial) that you needed to analyze and explore in order to better understand the universe that you are in.

gamer0004
16th Apr 2008, 14:27
'Hand-holding' is things like a 'hint' system that tell you exactly what to do, unlimited save games, little pointer/guidence arrow at the top of your screen. But it can also be those annoying things that developers do to make games more 'Accessible' such as the infamous universal ammo and general dumbing down of things.

I think the definition is clear here... hand holding is everything that DX2 did and DX one steered clear of.

As I have said before.... incorporate a 'hand-holding' system... but please, let us turn it off so we dont need to be insulted by being taught how to look around with the mouse (or analog sticks) or how to move from point A to point B.

Plz, give me infintie save games! No more console crap like checkpoints! I want to save whenever and where-ever I like. I want to be able to choose whether I save often or not, the game shouldn't decide that for me.

Fen
16th Apr 2008, 15:04
Plz, give me infintie save games! No more console crap like checkpoints! I want to save whenever and where-ever I like. I want to be able to choose whether I save often or not, the game shouldn't decide that for me.

Yeah totally agree here. Dont limit how much a person can save the game.

That being said, please add an auto-save feature that can be toggled by the player. The amount of times ive died and had to go back 2-3 hours to my last save is quite painful.

For those who are *****ing about a tutorial explaining movement. Get over it. So what if you have to spend a few minutes sitting through that. If that ruins your gameplay experience then you have serious issues. The tutorial must be skippable however.

What I constitue as handholding is having someone constantly barking orders in my ear about where to go, or having an arrow or a visual cue pointing me in the correct direction. Death should be permanent and some things should be really hard. Ammo should be sufficient, but not abundant. I should be forced to use different weapons throughout the game. I shouldnt be able to walk through the entire game and have enough multitools to open every damn electronic device I see.

What I liked about deus ex, was that when it told you something, it told you in a realistic manner. You ask a question and you got a realistic answer. For example, you asked where a generator building would be and people would tell you that its over in the other street, but the street was blocked off by police. You didnt get given map-coordinates or anything. This was a big part of deus ex (gathering information) and really added to the game, making it not just a run and gun shooter. This HAS to return.

Voltaire
16th Apr 2008, 15:32
Exactly. And in a lot of RPG/talk-to-everyone-to-get-more-info style games, you can just cycle through the conversation options until you've heard them say all they can. In DX your initial response always had consequences (remember the Castle Clinton mission with the hungry kid? If you p*ssed him off, that was that, no redemption, no secret code) :mad2:

Papy
17th Apr 2008, 00:28
Plz, give me infintie save games! No more console crap like checkpoints! I want to save whenever and where-ever I like. I want to be able to choose whether I save often or not, the game shouldn't decide that for me.
Again, it's better if both systems are implemented. A normal mode where people can save anywhere, and a hardcore mode where saves are disabled (except for a few checkpoints) would be a win-win situation. That way, everyone could play the game the way they like it.



Yeah totally agree here. Dont limit how much a person can save the game.
[...]
Death should be permanent
Those two things are in contradiction with each other.


That being said, please add an auto-save feature that can be toggled by the player. The amount of times ive died and had to go back 2-3 hours to my last save is quite painful.
Losing 2 hours because of a game crash is annoying, losing 2 hours because you died is perfectly justified in my mind. Where's the excitement if the only thing you lose for dying is 15 seconds?

Larington
17th Apr 2008, 07:26
Of course, the datavault should still be there in some form or other so you can refer to it for incomplete objectives, of course, it should tell you what those objectives are and not how to do them since thats obviously something the player should be able to work out how to do for himself. Afterall its not as if DX is a point and click adventure game where you've got to combine the aardvark with the elastic band and tie them to the ferret, etc.

gamer0004
17th Apr 2008, 16:43
Again, it's better if both systems are implemented. A normal mode where people can save anywhere, and a hardcore mode where saves are disabled (except for a few checkpoints) would be a win-win situation. That way, everyone could play the game the way they like it.


They'd have to "implement" no items, weapons or skills because that's the same as no saving. Beating the game without saving once (except for saving when you stop playing) is just another way of playing the game, just like the no-item run, or the melee-weapons-only,-without-using-the-dragon's-tooth-sword-run. It should be a choice and it should always have to be changed in-game. For instance, when I would decide at Area 51 "man, this no-item run sucks, I want to kill everyone now", I should be able to pick up a GEP gun and start shooting. The PLAYER should decide, as (almost) always in DX.

Papy
17th Apr 2008, 21:12
They'd have to "implement" no items, weapons or skills because that's the same as no saving.
No, this is really not the same. Saving frequently is not about a style of play. People save in order to escape punishment for their own failure. Saving and reloading is about abusing a convenient feature, which can allow the player to quit playing whenever you want, in order to break a game and to win without any effort. It is a form of cheating. I would agree that if you like to cheat in a single player game then it's your own business, but, personally, I don't see the point of cheating and I want a clear indication from the game to know when I reached a milestone. I want to play the game as it is meant to be played, not to break it.

What I find sad is that Vita-Chambers and Wolverine healing is a consequence of all those people who save regularly in order to make death meaningless. It seems to me that developers, because they are tired of everyone saving constantly and breaking the game, now incorporate those features right into the game. Maybe you like Vita-Chambers, but for me, the only way I could appreciate BioShock was with Vita-Chambers deactivated and no saving (except for the automatic save when changing levels). This is when the game became fun.

Again, if you like to cheat that's your own business and I'm all for an option that you can abuse if you feel like it. But don't force me to play the game with the cheat mode on.

Smoke Screen
17th Apr 2008, 23:14
The Vita-Chambers are just less thoughtfull implemented holdovers from
System Shock.

BTW Quicksave & Load. In my opinion its a necessary feature for plain practical
reasons. If its cheating in your opinion than just dont do it. Its your choice.
But at least this choice must be there.
Personaly i dislike automatic healing Crysis-like way more.

Chemix
18th Apr 2008, 00:03
If manual saving is cheating, then what happens when you need to do something, like eh... go to work, school, university and you realize you're late and need to leave. If you leave the game running, you can't very well pick up where you left off that morning because it's drained your system resources and you can't very well save to actually play the game as it was meant to be played, on a fully operational computer that's ram is not depleted. It negates the failure of death... so what, should we cry when we die and go into shock and have to redo the past 5 hours of a game because we tediously set up a series of optional traps or did various side quests or what have you and then happened to die because of a miscalculation.

What breaks the game is when you can't pick up roughly where you left off and have to redo everything you just did already, it's breaks the continuity.

This isn't about making people's eyes bleed when they choose the wrong option and have to restart, it's about story and plot and how to get through it. If you can't appreciate Bioshock because of vita-chambers, or other games because of the ability to save where you want or need to, then you're missing the point. Death is only function of gameplay while the game is still going on, unless it is otherwise a feature (Prey) and in that case the game is still going on.

Gary_Savage
18th Apr 2008, 03:11
I like that; I definitely do. My feelings, exactly! Being able to save at any point is especially important, when your normal play session lasts only a few minutes, until you KNOW you had better get to bed, or get started on that project.

Unstoppable
18th Apr 2008, 08:46
They have to make the game easier because there are people out there who have never EVER played a game like Deus Ex before.

If the game is going to sell well it needs to be easier. What can be done to cater to those for more challenge are advanced modes. Which might feature advanced A.I. and no hand holding as you stated above.

This way it can cater to both the casual and hard core.

Papy
18th Apr 2008, 12:20
If you can't appreciate Bioshock because of vita-chambers, or other games because of the ability to save where you want or need to, then you're missing the point.
I am? Obviously, we don't view games the same way. Story and plots are nice, but they are not the strong point of a game. A movie or a book are far better than any game for that. The strong point of a game is, well, gameplay. It is trying to win. When the game is so easy that no concept of losing or punishment for failure is present, then I don't see the point to PLAY a game. Not losing is great for a pastime, but not for a game.

Anyway, I'm not against a save function, far from it, but there's a difference between saving because you need to stop playing, and saving because you want to escape punishment for a failure. There's a difference between using a function and abusing a function.

Again, the same way I'm not against an arrow showing the player where he need to go, I'm not against people saving every 45 seconds. The only thing I want is an indication on when I reached a milestone in the game. In the case of Deus Ex or Thief, it was at the beginning of a level. In the case of BioShock, it was the auto saving. I just want that kind kind of indication so I can also enjoy the game.

Fen
18th Apr 2008, 18:05
I am? Obviously, we don't view games the same way. Story and plots are nice, but they are not the strong point of a game. A movie or a book are far better than any game for that. The strong point of a game is, well, gameplay. It is trying to win. When the game is so easy that no concept of losing or punishment for failure is present, then I don't see the point to PLAY a game. Not losing is great for a pastime, but not for a game.

Anyway, I'm not against a save function, far from it, but there's a difference between saving because you need to stop playing, and saving because you want to escape punishment for a failure. There's a difference between using a function and abusing a function.

Again, the same way I'm not against an arrow showing the player where he need to go, I'm not against people saving every 45 seconds. The only thing I want is an indication on when I reached a milestone in the game. In the case of Deus Ex or Thief, it was at the beginning of a level. In the case of BioShock, it was the auto saving. I just want that kind kind of indication so I can also enjoy the game.


Well if you want to place a saving restriction on yourself, that is fine.

Death should be permanent means that when your dead, your given an option of starting a new game or loading a game. Not that you get revived somewhere.

To not allow saving at anytime is just not logical to most people and would hurt the game's ratings.

And as for dieing, If I'm not standing close enough to the wall and accidently blow myself into pieces, I dont think I should be punished 3 hours of time for it. You may think so, and if thats how you want to play, go for it. However saving is not cheating. People have different ideas of how often you should save, and its up to them to decide where and when.

Larington
18th Apr 2008, 18:41
"They have to make the game easier because there are people out there who have never EVER played a game like Deus Ex before."

Not sure we're doing the average player any justice there, Deus Ex allowed you to choose a difficulty and so should the third game in the franchise (I dislike the word franchise, its so... clinical), as for learning how the interface works, thats what the optional tutorial mission is for. My concern, I suppose, is that a person could argue for a simplified UI more similar to DX-IW simply because the UI in DX1 was harder to get the hang of, same applies to gameplay (esp skills and augs, or lack thereof in the case of skills)...

gamer0004
18th Apr 2008, 20:17
lol the DX UI wasn't exactly hard to master... It was actually more user friendly than the DX:IW HUD.

