PDA

View Full Version : STEALTH/Cover Discussion Thread



Tracer Tong
6th Oct 2008, 22:34
:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

I want to know once and for all. Why are people so annoyed about the damn planned stealth system? What's wrong with it?!

Eye-of-Sight && Sound Propagation is the most realistic stealth system I can think of. I mean, WHAT IS STEALTH IF NOT HIDING AND NOT ECHOING ANY SOUND WHATSOEVER?!?!?! :nut:

Would you prefer, just as a comparison, to crouch in the shadow in FRONT of an NSF guy? Sounds pretty bloody realistic, right? :confused:

If you really want to do that, though, I'm sure a stealth augmentation is in bound (the game must have some stealth auggie as a gameplay element, or else augs wouldn't be as fun...), and if not, mod it for god's sake. Keep the community alive.

This concludes my GRRRR-RANT! :mad:

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

________
Link to old topic:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=75113

imported_van_HellSing
6th Oct 2008, 22:50
Because if you look past the sugar-coated talk, it looks like there's no stealth system in first person at all in this game. Line of sight, enemy vision angles and reaction to sound? That's what funking Quake had. Would you say Quake has a stealth system?

Tracer Tong
6th Oct 2008, 22:55
See, there isn't much more to stealth than the team who works for the company which produces the Thief series. What's their system?

imported_van_HellSing
6th Oct 2008, 22:58
Maybe I'm just too tired, but I don't understand what you're saying.

EDIT: Anyway, shadow-based sneaking might not be too realistic, but it gives you the option to stay hidden while observing your enemies. With a line of sight only system, if you can see them, they can see you, unless their backs are turned. There's nothing more satisfying in Thief than to have a guard look at the spot you're in from 2 meters and not notice you. In DX3, such a thing will be impossible, unless they make the guards extremely myopic a'la MGS.

Speaking of MGS, if there's no light/shadow based sneaking, how about camouflage, as simple as in MGS4 or as complicated as in MGS3?

Laokin
6th Oct 2008, 23:01
Because if you look past the sugar-coated talk, it looks like there's no stealth system in first person at all in this game. Line of sight, enemy vision angles and reaction to sound? That's what funking Quake had. Would you say Quake has a stealth system?

As one of the best quake players ranked number 1 in the world in the RA and Defrag ladders for quite some time, I know Q 1 - 4 all inside and out. They had 0 stealth system, none whatso ever. Your analogy was quake world... a MULTIPLAYER ARENA ACTION game. I don't think one should have to point out the obvious and say HELLO, WAKE UP -- THERE WASN'T EVEN ANYTHING TO HIDE BEHIND. QW was all open levels, box's were used as step ladders to get to ledges and that's about it. Lets not even forget the obvious... there is 0 AI in QW unless your talking about bots, wich are intended to mimic real players in an arena environment. Needless to say, there was no advantage to tying to stay hidden in Quake... it was about moving faster then your opponent..... Sheesh circle strafe jumping would pwn anyone who stood still or even ran, if you couldn't CSJ then you were pretty much loosing any match you played in QW Q2 Q3 and Q4, Q4 they added in Slide Jumping so you could turn without loosing speed. An alternative to U-Jumping in Q3 with CPM rules enabled.

If you were to play any quake with a single player with the exception of 4, you would notice it being like doom or duke nukem 3d. Enemies always knew when you were in the room END OF STORY. Didn't matter if you walked/crouched/ran in guns blazing, you couldn't sneak up on enemies period the end. DX3 is more like Tenchu... if you wanna get a feel of what the stealth system is gonna be like, look up some videos of Tenchu Stealth Assasins, and expect it to be about 5 times more accurate, as tenchu is really really old. So in other words your saying the only way to hide is in a shadow? That's it! the only one possible way to sneak is with shadows? So if your outside broad day, I guess on must be playing an action game then? Come on, I mean no disrespect and I certainly don't mean to insult you but that is what your saying. Shadows = Only Stealth Possible In Games. O.S.P.I.G. at least it's productive, you gave us a new acronym.

Tracer Tong
6th Oct 2008, 23:02
Maybe I'm tired :p I was just asking what was Thief's stealth system made of. In addition to that, I was pointing out that the teams must have people who work for both games and/or people who they can consult with.

WhatsHisFace
6th Oct 2008, 23:09
I don't like dumbing the stealth system down to only cover-based stealth, and here's why:

1. Shadow stealth was in the first game (not messing with what worked should be enough reason).
2. When cover-based stealth fails, you should be able to lurk in shadows as a last line of defense. So many times in Deus Ex, a guard would turn around and come looking for me around a wall. I'd go into a room with not much to hide behind, but fortunately there was a rather dark corner I could escape to.

If line-of sight stealth is all we have, I will be uncovered often, and thanks to recharging health, I will be killing pretty much every guard in the game. They'll keep coming for me, and a complete bloodbath is spawned just because a guard caught my foot sticking out of a doorway.

imported_van_HellSing
6th Oct 2008, 23:11
Laokin - nope. You're wrong. I'm talking about the original Quake. The enemies don't attack you unless they see you (so, if their backs are turned and they're not aware of you, they won't attack - check out the beginning of Grisly Grotto if you don't remember), also, I'm not sure about that, but if they don't see you but you fire a weapon near them (not at them), they become aware too.

I dabbled some in map creation (just for myself, never released anything), and I found you could actually make an attempt at a stealth level, with memorising monster patrol routes etc.

This is not to say Quake has a stealth system.

This is to say that DX3 doesn't have one either (at least not in first person).

Laokin
6th Oct 2008, 23:18
Maybe I'm tired :p I was just asking what was Thief's stealth system made of. In addition to that, I was pointing out that the teams must have people who work for both games and/or people who they can consult with.

Well Thief 1 &2 are a completely different animal than Thief 3. 1&2 were FPS's with sprites, not even models yet. Thief 3 was on the same engine as IW. I can vouch that Thief 3 was based on shadows, but this actually made sense. Thief was ALWAYS night time and took place some where around the middle ages i.e. there was no light bulbs, candles and torches, and water arrows. So you could intentionally make it dark, plus Garret wore dark leather clothing resembling something of a ninja. I would imagine it'd be quite hard to see a guy completely in brown/black with 0 light sources inside a building with hardly any windows. DX could of used light and let you shut off switches and shoot out bulbs, but face the facts here. You break into a top secret military facility every guard will have a flash light, you flick a switch they flick another one that puts the same lights back on, you flip it again your cover would so be blown.... If you were to shoot lights out they'd hear the bulbs break and the glass hit the floor... even if no one was around to hear it, if they patrolled by said light, they would see broken glass on the floor. It just doesn't work, I some how don't see our top secret spies of the 21st century running around achieving objectives by shoot out light bulbs like Sam Fischer. The idea of shadows in a game that's not going to be dark, would force you to make the game dark just so you could actually have a stealth system in tact. It fundamentally is a bad design decision to keep it based on light. Although, basing it on light AND line of sight would have been the obvious way to go... would be nice for certain areas of the game, as some place in the length of DX3 has to be at least semi dark, maybe some sewers? All really depends on level design.... it's still better overall than a light only system.

Tracer Tong
6th Oct 2008, 23:19
I don't like dumbing the stealth system down to only cover-based stealth, and here's why:

1. Shadow stealth was in the first game (not messing with what worked should be enough reason).
2. When cover-based stealth fails, you should be able to lurk in shadows as a last line of defense. So many times in Deus Ex, a guard would turn around and come looking for me around a wall. I'd go into a room with not much to hide behind, but fortunately there was a rather dark corner I could escape to.

If line-of sight stealth is all we have, I will be uncovered often, and thanks to recharging health, I will be killing pretty much every guard in the game. They'll keep coming for me, and a complete bloodbath is spawned just because a guard caught my foot sticking out of a doorway.

A combination of light and cover would be great (but on the other hand, what would you do in real life? Run away outdoors, lock yourself inside a room indoors? (which I hope could be done)) and, yes, this specific case you mentioned pretty much turns the DX3 experience around. Very true and very disturbing.

imported_van_HellSing
6th Oct 2008, 23:20
Well Thief 1 &2 are a completely different animal than Thief 3. 1&2 were FPS's with sprites, not even models yet.

:o :) :D ;) :rasp: :cool: :rolleyes: :lol: :scratch: :nut: :mad2: :thumbsup: :eek: :lmao: :whistle: :( :p **** :confused:

Funniest thing I read ALL MONTH

Laokin
6th Oct 2008, 23:21
Laokin - nope. You're wrong. I'm talking about the original Quake. The enemies don't attack you unless they see you (so, if their backs are turned and they're not aware of you, they won't attack - check out the beginning of Grisly Grotto if you don't remember), also, I'm not sure about that, but if they don't see you but you fire a weapon near them (not at them), they become aware too.

I dabbled some in map creation (just for myself, never released anything), and I found you could actually make an attempt at a stealth level, with memorising monster patrol routes etc.

This is not to say Quake has a stealth system.

This is to say that DX3 doesn't have one either (at least not in first person).

I beg to differ, I have Q1 installed on my computer with tenebrae. It's a proximity thing, when you get off the elevator in the first level there is 2 dogs and a guard. The guard is just coincidentally facing backwards at first. The second you step off the elevator the dogs comes running and the guy starts shooting. It matters not the way he's facing. If you don't believe me have a look into the source of Quake, since it's open.... there are no complex line of sight codes, just map triggers.

imported_van_HellSing
6th Oct 2008, 23:24
Considering what you just wrote about Thief 1&2, I can't take anything you say seriously.

Also, do play Grisly Grotto and experiment, it's a good level for that.

Laokin
6th Oct 2008, 23:39
Considering what you just wrote about Thief 1&2, I can't take anything you say seriously.

Also, do play Grisly Grotto and experiment, it's a good level for that.

Oh I didn't say I can only vouch for thief 3? And i'm sorry but thief 1 and 2 are fp, and I didn't mention anything other then sprites and to my knowledge the first one was, and I thought it was like the Duke 3D HRP, that replaces the sprites with models.... wow, means I'm not credible? Your just being ridiculous now.... I never played thief 1 or 2, I only played 3 which is why I said I can vouch for thief 3.

imported_van_HellSing
6th Oct 2008, 23:49
Thief: The Dark Project uses motion-captured 3D models. Thief: The Dark Project is steampunk-fantasy (which places it nowhere near the medieval period, since not only is it not set in our universe, but also doesn't really resemble any one epoch of it), with electrical lights alongside gas lamps and torches. Thief 2: The Metal Age took the steampunk bit even further, introducing art-deco style and steam-powered robots.

You should play the games sometime they're great.

Don't weasel your way out of your claims about T1 & T2. You presented them as facts.

Tracer Tong
6th Oct 2008, 23:55
Considering what you just wrote about Thief 1&2, I can't take anything you say seriously.

Also, do play Grisly Grotto and experiment, it's a good level for that.

Quake 1 is a sprite-fps too dontcha know

Romeo
6th Oct 2008, 23:55
I don't like dumbing the stealth system down to only cover-based stealth, and here's why:

1. Shadow stealth was in the first game (not messing with what worked should be enough reason).
2. When cover-based stealth fails, you should be able to lurk in shadows as a last line of defense. So many times in Deus Ex, a guard would turn around and come looking for me around a wall. I'd go into a room with not much to hide behind, but fortunately there was a rather dark corner I could escape to.

If line-of sight stealth is all we have, I will be uncovered often, and thanks to recharging health, I will be killing pretty much every guard in the game. They'll keep coming for me, and a complete bloodbath is spawned just because a guard caught my foot sticking out of a doorway.
Just because you had something, doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing to take things away. DX:IW had universal ammo, but I severely doubt anyone here would want it in the third. Just as I think light and dark stealth is usually poorly implemented. Unless it's literally pitch black (meaning you can't see without lights yourself) someone crouching directly in front of you is pretty damn noticable (If you want to see what I mean, go paintballing at night. You might not notice an arm sticking out behind a tree, but you will notice some fool out in the open). From a purely common-sense-perspective, I'm glad that this particular aspect of stealth is gone - it's unrealistic.

A combination of light and cover would be great (but on the other hand, what would you do in real life? Run away outdoors, lock yourself inside a room indoors? (which I hope could be done)) and, yes, this specific case you mentioned pretty much turns the DX3 experience around. Very true and very disturbing.
Yes, I do remember having the option to lock doors, which could make key management very important (say only the top ranked gaurd have keys, and there's a group of grunts chasing you. Instant moment to catch your breath and hopefully slip away somewhere else). However, I don't think that the light/cover system could still work properly. Whoever suggested the camouflage system, perhaps I could see that, but I have yet to see a game truly nail light and dark stealth, save for Splinter Cell (which is a purely stealth-orientated game).

Tracer Tong
7th Oct 2008, 00:00
IMHO it's all about great AI and a realistic stealth system.

The latter is probably achieved, with locking doors and such it would be as perfect as it could become for a game of this genre. Most games with line-of-sight stealth only recognize maps (i.e. BSPs) as their obstacles and not dynamic objects. With today's computing power I think that full line-of-sight stealth system would be awesome and achievable.

About the former, we'll just have to wait and see... :p

imported_van_HellSing
7th Oct 2008, 00:02
So what does everyone think about the idea to have camouflage as a part of stealth?

I mean, since it's a prequel, why not remove the inviso-camo and replace it with something less advanced and more tricky to use?

piippo
7th Oct 2008, 00:26
Just because you had something, doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing to take things away. DX:IW had universal ammo, but I severely doubt anyone here would want it in the third. Just as I think light and dark stealth is usually poorly implemented. Unless it's literally pitch black (meaning you can't see without lights yourself) someone crouching directly in front of you is pretty damn noticable (If you want to see what I mean, go paintballing at night. You might not notice an arm sticking out behind a tree, but you will notice some fool out in the open). From a purely common-sense-perspective, I'm glad that this particular aspect of stealth is gone - it's unrealistic.

That's a good argument, but saying "unrealistic" is un-needed. Realism in games have been talked about for years, but in the end they are just that - games. Games don't have to follow the rules that we have in our world, even if it often makes the more immersive. I haven't exactly gotten a clear picture how the supposed "coversystem" works, so I can't really say nothing on the subject. I agree that it tends to get bit unrealistic time to times, but I wouldn't play out the shadows totally, in pitchblack areas AI shouldn't be able to see the player without the appropiate "gear". I do hope it feels intuitive, and "realistic" but not gimmicky as in Gears of War - which relied on the whole "cover GoW style" -thing. Without knowing anything about the other design aspects that can affect stealth/cover/vision.

piippo
7th Oct 2008, 00:28
So what does everyone think about the idea to have camouflage as a part of stealth?

I mean, since it's a prequel, why not remove the inviso-camo and replace it with something less advanced and more tricky to use?

Similar to that of seen in Metal Gear Solid 4? I know there are some guys that really appreciate the stealth gameplay aspect, but it would need a lot of thought to work in properly, not making it too gimmicky.

Laokin
7th Oct 2008, 00:38
Weasel my way out??? I made an honest mistake that I didn't say was 100% fact, it was off of memory, and I'm sorry I NEVER played them... I said Thief 3 works on shadows. And yes there are many sprites in thief, but the game is 3D like quake 1, get off my nuts. I didn't realize I could get crucified for not playing every game in existence.

jcp28
7th Oct 2008, 01:24
Well, I don't mind, so long as shadows provides at least some cover. But I see the point in the new system. I remember on Liberty Island, I was almost in front of this one patrolling NSF guy, but because I was in a sort of shadowy area, he didn't see me, and I took him out with my riot prod.

Hopefully, this will make it a little easier to do nonlethal takedowns as well.

WhatsHisFace
7th Oct 2008, 01:31
Just because you had something, doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing to take things away. DX:IW had universal ammo, but I severely doubt anyone here would want it in the third. Just as I think light and dark stealth is usually poorly implemented. Unless it's literally pitch black (meaning you can't see without lights yourself) someone crouching directly in front of you is pretty damn noticable (If you want to see what I mean, go paintballing at night. You might not notice an arm sticking out behind a tree, but you will notice some fool out in the open). From a purely common-sense-perspective, I'm glad that this particular aspect of stealth is gone - it's unrealistic.
I find it easier to suspend disbelief that hiding in a shadow makes me nearly invisible, than suspending disbelief that after being ripped to shreds by bullets, my body will heal itself to perfection within a little amount of time. If you want to talk about game mechanics that's one thing, but applying the "realistic" argument to a videogame where the protagonist can "bungee jump" using tentacles that come out of his back, or "Kool-aid man" his way through walls to grab enemies on the other side, you're taking a ridiculous approach.

And in the context of the game, it's gameplay, and the way the game was played, shadow-based stealth was essential, plausible and even defining of what Deus Ex was. Aside from the Thief games, it was the only shadow-based stealth game on the market.

Mr. Perfect
7th Oct 2008, 02:01
See, there isn't much more to stealth than the team who works for the company which produces the Thief series. What's their system?

Shadows. :lol:

OK, so it's much more then that, but yeah, shadows are big.

Thief also heavily relies on sounds for sneaking around. Every surface, object, and weapon had sound that would alert guards to your presence.

Line of site also plays a role, but if you're making a racket it doesn't matter if the guard can see you directly or not. They'll come find you if you're running around on tile floors.

Still, it's a common occurrence in Thief to have guards walk not a foot in front of you while you're hanging out in a pitch black shadow. There are however diffrent levels of shadows in Thief, something like five darknesses along with full light if I remember correctly. Full light(red on your shadow indicator), two pale shadows(yellow), two moderate shadows(green), and two levels of heavy shadow(dark grey). The guards-walking-past-you trick only worked in the heaviest shadows, while the lighter the shadow was, the further away a guard had to be to not notice you. It's a fair arrangement that makes shadow hiding believable.

I would hope the DX3 combines all three things, sounds, line of site, and lighting. If they can incorporate a sneaking aspect as tight as Thief's, this will be most interesting indeed.:cool:

Romeo
7th Oct 2008, 02:33
So what does everyone think about the idea to have camouflage as a part of stealth?

I mean, since it's a prequel, why not remove the inviso-camo and replace it with something less advanced and more tricky to use?
That does have the option to be extremely cool, but then we delve into the realm of clothing/armors, which the community seemed pretty divided about. Besides, stealth is only one portion of the game, I'd hate to see the other parts suffer because of an over focus on it...

That's a good argument, but saying "unrealistic" is un-needed. Realism in games have been talked about for years, but in the end they are just that - games. Games don't have to follow the rules that we have in our world, even if it often makes the more immersive. I haven't exactly gotten a clear picture how the supposed "coversystem" works, so I can't really say nothing on the subject. I agree that it tends to get bit unrealistic time to times, but I wouldn't play out the shadows totally, in pitchblack areas AI shouldn't be able to see the player without the appropiate "gear". I do hope it feels intuitive, and "realistic" but not gimmicky as in Gears of War - which relied on the whole "cover GoW style" -thing. Without knowing anything about the other design aspects that can affect stealth/cover/vision.
I, personally, thought Gears of War was astrike of genious. And a certain level of realism is often very appreciated, as it shows the develloper took the time to research the real-world equivalents, and put in the effort to replicate them.

I find it easier to suspend disbelief that hiding in a shadow makes me nearly invisible, than suspending disbelief that after being ripped to shreds by bullets, my body will heal itself to perfection within a little amount of time. If you want to talk about game mechanics that's one thing, but applying the "realistic" argument to a videogame where the protagonist can "bungee jump" using tentacles that come out of his back, or "Kool-aid man" his way through walls to grab enemies on the other side, you're taking a ridiculous approach.

And in the context of the game, it's gameplay, and the way the game was played, shadow-based stealth was essential, plausible and even defining of what Deus Ex was. Aside from the Thief games, it was the only shadow-based stealth game on the market.
Well, I can punch through gyprock, and I'm not augmented in any way, and a system to rappel down wouldn't be beyond current-day tech either. Now, the technology necessary could exist in the future (such as the invisibility aug, which is now in it's infancy), we don't know. What I do know, is that any person with half a brain in their head wont fail to notice someone standing in front of them (in the shadows).

WhatsHisFace
7th Oct 2008, 03:04
Well, I can punch through gyprock, and I'm not augmented in any way, and a system to rappel down wouldn't be beyond current-day tech either. Now, the technology necessary could exist in the future (such as the invisibility aug, which is now in it's infancy), we don't know. What I do know, is that any person with half a brain in their head wont fail to notice someone standing in front of them (in the shadows).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKYtGLOz0Cw

Shadows = no Batman. Light = Batman.

Surprise! You can't see people in the dark!

Noceur
7th Oct 2008, 10:29
Besides, stealth is only one portion of the game, I'd hate to see the other parts suffer because of an over focus on it...

:lol:

DXeXodus
7th Oct 2008, 10:35
^^ Your point being?

Bloodwolf806
7th Oct 2008, 11:31
So, you guys are complaining about a stealth system that resembles Metal Gear Solid, the most popular and well-recieved stealth action game of all time?:scratch:

Noceur
7th Oct 2008, 11:36
^^ Your point being?

I should've been a bit more verbose. This topic's about the people complaining about stealth in Deus Ex 3 being given less love than it deserves, while what I quoted voiced the opposite fear.
I found that conflict/contrast amusing, and it's rather common around a game where player-freedom include choice of gameplay (i.e Stealth vs Action).
Actually, my quote from Romeo was a taken a bit out of context, and for that I apologize.

I'll just tie this back into the topic: The part that annoys me about DX3's stealth system (based on what I've read about the magazine story ;) is that it's less than what we got in DX1. I mean, it was cover based in DX1 -and- shadow based. I don't remember anyone me seeing through walls. :P
From what I understand, they've just removed the shadow variable and thrown in UE3-style cover system*. To me that feels like a more shallow stealth system (cover vs cover+shadows). Then again, I don't have enough info yet, so meh. :)

* = I love the UE3 cover system, especially in Rainbow Six: Vegas.

Mecranth
7th Oct 2008, 11:53
I believe we should all be thankful that stealth exists in the game at all. They could have quite easily ditched it entirely and left us with nothing but a shooter.

WhatsHisFace
7th Oct 2008, 12:05
I believe we should all be thankful that stealth exists in the game at all. They could have quite easily ditched it entirely and left us with nothing but a shooter.

Fortunately, shooters are not in short supply, and if it comes down to playing a good shooter over Deus Ex 3, which in your scenario would be another shooter, I'd pick the better of the two.

I'm a fan of light-based stealth games, and if Deus Ex 3 can't provide that, I'll just get the new Rid**** instead. After IW, I don't feel any strong commitment to the Deus Ex brand.

Mecranth
7th Oct 2008, 12:17
Understandable. I must ask you, however: Why do you reference Invisible War? While it may not have been above average in any one genre, it was not so terrible that it must be the leading cause of anxiety over the next game in the series. The apparent geniuses behind the first game were completely responsible for the second, after all. The responsibility has changed recently.

If one is to believe that a Deus Ex game focused more on action, as was the case with Invisible War, would it not be wiser to notice that Ion Storm is no longer in charge, thus making it highly improbable that we receive something akin to the second game?

Eidos Montreal's development team has even acknowledged that the second attempt at a Deus Ex game was a rather uninspiring one, one of them literally making a personal appearance on these very boards and putting to rest a lot of the community's worries.

I understand the disappointment over many of the design choices made by Eidos Montreal, particularly regarding the stealth, but one must not forget that it could have been a lot worse. Only time will tell, however.

Ihsan
7th Oct 2008, 12:56
I am not sure I completely understand the difference, in the new system they are proposing, if you stand in a pitch black room and a guard walks in he will see you automatically? That does seem a little odd.

foxberg
7th Oct 2008, 13:08
So what does everyone think about the idea to have camouflage as a part of stealth?

I mean, since it's a prequel, why not remove the inviso-camo and replace it with something less advanced and more tricky to use?

This is not a prequel.

CarloGervasi
7th Oct 2008, 13:11
Oh man, I hope you're not joking. :lol:

foxh0und
7th Oct 2008, 13:24
This is not a prequel.
Yes your right you can call it prolog :lol: Any way back to topic i think MGS stealth system will be better because there wont be enough shadows to hide in maybe in lower shanghai and other locations but not i upper parts where you have a lot of lights, and what if guard have flashlight or thermalgoggles or nighvision. IMHO the best solution that will keep everybody happy is mix of thief stealth system(shadows and sounds) and line of sight (cone) form MGS.

Mecranth
7th Oct 2008, 13:35
When bringing up the new stealth system into a discussion, one must remember that a lot of the first game took place in areas that had exceptionally limited shadows to hide in, if any at all. One had to study patrol patterns and use their environment to maximum effect to make use of stealth at all. Good examples of such areas would be the Majestic 12 underground facility, Versalife, and Vandenberg. I realize the third one listed does include more than just a few shadows, but I am taking enemy position into account.

Simply put, using the shadows to hide inside of in a future that distant seems to be one of the very last things an agent would want to do, considering how advanced technology is and how much more limited shadows are compared to older times. Facilities work twenty-four hours a day and are constantly being monitored by security cameras and guards, both of which could easily be applying the newer technology to spot somebody in the dark as easily as if they had been waving a banner over their heads in broad daylight.

In this sense, I believe the developers were wise in choosing to change the system to cover only. It makes the most sense in a futuristic world such as this. Others will disagree and are entitled to, but I have yet to see such disagreements go much beyond simple ranting.

WhatsHisFace
7th Oct 2008, 13:41
Understandable. I must ask you, however: Why do you reference Invisible War? While it may not have been above average in any one genre, it was not so terrible that it must be the leading cause of anxiety over the next game in the series. The apparent geniuses behind the first game were completely responsible for the second, after all. The responsibility has changed recently.
Because I was looking forward to this game because I thought it would be like Deus Ex. Not because it's a "Deus Ex Game." The name means nothing if the style of game is different, which it is. I'd rather buy a game from another or new IP that is closer to Deus Ex 1.


If one is to believe that a Deus Ex game focused more on action, as was the case with Invisible War, would it not be wiser to notice that Ion Storm is no longer in charge, thus making it highly improbable that we receive something akin to the second game?
Ion Storm had Eidos to answer to, and Eidos Montreal has Eidos to answer to. It's easier to appease the suits when you can pitch the game as a sci-fi FPS.


Eidos Montreal's development team has even acknowledged that the second attempt at a Deus Ex game was a rather uninspiring one, one of them literally making a personal appearance on these very boards and putting to rest a lot of the community's worries.

I understand the disappointment over many of the design choices made by Eidos Montreal, particularly regarding the stealth, but one must not forget that it could have been a lot worse. Only time will tell, however.
Yes, it could have been a lot worse. Unfortunately, it's still not good enough. At least in my view. I'd rather they went back to the Deus Ex formula, because it worked really well, but if they feel the need to change things because they want to, then I hope they enjoy the millions of newcomers to the series brought on by the brilliant move of ripping out one of the best things of the original.

Mecranth
7th Oct 2008, 13:56
If that is how you truly feel, then I must ask one last question: Why are you here? This isn't an accusation by any means, but I find it less-than-productive to regularly visit the boards of a game that you have already deemed as unworthy of your time.

Maybe something inside of you really is interested in a "Deus Ex game" instead of the same exact formula of the first game. Either that or you just get some kind of enjoyment out of preaching your opinion of a game that you have already condemned.

Again, these are not accusations, but I cannot help but wonder. Maybe you can give me a reasonable answer to the above question.

WhatsHisFace
7th Oct 2008, 14:32
If that is how you truly feel, then I must ask one last question: Why are you here? This isn't an accusation by any means, but I find it less-than-productive to regularly visit the boards of a game that you have already deemed as unworthy of your time.

Maybe something inside of you really is interested in a "Deus Ex game" instead of the same exact formula of the first game. Either that or you just get some kind of enjoyment out of preaching your opinion of a game that you have already condemned.

Again, these are not accusations, but I cannot help but wonder. Maybe you can give me a reasonable answer to the above question.

My join date is December 2007, and this information won't be on public bookshelves until thursday, so I'm sure you can understand why I've been here in the meantime.

But I think it's important for the people making this game to hear the voices of the fans, being as this game was supposed to be a return to form for the Deus Ex franchise. At the current point, it seems like people would much rather just stick up the middle finger to criticism over the stealth system, while the regenerating health topic gets all the love.

But for the people who love stealth games (how many millions did SplinterCell sell?) they should at least have some voice on the forum, before feedback is no longer taken.

Mecranth
7th Oct 2008, 14:38
You bring up good points. I am sorry for so many questions, but I was curious. I do agree that everyone should voice what they feel about certain features in a game, especially seeing as one of the developers themselves regulars here. Maybe some of the voices will be heard and some changes will occur because of them. I would not hope for too much, however.

I just ask that the people who dislike certain features not to dislike them with such hostility. I had seen a lot of that around here as I was lurking, and it seemed rather unnecessary. Eidos Montreal is trying very hard, so I would imagine that every person that they disappoint, especially when they announce their disappointment so vividly, does not exactly motivate them to make the game even more different.

WhatsHisFace
7th Oct 2008, 14:45
You bring up good points. I am sorry for so many questions, but I was curious. I do agree that everyone should voice what they feel about certain features in a game, especially seeing as one of the developers themselves regulars here. Maybe some of the voices will be heard and some changes will occur because of them. I would not hope for too much, however.

I just ask that the people who dislike certain features not to dislike them with such hostility. I had seen a lot of that around here as I was lurking, and it seemed rather unnecessary. Eidos Montreal is trying very hard, so I would imagine that every person that they disappoint, especially when they announce their disappointment so vividly, does not exactly motivate them to make the game even more different.

The first actual information on this game was only made available a few days ago. For a game as well respected as Deus Ex (even after the IW debacle) to be having a sequel covered is big news. Due to the number of people who enjoyed the first game (probably for many different reasons considering how open-ended it was) a lot of negative feedback and hostility should be expected. It'll die down, if it hasn't already.

But the core components of Deus Ex were it's role-playing (first and foremost) and then it's shooting and stealth systems. For the sequel to be pulled in the direction of a shooter only makes as much sense as if it were pulled in the direction of a stealth game.