Chemix
18th Apr 2008, 20:39
I am? Obviously, we don't view games the same way. Story and plots are nice, but they are not the strong point of a game. A movie or a book are far better than any game for that. The strong point of a game is, well, gameplay. It is trying to win. When the game is so easy that no concept of losing or punishment for failure is present, then I don't see the point to PLAY a game. Not losing is great for a pastime, but not for a game.

Anyway, I'm not against a save function, far from it, but there's a difference between saving because you need to stop playing, and saving because you want to escape punishment for a failure. There's a difference between using a function and abusing a function.

Again, the same way I'm not against an arrow showing the player where he need to go, I'm not against people saving every 45 seconds. The only thing I want is an indication on when I reached a milestone in the game. In the case of Deus Ex or Thief, it was at the beginning of a level. In the case of BioShock, it was the auto saving. I just want that kind kind of indication so I can also enjoy the game.

Movies and Books are non interactive mediums that don't lend themself to choice, as the choices are already made and those choices are set in stone. "Choices" is the point of Bioshock, albeit it wasn't carried out to the bests of it's potential.

Larington
18th Apr 2008, 21:38
"lol the DX UI wasn't exactly hard to master... It was actually more user friendly than the DX:IW HUD."

Thats exactly my point, same applies to the gameplay. The choice of how to go about DX1 was so wide open that pretty much any player was likely to naturally fall into a particular choice unless making a concious decision to choose an alternative.

Papy
20th Apr 2008, 17:24
Death should be permanent means that when your dead, your given an option of starting a new game or loading a game. Not that you get revived somewhere.
So you think loading a game after dying is not equivalent to getting revived somewhere? In the case of Vita-Chambers it was a bit worse because damage done to enemies were still there, but otherwise it's basically the same thing.

Anyway, AGAIN, I'm not against a save system. If you want to save every 45 seconds, go for it. What I want is an option to play the game as a game and not as a mere pastime. I don't want to force anyone to play a challenging game, but personally, I'm not interested at all in a pastime.

Also, although there are exceptions depending on the game you're playing, saving frequently is a form of cheating. I don't see how you can deny this. It allows the player to do easily what he couldn't do otherwise. I can easily run 1 km in less than 4 minutes, which would mean a full marathon in less 2h48, but the truth is I can't keep up that kind of pace for a full marathon. For a game it means winning a combat situation, then saving, then winning another combat situation, then saving, is easier than winning both in a row.




Movies and Books are non interactive mediums that don't lend themself to choice, as the choices are already made and those choices are set in stone. "Choices" is the point of Bioshock, albeit it wasn't carried out to the bests of it's potential.
The story in both BioShock and Deus Ex were also set in stone. There are a few changes depending on what you do, but your range of action is extremely limited. "Choices", both with Deus Ex and BioShock were a lot more about gameplay than about the story. It's even to a point where, with BioShock, the game explains to you why you don't have choices about what you do (remember Ryan?).

As for saying choices were not carried out to the best of BioShock's potential, well... If you would have played without Vita-Chambers, maybe you would have realized how wrong you are. It's sad you missed what the game was about.

gamer0004
20th Apr 2008, 17:46
Well, if you fire with your GEP gun at a bot in Paris, but because the engine isn't good enough you shoot "against" nothing and die and because you haven't saved for 2 hours, that sucks. Simply because it's the games fault. These things happen to me all the time. I don't play offline games seriously enough to watch really ALL my steps. So I tend to fall of places. That sucks when the game uses checkpoints. I could easily finish the game without saving and reloading, but it's just not fun for me, because you have to watch literally every step. And I don't mean being cautious in combat. I almost never die in combat. But IRL shooting "against" nothing with your GEP gun isn't possible, and i't's not very easy to fall of a wide bridge, because you notice where you are going. In game I just walk around, strafing to the left and right while I'm walking forward. No idea why I do it, but I do it. Guess it makes the walking less boring for me :P

Chemix
20th Apr 2008, 23:52
So you think loading a game after dying is not equivalent to getting revived somewhere? In the case of Vita-Chambers it was a bit worse because damage done to enemies were still there, but otherwise it's basically the same thing.

Anyway, AGAIN, I'm not against a save system. If you want to save every 45 seconds, go for it. What I want is an option to play the game as a game and not as a mere pastime. I don't want to force anyone to play a challenging game, but personally, I'm not interested at all in a pastime.

Also, although there are exceptions depending on the game you're playing, saving frequently is a form of cheating. I don't see how you can deny this. It allows the player to do easily what he couldn't do otherwise. I can easily run 1 km in less than 4 minutes, which would mean a full marathon in less 2h48, but the truth is I can't keep up that kind of pace for a full marathon. For a game it means winning a combat situation, then saving, then winning another combat situation, then saving, is easier than winning both in a row.

The story in both BioShock and Deus Ex were also set in stone. There are a few changes depending on what you do, but your range of action is extremely limited. "Choices", both with Deus Ex and BioShock were a lot more about gameplay than about the story. It's even to a point where, with BioShock, the game explains to you why you don't have choices about what you do (remember Ryan?).

As for saying choices were not carried out to the best of BioShock's potential, well... If you would have played without Vita-Chambers, maybe you would have realized how wrong you are. It's sad you missed what the game was about.

You assume I haven't, and you're right, I haven't, but the point of it is, we were presented the game concept a few years back it was much more interesting. A living, dying, city, much more open ended than what we actually got. There is not a single NPC other than the little sisters that isn't an enemy. Big Daddies just need to be aggravated enough, but from the start they are something that exists to be killed or used and then killed. Leaving them alone is not an option, even for the liberators and do gooders. It isn't enough that they've suffered excruciating pain, or that they are trapped in clunky diving suits for their lifetimes, but they must also be struck down by the player. There is no way to work with the big daddies or little sisters without hypnotyzing the big daddy as an ally and making the one moral choice in the game, to clearly save, or clearly defile, the little sister.

I never saw the splicers fight amongst themselves unless player actions dictated that they should; so they're only attacking the player.

It isn't vita-chambers that dumbed down Bioshock, it's the dumbed down black/white single moral choice and lack of non-enemy NPC types that we could interact with, or betray even. Disabling Vita-chambers no more enables choice than taking away the television remote and forcing someone to get up and manually change the channel, enables a better viewing experience. It breaks up continuity for the purpose of abstract challenge.

As towards Deus Ex's story, it certainly wasn't set in stone at all. Along the way you defined your character as cold or warm hearted, though no nescessarily good or evil, though the choice was forced with the decision to join NSF, but after that the choices open up even more so until the very end where you have 3 possible endings, each of them with a lot of good and some evil attached. I've yet to watch a movie in a theater where I could define who characters were emotionally and what ended up happening to them, on screen, ofcourse there are lots of open ended films that don't really explain anything, but then you're no longer choosing, you're filling in blanks and guessing

Smoke Screen
21st Apr 2008, 01:26
It isn't vita-chambers that dumbed down Bioshock, it's the dumbed down black/white single moral choice and lack of non-enemy NPC types that we could interact with, or betray even. Disabling Vita-chambers no more enables choice than taking away the television remote and forcing someone to get up and manually change the channel, enables a better viewing experience. It breaks up continuity for the purpose of abstract challenge.

Nicely said. In fact Bioshock is just a marketing name. The game itselft has
only few shallow leftovers from a former -shock-game. The whole inner structure
and gamemechanics are reduced to a horrorshooterromp with nice gfx and a
couple unnecessary gimmicks sold as features. Oh boy. :mad2:
But well,its looks good and goes down like a donut with coffee.
Buy it,play it,forget it.
To complain here about vita-chambers and quicksave is a joke,isnt it ? :scratch:

Papy
21st Apr 2008, 07:04
It isn't vita-chambers that dumbed down Bioshock, it's the dumbed down black/white single moral choice and lack of non-enemy NPC types that we could interact with, or betray even. Disabling Vita-chambers no more enables choice than taking away the television remote and forcing someone to get up and manually change the channel, enables a better viewing experience. It breaks up continuity for the purpose of abstract challenge.
Could you define what you mean with "continuity"? Because unless you include the player shooting at things as part of the storytelling, that "continuity" in the storytelling is always broken by the player having to play the game. You get a bit of the story, then you play. You get another small bit, then you play. Is that what you call "continuity"?

As for BioShock being dumbed down, let's be honest, it's basically the exact same story structure as SS2, only with a different theme. It's even better because SS2 had no NPC interaction and no moral "choices". So saying BioShock was dumbed down from a story point of view really makes no sense. As for the gameplay, the only thing removed was the inventory, and the skill points. On the other hand, BioShock was better with its tactical gameplay. And because of that better tactical gameplay, I'd say that BioShock was actually less dumb than SS2. That is, of course, only with Vita-Chambers disabled.

You fail to realize three things. First, it is that the "depth" of BioShock, or from any game, doesn't come directly from the game. A video game has not enough material to be deep by itself, particularly about it's story. A game can make a point about something specific (I'm talking about "serious game" here), but nothing more. For video games, depth is a perception that come from the player. It's how you play and what you imagine that make a game "deep". At best a video game is only a series of dots, and it's only when the player use those dots to draw his own picture that depth can be imagined. Any wishes to have a deep interactive story in a video game will not be fulfilled. BioShock and Deus Ex had both extremely superficial stories, and depth is not possible because the medium is too limited by technology to do that.

The second thing you don't realize is that people will almost always do the minimum effort to accomplish their goal. I said that BioShock is better in tactical gameplay than SS2. The problem is, because of Vita-Chambers, there is absolutely no reason to adopt a more tactical attitude. The gameplay's "depth" comes from possibilities, but no one will actually learn or figure out those possibilities since there is no difference in results. Whether you use a good solution or a bad solution to solve a problem, you will always succeed and get an "A". So not only there is no reason do play intelligently, but the game won't even tell you when what you did was intelligent or stupid. You won't learn anything. You'll end up doing things because it's "cool" not because of thinking. I saw many times people saying was average as a shooter, and that's to me the proof they didn't saw what BioShock was about.

Once you remove Vita-Chambers and saving, the game change completely. It's not just a question of a bit more effort, it is about adopting a completely different attitude. As dying and redoing a whole level is really annoying, you try to find a way to simply not die. The game becomes about thinking how to survive by any mean possible, instead of simply doing things because you feel like it. Choices become significant, and not a mere cosmetic question. When your survival is at stakes, this is when you really think about harvesting a little sister instead of simply saving because "it's the right thing to do" in your mind. This is what Vita-Chambers (and saving frequently) destroy : The meaning of your choices. Vita-Chambers transform the game into a superficial and "cool" things, instead of something that could lead into thinking about your own morality and your own motivation. Thinking... Isn't it what depth is about?

Finally, the third thing you don't realize is that something like BioShock or Deus Ex is so full of holes, of inconsistency, that unless your mind is busy elsewhere, you'll simply find everything ridiculous. Seriously, can you explain to me the presence of all those audio logs scattered around Rapture? How ridiculous is that? Even if you don't care about playing a game and just want a nice semi-interactive story, you have to forget about these things. This is why having a challenging gameplay is important. It's like a magician who's waving his left hand so you don't look at the right hand. Look around and you'll find a lot of people saying SS2 was much better than BioShock. This is ludicrous as they are basically the same game with only a different theme. Those people simply didn't look at the enormous flaws of SS2, because they were too busy with the gameplay. BioShock, with Vita-Chambers, was so easy that the the only thing to think about was those flaws.



As towards Deus Ex's story, it certainly wasn't set in stone at all. Along the way you defined your character as cold or warm hearted, though no nescessarily good or evil, though the choice was forced with the decision to join NSF, but after that the choices open up even more so until the very end where you have 3 possible endings, each of them with a lot of good and some evil attached.
Choices opened up after "joining" the NSF? What are you talking about? You certainly have a lot of imagination. The only choices you had was at the very end of the last mission and the only consequence was a final video. Nothing more. There were very minor branches here and there, but otherwise the main story of Deus Ex was completely linear. Even the branching about Paul was inconsequential to the rest of the story.

Chemix
21st Apr 2008, 08:22
I see that there is no way to explain this to you, so I leave you with your opinion. Though I think you'll find more titles of your preferred challenge level on the NES.

minus0ne
21st Apr 2008, 12:48
I never saw the splicers fight amongst themselves unless player actions dictated that they should; so they're only attacking the player.
Splicers gotta stick together you know, like hyenas.

It isn't vita-chambers that dumbed down Bioshock, it's the dumbed down black/white single moral choice and lack of non-enemy NPC types that we could interact with, or betray even. Disabling Vita-chambers no more enables choice than taking away the television remote and forcing someone to get up and manually change the channel, enables a better viewing experience. It breaks up continuity for the purpose of abstract challenge.
BioShock is hardly a game where you drop by the pub and have a informative conversation with a non-enemy - if you were looking for that in a first person "survival" horror RPG (survival being debatable due to the VC) you were clearly ill-informed.

But you can't possibly argue it's a game with black and white moral choices. As far as I see it, you can hardly do right or wrong in BioShock. But I guess you feel leaving all the little sisters to fend for themselves and stealing their ADAM is the obvious right choice, whereas killing everything in sight is the clear wrong moral choice?


As towards Deus Ex's story, it certainly wasn't set in stone at all. Along the way you defined your character as cold or warm hearted, though no nescessarily good or evil, though the choice was forced with the decision to join NSF, but after that the choices open up even more so until the very end where you have 3 possible endings, each of them with a lot of good and some evil attached. I've yet to watch a movie in a theater where I could define who characters were emotionally and what ended up happening to them, on screen, ofcourse there are lots of open ended films that don't really explain anything, but then you're no longer choosing, you're filling in blanks and guessing
Well either your memory is truly riddled with holes or you have a very vivid imagination. DX was a linear game, with very few choices. The trick was, it felt like you had a whole lot of choice. In reality though, here are the choices:
- You're free to carry out your missions by whatever method of infiltration and completion you choose. *Has no effect on the rest of the game, though you might be commended or scolded for your actions (though very poorly implemented, like the fact that a knockout is the same as a kill as far as the engine script goes).
- Either execute Lebedev or Navarre or both or neither. Has only a 'cosmetic' impact on the rest of the game.
- Let Smuggler know there's going to be a UNATCO raid. No impact.
- Either climb out the 'Ton window and leave Paul to die or stay and fight.
- Either have Jaime join you in HK or leave him on as a spy to get Gunther's killphrase in Paris. Again, only cosmetic impact.
- Either kill/KO the mechanic and save Jock or not. Certainly emotional, but of no impact.
- The 3 endings. Though you're very clearly bonkers if you feel there's a clear moral right and a clear moral wrong here. No impact.

So I'd say it's pretty damn linear. I hope this game will be a lot less linear, and not pseudo-nonlinear like IW. Other games can pull it off, why not this team? It's criminal that the budget was cut (Eidos UK must be mad), but they can still make this an excellent game AND an excellent sequel, the source material is just that awesome :p

Chemix
21st Apr 2008, 19:46
I'm talking about Bioshock as it was presented a year before release, when it wasn't survival horror, which it still isn't, or at least mostly.

Papy
21st Apr 2008, 21:47
I think you'll find more titles of your preferred challenge level on the NES.
That's strange, I thought for a moment I played Deus Ex on a computer and not on a NES. Is my memory failing me?

Chemix
22nd Apr 2008, 01:18
I saved all throughout Deus Ex, and it is everyone's option to do so or not. What you're talking about seems more like Mario or Sonic, but with more bloodshed and less bright and sunny worlds.

Papy
22nd Apr 2008, 02:02
What you're talking about seems more like Mario or Sonic, but with more bloodshed and less bright and sunny worlds.
No, that's not what I'm talking about (particularly because I never like Super Mario games). Read again what I wrote.

Necros
23rd Apr 2008, 13:41
Vasarto : I disagree. I think it's better if a game can suit as many people as possible. Having optional hand holding systems is, to me, a win-win situation.
I agree, the more options the gamer has in a game the better. :thumbsup:

But I also have to say this about your experience with Bioshock: I don't understand your problem. You could have easily ignored the Vita Chambers, there's no need for a mod to do that. Just reload if you die and that's it... :mad2: I tried them once to see how it looks like when you are brought back to life and then I kept ignoring it. Same thing with people whining about Oblivion's fast travel system - they don't have to use it, it doesn't take you away from exploring (you still have to visit every place, except the big cities) but they still hated it and demanded that it should be removed... :rolleyes: Sorry for going a bit off-topic.

Fen
24th Apr 2008, 12:17
I agree, the more options the gamer has in a game the better. :thumbsup:

But I also have to say this about your experience with Bioshock: I don't understand your problem. You could have easily ignored the Vita Chambers, there's no need for a mod to do that. Just reload if you die and that's it... :mad2: I tried them once to see how it looks like when you are brought back to life and then I kept ignoring it. Same thing with people whining about Oblivion's fast travel system - they don't have to use it, it doesn't take you away from exploring (you still have to visit every place, except the big cities) but they still hated it and demanded that it should be removed... :rolleyes: Sorry for going a bit off-topic.

The difference is that the game is designed around the handholding system.
You really couldnt play Oblivion without using the fast travel system unless you wanted to waste rediculous amounts of time. The people who didnt want fast travel really couldnt just NOT use it.

Another oblivion example would be the map arrows. They gave away wayyy too much info pointing directly to the person you were after. However you couldnt NOT use them, because you were never given enough info to find them.

Thats my only concern. If deus ex 3 has handholding features, thats great go for it. However the hand holding features HAVE to be added after the game has been made. The game should NOT assume the players have any of these features enabled.

Necros
25th Apr 2008, 18:00
You really couldnt play Oblivion without using the fast travel system unless you wanted to waste rediculous amounts of time. The people who didnt want fast travel really couldnt just NOT use it.
I disagree, it doesn't take that much time, IMHO. If you have a horse, you should be able to get anywhere in a reasonable time.


Another oblivion example would be the map arrows. They gave away wayyy too much info pointing directly to the person you were after. However you couldnt NOT use them, because you were never given enough info to find them.
Yeah, the arrows should have been optional.


Thats my only concern. If deus ex 3 has handholding features, thats great go for it. However the hand holding features HAVE to be added after the game has been made. The game should NOT assume the players have any of these features enabled.
As I said, the more options, the better and nothing like this (something that can piss off some fans) should be forced. Making all handholding features optional is a must, I agree. And should be turned off as a default setting, except on easy for the beginners.

Fen
25th Apr 2008, 21:44
Yeah, the arrows should have been optional.


As I said, the more options, the better and nothing like this (something that can piss off some fans) should be forced. Making all handholding features optional is a must, I agree. And should be turned off as a default setting, except on easy for the beginners.

I dont mean there should be different difficulty settings with different levels of help. What handholding features you use should be seperate from the difficulty level you are playing.

What I want to focus on, is that the game will never assume that you have a specific handholding feature on.

For example, if im looking for someone. A handholding feature could be to put the on my GPS system so I can find em easy. However The game must work on the assumption that I do not have that feature on. I need to be given enough information to find this target without an arrow.

This is what happened in oblivion, and was extremely frustrating. There was an arrow feature that guided you towards important people etc. It was really stupid, so mods were made to remove the arrow. However when this was done, a new problem was faced. I would be told that I need to seek out a person, but was given absolutely no information about where abouts in the world this person would most likely be. So it became a situation of whether I use the arrow to find my person, or spend the next 10 hours searching every town to find a single person.

Tracer Tong
26th Apr 2008, 08:07
I liked that feature in oblivion when it was real and applicable (i.e. when you knew where the people/items were), I even missed it a bit in a recent playthrough of Morrowind.

Anyhow, I think I've figured out the main difference between quicksaves/saves and revivals: When reviving, all of the enemies you've killed and the things that you've done stay done, so it's like it's not you're fault that you're dead. That's what makes it easy.

But then again, all of The Legend of Zelda games had this feature that when you fall somewhere and you don't end up anywhere (i.e. lava, water in some games) you lose a heart and get back to where you fell from, kind of like lives in a platform game. In Bioshock there is no such penalty, thus it is easy.