The action elements are really emphasized in this title, and sadly, the stealth system has been reverted into something out of a Metal Gear Solid game, which is below the level of the stealth model found in Deus Ex 1.

If feels like the core of the experience has been traded away to appease a crowd of people who aren't even going to get this game anyway.

René
7th Oct 2008, 20:36
If feels like the core of the experience has been traded away to appease a crowd of people who aren't even going to get this game anyway.

I said this in another thread but I'll re-post it because I'm betting a lot of people share the same opinion. Changes to health regen and stealth are just fine with me because those are not core Deus Ex values in my opinion. To me, Deus Ex is about choices & consequences, non-linearity, customization, different ways to complete an objective, story, dialogue, character interaction, a Cyberpunk world, a massive conspiracy, etc. All aspects Deus Ex 3 has in spades.

WhatsHisFace
7th Oct 2008, 21:05
I said this in another thread but I'll re-post it because I'm betting a lot of people share the same opinion. Changes to health regen and stealth are just fine with me because those are not core Deus Ex values in my opinion. To me, Deus Ex is about choices & consequences, non-linearity, customization, different ways to complete an objective, story, dialogue, character interaction, a Cyberpunk world, a massive conspiracy, etc. All aspects Deus Ex 3 has in spades.

Okay, that's fine and all, but there are over a million people who played the first Deus Ex and everyone has their own identity for the game based on what it had to offer. For some it was, like you said, being able to make choices. For others, it was the RPG. For me, it was the stealth game. I actually heard about this game from a kid who recommended it to me because you could set children on fire.

So while I don't think Deus Ex 3 needs flammable children, being as shadow-based stealth was one of the cornerstones of the original game, Eidos Montreal may want to expect a backlash if they're taking that out.

TheMorten
7th Oct 2008, 21:31
I said this in another thread but I'll re-post it because I'm betting a lot of people share the same opinion. Changes to health regen and stealth are just fine with me because those are not core Deus Ex values in my opinion. To me, Deus Ex is about choices & consequences, non-linearity, customization, different ways to complete an objective, story, dialogue, character interaction, a Cyberpunk world, a massive conspiracy, etc. All aspects Deus Ex 3 has in spades.

Also, one core Deus Ex values was the resource management. It forced you to make choices about your tactics - but with consequences. I'm not talking about character choices in dialogues, but the way the player should approach a specific, tactical problem.

The medkits as a (rather limited) resource forced players into creative problem-solving, one of the truly important Deus Ex values.

While I'm not trying to flame the new instant-band-aid system, and I also realize it's probably too late to remove it, I can't help but think... What would I have done in Deus Ex with (potentially) unlimited HP? I would definitely not have crept around the ventilation shafts as much as I did. I would have tackled more situations head-on. And all things being fair, the most intense moments of Deus Ex were the moments when you could hear a guard walking outside the door and knew that you had a limited potential for gun action.

In many ways, if you had to use health regen, I still prefer the 'layered' HP of Halo: Combat Evolved. You always had a minimum combat potential, but it fluctuated if you performed below par... Meaning there was an ebb and flow going on all the time, constantly forcing the player to reconsider tactics based on his health situation.

Let's see what happens with Deus Ex 3...

Romeo
7th Oct 2008, 21:59
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKYtGLOz0Cw

Shadows = no Batman. Light = Batman.

Surprise! You can't see people in the dark!
It's already been proven that someone standing in the shadows can still very well be seen (Source: Mythbusters). I tend to believe them more than the Bat-Boys.

WhatsHisFace
7th Oct 2008, 23:00
It's already been proven that someone standing in the shadows can still very well be seen (Source: Mythbusters). I tend to believe them more than the Bat-Boys.
I myself have hidden from my friends in the shadows to scare them. If they were standing in the light, and I was in a very dark area, their eyes couldn't adjust fast enough. So I'll believe my personal experience over Myth Busters.

Still, it's all about suspending disbelief, which is infinitely easier to do for shadow-based stealth than recharging health.

Romeo
7th Oct 2008, 23:21
Well, first off, 99% of Deus Ex was dark, pure and simple, your pupils would naturally dilate to compensate. Secondly, unless the person it wearing all-black, standing in darkness wont conceal them, it'll just phase out the details of their front (or whatever end is facing you) their overall body is still clear as water.

WhatsHisFace
7th Oct 2008, 23:30
Official word to fans of Deus Ex who used the stealth system seems to be "F@#% you," which is all I really need to know in order to save myself $50-$60 by not buying this game. That's info I can't get out of a magazine, so thanks.

general kane
7th Oct 2008, 23:42
Because if you look past the sugar-coated talk, it looks like there's no stealth system in first person at all in this game. Line of sight, enemy vision angles and reaction to sound? That's what funking Quake had. Would you say Quake has a stealth system?

what about thief is is a stealth game which uses the concept of first person shooter .

Romeo
7th Oct 2008, 23:46
Official word to fans of Deus Ex who used the stealth system seems to be "F@#% you," which is all I really need to know in order to save myself $50-$60 by not buying this game. That's info I can't get out of a magazine, so thanks.
You're welcome. Since you wont be buying the game, you really don't belong here then, so see you later. =)

On-topic, something I'm eager to hear about, especially with regards to sound, is the acoustics. How will mods, armors/clothes/movement/surfaces affect the noise you produce when moving?

general kane
7th Oct 2008, 23:58
if thy can truley master the stealth mode and tune it very good it may secure the rating of 78% of game ratings .

Mecranth
8th Oct 2008, 01:33
Official word to fans of Deus Ex who used the stealth system seems to be "F@#% you," which is all I really need to know in order to save myself $50-$60 by not buying this game. That's info I can't get out of a magazine, so thanks.

Quite an immature way to both interpret and handle the situation. As Romeo already stated, you really have no business being here, other than to toss flames at the game at each and every opportunity you see, which would quite easily fall under the act of trolling. I am sorry that you cannot seem to wait until a game is out before passing judgment. It is indeed a sad thing. The best of luck with other titles, I suppose?

CarloGervasi
8th Oct 2008, 03:34
You're welcome. Since you wont be buying the game, you really don't belong here then, so see you later. =)

On-topic, something I'm eager to hear about, especially with regards to sound, is the acoustics. How will mods, armors/clothes/movement/surfaces affect the noise you produce when moving?

Do you really think that this game will go that in-depth? After everything we know about it? Really?

Tracer Tong
8th Oct 2008, 07:00
The current LoS/Sound Propagation stealth system heavily relies on AI, which relies on the engine. I don't think it is necessary for the DX3 team to heavily modify the Crystal Dynamics engine or whatever middleware AI they're using for something that is not as important of a gameplay element for DX3 (stealth IS an important gameplay element in games like Splinter Cell, MGS and Thief)
I also trust the AI to be smart enough in 2009/2010 to not detect you when they normally shouldn't, even with this sort of system.

Jerion
8th Oct 2008, 07:06
Do you really think that this game will go that in-depth? After everything we know about it? Really?

:lol:

FACT CHECK EVERYBODY!

We don't know a damned thing about this game other than the snippets that have been given by Rene himself. The Magazine article isn't entirely accurate- a EM representative has said as much. There is a hell of a lot of speculation, and I'm sure that some of it is spot on, but other than a few screenshots and the name of the protagonist, we have no idea what the final game is going to look like, in any sense.

@ Tracer Tong: Ditto. Although I would argue that Stealth was one of the bigger factors in DX, I would like it to be more true to life than the "hide in the shadows and they won't see you" thing. That was cool at the time, but AI have improved dramatically since then and the stealth system needs to reflect that.

TheMorten
8th Oct 2008, 07:24
It's already been proven that someone standing in the shadows can still very well be seen (Source: Mythbusters). I tend to believe them more than the Bat-Boys.

But here's the kicker: Everyone wants to be Batman! :cool:

And don't you try to deny that. ;)

Jerion
8th Oct 2008, 07:28
But here's the kicker: Everyone wants to be Batman! :cool:

And don't you try to deny that. ;)

I just want his car. :whistle:

ZylonBane
8th Oct 2008, 18:09
@ Tracer Tong: Ditto. Although I would argue that Stealth was one of the bigger factors in DX, I would like it to be more true to life than the "hide in the shadows and they won't see you" thing. That was cool at the time, but AI have improved dramatically since then and the stealth system needs to reflect that.
This statement makes zero sense. Coding an AI that can see you no matter how much shadow you're in is actually much, much easier. That's how Doom 3's AI worked, remember? I don't recall that game being particularly lauded for its amazing AI.

Deemphasizing the effectiveness of shadows is all well and good (if a bit limiting and disappointing), but if the human AIs in DX3 can see you even when you're standing in a pitch-black room, then that will be truly idiotic.

Romeo
8th Oct 2008, 18:21
Do you really think that this game will go that in-depth? After everything we know about it? Really?
Yes, as Kieranator said, we know next-to-nothing about the game. Certain options I mentioned might not matter (such as armors and clothes, as Deus Ex has never truly had full sets of armor - not the ballistic and hazmat excuses, I mean true armors - nor has it even featured clothing options). As for the other two, I could see it coming into play, definately. I know some people seem to think stealth is getting shunned, but I see it as becoming slightly more realistic, difficult and in-depth. Strolling along a dark wall will no longer cut it, you'll have to time when to hide, and move slowly and deliberately. And virtually every game produces different sounds based upon the terrain one is walking on.

Bono
8th Oct 2008, 18:27
I've already said in the other forum (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=853873#post853873) that canning light-and-shadow mechanics of stealth in Deus Ex 3 is nonsense, I just want to remind René and the other folks at EM that the original Deus Ex was actually inspired by Thief games. When Warren Spector was working on Thief: The Dark Project at Looking Glass back in 1998, he actually decided to start working on a game that would combine a deep and complex stealth element of a Thief game with some other genres such as FPS and stat-based RPGs (System Shock for example). That would become Deus Ex eventually.

To put it simply, Deus Ex could not exist without Thief (and, probably, its stealth model?).

I think, you guys at EM should have some absolutely heavy metal arguments for this decision of saying goodbye to traditional DX stealth model. Otherwise it just seems like a move towards MGS fans that will never even play Deus Ex 3 anyway. I think it is better to appeal to the fans of the original games than to try (and to fail obviously) to appeal to some other people, isn't it. Moreover, I know many people who love both Thief and Deus Ex, because these games have so much in common. It doesn't seem like a wise move to work for this audience and give them a game where you can't hide in the shadows.

minus0ne
8th Oct 2008, 19:06
This statement makes zero sense. Coding an AI that can see you no matter how much shadow you're in is actually much, much easier. That's how Doom 3's AI worked, remember? I don't recall that game being particularly lauded for its amazing AI.

Deemphasizing the effectiveness of shadows is all well and good (if a bit limiting and disappointing), but if the human AIs in DX3 can see you even when you're standing in a pitch-black room, then that will be truly idiotic.
I'm in agreement here, emphasis on the "truly idiotic". I'll reserve judgement for the time when more details on the 'stealth' system come out though, but I hope EM will be as thorough with DX3 stealth gameplay as they are with full-blown action gameplay (mini-claymore aug, grabbing people through walls etc.).

I'll also say it wasn't a light-and-shadow stealth system which ruined Invisible War's AI, as people have repeatedly stated for some bizarre reason (to my knowledge, IW didn't have a stealth system at all). And contrary to popular belief (again, for some bizarre reason) DX1 actually had a light-and-shadows AND cover-based stealth system, which was really somewhat successful and convincing especially on higher difficulty levels.

Fuzzman
8th Oct 2008, 19:07
Perhaps I'm simply missing something, so correct me if I happen to be wrong (with proof). While the new line-of-sight/sound/cover system seems to be the primary stealth system in Deus Ex 3, I have not actually read anything explicitly stating that shadows and such will not have some amount of influence on hiding and sneaking around.

Romeo
8th Oct 2008, 19:19
Hm, I don't think there's any concrete evidence saying there's a total lack of light/dark stealth. Again, if it is in, I hope it's kept to a minimum, as again, Deus Ex was unrealistic in the sense you could practically hug a damn guard before he'd notice you in the shadows.

v.dog
8th Oct 2008, 21:08
True, but gameplay should never be sacrificed for realism. First and foremost, the game must be fun.

Also, the question shouldn't be 'what's real in our world', but 'what's real in the world of the game?' As long as shadow stealth goes with the gestalt of the game and is fun, there's no reason not to have it.

That being said, While I'm a stealth gamer at heart (I even played Half-Life that way), I won't drop Dx3 simply because it's lacking. I'll be disappointed, but it comes down to how the entire game plays in every area whether I'll buy it or not.

Jerion
8th Oct 2008, 21:30
This statement makes zero sense. Coding an AI that can see you no matter how much shadow you're in is actually much, much easier. That's how Doom 3's AI worked, remember? I don't recall that game being particularly lauded for its amazing AI.

Deemphasizing the effectiveness of shadows is all well and good (if a bit limiting and disappointing), but if the human AIs in DX3 can see you even when you're standing in a pitch-black room, then that will be truly idiotic.


Ditto about the last bit. I didn't say that they should do away with it. I said that I would like it to be more realistic than it was in the first game, where, as Romeo said, you could practically hug a maximum security patrol before they would even notice you. Combining cover-based stealth with light-dark based stealth is ideal, I think- as long as they make the AI perceptive enough to be able to recognize somebody coming even in varying degrees of darkness.

Romeo
8th Oct 2008, 21:56
True, but gameplay should never be sacrificed for realism. First and foremost, the game must be fun.

Also, the question shouldn't be 'what's real in our world', but 'what's real in the world of the game?' As long as shadow stealth goes with the gestalt of the game and is fun, there's no reason not to have it.

That being said, While I'm a stealth gamer at heart (I even played Half-Life that way), I won't drop Dx3 simply because it's lacking. I'll be disappointed, but it comes down to how the entire game plays in every area whether I'll buy it or not.
Yes, but I think that the removal of light/dark stealth might actually cause an overall improvement to the stealth elements. It will be more challenging, and therefore, more rewarding when you pull it off. On top of this, with light and dark taking a backseat, the AI should be able to respond in a more creative manner (rather than waiting for you to kill them, as was the case in the earlier games). I do agree with the light/dark stealth guys, in the sense that, when it's done right, light/dark can be absolutely beautiful to behold, however, the only game I've ever seen do this correctly, was Splinter Cell, which was a pure stealth game, and combined many elements along with the light level in the room. Deus Ex, and yes, Thief too, were hopelessly unrealistic by letting a little shadow make the character invisible to the human eye.

ZylonBane
8th Oct 2008, 22:40
Deus Ex, and yes, Thief too, were hopelessly unrealistic by letting a little shadow make the character invisible to the human eye.
Where did you get the curious notion that realism = fun? Frankly, I'd much rather play Garrett, whose Keeper training allows him to melt into the shadows, than some meathead who tries to sneak around with bright green lights on his face.

Abram730
9th Oct 2008, 05:23
One thing to consider is that much of the game is set in civilian areas and that how the AI works will be more important then when you are in a secure area.