Chemix
26th Apr 2008, 10:38
but while damage is done, your money and ammo don't magically re-appear, and neither does any of your used items. If you actually try going rambo in bioshock on medium or hard difficulty (with vita chambers), you're going to take alot longer than playing it smart cause you will be scrounging around for ammo and health almost constantly and it'll take a lot more tries to kill a big daddy.

gamer0004
1st May 2008, 15:41
The problem is that it's not necessary to lose any items or ammo. You can just smack them with the crowbar (not it wasn't a crowbar... anyway, something like that) and die 3 or 4 times.

Chemix
1st May 2008, 20:12
wrench slapping a big daddy and getting slaughtered will take a very long time and isn't very fun though

Blade_hunter
1st May 2008, 20:29
Bioshock has something like SS2, this game is played only on insides places, the underwater city, is the same as a spaceship.
some points are better than older games and some others ...
I think gameplay options are the best thing like changing how your weapon act for example, how your aim act, how work your inventory etc ...
all things can't be changed but changing some details can make the game more enjoyable to replay etc.
perhaps like the activation/deactivation of the vita chambers ...

The originality of the game was the theme because I don't know any FPS with the same theme, but perhaps the theme was used in an other game in an other genre ....

DX was characterized with it's gameplay that allows more than one strategy to accomplish your objectives

some posts around here are made to propose more possibilities; more interactivity; more items.

Unlike some games when the infiltration fails, you can try other things to avoid to be dead, it don't works all the time but sometime changing our method during one instant can change the issue.
Unlike some games when brute force fails, and you are low on heath, you can use your ability to infiltrate find a med bot or use some medkits and go to action.
Unlike some games going to the right location can change some things; in DX 1 when you find the NSF terrorist in the underground (the mole people level I think) you can make them neutral and you can go on further to make other tasks.
Most other things can put you in a situation or not...

jcp28
2nd May 2008, 23:12
I think there should be some sort of option to make it easier to get through DX 3. Kind of like DX 1 where on Easy, you could take a ridiculous amount of health before being killed. But that was too easy. You should be encouraged to think at least a little bit before getting into a potentially damaging firefight.

And you should definitely be able to save anywhere. I hate how these stupid console games(like Black) barely have any checkpoints, yet continue to pile on the enemies like you can somehow remember where each and everyone is after you get killed. I'm not sure what size of levels Eidos Montreal will be making, but if they end up big, then you should at least have conveniently-placed save points. I've played plenty of games where it hasn't been so conveinent.

Blade_hunter
2nd May 2008, 23:35
Use some "checkpoints" to make autosaves I think it's fine like when you change level, or on some special places. it can be fine and it's useful if you forget to save your progress.
Like SOF 1 we can choose between unlimited saves or limited by number, you can save when you want but with a limit of saves per level.
I think it can be a better system than using checkpoints to allows saves like some console games
In SOF 1 you can choose the game difficulty or make a custom game, you can choose some options like the number of enemies spawned, size of your inventory, their combat capabilities (strong or weak), the number of save per level, etc...
When you reach a level you have an autosave, when you want to save your progress you can make it in all level parts, but it depends of the difficulty of the game or the number of saves allowed in your custom game choice.

If we use a system with 2 autosaves slots, with 3 quicksave slots and an unlimited number saves or limited by 20 slots but only limited by gameplay options it can be good for all and makes a challenge for everyone or an easier game.

Papy
3rd May 2008, 04:40
I don't understand your problem. You could have easily ignored the Vita Chambers
Because the presentation of the game is important. If while playing you try to fight the system, then you end up thinking you're just playing an artificial game with an artificial rule. You particularly end up thinking YOU are the one in control. It's not the game which punishes you, it's you who's just playing with your own rule. The game is not really a game you are trying to win, but only a toy you are playing with.



I would be told that I need to seek out a person, but was given absolutely no information about where abouts in the world this person would most likely be. So it became a situation of whether I use the arrow to find my person, or spend the next 10 hours searching every town to find a single person.
It was even worse than that. I didn't play Oblivion for long before being completely bored. Of course, my quest arrow was always set on the nirnroot thing, but I remember one time where after searching for about an hour, I gave up and use the arrow. It turned out the info I got from the game was plain wrong. Obviously, there was a change on the map, and no one thought of also changing the line from the NPC.

BTW, I never used fast travel and it was never a problem for me. Sometimes it made doing some mission annoying (playing errand boy and going from A to B, then to A then to B again, then to A again...), but I think a game should somewhat annoy the player to make the reward significant.



If you actually try going rambo in bioshock on medium or hard difficulty (with vita chambers), you're going to take alot longer than playing it smart cause you will be scrounging around for ammo and health almost constantly and it'll take a lot more tries to kill a big daddy.
Going Rambo style is pretty much a sign to me that the player is missing what the game is about. It's certainly a very dumb thing to do. The fact that someone who plays in a dumb way can still succeed in a game, even if it takes a bit more time, is obviously a sign that the game is dumbed down. Without Vita-Chambers, and without saving every 2 minutes, you CAN'T go Rambo Style. If you play correctly you won't die once, you won't have to reload once, but if you insist in acting stupid, you will never be able to finish the game. You will lose. To me, this is how a game should be.

Voltaire
3rd May 2008, 07:07
Because the presentation of the game is important. If while playing you try to fight the system, then you end up thinking you're just playing an artificial game with an artificial rule. You particularly end up thinking YOU are the one in control. It's not the game which punishes you, it's you who's just playing with your own rule. The game is not really a game you are trying to win, but only a toy you are playing with...

...Going Rambo style is pretty much a sign to me that the player is missing what the game is about. It's certainly a very dumb thing to do. The fact that someone who plays in a dumb way can still succeed in a game, even if it takes a bit more time, is obviously a sign that the game is dumbed down. Without Vita-Chambers, and without saving every 2 minutes, you CAN'T go Rambo Style. If you play correctly you won't die once, you won't have to reload once, but if you insist in acting stupid, you will never be able to finish the game. You will lose. To me, this is how a game should be.

Your first point is spot-on. This type of gameplay is an example of power-gaming, bending the rules of a game to suit oneself. If a player has to resort to this, the game is a failure.

This last point, though, is ignorant of the fact that DX1 players could and would choose how they wanted to finish a mission. "Going Rambo" should definitely be allowed, maybe not rewarded, but definitely possible...

Fen
3rd May 2008, 07:16
Your first point is spot-on. This type of gameplay is an example of power-gaming, bending the rules of a game to suit oneself. If a player has to resort to this, the game is a failure.

This last point, though, is ignorant of the fact that DX1 players could and would choose how they wanted to finish a mission. "Going Rambo" should definitely be allowed, maybe not rewarded, but definitely possible...

I agree totally with papy.

I think youve misinterpreted what papy means however with the rambo style volitaire. In dues ex, rambo style is a choice that can be played smart. Sure if you just charge an enemy with a crowbar, thats not playing smart and you deserve to die. But if you charge in, use cover, have the correct weapons, use your environment etc. You can play the rambo style smart win.

The rambo style papy talks about is where you literally do spawn, run straight at the big daddy with ure wrench and proceed to last as long as you can until he drills you. Apon which you do it all again as the game respawns you. Because death isnt permanent, you have no regard for your character's safety.

Chemix
3rd May 2008, 13:16
You have no regard if you aren't annoyed by starting again with half health, in which case it'll take two shots (Rosie) or 1 slam and 1 punch (bouncer) from a big daddy to kill you. It's possible, much in the same way that it's possible to crawl using only your head and jaw, but also in the same way, it's tedious, boring, and highly annoying. You're not going to have any fun playing that way, and I see that as a draw back enough to not play that way.

Fen
3rd May 2008, 13:44
but also in the same way, it's tedious, boring, and highly annoying. You're not going to have any fun playing that way, and I see that as a draw back enough to not play that way.

But it works. And that is the problem. Even though its not fun, it will get you through the game. So instead of tackling a challenge and getting that awsome feeling that one gets when one overcomes a really hard challenge, we will get the emerging strategy of just bypassing it with a bit of tedium. Sure its cheap and not the most fun way to go about it, but people WILL do it. Its just human nature.

Remove the option and you prevent people from destroying the game for themselves.

Chemix
3rd May 2008, 18:30
remove the option and you also make exploring and experimenting much more difficult, and I haven't heard numerous stories of playthroughs done in such horribly painful manors so the idea that everyone will just take this "easy way out" which is really a "painfully annoying and stupid way out" isn't quite true. People do what's fun, unless the fun becomes tedious or time consuming, so the logic of playing a non-fun and tedious and time consuming way makes no sense, even to the laziest part of me.

Papy
3rd May 2008, 19:12
When I first played BioShock, it was in October with Vita-Chambers activated. I wasn't particularly careful and I died a few times. I never saw the need to be careful. I basically missed what the game was about, and stopped playing at Neptune's Bounty because I was bored. It was not tedious, but boring because of having no need to play correctly.

I played it again last month, this time with Vita-Chambers deactivated and without using saves. I played it on medium because the beginning of the game is a bit too hard on the hard setting (when you don't know the game). Anyway, even on medium, I was afraid of dying, so I was careful. As a result, I didn't die once in Medical. It was immensely satisfying. Because of that, I begun to have confidence, I let my guard down, I begun to play a bit more carelessly in Neptune's Bounty, and I died twice. The first one was the first Big Daddy fight, not a big deal since it was at the start of the level, and the second one was the Peach Wilkins fight. This obviously meant restarting the whole level which was a significant punishment. Because of that, I started again to play carefully.

Would having been revive twice in a Vita-Chamber be tedious? Absolutely not. I certainly wouldn't view this as a punishment, and as a result, instead of trying to play better, I would have just let my guard down a bit more... and I would have been bored.

SageSavage
3rd May 2008, 19:43
It's a fact that many people enjoyed the game without this hardcore-attitude. Don't get me wrong, Papi, I really like your way of playing games but it would severly backfire if developers tried to force people to do it this way. Again I think offering it in the options (and profiles) is the way to go.

Personally I never liked the vita chambers so I used quicksave and -load instead. I tend to use it too often but I am working on it... ;)

Fen
4th May 2008, 06:21
Does anyone here think that implementing a bunch of choices that you have to make before you start the game would be a good idea?

Like for example, when you first start the game, you can set it to realistic. If your finding it too hard, then you have to go back and start again. This way, people dont just get frustrated and drop it down to easy mode to pass certain parts.

What if we could add other options as well. For example a toggle that allows only 2 saves per area, no saving in combat etc. Players would be free to add restrictions on their play at the start, without having to rely on their willpower to go through with them.

A system like this currently in place is the diablo 2 harcore system. If your character dies, its basically deleted from your computer and you can never play that character again. Its an option you must choose when you first start the game and cannot be turned off. It makes the game REALLY exciting, but seeing as its an option, not everyone has to play by that rule. It also enforces the punishment of dieing and doesnt allow the player to just say "oh I was unlucky so i'll just revive my character" Its a great option, because people who want that extra challenge can add it, but it doesnt effect anyone elses game.

gamer0004
4th May 2008, 07:44
I tried to finish DX without reloading but I gave up after 3 attempts. I kept dying because of things I didn't know and strange acting enemies. When I stood up and immediatly crouched again (which normally gives you time to see what's happening but the enemy doesn't have time to shoot), I got killed by a sniper :S I still can't see how this happend. And it was my torso, not even my head. My torso had been visible for like 1 milisecond...

Chemix
4th May 2008, 10:07
Snipers in DX are basically death once they see the player, I've yet to see one miss.

Voltaire
4th May 2008, 10:09
Snipers in DX are basically death once they see the player, I've yet to see one miss.

Unrealistically so methinks. Surely they would fare no better than a nano-aug'd agent fresh from death academy, who surprisingly without a lot of training is kinda slow with anything with a barrel...

Chemix
4th May 2008, 10:20
ofcourse it's unrealistic and painfully annoying, but that's how it was, and how I hope it won't be for the next game, though I don't mind snipers being accurate, I mind them being dead on sight units, sort of like close range with the armored MJ12 units.

jcp28
4th May 2008, 19:57
Snipers generally never killed me in one shot on DX, though there were a number of times where I got damn close to dying because my health wasn't at 100, and I wasn't quick enough aiming.

Chemix
5th May 2008, 00:46
were you playing on realistic?

gamer0004
5th May 2008, 19:13
Clearly not, because on realistic the sniper rifle takes out every body part with one shot. My torso health was 100 and one hit was lethal.

Voltaire
5th May 2008, 21:11
Clearly not, because on realistic the sniper rifle takes out every body part with one shot. My torso health was 100 and one hit was lethal.

It depended on the sniper I think. Different troops, different weapon mods, something else I found really cool. :cool:

jcp28
5th May 2008, 21:16
It depended on the sniper I think. Different troops, different weapon mods, something else I found really cool. :cool:
Yeah, the NSF are less accurate than MJ12 for instance. That guy at Liberty Island never killed me with one shot. I usually just reloaded from my last save if he got me bad(like taking off half of my health for instance)

Actually I have played it on Realistic, but I haven't played this game in nearly a year. I think I might have been killed by a sniper at least two or three times at the Silo or Vandenburg Air Force Base. But they are not frequent enough in my mind to become annoying, otherwise I'd remember better!

Papy
6th May 2008, 07:28
It's a fact that many people enjoyed the game without this hardcore-attitude.
I don't think the way I played BioShock was really hardcore. I played on Normal and not on Hard, I did use every resources I could find, and I did use the automatic saves that were done at the beginning of each levels. When I died in Neptune's Bounty, I restart at the beginning of Neptune's Bounty, not at the beginning of Medicals.

Anyway, I don't think that the idea of enjoyment is that simple. Someone may enjoy a quiet evening, but it's still nothing more than a quiet evening. I don't think a lot of people would say that a quiet evening was the best time of their lives. To use another analogy, a lot of people are afraid of high sensations roller coasters, and they'll prefer something easier on their nervous system, but if after some negotiations they accept to try the ride, a lot of them will have this enormous grin stamped on their face once it's over. At the end of the day, what they will remember is not all easy rides they did, but the one that almost gave them a nervous breakdown. And they will still smile while thinking about it.

Video games are no different. Enjoyment we get from a video game is mainly a function of the efforts and emotions we put in it. It's like playing poker. The higher the bet, the higher the reward. Sure, it's enjoyable to win $5, but winning $50,000 is... let's say a bit more enjoyable.

I agree that developers should not force people to get into a high sensation roller coaster, but the sad truth is that once someone tasted the thrill of something hard, everything else tend to become just boring. In the early 80s, almost all games were offering those high sensations. Games like Mission:Impossible or The Last V8 did not make it easy for the player. Those games showed me what rewarding meant and it's because of those games I now find most new video games kind of lame. To me, they are about as exciting as knitting with some old ladies. Sure it might be enjoyable to talk about the weather and to have some tea after two hours of knitting, and I understand that it's what some people like to do, but... how about bungee jumping instead?

Chemix
6th May 2008, 09:03
bungee jumping is best done with bungee cord and a proper length, rather than a torn and tattered rope that's just there to increase the risk.

SageSavage
6th May 2008, 11:02
I understand your point Papy and I don't deny it but mine's also still standing: of course a game should offer a challenge for experienced players like you but in my opinion it would be very wise to offer all the necessary options to make it easier and more accessible for people with less enthusiasm/time/skill. Downgrading the difficulty level should be feasible without problems in most cases anyway. Doing so may result in better sales figures too.

Or are you saying that developers need to force people into their luck a bit more because otherwise they don't have the ambition to try it for themselves? Personally I think that is an issue - but a solvable one. I totally appreciate it when a game offers me the freedom to tweak everything for myself. There's always the possibility of predefined profiles for those who hate micromanagement.

Evangel
6th May 2008, 11:34
Whoo, 2nd post (first one doesn't count since it wasn't about DE3).

I propose 2 pain levels and 2 AI levels.

The pain levels are Easy and Medium, the AI levels are Medium and Hard. On the easy setting, the AI is like it is in medium, just you can take more damage. On hard, the pain level is like it is in medium, but the AI is smarter, making you think more. On medium, obviously, it's a nice little bit in the middle.

Voltaire
6th May 2008, 14:08
Now that's a nice idea. Definitely makes a change from, stupid AI with better guns being passed of as "difficult".

Papy
6th May 2008, 18:38
Or are you saying that developers need to force people into their luck a bit more because otherwise they don't have the ambition to try it for themselves?
Absolutely not! I'm the one who wants more options to please everyone.

Fen
7th May 2008, 01:12
Whoo, 2nd post (first one doesn't count since it wasn't about DE3).

I propose 2 pain levels and 2 AI levels.

The pain levels are Easy and Medium, the AI levels are Medium and Hard. On the easy setting, the AI is like it is in medium, just you can take more damage. On hard, the pain level is like it is in medium, but the AI is smarter, making you think more. On medium, obviously, it's a nice little bit in the middle.

I disagree. The person who wants to play on an easier mode has to fight weaker AI? Thats a bit dumb. Everyone wants to be challenged by the AI, regardless of your skill level. What they dont want is to walk round a corner and get headshotted before they have a chance to react.

Make the AI as good as possible. Then when thats done, give them a higher miss chance on the easier settings, and make them do less damage.

Chemix
7th May 2008, 01:36
I think that difficulty should not be soley based on hit chances and damage values, see Crysis for a simplistic example of alternatives.

Fen
7th May 2008, 05:12
I think that difficulty should not be soley based on hit chances and damage values, see Crysis for a simplistic example of alternatives.

Crysis lost the crosshair and your enemies started speaking in their native tounge rather than english. What else did crysis do?

The crosshair not appearing unless you aim would work well for deus ex I think, with the targeting crosshair not getting smaller unless your actually aiming. But people speaking the wrong language wouldnt.

Chemix
7th May 2008, 10:57
From Crysis-
First Level of Difficulty:
Simple Binocs
Crosshairs while not aimed
grenade indicator and warning
enemies highlighted after shooting them or tagging them with binocs
enemies speak English

Second Level:
Simple Binocs
no grenade indicator
enemies highlighted
enemies speak english

Third Level:
No Crosshairs
Enemies speak English
No other help
Normal Binocs

Fourth Level:
Same as 3 but
Enemies speak Korean

That's just from memory so it might be wrong

SageSavage
7th May 2008, 13:14
Yeah, these are creative ideas about how to increase/decrease the difficulty level and I agree that 'lobotomizing' the AI is a bad idea. But it would be ideal when your enemies would have tweakers for all of their main skills and attributes (like real RPG characters). Setting their aggressiveness, aiming skill, dexterity, stamina etc is still a proper method to toggle the difficulty when combined with other stuff that makes sense within the context of the game.

gamer0004
7th May 2008, 15:36
What I want is - unlike the DX system - not being able to take less damage but more challenging enemies in terms of A.I. I don't want to have as little health as a simple NSF terrorist and way less than mech. augmented agents, the MIB and WIB and commando's, even when they're not using their augs. And that would make me the weakest agent, and that's not realistic. As I was meant to be the best agent, not in terms of skill (as they didn't know that when I was born) but in terms of my body (augmentations, physical shape).

Fen
8th May 2008, 10:48
What I want is - unlike the DX system - not being able to take less damage but more challenging enemies in terms of A.I. I don't want to have as little health as a simple NSF terrorist and way less than mech. augmented agents, the MIB and WIB and commando's, even when they're not using their augs. And that would make me the weakest agent, and that's not realistic. As I was meant to be the best agent, not in terms of skill (as they didn't know that when I was born) but in terms of my body (augmentations, physical shape).


I was also a little dissapointed in this, however people seem to think that the AI should get better as you play it on harder difficulty levels. I disagree with this. Someone playing on a lower level of gameplay generally isnt playing there because he is a retard, but more because he is not strong with coordinating the controls. A lower level player shouldnt be forced to play with an AI that treats him like a retard. That doesnt help his problem. He needs to be faced with an AI who has the same coordination difficulties as he does.

We should have much better AI in DX I look forward to seeing the grunts act like grunts and the elite to act like elite, but in the end, the differences between easy and hard is not going to be dumb AI.

Gary_Savage
9th May 2008, 02:17
Hmm... an interesting dilemma here.