Romeo
9th Oct 2008, 06:28
Where did you get the curious notion that realism = fun? Frankly, I'd much rather play Garrett, whose Keeper training allows him to melt into the shadows, than some meathead who tries to sneak around with bright green lights on his face.
True, but for most people, a simpler game is definately not a good one (which is essentially what you're asking for). And I don't know where you got the "green-lit face" idea from, so I'm not even going to bother with that one...

DXeXodus
9th Oct 2008, 06:57
Think he is talking about the nigh vision goggles with the 3 green lenses. They did kind of stand out quite a lot I must say :scratch:

ZylonBane
9th Oct 2008, 14:48
True, but for most people, a simpler game is definately not a good one (which is essentially what you're asking for).
How does "can hide in shadows" translate to "simpler game" in your head?

Supporting both line-of-sight *and* light-based sneaking allows for a richer, not simpler, game experience, by expanding the player's range of options. The light-based system is actually more flexible and interesting, since lights are by their very nature dynamic. You can trivially turn them on and off, vary their intensity, move them around, point them in different directions, etc.

In DX, I lost track of how many times I'd break into someone's office, turn off the lights, and use only my light or nightvision augs to poke around. It was fun and immersive.

Laokin
9th Oct 2008, 17:43
Well, as a true fan of DX and a hater of MGS and splintercell 4+, I've got to say I support the decision. The whole shadow thing was always a bit stupid IMO. I believe they took the wrong approach. If they had wanted shadows to hide in, they should of designed the shadows to work with the cloaking aug, and pitch black rooms for a % of time. Pupils will adjust, and I can see near perfect in my room at night with all the lights and tv off (I have storm shutters over my window aswell.) They should of made cloaking like predator, the faster you move/the more light your in, the more visible you become. Forcing you to walk/crouch in a lit room to traverse it. (Civilians should never see you -- EVER, but guards should eventually catch on.)

I feel like just walking into a room and hugging the wall because it's dark is absurd. Were you able to see enemies when they walked through the very same shadows you were hiding in? Absolutely, so why couldn't they see you? It's just not a very robust system. It is very very very possible to follow some one or sneak into an office ect, without getting caught without shadows. I've had to do some sneaking in my life, and as long as your careful, you can stalk practically anyone. This is how stealth should be, real.

For the argument that real isn't fun, that's a matter of opinion... one that I feel is lopsided in this case in favor of cover. Mass appeal if I were to guess, would probably find hiding in "dark" spots of a very well lit game, pretty dumb. IMO, it would take away from the experience. Needless to say, I'm glad they changed it.

My best buddy LOVES DX, he's beaten both of them over 30 times each... He likes DX one more, but still enjoys IW -- as it still plays very much like a DX game. He was more then welcoming this new revision as well... I think only the REAL, REAL, REAL, REAL die hards are gonna care, but you are minority. (I consider my buddy pretty Die Hard for the record.)

All in all, understand some things are going to be different... and am I really supposed to think that DX was a stealth game? I played it numerous times and went stealth once, and I assume everyone here who wants shadow hiding back are all going to play the same way? DX inspired by thief??? No comparison in game play OTHER than shadows. Thief pretty much required stealth, DX it was more like a bonus feature. You didn't NEED it, especially since cloaking was in as well. I fail to see the inspiration.

P.S. Thief was a middle ages game, no lights, flash lights, night vision goggles... It had torches and candles and every level was at Night. The building structures had many, many, many, rooms with no widows and stone walls. Shadows made sense in thief. I find a hard time believing that you can hide in a shadow in a world and age when every security guard has a flashlight, or a ways to see into the dark. It's almost as if DX pretends this technology doesn't exist. JC gets Tech Goggles, what he has the only pair in the world? You find them all over the game, and no enemies use them = Stupid A.I. A.I. should pick up on the fact that their people are disappearing, wouldn't one be EXTRA careful?

Tracer Tong
9th Oct 2008, 17:54
In DX, I lost track of how many times I'd break into someone's office, turn off the lights, and use only my light or nightvision augs to poke around. It was fun and immersive.

This scenario makes me totally support a subtle merge between light/shadow stealth and line-of-sight. (I simply remember doing that too)

CarloGervasi
9th Oct 2008, 21:11
:lol:

FACT CHECK EVERYBODY!

We don't know a damned thing about this game other than the snippets that have been given by Rene himself. The Magazine article isn't entirely accurate- a EM representative has said as much. There is a hell of a lot of speculation, and I'm sure that some of it is spot on, but other than a few screenshots and the name of the protagonist, we have no idea what the final game is going to look like, in any sense.

@ Tracer Tong: Ditto. Although I would argue that Stealth was one of the bigger factors in DX, I would like it to be more true to life than the "hide in the shadows and they won't see you" thing. That was cool at the time, but AI have improved dramatically since then and the stealth system needs to reflect that.

"Everything we know" doesn't mean "we know everything". Damn illiterates.

minus0ne
9th Oct 2008, 22:20
Hm, I don't think there's any concrete evidence saying there's a total lack of light/dark stealth.
There's no concrete evidence either way (which is what we're anxiously awaiting), however, every snippet of info released states things like "we've done away with the light-based stealth system in favour of a more realistic cover system", which would imply a total absence.

Again, if it is in, I hope it's kept to a minimum, as again, Deus Ex was unrealistic in the sense you could practically hug a damn guard before he'd notice you in the shadows.
I don't know if you played Deus Ex on uber-easy difficulty, but that's just not true. Try and play through NSF Warehouse without one guard noticing you on Hard or Realistic, then realise it's one of the easiest levels ;)

Yes, but I think that the removal of light/dark stealth might actually cause an overall improvement to the stealth elements. It will be more challenging, and therefore, more rewarding when you pull it off. On top of this, with light and dark taking a backseat, the AI should be able to respond in a more creative manner (rather than waiting for you to kill them, as was the case in the earlier games).
Well, aside from the fact some people actually like this sort of gameplay, what you're saying just isn't true. The AI can react in creative ways regardless of what sets it off.

I do agree with the light/dark stealth guys, in the sense that, when it's done right, light/dark can be absolutely beautiful to behold, however, the only game I've ever seen do this correctly, was Splinter Cell, which was a pure stealth game, and combined many elements along with the light level in the room.
Actually Splinter Cell 1-4 is purely light and sound based (and since there's not that much running involved, save for a timed sequence here and there, it pretty much pays to creep your way through the game slowly, mostly turning your attention to creating dark corners from where you can grab enemies). I'm aware some of the EM devs have worked on Splinter Cell games, which is why I'm hoping they'll eventually see the "light" (pun intended) :p

Deus Ex, and yes, Thief too, were hopelessly unrealistic by letting a little shadow make the character invisible to the human eye.
Not invisible, but harder to see. If a guard's in a well-lit room, he should not be able to see someone passing a doorway in perfect darkness a dozen feet away, unless perhaps he was expecting someone to and is paying 100% attention. Neither DX nor Thief were unrealistic in this regard IMHO. If you've ever played a Thief game from beginning to end you'd probably have a different opinion, as it's, to date, one of the hardest games ever made (I have yet to complete a game with 100% loot in every level, and 0 detections, even Thief 3).

And even if it were to be implemented in a way that can't be considered purely realistic, as has been said many times now, realism is often at odds with solid gameplay (in fact, it's more like a unicorn for gaming).

Fun fact: the Cathedral level in DX was a tribute to the Thief games

Well, as a true fan of DX and a hater of MGS and splintercell 4+, I've got to say I support the decision.
Just so you know, that statement makes very little sense, as MGS has a cover/line-of-sight system and there is no Splinter Cell 5.

The whole shadow thing was always a bit stupid IMO. I believe they took the wrong approach. If they had wanted shadows to hide in, they should of designed the shadows to work with the cloaking aug, and pitch black rooms for a % of time. Pupils will adjust, and I can see near perfect in my room at night with all the lights and tv off (I have storm shutters over my window aswell.) They should of made cloaking like predator, the faster you move/the more light your in, the more visible you become. Forcing you to walk/crouch in a lit room to traverse it. (Civilians should never see you -- EVER, but guards should eventually catch on.)
In Deus Ex, to my knowledge, every NPC will see you even in a dark room if you come close and cross into his line of sight. However, they wouldn't necessarily see you across a badly lit street ducking behind some trashcans. I don't see what's so unrealistically game-breaking there, but then again I've never played DX on Easy so that might be your problem.

P.S. Thief was a middle ages game, no lights, flash lights, night vision goggles... It had torches and candles and every level was at Night. The building structures had many, many, many, rooms with no widows and stone walls. Shadows made sense in thief. I find a hard time believing that you can hide in a shadow in a world and age when every security guard has a flashlight, or a ways to see into the dark. It's almost as if DX pretends this technology doesn't exist. JC gets Tech Goggles, what he has the only pair in the world? You find them all over the game, and no enemies use them = Stupid A.I. A.I. should pick up on the fact that their people are disappearing, wouldn't one be EXTRA careful
You obviously haven't played any Thief game. Thief isn't medieval but rather Steampunk, electric lights are everywhere (most of which you can't turn off or shoot).

Actually DX did have enemies that could see in the dark iirc (mainly augmented NPCs, Mechs, Commandos etc.), but you're right NPCs should be able to carry flashlights, as it'd only make for more exciting hide-and-seek (and-knockout) moments :D

Hiding in shadows/dark areas should be part of the stealth gameplay IMO, in addition to the plain line-of-sight system (which has been around since Wolfenstein to be honest :p )

Papy
10th Oct 2008, 02:02
To Romeo : I hope this is the thread I should posting in... ;)

I'll be blunt, I view the new 3rd person view "cover system" and the lost hiding shadows gameplay functionality as a very bad idea. I guess I understand the motivation for the change, the same way I understand the motivation for auto-healing, but my very short experience with Rainbow Six : Vegas tells me I simply can't tolerate those feature. It makes game unchallenging and pointless from a thinking point of view. I know, in theory, I won't be forced to use the third person view, but in practice, the level design will be created based on the assumption that the player will be able to see everywhere while being hidden by a wall or an object using the 3rd person view. With Deus Ex 1 we had to hide in shadows from afar to gather information and rely on what we hear (as we couldn't see anything when covered) when we were near to guess what was happening (for example, footsteps noises indicating a guard is turning around, which would be the signal to get out of our hidden position). Levels were made to respect that and I think it added a lot of depth to the game. Having to rely on memory and sounds, instead of just looking made Deus Ex a lot more than just another FPS.

With Deus Ex 3, if the only way to hide is with line of sight, then it will mean we won't be able to gather information as our own line of sight will also be blocked. We won't be able to plan our actions according to patrol routes unless we use the third person view. What it means is the third person view won't be optional at all, it will be a necessity.

Having said that, I think there is a simple solution to regain this core gameplay of Deus Ex. Of course I still wish hiding shadows would be reimplemented, but it would probably means a lot of work from a level design perspective, which might not work with the artistic direction. The simple solution I'm proposing is : why not use a resources based (understand with limited use) device to allow us to look around without having to use the overpowered 3rd person view? It could be, for example, a remote camera with the same gameplay as the Scouting Orb from Thief 2, or an augmentation based power. That way, we could have the same gameplay functionality of hiding shadows (being able to see without being seen), without having to use the overpowered 3rd person cover system.

I know those devices would be useless for people who will be using the 3rd person view, but if the 3rd person view is really optional, than this kind of tools are essential to replace the missing hiding shadows.

Any comments?

BTW, this is a bit out of topic but as it is related to the stealth system, I have to say it... Invisible War, with it's lighting system and NPC projecting shadows, had the great possibility of using those projecting shadows as a way to gather information. Unfortunately, as there was very few light sources and no portable ones (meaning we could attach a light source to a wall in order to see the shadow of the passing guard), that promise was never fulfilled. So, added to a possible remote camera, why not a portable light that could be attached to walls?

Romeo
10th Oct 2008, 02:09
Yes, you are most definately in the right thread (there's two choices, but this the more recent and livelier of the two, so good choice).

As I said earlier (look up around the halfway mark on page 4), I think, without a doubt, the stealth aspect will be vastly superior to previous Deus Ex, thanks to realism, difficulty and immersion. And it should be noted that Deus Ex isn't a third-person game, it's still completely a FPS, third-person will be used in cinematic sequences to highlight the character, which is something the other Deus Ex games have done in the past anyways.

jordan_a
10th Oct 2008, 02:25
This new stealth thread, but already one about cover and sneaking in the list (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=75249).

If I could get some advice...

Romeo
10th Oct 2008, 02:30
Perhaps just call this the "New Stealth" one? Or should I combine the two? Your call, JoJo.

Jerion
10th Oct 2008, 02:31
I like the proposed stealth system. LoS + Shadows, when affected by weather elements like fog and rain, could be pretty cool.

Imagine filling a room with smoke, and being able to slip by a couple of guards without them being able to spot you in the haze!

Anyway, I think we've argued over these things long enough. I"m gonna go watch a movie. :P

Romeo
10th Oct 2008, 02:34
Oh, you should watch "The Dark Knight", or "Darkness Falls", or "Darkness isn't necessary for stealth". Ok, that last one may have been created... By me... Just now...

Papy
10th Oct 2008, 02:42
As I said earlier (look up around the halfway mark on page 4), I think, without a doubt, the stealth aspect will be vastly superior to previous Deus Ex, thanks to realism, difficulty and immersion. And it should be noted that Deus Ex isn't a third-person game, it's still completely a FPS, third-person will be used in cinematic sequences to highlight the character, which is something the other Deus Ex games have done in the past anyways.
To be honest, realism is not the hallmark of video game and it won't be the point of Deus Ex 3 (unless you want to restart the game from the start each time a single bullet reaches a vital organ). If your life is not realistic, then I don't see why stealth should be. Anyway, I have a black cat and I can tell you that I can't see it if it is in a dark room at night, I have to turn on the light to see if it's there.

As for difficulty, I completely disagree. A cover based system like Rainbow Six : Vegas is a lot easier than the one of Deus Ex. The reason is you are able to look everywhere while hiding, no matter where you are. You don't have to find a good spot to observe. In particular, you can observe while being very close to the enemy. This is generally not the case with shadow based stealth. Yes, there is a few location where pitch black can allow you to be unnoticed even when very close, but those location were very rare with Deus Ex.

As for immersion, I don't see how seeing yourself in a third person view can help immersion. To me, it's the complete opposite.

BTW, the cover system is 3rd person. At least that's what is written in the "DEUS EX 3 - THE FACTS Thread".

DXeXodus
10th Oct 2008, 03:57
You can choose to engage the third-person view if you want to.

CarloGervasi
10th Oct 2008, 04:04
No, you can't. You can choose to use the cover system or not. Which, believe it or not, really was presented to people who didn't want a 3rd person view. Apparently, the solution to not wanting a feature is "well fine, just don't use it then, more feature for ME!".

DXeXodus
10th Oct 2008, 04:56
Then I must have misread this:


As the game is still 1st person, it’s only if you press a key when up against a wall that the view changes to a 3rd person perspective. As soon as you move away from the wall, the game returns to 1st person automatically.
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=80786

Or it's a misunderstanding by the thread author.

CarloGervasi
10th Oct 2008, 05:07
Pretty sure it's a misunderstanding by the thread author.