When I first played DX1, I played with the easy difficulty, not because I wanted to have super resilience (compared to other non-mechs), but because I wanted to have a less stressful time beating up the bad guys (yeah, I was looking for a nice looking shooter, in DX, until I was hit in the face -- at point blank range -- with a story that rocked my world). After a most satisfying first playthrough, however, I was sorely disappointed by my second playthrough experience, since the AI was not giving me any more of a challenge, and having become a stealth player (and having been pre-trained by Warren Spector's Thief1 game -- and MGS) I was not taking any more damage than I had taken on my first playthrough. So, I would definitely have had a better time, had the AI improved as the difficulty was increased. [Don't feel bad: I kept playing, again and again, since then, for the reasons that people have described in lots of threads on this forum].

On the other hand, I really did like the fact that the game got harder, as it went along. I liked it that the enemy NPCs had better aim, later on. I also liked it that the enemy AI was clustered (enemies were found in groups, rather than alone), so picking off one would alert the others (in a lot of places, that is).

So, now, the developers have a dilemma: do they provide better AI as the difficulty level is increased (so people can play on the easy mode when they want to blast away after a rough day -- like Bob Page smashing away everything in his cubicle with a ball-peen hammer.), or do they provide better AI as the game progresses? I think a possible solution lies in having the game get progressively harder by design (like having enemies in closer proximity in later stages, so they can call for help), while increasing the proportion of enemy NPCs with highly developed skills (aiming, grenade throwing, etc. -- along with being better armed) increase as the game's difficulty level is increased. Also, things like the AI's coordination skills could be increased (for team tactics), as the game went along. Further, if individual enemy AI characters have inherently different levels of team-working skills, then their adherence to the team leader's orders could be affected by those skills. That way, as the proportion of enemy AIs with better team working skills is increased (as the game difficulty level is increased) we could get a progressively difficult game. Then, the only problem that remains is balancing out, in the sense that on the harder difficulty settings the game should not reach its peak difficulty too long before the end of the game.

Now, I am not sure what to suggest here, but perhaps the speed with which intelligence filters down to the grunts on he ground could be increased as the game progresses (as in, say, the time lapse between you killing off a guy/girl, and someone reporting loss of radio contact with him/her, which would prompt the others to search for him/her), or perhaps the enemy could have better (or more) patrol routes (say, each NPC goes through longer, more thorough, patrol routes), so that they would come across the bodies of missing comrades much quicker. Just a thought.

While this suggestion does not help with Fen's gripe, I think, if implemented, it could solve at least part of the problem, and at the same time, allow someone to blast away, being almost superhuman, even without any DX1 style augs.

Voltaire
9th May 2008, 14:05
What I want is - unlike the DX system - not being able to take less damage but more challenging enemies in terms of A.I. I don't want to have as little health as a simple NSF terrorist and way less than mech. augmented agents, the MIB and WIB and commando's, even when they're not using their augs. And that would make me the weakest agent, and that's not realistic. As I was meant to be the best agent, not in terms of skill (as they didn't know that when I was born) but in terms of my body (augmentations, physical shape).

I'm not convinced. Although I totally support smarter AI at higher difficulty levels (more efficient enemies for more efficient gamers), I see no reason why an unarmoured, un-auged JC would fair better against bullets than an MJ12 troop, for example. The game is, for an average gamer, do-able on easy game settings without augs. On harder game setting, augs are more necessary. The only thing that sets JC apart from even the lowliest terrorist grunt is his augmentations, without them, why shouldn't he go down with a few shots?

Fen
9th May 2008, 16:42
I'm not convinced. Although I totally support smarter AI at higher difficulty levels (more efficient enemies for more efficient gamers)


I know Im debating this point to death. But the AI should be the same for all difficulty levels. If a person decides to play this game through on easy mode, and all his enemies have the intelligence of a retarded monkey, hes not going to think the game was all that great. But he might not be able to shoot fast enough to play on the harder difficulty levels, so he now ends up seeing DX3 as having shallow AI. A person playing on easy wants the AI to be realistic, just like the person playing on hard. The difference is that the person playing on easy doesnt want to die as easily as the person playing on hard.

Now changing the chance for an enemy to miss is not changing the AI. What is meant by AI is, does the MJ12 elite troop use cover in a gunfight, or does he just run at you in a straight line? The MJ12 troops reaction should be the same regardless of difficulty level, the reason why he kills you on hard mode and not on easy mode is because he has a better hit chance on hard, and his bullets do more damage.

I totally support different AI's for different enemies. Im happy for a grunt to charge me, as long as the more elite troops act like elite troops.

gamer0004
9th May 2008, 20:14
I'm not convinced. Although I totally support smarter AI at higher difficulty levels (more efficient enemies for more efficient gamers), I see no reason why an unarmoured, un-auged JC would fair better against bullets than an MJ12 troop, for example. The game is, for an average gamer, do-able on easy game settings without augs. On harder game setting, augs are more necessary. The only thing that sets JC apart from even the lowliest terrorist grunt is his augmentations, without them, why shouldn't he go down with a few shots?

An unarmoured, un-auged JC wouldn't necesarrily fair better against bullets than an MJ12 troop, as long as an unarmoured, un-auged mechanically augmentated agent doesn't fair better against bullets than an MJ12 troop. Which is the case. Which isn't realistic. Because thet would make you the worst augmentated agent, while you are supposed to be the best (better than mechanically augmentated agents and the WiB and MiB). That's the point.

Voltaire
9th May 2008, 20:27
An unarmoured, un-auged JC wouldn't necesarrily fair better against bullets than an MJ12 troop, as long as an unarmoured, un-auged mechanically augmentated agent doesn't fair better against bullets than an MJ12 troop. Which is the case. Which isn't realistic. Because thet would make you the worst augmentated agent, while you are supposed to be the best (better than mechanically augmentated agents and the WiB and MiB). That's the point.

'Fraid I can't agree there. Would you rather have a robotic limb that gets shot with a 10mm bullet, or your own arm, with inactive nanites inside?

Romeo
10th May 2008, 02:38
PC gamers, don't yell at me, but I'd like to see achievements on the 360 version for getting rid of the hand-holding (or at least providing inspiration not to use them, such as "Kill a hundred enemies without bullets" so that one would be motivated to use melee weapons). How this would translate to PC, I haven't the faintest idea, but that's just my two cents.

SageSavage
10th May 2008, 08:14
PC gamers, don't yell at me, but I'd like to see achievements on the 360 version for getting rid of the hand-holding (or at least providing inspiration not to use them, such as "Kill a hundred enemies without bullets" so that one would be motivated to use melee weapons). How this would translate to PC, I haven't the faintest idea, but that's just my two cents.

I like the concept behind achievements - as long as they are optional.

gamer0004
10th May 2008, 08:29
'Fraid I can't agree there. Would you rather have a robotic limb that gets shot with a 10mm bullet, or your own arm, with inactive nanites inside?

A year ago I thought about exactly the same thing and I concluded that a nano-augmentated agent should be as strong (in terms of how much damage it can take) as a mechanically augmentated agent. According to the story of DX, a nano-augmentated agent with all his augs should be at least capable of doing the same thing as mechanically augmented agents, or even better, so the foundation of those augs, whether this consists of robotic parts or nanites, should be at least equally strong. Which means that your own arm with inactive nanites inside should be able to take the same amount of damage as the arm of a mechanically augmentated agent. And IF this wasn't the case, THEN it would mean that you as a new multi-billion project would be a complete failure.
That's what I think, anyway.

Chemix
10th May 2008, 15:41
the main problem with mechs is that people didn't trust them or feel safe around them, they were scary, frankensteinish things with gray dead skin hanging off of metal frames. It's hard for the average person to look past such an appearance and thus mechs stood out in the crowd and could never operate covertly.

Nanites inside the body mean 2 things
-the appearance is almost undetectable from a normal human
-the host is more likely to be resilient to damage than unaided flesh

Nanites repair, and even clustered, they can't block a bullet unless modified by some kind of aug to become a sub-dermal armor layer that doesn't kill off the skin tissue (the grays seem to have this sub-dermal armor that Does kill off the skin, hence the dead or gray appearance and toughness), so even then, it's not solid, robotic parts, however, are solid, and thus able to take more hits, at the cost of being much harder to repair versus nanite technologies that repair themselves on a microscopic level.

So an agent that isn't as tough as a mech or MIB isn't a failure, it's simply a different avenue, one towards more covert operations from within urban locations with people.

gamer0004
10th May 2008, 18:53
Your main purpose is still fighting and - although in that way at least Paul is failed, and often JC too - killing. And why wouldn't a ****load of nanites be more resistant to bullets than normal flesh?
Anyway, like I said: "According to the story of DX, a nano-augmentated agent with all his augs should be at least capable of doing the same thing as mechanically augmented agents, or even better, so the foundation of those augs, whether this consists of robotic parts or nanites, should be at least equally strong. Which means that your own arm with inactive nanites inside should be able to take the same amount of damage as the arm of a mechanically augmentated agent."
The foundation to support the immense force that is a result of using your augs (like large heavy metal crates, taking damager from bullets) is always way stronger than normal flesh, as a normal body isn't capable of supporting that. You would simply break your back or something. And because your augs affect your whole body, your whole body should be able to take more damage than a normal unaugmented body. Besides, the augs of a nano-augmentated agent are capable of doing the same things as mechanical augs, and therefore the body of a nano-augmentated agent would be as strong as the body of a mechanially augmentated agent and therefore should the body of a nano-augmentated agent be able to take as much damage as the body of a mechanically augmentated agent.
The stronger your body is, the better it can withstand bullets. Simple as that. And yes, I know that the main advantage of nano-augmentated agents was that they weren't as scary as mech. augmentated agents.

Chemix
10th May 2008, 19:50
nanites are tiny robots, tiny robots can't hold themselves together versus a gunshot unless they are using alot of energy, so with an aug enabled, maybe, without one on, there is no reason they should be able to withstand more bullets than a solid steel exoskeleton.

Compare the terminators, the T-800 (arnold) vs the T-1000, the t-800 could walk through a storm of bullets relatively unharmed by simply resisting the bullets with a hardened chassis, the T-1000 absorbed bullets or created gaps to avoid them.

The player is closer to the T-1000 than the T-800, but the T-1000 is entirely made of nanites/reactive metal elements, whereas the player is made of flesh with some nanites inside.

The most effective killer is one that can walk away and kill again however, and that's what the nano-augmented agents can do, they are inconspicuous. They can blend with the crowd, and at the same time can pack serious power beneath a mere long coat.

In Short as far as Durability goes:

Human < Nano augmented Mk2 < Nano augmented Mk1 < Mechs

gamer0004
10th May 2008, 21:12
You are just saying the same thing over and over again and don't respond to what I say. Yes, they are just nanites. But they apparently DO hold themselves thogether in some way. When the Microfibral Muscle aug is activated, all that happens is that energy is being used in your arms so you are muscles are able to lift heavy objects. BUT if nanites wouldn't hold themselves together or whatever, your back would break or your legs or whatever because of the immense weight. Although they're not activated, the nanites (or something different) supports your body and makes it stronger. Metal is stronger than bone, and nanites (or whatever it is) are stronger than bone. Metal can take more damage because it's stronger, and so do the nanites (or whatever it is).

Chemix
10th May 2008, 21:19
I'm saying the same thing over and over again because you're not getting it, nanites are not the equivalent of solid steel, it's a bunch of tiny robots about the size of bloodcells.

Did you bother to pay attention to the medical diagram after you applied an aug, the nanites replace or build the structures that the aug has instructions for. It builds onto the muscles to create tension fibers that when powered, increase strength dramatically. It's not the nanites holding you up, it's the internal structures that they've built being turned on that holds you up. The artificial heart replaces the real heart with a mechanical based one.

the nanites aren't super strong or super fast, they're surgeons.

Gary_Savage
10th May 2008, 21:45
Did you bother to pay attention to the medical diagram after you applied an aug, the nanites replace or build the structures that the aug has instructions for. It builds onto the muscles to create tension fibers that when powered, increase strength dramatically. It's not the nanites holding you up, it's the internal structures that they've built being turned on that holds you up. The artificial heart replaces the real heart with a mechanical based one.

the nanites aren't super strong or super fast, they're surgeons.


When the Microfibral Muscle aug is activated, all that happens is that energy is being used in your arms so you are muscles are able to lift heavy objects. BUT if nanites wouldn't hold themselves together or whatever, your back would break or your legs or whatever because of the immense weight.

I think I'll go with Chemix' idea. I think it's plausible that augmenting your strength would augment all of your skeletal muscles, so you should be able to lift larger loads without getting a sore. Now, while that might take care of the muscles in your back, you might be wondering about your non-augmented bones. In this regard, I think that the player character can use a technique for lifting loads that does not put a lot of load on the back. If you read the book "First In: How the CIA spearheaded ...Afghanistan," by Gary Schroen, you will find that special forces soldiers lift 200 lb (about 90 kg, I think) by using a technique that puts all the weight on the buttocks, rather than the back. It might even be the same technique used by fighters (martial artists, MMA fighters, etc.) for throwing opponents. So, think that it is entirely plausible that a nano-augmented agent with augmented muscles can lift tremendous loads, but is not as resilient to bullets as a mech. Since, I don't remember reading anywhere that the nano-augs were supposed to be as resilient against bullets as mechs, so I won't think that. I do remember, however, that nano-augs were created to be able to blend in, and work among people. With the goal of blending in in mind, I don't think that a not as mech strong nano-aug would be a failure: afterall, in feudal Japan the ninja were feared, not just the armored samurai.

P.S. Please don't kill me for mentioning martial artists and MMA fighters in the same sentence. :D

gamer0004
11th May 2008, 13:19
Ok, so there's a technique for lifting heavy objects. But you wouldn't only need a technique for that, but for falling down too when the speed aug is activated. And that while JC can't use a pistol in a normal way when he hasn't upgraded that skill.
Nanites must stick together when an aug is used. Accodring to Chemix that means that when you activate an aug, 2 things happen at the same time: the nanites are sticking together and than the actual action. But why would nanites need power to stick together? Yes, they are like very small robots so when you're not using them they don't do anything so why would they stick together? Well, because of their shape and the way they are implemented into your body would make them stick together. That's what I think. It should be possible, so it would be stupid if they didn't do that.

Chemix
11th May 2008, 14:31
They can't hold shapes within the body without killing bodily tissue, hence why the MIB and WIB look dead, because their skin is dead. To rectify this issue, they build structures in the body, like muscular fibers, which need power to work. The structures aren't made OF nanites, they're made BY nanites. Construction workers make buildings, but (except in rare horrible cases) are not the bricks, or the mortar, or the steel construction beams of that which they make.

electronic or bio-electric devices require energy to function, and there is no reason why they shouldn't require energy.

gamer0004
11th May 2008, 15:45
"PROSPECTUS: SERIES P AGENTS
proposal by Dr. Arthur Donovan (Versalife/HK)

The Series P Agents are the logical continuation of research resulting from the
Series N: the development of a human agent with enhanced capabilities and
absolute loyalty, but without the non-standard appearance of mechanical
augmentation or the unpredictability of nano-augmentation. Like the Series N,
the strength and speed of the Series P should be substantially above baseline
while new conditioning techniques will result in minimal pain response.
We conservatively predict a Series P agent would be 78% more effective in
combat than a normal operative without any form of augmentation.

Key features from the Series N agent will also be carried over, including the
self-termination mechanism. An ingenious variation on the "kill-switch", the
self-termination mechanism is wired into the autonomous nervous system of an
agent. If mortally wounded, the mechanism will activate and explode,
eliminating any evidence of the agent and damaging nearby hostiles.

However, we are still continuing in our attempts to isolate the source of the
albino traits present ever since the Series L, but so far the simple addition
of sunglasses and dark clothing appear to have resolved the matter in a
practical fashion..."

"The Series P trials have so far produced excellent results, and I continue to
believe that our physiopharmaceutical approach to agent augmentation to be
superior to mechanical augmentation - and possibly even equivalent to nanotech
augmentation - at a fraction of the cost and effort. The Series P agents show
a marked lack of pain response with a corresponding increase in endurance and
strength, while psychological conditioning has resulted in a Loyalty Estimate
of 9.66 on the Yitzhak Scale.

The modified explosive self-termination switch added in Series N has also
proven highly effective in eliminating all traces of the Series P in the event
that they are mortally wounded or otherwise unable to complete their mission
objectives.

We're continuing in our attempts to isolate the source of the albino traits,
but so far the simple addition of sunglasses and dark clothing appear to
have resolved the problem in a practical fashion.
-
Dr. Arthur Donovan"

So... Nano-augmentated agents were the BEST agents, not just more useful than mechs because they were able to blend into the crowd.
Besides, nowhere is mentioned (I think nowhere in-game, nor in the DX bible) that the albino traits were caused by death skin. Albino traits have nothing to do with death skin, anyway.
The idea behind nanites IS that they integrate with your body, which means that they'd have to hold shapes within the body.
And of course the nanites (the aug) needs energy to be activated, I didn't want to say that that wasn't true.

Anyway, I think we won't agree on this subject. Maybe we should stop discussing this? It's going on for like a page or something like that ;)

Fen
11th May 2008, 16:12
I think you should read the description of your augs in deus ex.

Targeting
Image-scaling and recognition provided by multiplexing the optic nerve with doped polyacetylene 'quantum wires' not only increases accuracy but also delivers limited situational info about a target.

Chemix is correct, the nanites in your body are the builders. They construct, re-enforce and modify your natural body parts to make them powerful and suited to their job. The nanites dont link up and form a chain, in this example they build and maintain a quantum wire that works with the optic nerve.

Some of the mods you people talk about couldnt exist if the nanites created the actual effect. The nanites travel through the blood stream, they would be extremely small, and there would be nowhere near enough for tasks such as building protective barriers. At most, a human being could have only a couple hundred grams of those nanites in his body (due to their small size, that would be a heap however)

gamer0004
11th May 2008, 17:45
Hmm. Personally I think that there would be more nanites than a couple hundred grams. You can still see them for instance.

Anyway, whatever the cause is of n-agents being the best, they still are the best. But at "realistic" difficulty, you aren't. Only with a lot of skill (or a GEP gun :D ) you can take out a mech or MiB.

Voltaire
11th May 2008, 18:30
Speaking of MiBs, has anybody perfected a technique for taking those guys down non-lethally? I know that I disarmed one or two along the way with the DTS, then tasered them, but the sword is a bit hit and miss when it comes to the line between disarming and asploding... can it be done more efficiently? :scratch:

EDIT: I'm now officially a centurion, 100 posts.

Chemix
11th May 2008, 19:36
three tranq darts takes down an MIB non lethaly and btw they have the "all seeing eye" marked on the back of their neck.

an excess of nanites would cause clogged arteries in a few days.

Gary_Savage
12th May 2008, 00:57
an excess of nanites would cause clogged arteries in a few days. :D

That reminds me of current concerns about the effects of putting quantum nanodots in sun screen products.

jcp28
12th May 2008, 19:56
three tranq darts takes down an MIB non lethaly and btw they have the "all seeing eye" marked on the back of their neck.



Whenever I thought about doing this, I had to hope that I wasn't in a position where the MiB could see me... This didn't happen often, since I'm mildly impatient.

Station409
4th Jul 2008, 01:50
Not to be rude (as I was the person who posted that) but I'll gladly appreciate if you didn't insult my or anybody else's IQ based on a post. A post which is true at that.

On topic though, I agree with you Papy (Are you from TTLG?), games today hold your hand for far too long. Games such as Call Of Duty 2(A so called War simulator) have little to no challenge because of the regeneration of health. Yes games are supposed to be fun but living forever is no fun at all. I think (Think*) it has to do with the mass market today, that market mainly consisting of kids. I've seen a lot of children (Espeially adolescents in the US) scream and shout at a TV and game just because they died or failed or something in said game. It's a shame to see stress being countered with Violence in this day and age where everything is much easier.

It's not about being difficult, but being a challenge.

*Not blaming it on kids, but if you've been around as much as I have you'd notice.


COMPLETELY AGREE!

Take the rainbow six series. Raven Shield and Athena sword were excellent. Stalking around the map knowing that a careless step into a snipers line of sight would spell instant death.
Then comes Vegas, where a death didn't mean you had to re-do the entire mission, or complete the campaign without that highly skilled operative anymore, but simply a reload from the last check-point two seconds ago. And where if you took damage you simply ducked till it went away.