As a matter of fact, here's a link (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=851234&postcount=369)

You engage the cover system by pressing a key while up to a wall. That's what he's saying. If you don't like 3rd person, fine, don't use cover. Which kinda f*&%s people who want a stealthy character, but don't want immersion breaking crap like that, or people who want a character that doesn't stand in the middle of a hallway getting shot, but don't want immersion breaking crap like that, etc.


The thing that bothers me the most is that it's such an easy thing to implement to make it optional. Really, really easy. The only reason not to is hubris. The idea that because someone at Eidos Montreal likes that, then everyone else has to suffer through it. And no, "just don't play the game as intended" isn't a solution.

DXeXodus
10th Oct 2008, 05:19
It is way to early to determine whether any of the systems implemented into the game break immersion or not. Besides, the game focuses heavily on visible augmentation of your character. I am very happy that I will get to see this in action.

CarloGervasi
10th Oct 2008, 05:22
No, it isn't. Are you people insane? I swear, every time anyone brings up anything lately, there's always one person who has to come in and say "well....it's too early". No, it isn't. I don't need to wait for Christmas '09 to figure out that seeing my character, third person, while I'm in control, is an immersion breaker. I don't know what trippy stuff the rest of you are on, but typically, I stay in first person view throughout the day. Maybe I'm missing whatever astral projection abilities you all seem to have, I don't know.

Laokin
10th Oct 2008, 05:32
"Just so you know, that statement makes very little sense, as MGS has a cover/line-of-sight system and there is no Splinter Cell 5."

Yes there is a splintercell 5, it's called conviction -- I am aware it's not out, but it's not even a stealth game anymore... Watch the videos it's all outside with hand to hand fights that look like Final Fight or some****.

And yes I'm aware MGS was line of sight, I was kind of making a point. Metal Gear sucked because the game just sucked. Hiding under a box, yeah thats gonna work :nut: I was saying line of sight is rather nice, if done right.

"In Deus Ex, to my knowledge, every NPC will see you even in a dark room if you come close and cross into his line of sight. However, they wouldn't necessarily see you across a badly lit street ducking behind some trashcans. I don't see what's so unrealistically game-breaking there, but then again I've never played DX on Easy so that might be your problem."

Only problem champ, is I have never played either of them on any other difficulty other than realistic. As long as your not running around like a nut and you have decent timing you can get through anywhere without much of a challenge. Maybe sneaking just comes easy to me, but it's quite simple. I had zero troubles sneaking practically the whole game in IW, and so many people here are *****ing how it had no stealth system.

"You obviously haven't played any Thief game. Thief isn't medieval but rather Steampunk, electric lights are everywhere (most of which you can't turn off or shoot)."

I confessed to never playing Thief 1 and 2 in another thread... all though 3 was all toches my man. You had water arrows to shoot them out too, you could even shoot out torches the enemies held, if you were steady enough. No lights that I ever saw, or machines or anything.

"Actually DX did have enemies that could see in the dark iirc (mainly augmented NPCs, Mechs, Commandos etc.)"

Augmented NPC's?? Like the MiB? or Bosses like Gunthar? Either way big deal they are the minority of the game. Mech's couldn't see you if you got that one aug, so I think that point is moot. You got the aug to dodge the mechs and you stuck to the shadows for the people, and popped a thermoactive camo in any other situation. Not really too difficult IMO.

And yes, Flashlights would pwn.

Laokin
10th Oct 2008, 05:41
No, it isn't. Are you people insane? I swear, every time anyone brings up anything lately, there's always one person who has to come in and say "well....it's too early". No, it isn't. I don't need to wait for Christmas '09 to figure out that seeing my character, third person, while I'm in control, is an immersion breaker. I don't know what trippy stuff the rest of you are on, but typically, I stay in first person view throughout the day. Maybe I'm missing whatever astral projection abilities you all seem to have, I don't know.

I think your failing to understand some people just don't care, and others feel that the immersion is already broken by the third person conversations. I dunno, maybe I miss the astral projection skills you have when your having a discussion. The point is about game play, the game ultimately has to be fun overall, and if there is a singular change YOU don't like -- understand the world is where you live, dev's don't have to cater to you. Even if you hated the life, A.) we really don't know enough about that one and B.) Big Deal, auto-life doesn't = easy game, they just have to find the balance of hp/damage/%of equipment ect. and tune it accordingly. C.) 2 whole changes to the game, both probably minor to the formula of DX, MILESTONES better than IW.

Your entitled to your opinion, but I must advise that one be more rational when making choices in the future... You cannot go through life making bad decisions because you jump straight to a conclusion. You are entitled to your opinion, but it won't be a valid opinion until you experience it yourself. So in short, nobody cares if you don't like it yet, and the dev's aren't gonna change it for you.

DXeXodus
10th Oct 2008, 05:47
No, it isn't. Are you people insane? I swear, every time anyone brings up anything lately, there's always one person who has to come in and say "well....it's too early". No, it isn't. I don't need to wait for Christmas '09 to figure out that seeing my character, third person, while I'm in control, is an immersion breaker. I don't know what trippy stuff the rest of you are on, but typically, I stay in first person view throughout the day. Maybe I'm missing whatever astral projection abilities you all seem to have, I don't know.

You better calm down before you get slapped with some infractions buddy.

EVERYONE has a right to their own opinion. Let people express it. DO NOT tell others that they must be "on something" because their opinions are different to yours,

Watch it.

CarloGervasi
10th Oct 2008, 06:06
:lol:


Why are the people least qualified to condescend to anything, always the ones trying to condescend?


Anyways, I'll keep my corrections as short as possible.

1 - Why on Earth would anyone think "some people don't care" is a serious rebuttal, to anything?

2 - There's a difference between picking a path in a conversation, and actually playing a game, and likewise there is a difference in expectations regarding immersion. That really should be self-evident, but I guess not for this crowd.

3 - Yes, auto-life usually does equal "easy game". Unless you're the kind of person that "here you go, you can't die now" game design was created for, in which case I'm sure you can still find some way to die. Maybe they'll make the bungee jumping augmentation pre-installed, in case someone wanders off a ledge. Maybe "the entire world is built out of soft nano-foam" will be the big feature for Deus Ex 4. Who knows. I honestly wouldn't be surprised, the way the games industry is going. Hopefully there's still a few studio's out there with a comprehension of why "winning" is fun in the first place, and why that gets lost when there was zero chance of not winning.

Also, this'll be the last time we talk about auto-healing in this thread. There's a thread dedicated to it. If you want to explain to everyone how it's still feasible to die when you've got "God mode" built into the game, you'll need to do it there.

4 - If you seriously think some of these things are "minor" to the formula of Deus Ex, then I have to seriously wonder if you played it. Even Invisible War would laugh at two of them.


You better calm down before you get slapped with some infractions buddy.

EVERYONE has a right to their own opinion. Let people express it. DO NOT tell others that they must be "on something" because their opinions are different to yours,

Watch it.
I didn't say they must be "on something" because their opinions were different - I said they must be "on something", as a joke, because "they" (and by "they" I mean "you") seemed to think that having an out of body experience when you approach walls was totally immersive and within the norm. But yeah, go ahead and drop a few infractions anytime someone argues with you, I'm sure that'll swing some public favor over to your side.

DXeXodus
10th Oct 2008, 06:20
Oh I can handle arguments. It's what I do here. And I have never given anyone an infraction. But if you continue to shove your opinions on others in that way then you could find yourself watching the forums from the sidelines. As I said, you have the right to your opinion, but if you have a go at others for not agreeing with, there is something wrong.

I will leave this right here. Try not to continue ignoring what I am saying.

CarloGervasi
10th Oct 2008, 06:24
Oh I can handle arguments. It's what I do here. And I have never given anyone an infraction. But if you continue to shove your opinions on others in that way then you could find yourself watching the forums from the sidelines. As I said, you have the right to your opinion, but if you have a go at others for not agreeing with, there is something wrong.

I will leave this right here. Try not to continue ignoring what I am saying.

I don't even know what you're saying anymore. How am I "shoving my opinions on others"? By presenting them? :lol:

By disagreeing with someone and discussing things? Funny, I thought thats what a discussion forum was for. You know. For discussing things. Whoops.

The whole thing, as far as I can tell, stems from you misreading the "what are you on" thing as some kind of an insult, or statement that you've gotta be on drugs to disagree with me. I really don't think I need to "watch the forums from the sidelines" every time you misread something.

DXeXodus
10th Oct 2008, 06:29
I don't even know what you're saying anymore. How am I "shoving my opinions on others"? By presenting them? :lol:

You shove your opinions on others when you have blatant disregard for their opinions.



By disagreeing with someone and discussing things? Funny, I thought thats what a discussion forum was for. You know. For discussing things. Whoops.

Disagreeing is one thing. Saying that EIDOS have messed up and then basically telling people they are crazy for having a different opinion is another.



The whole thing, as far as I can tell, stems from you misreading the "what are you on" thing as some kind of an insult, or statement that you've gotta be on drugs to disagree with me. I really don't think I need to "watch the forums from the sidelines" every time you misread something.

Maybe I did misread.. lets see:


No, it isn't. Are you people insane? I swear, every time anyone brings up anything lately, there's always one person who has to come in and say "well....it's too early". No, it isn't. I don't need to wait for Christmas '09 to figure out that seeing my character, third person, while I'm in control, is an immersion breaker. I don't know what trippy stuff the rest of you are on, but typically, I stay in first person view throughout the day. Maybe I'm missing whatever astral projection abilities you all seem to have, I don't know.

I have read it again and I still see the same things.

CarloGervasi
10th Oct 2008, 06:41
You shove your opinions on others when you have blatant disregard for their opinions.
Please go ahead and define "blatant disregard", or better yet, show me what you're talking about with an example. Because so far the only thing I've done to "disregard" anyone's opinion is to not agree with it. So apparently, not letting people "shove their opinions onto me" is "blatantly disregarding them" now.




Disagreeing is one thing. Saying that EIDOS have messed up and then basically telling people they are crazy for having a different opinion is another.
Probably the biggest complaint, right? :rolleyes:

I didn't say anyone was "crazy" for having a different opinion. I did say that anyone who thinks we don't know "know enough" yet to understand how a third person view works is crazy, and I stand by that. It's demonstrable fact, so it's not even flaming or insulting to say it. You have to have a fundamental lack of understanding for a variety of things to really think we need to wait to see what "third-person view" means. "We don't know enough yet" has become a blanket defense for everything on these boards, even in situations where it's not even remotely applicable, like what we're talking about right now.




Maybe I did misread.. lets see:



I have read it again and I still see the same things.
Well here, let me clear it up for you.

"Are you people insane"? = Nothing to do with anyone's opinion. We already know what a third person view is. It's not something you can form an opinion on, it's a factual matter. You can form opinions on whether or not it's a good thing, and no, you wouldn't be insane for it. But that isn't what we were discussing.

"What are you people on"? = A joke, referencing the implication that out of body experiences when approaching walls was totally within the norm. Has nothing to do with anybody needing to be on anything to disagree with me, and I think you'd have to really reach to interpret it like that, taken in context.



So I guess what I can take away from this is "disagreement or the expression of opinions of any kind will not be tolerated" and "make your posts as simple as possible, lest someone else's reading comprehension earns you an infraction". I guess I broke both rules up there, my mistake.




And, for the record, I don't think Eidos has "screwed up" as you put it. Two detestable features in an entire game don't really constitute that sort of thing. Even the original had flaws. Just because I complain about two things, and two things only, doesn't mean I'm out to trash the game or the people behind it.

DXeXodus
10th Oct 2008, 06:47
Complaining about something is completely acceptable. Forming an opinion is completely acceptable.

Blatant disregard = Me saying that I like the feature and that it is too early to tell and you replying with "are you people crazy"

Look. This is going nowhere. A lot of what is said in forums is misunderstood in terms of tone. All I'm saying is be careful how you word your sentences as others WILL be offended if you speak to them like that.

I will not respond to anything further here. It is no place for a pissing contest.

minus0ne
10th Oct 2008, 07:16
Yes there is a splintercell 5, it's called conviction -- I am aware it's not out, but it's not even a stealth game anymore... Watch the videos it's all outside with hand to hand fights that look like Final Fight or some****.

And yes I'm aware MGS was line of sight, I was kind of making a point. Metal Gear sucked because the game just sucked. Hiding under a box, yeah thats gonna work :nut: I was saying line of sight is rather nice, if done right.
Line of sight alone is inferior to line of sight combined with lighting-based detection, in my opinion. But I'll wait for more details to trickle out before I jump to conclusions.

Only problem champ, is I have never played either of them on any other difficulty other than realistic. As long as your not running around like a nut and you have decent timing you can get through anywhere without much of a challenge. Maybe sneaking just comes easy to me, but it's quite simple. I had zero troubles sneaking practically the whole game in IW, and so many people here are *****ing how it had no stealth system.
Oh wow, you had zero difficulty sneaking your way through IW :rolleyes: Sneaking must come very easy to you indeed (just messing with you).

I confessed to never playing Thief 1 and 2 in another thread... all though 3 was all toches my man. You had water arrows to shoot them out too, you could even shoot out torches the enemies held, if you were steady enough. No lights that I ever saw, or machines or anything.
"All torches"?, either your memory is extremely poor or you're flat out lying. I'll assume the former ;) In which case the game must not have made much of a lasting impression on you.

Augmented NPC's?? Like the MiB? or Bosses like Gunthar? Either way big deal they are the minority of the game. Mech's couldn't see you if you got that one aug, so I think that point is moot. You got the aug to dodge the mechs and you stuck to the shadows for the people, and popped a thermoactive camo in any other situation. Not really too difficult IMO.
Actually it makes sense for a substantial minority to be able to use night vision (How many people do you see walking in the streets with tech goggles? :p Ever actually seen any such equipment other than in a film?). Of course a substantial portion of the NPCs in DX3 will probably be police/swat/merc etc. so it makes sense for them to pack some night vision (which, btw, is far from perfect and has many flaws in practical use).

And yes, Flashlights would pwn.
I'm only in this thread to share my 2c on how to pack this game with one heart thumping moment to the next :D

Tracer Tong
10th Oct 2008, 07:51
Please change my thread's name to the stealth thread. Both jordan and I will be happy and more users will decide to read this thread instead of having the usual "I don't want to mess with rants" thought.

Oh, and what's with the flame wars CarloGervasi?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Oct 2008, 07:56
Please change my thread's name to the stealth thread. Both jordan and I will be happy and more users will decide to read this thread instead of having the usual "I don't want to mess with rants" thought.


That is a very good idea, yes. :cool:

CarloGervasi
10th Oct 2008, 08:15
Please change my thread's name to the stealth thread. Both jordan and I will be happy and more users will decide to read this thread instead of having the usual "I don't want to mess with rants" thought.

Oh, and what's with the flame wars CarloGervasi?

Who am I flaming again? :confused:

DXeXodus
10th Oct 2008, 09:53
Please change my thread's name to the stealth thread. Both jordan and I will be happy and more users will decide to read this thread instead of having the usual "I don't want to mess with rants" thought.

Oh, and what's with the flame wars CarloGervasi?

Thread title changed :thumbsup:

jordan_a
10th Oct 2008, 09:58
Cover system (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=79054) stays, but this New! Stealth (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=80825) thread replaces the (former) (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=75113) .

DXeXodus
10th Oct 2008, 10:27
I am wondering how the enemy "cone of vision" will work in the game. Stealth is based off line of sight so I wonder whether the cone of vision will be similar in range to the human FOV (field of View) i.e. 160 deg (or whatever the average human field of view is). Or will it be a commando's style "thin" FOV that moves from side to side? Sorry if it is vague for those of you who haven't played Commando's.

Here is a diagram to show what I mean:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm5/DXeXodus/FOV-1.jpg

I apologize.. It is very crude and hastily done

jordan_a
10th Oct 2008, 10:32
Any cone of vision should disappear if the select the highest difficulty.

Sorry that doesn't help, just wanted to say that. ^^

ZylonBane
10th Oct 2008, 11:48
I confessed to never playing Thief 1 and 2 in another thread... all though 3 was all toches my man.
Then you played the worst of the three. You owe it to yourself as a gamer to run through at least the first Thief. It's looking pretty primitive these days (thought not nearly as primitive (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M1T15yz63sM) as you seem to think), but the gameplay puts Deadly Shadows to shame.

Tracer Tong
11th Oct 2008, 02:38
Hmm did anyone think of the Garrett/Barrett pun? :D

Romeo
11th Oct 2008, 02:48
Think he is talking about the night vision goggles with the 3 green lenses. They did kind of stand out quite a lot I must say :scratch:
Which was one thing that pissed me off about Splinter Cell, that was very fake. The outer lens of nightvision goggles do not glow green as they in the game. The rest of the game was decent, just not that aspect. And besides, wouldn't his system rely more upon these than the current system, kind of making it a self-defeating point?

How does "can hide in shadows" translate to "simpler game" in your head?

Supporting both line-of-sight *and* light-based sneaking allows for a richer, not simpler, game experience, by expanding the player's range of options. The light-based system is actually more flexible and interesting, since lights are by their very nature dynamic. You can trivially turn them on and off, vary their intensity, move them around, point them in different directions, etc.

In DX, I lost track of how many times I'd break into someone's office, turn off the lights, and use only my light or nightvision augs to poke around. It was fun and immersive.
Because it is simpler. With the way both Deus Ex and Invisible War operated, there'd be no point to staying out of view, because as I have mentioned COUNTLESS times, you can stroll on up to enemies in the dark, making cover slightly redundant. I prefer what's in place now, without a doubt.

CarloGervasi
11th Oct 2008, 03:02
Which was one thing that pissed me off about Splinter Cell, that was very fake. The outer lens of nightvision goggles do not glow green as they in the game. The rest of the game was decent, just not that aspect. And besides, wouldn't his system rely more upon these than the current system, kind of making it a self-defeating point?

That was done on purpose, to help the player to be able to spot Sam in the dark, and tell which direction he's facing. That's why the PDA on his back glows as well.

Romeo
11th Oct 2008, 03:28
I heard why they did it, and it's still a very good game, but it always annoyed me. ALWAYS. What annoys me further is when people assume that all night-vision goggles glow a vibrant green on the outer lens at all times. lol

CarloGervasi
11th Oct 2008, 03:31
Yeah, I was never a real big fan of it either. Of course, by the time it came out, I was so happy to have a Thief-styled game in modern times that I was a little more willing than usual to overlook stuff like that.

Romeo
11th Oct 2008, 03:40
It's shame they've left their stealth behind though. Though the new ones have improved upon the story elements, they've become less and less "avoid detection" and more and more "KILL EVEREYTHING AND EVERYONE". Which works for some games, but I don't think it's the direction Splint Cell should be looking.

CarloGervasi
11th Oct 2008, 03:42
I haven't followed it much. I thought it was moving towards more "real stealth", ala Jason Bourne. Like, trying to dodge police in a crowd, stuff like that. I haven't honestly read anything about Conviction in like, a year though, so I have no idea how accurate that still is. I thought it was interesting direction, I'd play a game like that. Assassin's Creed in modern times instead of Thief in modern times, really.

minus0ne
11th Oct 2008, 04:39
Last I heard about SC5 was that they put it on ice and are going to rethink (http://kotaku.com/5009848/ubisoft-reworking-splinter-cell-conviction-%5Bupdated%5D) the whole thing (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/20/rumor-splinter-cell-conviction-delayed-until-2009-10/), but that's still not confirmed I think.

LatwPIAT
11th Oct 2008, 06:39
I'll tell you a small anecdote, just because.

Last night, I had to go to the bathroom, and I encountered a problem. It was in fact so dark I couldn't see anything at all. I could occationally that there was a wall somewhere, but I actually walked into a wall because I couldn't see it. Those were not dark walls. Those were white walls. White is one of the most visible colours (White is technically not a colour, blah blah blah) and yet it was pitch black.

Granted, this was in a place that had not artificial or natural light, but still. You could be standing a meter from me and I probably wouldn't have seen you.

So, in fact, I would say that light-based stealth is very realistic, it's just that it's usually done unrealistically, by having it entirely possible to hide in the quite bright places.

ZylonBane
11th Oct 2008, 12:11
Because it is simpler.
No, it isn't. What lighting-based stealth does is make SOME situations easier, and SOME situations harder. It's up to the level designers to present players with these situations as they see fit.

Papy
12th Oct 2008, 05:41
You can choose to engage the third-person view if you want to.
You may be able to choose between a stealth gameplay or a shooter gameplay, but if you decide to engage in stealth gameplay, you'll have to use the third person view. There will be no way to have a stealth gameplay without the third person view.


because as I have mentioned COUNTLESS times, you can stroll on up to enemies in the dark
You can say it another thousand times, it won't make it true.

Abram730
13th Oct 2008, 09:26
I am wondering how the enemy "cone of vision" will work in the game. Stealth is based off line of sight so I wonder whether the cone of vision will be similar in range to the human FOV (field of View) i.e. 160 deg (or whatever the average human field of view is). Or will it be a commando's style "thin" FOV that moves from side to side? Sorry if it is vague for those of you who haven't played Commando's.

Here is a diagram to show what I mean:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm5/DXeXodus/FOV-1.jpg

I apologize.. It is very crude and hastily done

In real life you have both. the wider FOV sees mostly movement but not details. at a 160 deg you may not notice a person if they aren't moving. It would seem how alert a person is and lighting would affect that.

El_Bel
13th Oct 2008, 11:22
I think we should ask the thief fans to come here and tell as their opinion about this.

ZylonBane
13th Oct 2008, 13:47
In the original Thief games the AIs did in fact have multiple cones of vision, simulating both the high-sensitivity but highly directional primary field of vision (so they could see you from farther away if they happened to look right at you), and the low-sensitivity peripheral vision (allowing you to get much closer before they noticed you).

Lazarus Ledd
13th Oct 2008, 14:13
In real life you have both. the wider FOV sees mostly movement but not details. at a 160 deg you may not notice a person if they aren't moving. It would seem how alert a person is and lighting would affect that.

It's all about human perception. We see thing we wish to see and neglect things we think are obsolete. But our subconcious is gathering lot more info then we are aware of.

So maybe minutes later, a gurad in DX3 would be struck with lighting out a blue sky thinking he saw something suspicious minutes before but failed to register it clearly then, so he goes back to check it before continuing his usual patrol.
These flashes of instant bliss would be really good for the enemy AI and make us more caution, more thoughtfull, more suspicion from our side. Remember "No Place To Hide" from mgs4. I think this would greatly apply to DX3, that although you have the stealth option, no place is really safe for you if you don't make it safe, or make sure it's perimiter is safe, or make yourself feel safe cause the place you are using to hide is "logicaly" a good place to hide

So perception.... a guard percieves things. These thing come in intensity. The bitter the inensity, the bigger the chance you or else will come into his awareness.

Things like human pyschic ablilites like Thinking, Learing, Motivation and Memory should have great deal in the enemies behaviour. They should have their Personality and Character so we can, by spying on their movement, see how they act specificly in narrow set of cases and how they act-how we expect them to do as a guard/enemy in general situation.

If we're talking Renaissance in DX3 then I'd like it to be reflected not only in the design, but touch upon the human behavior, it's physiognomy that we saw some insight in that augmented Fetus, everything, everything.

ZylonBane
13th Oct 2008, 18:05
So maybe minutes later, a gurad in DX3 would be struck with lighting out a blue sky thinking he saw something suspicious minutes before but failed to register it clearly then, so he goes back to check it before continuing his usual patrol.
These flashes of instant bliss would be really good for the enemy AI and make us more caution, more thoughtfull, more suspicion from our side.
No, they would be absolutely terrible, because from the player's perspective it would seem that the game was just randomly cheating.

A huge part of effective game AI is communicating to the player that an AI is in fact "thinking", and not just behaving capriciously. That's why AIs in stealth games usually vocalize their alert state. It's completely unrealistic, but it's necessary to allow players to meaningfully interact with the alertness system that the developers went to all the trouble to create.

Also, having guards randomly "remember" that they'd seen the player somewhere would be a waste of resources anyway, since most likely the player wouldn't be there anymore.

Tracer Tong
13th Oct 2008, 20:17
No, they would be absolutely terrible, because from the player's perspective it would seem that the game was just randomly cheating.

A huge part of effective game AI is communicating to the player that an AI is in fact "thinking", and not just behaving capriciously. That's why AIs in stealth games usually vocalize their alert state. It's completely unrealistic, but it's necessary to allow players to meaningfully interact with the alertness system that the developers went to all the trouble to create.

Also, having guards randomly "remember" that they'd seen the player somewhere would be a waste of resources anyway, since most likely the player wouldn't be there anymore.

QFT.

IMHO this double field-of-view sight is extremely awesome and should be implemented in DX3.

ewanlaing
13th Oct 2008, 22:07
I think we should ask the thief fans to come here and tell as their opinion about this.
I'm a Thief fan, but I'm also a big Deus Ex fan, and I prefer the new system they have.

I don't know about you guys, but I was NEVER able to hide in the shadows in either Deus Ex Game. As far as I knew, all those games had was line of sight stealth, even though IW advertised shadow style gameplay.

But hiding in the shadows just doesn't make much sense in the real world anyway. It could only really be used on very rare occasions in real life, so why build it into the engine? I find line of sight more tense and, frankly, more Deus Ex than hiding in the shadows.

That's not to knock shadow gameplay. It worked for Thief, which was much more fantasy oriented, and it worked for Splinter Cell (though sometimes it just seemed ridiculous). I just believe that this type of stealth gameplay will suit the Deus Ex style better.

ZylonBane
14th Oct 2008, 00:25
I don't know about you guys, but I was NEVER able to hide in the shadows in either Deus Ex Game.
So what? Yes, the stealth system in Deus Ex wasn't as good as Thief's. The correct response to this is it make it better, not to get rid of it entirely.

Papy
14th Oct 2008, 05:53
I don't know about you guys, but I was NEVER able to hide in the shadows in either Deus Ex Game.
It was possible although it was not obvious. Having said that, there was a few places where it was obvious, like in the back of the statue of liberty where there was the two NSF talking about Gunther. You could easily stand in shadows with one of them looking directly toward you. You could even move while crouched and unless you were very near they would not notice you (which made sense because they were in the light and you were in pitch black). Anyway, even if shadows were not as powerful as Thief, you could still use them from afar.

BTW, I'm not talking about IW as there was no need to use shadows with this game.

Romeo
14th Oct 2008, 06:04
I'm a Thief fan, but I'm also a big Deus Ex fan, and I prefer the new system they have.

I don't know about you guys, but I was NEVER able to hide in the shadows in either Deus Ex Game. As far as I knew, all those games had was line of sight stealth, even though IW advertised shadow style gameplay.

But hiding in the shadows just doesn't make much sense in the real world anyway. It could only really be used on very rare occasions in real life, so why build it into the engine? I find line of sight more tense and, frankly, more Deus Ex than hiding in the shadows.

That's not to knock shadow gameplay. It worked for Thief, which was much more fantasy oriented, and it worked for Splinter Cell (though sometimes it just seemed ridiculous). I just believe that this type of stealth gameplay will suit the Deus Ex style better.
I always found Thief to be a little over the top, whereas I found Splinter Cell to be almost useless with darkness, unless you were TRULY in pitch black areas, otherwise, you were far better off out of sight. I also liked the response to dead bodies, this was something I wished Oblivion had integrated, but didn't, and something I hope Deus Ex 3 will take care of (If I kill a guard, don't have his buddy look at the body and either not care, or instantly know where I am).

hippy fascist
14th Oct 2008, 08:47
So, you guys are complaining about a stealth system that resembles Metal Gear Solid, the most popular and well-recieved stealth action game of all time?:scratch:

MGS is not a stealth game

It's pacman with guns...

DXeXodus
14th Oct 2008, 08:59
MGS is not a stealth game

It's pacman with guns...

That is an absurd statement.

hippy fascist
14th Oct 2008, 09:08
That is an absurd statement.

Not really, most metal gear solid games basically involved working out timings and moving accordingly

That's not stealth

You could basically learn the patterns of guards and sprint through

For me the splinter cell games had far superior stealth systems to MGS

LatwPIAT
14th Oct 2008, 09:43
That's a form of stealth too. LOS is important. Granted, Metal Gear Solid didn't have sound, only LOS, but MGS2 had LOS and Sound, and in MGS3 camouflage was an integral part of gameplay, and even bosses would stealth themselves.

It's not as realistic as Splinter Cell, granted, but it's still a stealth game. You have to stealth enemies. In Pacman they just move around in patterns.

hippy fascist
14th Oct 2008, 09:48
That's a form of stealth too. LOS is important. Granted, Metal Gear Solid didn't have sound, only LOS, but MGS2 had LOS and Sound, and in MGS3 camouflage was an integral part of gameplay, and even bosses would stealth themselves.

It's not as realistic as Splinter Cell, granted, but it's still a stealth game. You have to stealth enemies. In Pacman they just move around in patterns.

Which is why numerous walkthroughs exist showing the guards patrol routes and timings.

Thank you for proving my point

I can get through perfect dark zero without engaging an enemy for long stretches just by staying out of line of sight, but would you call that a stealth game?

Also thel ine of sight in MGS is bull****

I can be standing in a corridor waving at someone at the other end and they won't spot me until they're about 5 feet away.

YES, that's more realistic than shadow stealth :rolleyes:

CarloGervasi
14th Oct 2008, 10:13
I've personally always seen Metal Gear Solid as an action game first, poorly executed stealth game second. Any game where you spend the majority of your time brandishing a rocket launcher at giant robots and harrier jets doesn't have a focus on "sneaking". Even on the worst difficulty levels, any gamer worth his salt can just blast his way through anything he encounters - between all the boss fights and scripted events, you'll spend more time doing that than sneaking anyways. Splinter Cell is a stealth game. Thief is a stealth game. Metal Gear Solid is an action/stealth hybrid with a huge focus on action.

foxh0und
14th Oct 2008, 10:18
It's not as realistic as Splinter Cell, granted, but it's still a stealth game. You have to stealth enemies. In Pacman they just move around in patterns.