It dumbed down the series way too much.

Its interesting how back in the days of Commodore 64's the number of games that were actually completed were very few compared to the number of games owned. I remember playing Green Beret and Camelot for years without being able to complete either of them.
These days games have become a lot shorter, and a lot easier to complete. I'm not going to pin the blame on anything in particular (consoles, corporate greed, cost of development of longer games) but it seems to me that story is going by the wayside in exhance for pretty graphics, tons of action, and hand holding so it's completable.

Go back to the old days, where story and length (none of this 8-12 hour stuff) took priority over extreme graphics. I'd rather play a game that looked like DX1 for weeks than one that looked like Crysis for 3 hours till I completed it.

And scalable difficulty is a must.

Actually... how about making the PC version first, and THEN dumbing it down when you port it to console, instead of making a dumbed down console version, and porting that to PC.

The number of times I've loaded a new game to see "Press Enter to continue" before the menu... PU-LEASE!

Romeo
4th Jul 2008, 04:29
Oh, I too hate the way that games these days coddle the player far too much (with Battlefield: BC and BioShock being two of the worst offenders, but I also understand the logic to an extent. Yes, realism is fun, but can ruin the overall experience for many people. Though I prefer tact, many would simply get frustrated by trying to complete a section with almost no health remaining due to one quick mistake.

jcp28
4th Jul 2008, 16:21
This made me think about times when saves can actually be good.

Whenever I play games where I can get things done by sneaking around, I often hope that the saves/checkpoints are at least moderately frequent. Because if they aren't, I start to get annoyed, mostly because the game is dragged out by me getting to the 4th enemy after the checkpoint and getting spotted, thus causing me to get into a fight with at least 2 people with high-powered machine guns. After the fight is done, I can have anywhere from 40-60 percent of my health gone, assuming I wasn't able to find a way to get out of there.

But that's the great thing about DX. It's hard to get cut to pieces if you're spotted, so long as you keep a cool head, and run to a place where it's easier to shoot an enemy. But since PC games tend to have saves anywhere in any case, I'd think unlimited saves would be a given for many of us. Of course you can still have unlimited saves without Bioshock-type coddling, and I hope DX 3 satisfies here.

Kevyne-Shandris
4th Jul 2008, 16:33
But that's the great thing about DX. It's hard to get cut to pieces if you're spotted, so long as you keep a cool head, and run to a place where it's easier to shoot an enemy. But since PC games tend to have saves anywhere in any case, I'd think unlimited saves would be a given for many of us. Of course you can still have unlimited saves without Bioshock-type coddling, and I hope DX 3 satisfies here.

It's one of my beefs about F.E.A.R. v-e-r-y limited saves. So limited you couldn't even save even one game per interval. Which meant if you wanted to go back to later levels which couldn't be saved, you had no choice but to employ the cheat mode, without any benefit of a choice save spot.

DX had a 999 limit, so hard coded that if you copied over a Save237, and decided to save the game, the next sequence is Save238. Got into trouble copying over a 900 level save, and was limited to less than 99 saves and only on the Oceanlab level. Still haven't been able to change the save numbering, either for archiving. Hope that isn't employed again (or at least having the ability of using a saved master list which can be readily edit via notepad [like the user.ini], not trying to hunt down a hex editor that could change the numbering!).

Psychopomp
5th Jul 2008, 13:44
Everyone in this thread has made good points, but I'm going to pipe up for Bioshock here.

I've beaten Ghost's 'n' Goblins, I've revelled every Ninja Gaiden, I basked DMC3, and I Wanna Be the Guy has a permanent place on my hard drive.

That being said, yes, Bioshock was easy and it's one of the greatest games i've ever played.
However, I'm convinced that I'm the only person in the world who played it smart on release.

jamesthefishy
5th Jul 2008, 17:30
I must agree with almost everything I have seen so far.

Unlimited save games - A must, any other is just pointless.
Hold Hands - Dude this game isn't my girlfriend, stop holding my hand.
Realism - If I shoot someone in the face they shouldn't be alive
universal ammo - This is annoying. Shoot some high powered weapon twice because you need to and you have no ammo for a pistol...
Weapon mods - The mods you put on a weapon should be unlimited, like dx1.
Weapons - What happen to general weapons being unique?
Health and Ammo - The way you get health and ammo has been a struggle through developing games. Keep it original dx. It worked before.
Console - Don't dumb down the game because your porting it to the console. PC games are just that. If you want to make it big with consoles, rebuild the game. Thats why TF2 sucks.

Chemix
5th Jul 2008, 17:48
I think that weapon mods should be different from the box with a light and a label concept of DX 1. They should be things that you actually attach to the gun, like a flashlight, or a laser, or various scopes, or different sights, or grenade launchers or etc. etc. Accuracy boosts... maybe, but I'd like something I can see on the gun, rather than something that only matters towards what happens when I shoot it.

I'd also appreciate autosaves, and saves that don't eat up memory. I've been playing DX lately and with autosave on, the saves can eat up your HD in one play through, each at dozens of megs a piece.

jamesthefishy
5th Jul 2008, 17:52
I think that weapon mods should be different from the box with a light and a label concept of DX 1. They should be things that you actually attach to the gun, like a flashlight, or a laser, or various scopes, or different sights, or grenade launchers or etc. etc. Accuracy boosts... maybe, but I'd like something I can see on the gun, rather than something that only matters towards what happens when I shoot it.


Thats just fansy crap... graphics are nice but you know I don't mind if it doesn't show up as long as they get it right.

jcp28
5th Jul 2008, 19:07
Hold Hands - Dude this game isn't my girlfriend, stop holding my hand.


That is slightly amusing.

Chemix
5th Jul 2008, 19:51
Thats just fansy crap... graphics are nice but you know I don't mind if it doesn't show up as long as they get it right.

Fancy crap... this isn't the middle ages here, not showing weapon mods on the gun is just being lazy.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Jul 2008, 22:19
I enjoyed Bioshock very much - it failed in some areas though.
The eye-candy was gorgeous, the theme and storyline wasn't too bad. For the type of game it was, it deserves some credit. Personally, I would have liked it more if it had been much darker and scarier... ;)

Where it really failed for me was the repetitive mission play at all levels and the fact that it wasn't that difficult to play. The ending, in particular, was easier than the entire game put together, lol! :D

Kevyne-Shandris
5th Jul 2008, 22:57
Fancy crap... this isn't the middle ages here, not showing weapon mods on the gun is just being lazy.

The point is it isn't necessary.

The point is getting a game with the most features most gamers prefer, hopefully on time, and on budget so that features aren't cut.

Can't do it all, have to pick features on need before greed. If it takes 6 months to add all the scripting for the mods, and another 3 months to model/texture them all, when the budget is tight, you pick the 6 months of scripting and leave the modelling and texturing to the mod community to individualize.

The heavy work, especially scripting (as this won't be another UT engine modders can just jump into), has to be done first.

Scripting 100% over eyecandy.

Chemix
6th Jul 2008, 00:34
It doesn't take 3 months to model and texture

-pistol scope
-sniper scope
-medium rifle scope
-rifle silencer
-pistol silencer
-grenade launcher
-alternative ammo magazines

More like 3 weeks at most. Being a modeler I have a decent idea of how long this takes.

6 months to script the mods? At best... 2
-Scopes are fairly simple to script, particularly when there are already scripts for binoculars in this engine.
-A silencer requires a script to change the sound that's played and lower the distance over which it can be heard.
-Grenade launchers are a bit more different and require some sort of alt fire or fire mode of it's own, but not difficult for a decent scripting team
-Alternative ammo requires a little less work than the grenade launcher as far as changing to that ammo goes, the effects of that ammo are more complex, but that's dependent on what the ammo does.

This isn't a mod team working in their spare time, this is a paid full time group of professionals.

evandevine
7th Aug 2008, 16:00
The thing with unlimited saves is that people dont have time to play video games anymore. If you have to go do something and end your game you dont have time to run around and find a checkpoint to save your game. Its a good option it doesnt dumb a game down it just accomadates people.

Now as far as Bioshock "babying" players, yes the big gold arrow telling you where to go was annoying at some points. BUT I know personally it also helped at some points because Im playing it a second time through (never finished it the first time since I was using my friends box) and now Im trying to explore more and find little stuff hidden around levels and get tape recorders. And some of the levels even though they're great looking sometimes the areas all blend in so when I need to go about my mission its nice that it tells you if you're going the right direction.

Finally we need to stop comparing the Deus Ex games to the first one. No matter how great the next game will or will not be it will not be as good as the first one. The first game was new and fresh and exciting. Unless they totally go balls out on this it will just be a sequel not ground breaking. Yes there were things in the second one that should have been shelved in place for old things (I.E. seperate ammo for each mission) but we should just be lucky they're giving us a third game. Ill be lucky if I get a third Shenmue game before I die so at least we're getting DE3

Romeo
8th Aug 2008, 08:23
I find people in general almost never give credit to sequels, so that no matter how good of a game is made afterm it wont garner as good of reviews, if only out of principle.

Psychomorph
9th Aug 2008, 01:59
I find people in general almost never give credit to sequels, so that no matter how good of a game is made afterm it wont garner as good of reviews, if only out of principle.
Rogue Spear was better than Rainbow Six. You just have to make it right.

Do not move backward on the ladder of evolution, start where the prequel stopped.
Raven Shield removed the probably most awesome game feature of all times, the climb. Reason? Oh well, developer decision...

Jimmy Rabbitte
10th Aug 2008, 23:09
I disagree, Romeo. However there is probably an underlying expectation that sequels will do poorly because it is an undeniable trend. I think the real reason is the developers/designers/producers or whatever simply run out of creative steam and cut corners, use cheap solutions, mass appeal, etc. Plus there's the idea, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Some originals just set the bar really high and don't need improvement.

Psychomorph
10th Aug 2008, 23:45
Some originals just set the bar really high and don't need improvement.
As far as I see it, many games get below that bar that was set by the prequel.

"IGI2 - Covert Strike" is the shining example of the opposite, it improved on almost every aspect compared to its prequel. Excellent and how it always should be.