So what is so realistic about Splinter Cell when you hiding in darkness with those glowing green nv googles ? why enemies just stare at you even if they are 1 m from you not to mention they dont use flashlights maybe in one mission.
As for MGS if they make everything realistic in 100% then probably game will be very difficult or even unplayable so they make a choice to sacrifice some realism to achieve better gameplay

JCD
14th Oct 2008, 10:19
Another vote "in favor" of the Splinter Cell stealth system, much better than MGS's one imo.

CarloGervasi
14th Oct 2008, 10:23
So what is so realistic about Splinter Cell when you hiding in darkness with those glowing green nv googles ? why enemies just stare at you even if they are 1 m from you not to mention they dont use flashlights maybe in one mission.
As for MGS if they make everything realistic in 100% then probably game will be very difficult or even unplayable so they make a choice to sacrifice some realism to achieve better gameplay

The green goggles "aren't there", in the same way that the exclamation point floating over a FOXHOUND grunts head "isn't there". It's something to help the player find Sam in the dark and determine his orientation, thats it. If you remove those from the equation, as you are supposed to, Splinter Cell suddenly becomes a whole lot more realistic. The last two (Chaos Theory and Double Agent) especially.

hippy fascist
14th Oct 2008, 10:25
So what is so realistic about Splinter Cell when you hiding in darkness with those glowing green nv googles ? why enemies just stare at you even if they are 1 m from you not to mention they dont use flashlights maybe in one mission.
As for MGS if they make everything realistic in 100% then probably game will be very difficult or even unplayable so they make a choice to sacrifice some realism to achieve better gameplay

2 words

CARDBOARD...BOX...

foxh0und
14th Oct 2008, 10:43
2 words

CARDBOARD...BOX...

As i wrote before its only a game not real life but you still could hide in big card box in real life ;)

hippy fascist
14th Oct 2008, 10:48
As i wrote before its only a game not real life but you still could hide in big card box in real life ;)

Actually, the point of my comments is the mods seem to be taking thel ine that MGS stealth system is being used as it's more realistic than shadow stealth, when in reality MGS has one of the worst and least realistic stealth systems in the history of gaming.

I have no problem with MGS as a game, I think it's plots are ridiculous and it relies far too much on cut-scenes, but that's just my opinion and therefore subjective. I'm not knocking the game here, just the use of it's stealth system as an example of realism, which it isn't.

DXeXodus
14th Oct 2008, 10:52
MGS was simply used as an example so that people could relate the idea to something that is already out there. We are yet to know anything "concrete" about it and are therefore not qualified to criticize it properly IMO.

WhatsHisFace
14th Oct 2008, 13:01
MGS was simply used as an example so that people could relate the idea to something that is already out there. We are yet to know anything "concrete" about it and are therefore not qualified to criticize it properly IMO.

But we know that shadow-based stealth has been eliminated for very poor reasons and replaced with a much less impressive system.

Jerion
14th Oct 2008, 13:06
But we know that shadow-based stealth has been eliminated for very poor reasons and replaced with a much less impressive system.

Clarify that. Much less impressive to play or much less impressive to hear about?

WhatsHisFace
14th Oct 2008, 13:22
Clarify that. Much less impressive to play or much less impressive to hear about?

Much less impressive as a feature. The lousy line-of-sight stealth model is in every crappy movie-game out there. It takes a skilled developer to rise above the mediocrity of line-of-sight stealth and start putting in actual AI systems and environmental conditions. If the game ships with the same steal model Metal Gear has been using since the 80's, gamers and reviewers alike will know it was a throwaway afterthought.

Jerion
14th Oct 2008, 13:29
Much less impressive as a feature. The lousy line-of-sight stealth model is in every crappy movie-game out there. It takes a skilled developer to rise above the mediocrity of line-of-sight stealth and start putting in actual AI systems and environmental conditions. If the game ships with the same steal model Metal Gear has been using since the 80's, gamers and reviewers alike will know it was a throwaway afterthought.

Speaking of environmental conditions, the AI can't see you very well if you're shrouded in fog, now can they? :D

WhatsHisFace
14th Oct 2008, 14:21
Speaking of environmental conditions, the AI can't see you very well if you're shrouded in fog, now can they? :D

Michael Jackson Fog Generator Augmentation Confirmed.

Tracer Tong
15th Oct 2008, 07:50
Speaking of environmental conditions, the AI can't see you very well if you're shrouded in fog, now can they? :D

true.

LatwPIAT
15th Oct 2008, 10:50
2 words

CARDBOARD...BOX...
The carboard box doesn't work as well in later instalations. I remember trying to use it in MGS2, and the soldier, who hadn't seen me yet, walked over to the cardboard box, and kicked it over, and the he shot me.

foxh0und
15th Oct 2008, 10:58
The carboard box doesn't work as well in later instalations. I remember trying to use it in MGS2, and the soldier, who hadn't seen me yet, walked over to the cardboard box, and kicked it over, and the he shot me.

It works very good but you have to use right cardbox in right place and not in the enemys path ;)
As for stealth there is one more game that use cone of view similary to MGS "Death to Spies" if im correct it use H&D2 engine
here is screen (http://www.gamescreenie.com/Screenshots/PC/DeathtoSpies/Death_to_Spies-PCScreenshots17423Death_to_Spies_004.jpg) it works a bit different than MGS but still its line of sight style with no cardbox i play only in demo it works fine

Abram730
16th Oct 2008, 00:02
It's all about human perception. We see thing we wish to see and neglect things we think are obsolete. But our subconcious is gathering lot more info then we are aware of.

So maybe minutes later, a gurad in DX3 would be struck with lighting out a blue sky thinking he saw something suspicious minutes before but failed to register it clearly then, so he goes back to check it before continuing his usual patrol.
These flashes of instant bliss would be really good for the enemy AI and make us more caution, more thoughtfull, more suspicion from our side. Remember "No Place To Hide" from mgs4. I think this would greatly apply to DX3, that although you have the stealth option, no place is really safe for you if you don't make it safe, or make sure it's perimiter is safe, or make yourself feel safe cause the place you are using to hide is "logicaly" a good place to hide

So perception.... a guard percieves things. These thing come in intensity. The bitter the inensity, the bigger the chance you or else will come into his awareness.

Things like human pyschic ablilites like Thinking, Learing, Motivation and Memory should have great deal in the enemies behaviour. They should have their Personality and Character so we can, by spying on their movement, see how they act specificly in narrow set of cases and how they act-how we expect them to do as a guard/enemy in general situation.

If we're talking Renaissance in DX3 then I'd like it to be reflected not only in the design, but touch upon the human behavior, it's physiognomy that we saw some insight in that augmented Fetus, everything, everything.

speaking about our subconscious gathering a lot more info then we are aware of. :nut:

I heard a talk given by a bounty hunter who explained that he was taught never to look at the person he was tailing.. To only look at the persons feet.. That some people get the "feeling" they are being watched. He said he didn't know if it had anything to do with actually looking at the person, but that he never did look at the person he was tailing. I've also noticed that. I even tested it and it seems to be true for some people. Tested as in the odds are way in that direction. I also note a distinct personality with people like this.. They tend not to be social butterflies if you get my drift.

I think it's because it's a "feeling"/subconscious and requires part of your attention on your subjective mind.. so people who are immersed in social interaction are reading body language and thus have their subconscious attention on that. Some people are unwilling to let their guard down and socialize in crowds for that reason("being on point"). As people who have this ability but are talking or thinking about something and later get that flash feeling like somebody is looking at them. but that was a past event they were unaware of at the time so it isn't all that helpful and just puts them on edge. The subconscious is funny like that. :nut:

I've known quite a few people like that and include myself. See a part of me and my friends social interaction would by some be considered quite psychopathic in that we attempt catch one of us "sleeping", unaware, or thinking. A mock stealth kill or assassination wakes them up. One person I know really stands out as his skill really impressed me. He had spent a lot of time in the military and loved explaining things like how to make a standard issue knife, serrated(against regulation) or the loophole for using antimaterial weapons against people. He seemed to be able to puppet people to a certain extent. In sneaking up on people he could get them to yawn and stretch leaning their head back just before a mock throat slash(almost every time the same stretch). :nut:

Doing security there were times where shifted sideways at the waist quickly moving kind of like slipping a punch except without the ducking part. A bottle or glass would come flying past where my head would of been if I hadn't of made that movement. It's sort of like an involuntary reaction in that I just did it without thinking and I couldn't even guess as to how I did it, just that I did. Coincidence doesn't hold up as the only time I've done shifts like that things flew past. It doesn't always happen, but every time it has I've avoided something I couldn't of seen. One of the times was it in my outer cone of vision, but then the other times it was from behind me and I even looked later for reflective surfaces with out luck. The outer cone vision is easy to explain but I thought I'd bring up something that isn't easy to explain. Some will think this is totally :nut: but I do notice it as do many people. It seems to be something very primitive in our minds(predator/prey).

There are certain parts of reality that are described in vague terms but seem to be true... I'm not sure exactly how.. but none the less seem to be true some of the time.. I think adding some of that to the game would give a real "feeling" to it. Not something that is easily expressed but that people would call a "realness". This could easily be overdone, but it is true for some, some of the time.

A formula for stealth kills would not always work the same with this unpredictability.

Abram730
16th Oct 2008, 00:14
A double cone affect of seeing movement but not knowing what it was or having a delayed affect between the subconscious noticing and them being aware of it is more common and solid then what I just posted on... just to be clear about that. What I posted on stands out in interest but is a narrow slice, so I'm not sure of the in game utility.

just putting it out there.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 14:55
^
That must be a good way to look at it (excuse the pun! :D ).

Tracer Tong
5th Apr 2009, 22:53
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c382/DigeratiPrime/holy_thread_resurrection_batman.jpg

SwDx3
19th Apr 2009, 14:31
Deus Ex 1's stealth system was good,
so was IW's.
the combination of improvisation, tactics, and augs
worked well in completing missions and gathering intel.
here's an idea: while in cover in DX3, the PC will not collide with obstecals,
alerting enemies, which will provide more reasons for taking cover.

Noceur
23rd Apr 2009, 12:53
I personally think that enviromental conditions should play into the stealth gameplay, such as fog, light/shadows, ambient noise level.

The problem mentioned often about shadow based stealth is that you can hide in a shadow five inches from a dude (which isn't what shadow based stealth is about at all, it's just an extreme). Well, fix that problem instead of taking darkness and fog/smoke etc out of the equation completely. You could, for example, make it so the closer you are to an enemy the harder it is to hide due to light-level and fog. Add to that a line of sight cone that makes it easier for the enemy to spot you the closer you are to the center of the cone. Or make the cone more narrow depending on light and fog, etc.

Another factor would be the players sillouette, and I image one of the harder things to code, implement and make fun. Factoring into this would be how cluttered the enviroment is. It's easier to hide in a cluttered room or a forest than a completely bare room. Just because I'm in a shadow doesn't mean I'm invisible, but the closer the area behind me is to myself in light, colour and texture the more it conceals my shape.

I'm not sure what kind of enviroments there'll be in Deus Ex 3. If there are really large areas, you should be able to hide in shadows if the distance is far enough.

Coupled with some kind of active camouflage aug, sneaking and such (due to enviromental conditions) could be really hard (unless the player is at a large distance) and easier when the aug is active, i.e with the aug active, the player can stand (or crouch) still, hugging a wall in a cluttered dark room, while still being within line-of-sight of an enemy (unless he's too close to you) and sneak by while in the periphery vision of an enemy. And if there are larger outdoor areas, enemies on the other side of a courtyard or similar wouldn't spot the player if he's sneaking slowly along a dark wall.

It all comes down to logic. If the courtyard is 10m across, of course the enemy should spot the player, but if the courtyard is huge... maybe not, eh?

Enemies with nightvision would make it near impossible to move while within the line-of-sight. Of course, if there's smoke or fog it might actually be easier to hide from a guy with nightvision (if it's still monochrome in the deus ex future).

Anyway, my problem with only using line-of-sight is that it makes sneaking a bit too static and "arcade:y". While I liked it in Beyond Good and Evil, it doesn't completely suit me in Deus Ex. Then again, I'm not sure it was that easy to hide in shadows in Deus Ex 1... perhaps it's just that the levels where made so brilliantly that you always had a stealthy route to take and a few stealth aug moments between these routes. All I can say is that I loved playing it sneaky in Deus Ex 1, but I didn't like MGS at all.

What I'd like above all is at least one alternate route in all areas to go sneaky (I like crawling through airducts and stuff) and hack/tech my way through.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that there's a reason we've got nightvision goggles. ;) ... perhaps the simplest thing would be to adjust the sight range and line-of-sight cone width depending on light conditions and fog.
Edit2: ... and adjust the reaction time of enemies.

rokstrombo
23rd Apr 2009, 13:44
The ambient noise level is a very good point, especially given that Deus Ex 3 will probably be set almost entirely at night. It is impossible to move with complete silence, especially when you are carrying all kinds of weapons and equipment. Footsteps, the rustle of clothing, hinges, latches and runners, breathing, grunting, swallowing, scuffing, handling equipment, etc are all especially noticable in the absence of ambient noise. Unless each guard has a desk fan running in the background (or some other potential distraction), I would imagine that intruders would be discovered quite quickly.

ZylonBane
23rd Apr 2009, 15:17
EPIC THREAD RESURRECTION
You have some explaining to do.

Tracer Tong
24th Apr 2009, 00:45
You have some explaining to do.

Agreed.

WhatsHisFace
25th Apr 2009, 15:29
I'll just take this opportunity to send in another vote for shadow-based-stealth.

lumpi
25th Apr 2009, 18:01
Give me an update: Do the developers still proudly claim that they'll remove the single most important stealth mechanic of DX1... or do we get some sort of shadow-based stealth?

Necros
25th Apr 2009, 18:04
Yes, some sort of shadow-based stealth is in, but there aren't any more specific details.

Laokin
25th Apr 2009, 19:17
Maybe I'm just too tired, but I don't understand what you're saying.

EDIT: Anyway, shadow-based sneaking might not be too realistic, but it gives you the option to stay hidden while observing your enemies. With a line of sight only system, if you can see them, they can see you, unless their backs are turned. There's nothing more satisfying in Thief than to have a guard look at the spot you're in from 2 meters and not notice you. In DX3, such a thing will be impossible, unless they make the guards extremely myopic a'la MGS.

Speaking of MGS, if there's no light/shadow based sneaking, how about camouflage, as simple as in MGS4 or as complicated as in MGS3?



Hiding behind objects and sneaking quietly IS the definition of stealth. This argument is terrible... I mean you no offense Mr. Van.

As for not being able to see the patrols.... they did say there was an augmentation that allowed you to observe your enemies from behind cover which would allow you to see their vision cones. This implies that you will be able to peak around and over objects and still see your enemies 2 meters away behind a filing cabinet if you wish. So in that respect every advantage shadow stealth has LoS/Sound prop has to with the discretion of the map maker.... which is the same rule of thumb for Shadows. The mapper has to place shadows for you to hide in... why can't he place an ammo crate by the patrol right where the shadow USED to be? All this means is you won't be able to necessarily move out in the open like you could with long shadows.... but that just made the game easy, so why do we want that?

Standing in a shadow is kinda dumb. It doesn't work unless there is a huge distance in between in reality. It blends the colors to "camouflage" you in the shadow. 2 Feet away you would clearly see the object attempting to hide in the shadow. Unless all the lights were out this wouldn't work... and at that... Why is it that no Security has flash lights? It's ridiculous.

This is clearly a better system than just shadow stealth. I'm aware you could hide behind things as well, but not the same. The level structure will dictate the effectiveness. Until you see how the mappers built it, you really have no room to complain. Oh and Metal Gear is the **** in terms of stealth, it's the other arcade aspects of the game that make it fall flat on it's face. I.E. Putting a card board box over your head and guards walking right passed you.

This isn't like regen health. This you have to reserve judgment on. There are AUGS to account for.... ones we have no mention about as of yet. If there is no stealth aug = no purchase from me and that's for SURE.

The only valid complaint as of now is that sneaking forces you into 3rd person. And I must make mention that Thief 1 and 2 were first person and 3 was third(was it an option?). Sure people complained but I've seen tons of thief fans who didn't mind Thief 3. So is it really that big of a deal? (I'm not saying it isn't.... this is an honest open question to gather peoples opinions.


WOOT, 200 post count :-)

Necros
25th Apr 2009, 21:20
First, congrats. :)

Sneaking, so hiding behind cover isn't forcing you to third person view. You can just duck behind cover, you don't have to "dig-in" GoW style. And TPV was an option in Thief 3. ;)

And I'm glad you've mentioned flaslights again, I said that before too. It's 20 years into the future, every guard must have at least a flashlight but more likely some more high tech gizmo to help them see better in dark. Maybe some augs too, at richer companies.
Shadow stealth has a place though, it just shouldn't be the main focus. Thief on the other hand needs it to be the main system, but it's a very different kind of game.

GmanPro
25th Apr 2009, 21:59
The guards wouldn't just be running around the place shining a flashlight into every dark corner they can find you know ... If they are not on high alert, then they have no reason to want to search carefully in the darkness for intruders. So it makes 100% perfect sense that a guard might not notice AJ if he is crouched down in the shadows as said guard walks by him in a poorly lit room. In his peripheral vision, AJ would appear as just some prop to the guard or he would be completely invisible.

Now if you make some sound while the guard moves past you, then sure. He might turn on a flashlight and investigate.

JCD
25th Apr 2009, 22:20
In reality, only guards working in super-high value targets have flashlights/nightvision googles. Most of the security guards just feel sleepy.

As for Thief 3, I NEVER played it on 3rd person, it was just ridiculous imo.

For DX3, if they implement the system used in the latest Splinter Cell titles, I would be pleased.

IOOI
25th Apr 2009, 22:37
I personally think that enviromental conditions should play into the stealth gameplay, such as fog, light/shadows, ambient noise level.

The problem mentioned often about shadow based stealth is that you can hide in a shadow five inches from a dude (which isn't what shadow based stealth is about at all, it's just an extreme). Well, fix that problem instead of taking darkness and fog/smoke etc out of the equation completely. You could, for example, make it so the closer you are to an enemy the harder it is to hide due to light-level and fog. Add to that a line of sight cone that makes it easier for the enemy to spot you the closer you are to the center of the cone. Or make the cone more narrow depending on light and fog, etc.

Another factor would be the players sillouette, and I image one of the harder things to code, implement and make fun. Factoring into this would be how cluttered the enviroment is. It's easier to hide in a cluttered room or a forest than a completely bare room. Just because I'm in a shadow doesn't mean I'm invisible, but the closer the area behind me is to myself in light, colour and texture the more it conceals my shape.

I'm not sure what kind of enviroments there'll be in Deus Ex 3. If there are really large areas, you should be able to hide in shadows if the distance is far enough.

Coupled with some kind of active camouflage aug, sneaking and such (due to enviromental conditions) could be really hard (unless the player is at a large distance) and easier when the aug is active, i.e with the aug active, the player can stand (or crouch) still, hugging a wall in a cluttered dark room, while still being within line-of-sight of an enemy (unless he's too close to you) and sneak by while in the periphery vision of an enemy. And if there are larger outdoor areas, enemies on the other side of a courtyard or similar wouldn't spot the player if he's sneaking slowly along a dark wall.

It all comes down to logic. If the courtyard is 10m across, of course the enemy should spot the player, but if the courtyard is huge... maybe not, eh?

Enemies with nightvision would make it near impossible to move while within the line-of-sight. Of course, if there's smoke or fog it might actually be easier to hide from a guy with nightvision (if it's still monochrome in the deus ex future).

Anyway, my problem with only using line-of-sight is that it makes sneaking a bit too static and "arcade:y". While I liked it in Beyond Good and Evil, it doesn't completely suit me in Deus Ex. Then again, I'm not sure it was that easy to hide in shadows in Deus Ex 1... perhaps it's just that the levels where made so brilliantly that you always had a stealthy route to take and a few stealth aug moments between these routes. All I can say is that I loved playing it sneaky in Deus Ex 1, but I didn't like MGS at all.

What I'd like above all is at least one alternate route in all areas to go sneaky (I like crawling through airducts and stuff) and hack/tech my way through.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that there's a reason we've got nightvision goggles. ;) ... perhaps the simplest thing would be to adjust the sight range and line-of-sight cone width depending on light conditions and fog.
Edit2: ... and adjust the reaction time of enemies.

I expect that we've at least those options in the game, if so it could compensate manythings and it would mean that there is afterall a good team behind DX3 development.

Irate_Iguana
26th Apr 2009, 10:18
As for not being able to see the patrols.... they did say there was an augmentation that allowed you to observe your enemies from behind cover which would allow you to see their vision cones.

Hopefully they implement proper cones and not the ones from MGS. Those guards are blind as a bat. It was rather ridiculous.

lumpi
26th Apr 2009, 12:19
There are AUGS to account for.... ones we have no mention about as of yet. If there is no stealth aug = no purchase from me and that's for SURE.

Bleh. Again, we arrive at the point where the cutting of a feature is sold to us as a new and innovative approach.

DX1 had a spy cam aug. It had an aug, that allowed you to see through walls.

... It also had a revolutionary stealth mechanic called "ADVANCED LINE OF SIGHT DETECTION TECHNOLOGY" (I think the only game that ever introduced that before was Wolfenstein 3D). I'm glad they're planning on keeping that. And it allowed you to hide in the shadows, which made sense as most of the game plays at night.

Now I like the ideas of guards being smart enough to use flashlights when alerted, but honestly, how does simply cutting light/shadow sensitivity for stealth (a feature that introduced whole new layers of gameplay to games like Thief or DX) add to gameplay. As long as there is any difference at all between attacking a military base at broad daylight or night time (and there ******* IS a difference), cutting this feature is simply... lazy.

Do it better, improve it, etc... but don't cut it ffs.

JCD
26th Apr 2009, 13:03
Since when did stealth gaming in DX rely on augs? I thought it only relied to good judgement + baton + prod...:scratch:

At least for the non-lethal types, if someone didn't mind, then he could simply add a silenced sniper rifle in the whole mix.

Anyway, DX may have been a revolution BACK in 1999, but now it would be ridiculous to have the same stealth system. We must admit that the guards/bots were plainly stupid, even in Realistic mode.

That's why I mentioned Splinter Cell. It's system of detection/alertness is pretty good and "seems" realistic, so if we have sth like that, it would be perfect imho.

Blade_hunter
26th Apr 2009, 13:36
Eh normally I think stealth is depending on the enemies we got, I mean what is the sensors they got to feel the universe

Humans or human like
Line of sight
Shadows / fog
Noise

Creatures
Noise (more sensible)
Line of sight
Some of them can see us in the darkness, but those ones are easier to blind :)

Robots
Line of sight
And the rest is depending on detection systems used in bots

ZylonBane
26th Apr 2009, 16:13
Everyone in this thread who keeps bringing up Splinter Cell and smegging Metal Gear Solid needs a good stabbing.

Necros
26th Apr 2009, 16:56
Do it better, improve it, etc... but don't cut it ffs.
They didn't cut it.

Irate_Iguana
27th Apr 2009, 06:36
They didn't cut it.

Since when? Last thing I heard was that it was scrapped completely in favor of strict LoS-stealth.

Ninjerk
27th Apr 2009, 07:46
Since when? Last thing I heard was that it was scrapped completely in favor of strict LoS-stealth.

I had gotten that impression, too. I'm interested to hear what Necros knows.

Necros
27th Apr 2009, 10:19
There are shadows. They are involved, but are not the main technical element in stealth. If anything stealth has gotten even more complex than DX 1.
He saw the game, so I think that's official enough. And I like this concept.

WhatsHisFace
27th Apr 2009, 14:03
Hiding behind objects and sneaking quietly IS the definition of stealth. This argument is terrible... I mean you no offense Mr. Van.

Standing in a shadow is kinda dumb.

You fail.

lumpi
27th Apr 2009, 19:22
You fail.

I have to agree. He failed.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Apr 2009, 19:25
He saw the game, so I think that's official enough. And I like this concept.

Agree with you. :thumb:

GmanPro
27th Apr 2009, 20:05
I have to agree. He failed.

Yah, I agree too. That statement was pretty fail

Tracer Tong
27th Apr 2009, 23:34
Why ISN'T standing in the shadow kinda dumb? Except that it's the DX1 way of course...

Also, sorry for this post but no flame wars.

GmanPro
27th Apr 2009, 23:48
Its very simple. If you are not reflecting light, you will either be a black silhouette blending into the environment. Or you will be completely invisible.

FrankCSIS
27th Apr 2009, 23:54
Soldiers relying on camouflage and/or darkness are certainly kinda dumb. Obviously, the tactic of dressing in dark green or midnight blue during night operations is strictly done for novelty reasons.

Movement, I will grant, is quite complicated to accomplish without detection, even in darkness. Standing still, when little to no light is provided, and blending with the environment around you (be it inside or out) is quite effective, especially if you are not expected. Try it yourself, and enjoy the cheap fun and thrill of scaring someone to death! I've been there, it's quite rewarding.

GmanPro
28th Apr 2009, 00:01
^^ I've done it :D Sometimes, hiding in plain sight can be very effective

Blade_hunter
28th Apr 2009, 00:47
I think second the darkness of the place we are we could be more difficult to be detected at short range, than a place where the darkness is only partial. and in that case we could be detected at further ranges.

I think splinter cell did the stealth well, no ?

Ninjerk
28th Apr 2009, 02:37
I think splinter cell did the stealth well, no ?

Except for the "shadow meter."

Irate_Iguana
28th Apr 2009, 06:19
Except for the "shadow meter."

Sometimes it got ridiculous. Guards would walk inches past you and not see you, or do their rounds in complete darkness.

I like shadow stealth. It certainly adds a nice layer to the equation, but they need to increase the distance from which you will be spotted and they need to give guards flashlights. And for god's sake, a single lamp will really lighten up a room. It won't just cover a circle with a meter radius.

Blade_hunter
28th Apr 2009, 09:58
Eh the shadow meter is used because our suit can detect the light intensity, also the AI isn't fantastic in any game it has always some defects.
Some AIs are too aware, some others too unaware, and sometimes we got some random AIs

Irate_Iguana
28th Apr 2009, 10:47
Some AIs are too aware, some others too unaware, and sometimes we got some random AIs

The most annoying are the random AI's. You can predict too aware and too unaware. Random makes it frustrating to play a game. The first time you try a section you can have psychic AI and the second time stupid AI. As long as you can make the AI consistent it is less important whether it is psychic or dumb as bricks.

Ninjerk
28th Apr 2009, 13:08
Eh the shadow meter is used because our suit can detect the light intensity

In that case, auto regenerating health should be fine, as long as "the suit" does it. Seriously?

Bono
28th Apr 2009, 14:36
Stealth aspect can be greatly improved by having randomly placed AI that is patrolling the area using random patrol routes. This way you can never be sure that you're in a safe place. Each replay would be quite tense.

Irate_Iguana
28th Apr 2009, 16:33
In that case, auto regenerating health should be fine, as long as "the suit" does it. Seriously?

The shadow meter works for me up to a certain point. The problem with video games is that they don't provide you with the input that you would receive in real life. You can pretty accurately guess how well hidden you are in real life while it is pretty impossible to do so in the video game. They need a way to feed you this information. The problems arise because the meter is pretty absolute. You know exactly when you will be invisible up to the millimeter on the scale.

The health regen is something else entirely. It isn't about replacing sensory input, but about inventory management. So while a "smell meter" would be acceptable, health regen wouldn't be.

Tracer Tong
28th Apr 2009, 17:21
In that case, auto regenerating health should be fine, as long as "the suit" does it. Seriously?

Simply put, no. Heck, it's very simple to implement a shadow meter suit.

Just:

Take a suit
Stuff some CCDs in the outer fibers in critical points of the suit (facing outside of course). They're digital photon count detectors
Add in some micro-processor that averages the results from all sides (or add "Front"/"Back"/"Left"/"Right" individual counts) and does the I/O some way
...and you're done!


See? It's THAT easy.

Ninjerk
29th Apr 2009, 15:01
They need a way to feed you this information. The problems arise because the meter is pretty absolute. You know exactly when you will be invisible up to the millimeter on the scale.

The health regen is something else entirely. It isn't about replacing sensory input, but about inventory management. So while a "smell meter" would be acceptable, health regen wouldn't be.

I remember thinking it would be pretty cool if you could gauge how much in shadow concealment you were by paying attention to how dark your gun (or whatever was in your hand) was while I was playing Deus Ex. The effect might be similar, but I think we've been over that in the regeneration discussion.

Irate_Iguana
29th Apr 2009, 16:25
I remember thinking it would be pretty cool if you could gauge how much in shadow concealment you were by paying attention to how dark your gun (or whatever was in your hand) was while I was playing Deus Ex.

If they can make that work, it would be a huge step forward. Wouldn't hold my breath though.

Ninjerk
30th Apr 2009, 13:50
If they can make that work, it would be a huge step forward. Wouldn't hold my breath though.

If it was voluntary, you'd probably die.

LatwPIAT
30th Apr 2009, 16:06
So while a "smell meter" would be acceptable, health regen wouldn't be.

You know, I was just thinking about that... Since the only way a game could represent smell would be visually or audially, how would you include "smell" as a factor in a game? I heard that Metal Gear Solid 4 (Using a non-implemented concept from MGS2, apparently.) had the player start smelling if he hid in trash cans, and nearby soldiers could smell the trash smell and would go look for whatever smelled. The stench was represented by flies surrounding Snake. Then again, having to factor in smell into a game were you're probably not going to be hide that much in trash cans...

More interestingly, how can we make the player smell things, seeing as the player can't rely on a simple text string? Could it be represented a multi-coloured clouds allowing you to see enemies around corners, as well as leaving trails behind them? A small HUD piece telling you that you currently smell 4 different people, robot diesel, two dogs and a coffe machine?

Another thing which would be cool with stealth in mind if of course tracking. If an enemy is moving in soft ground, I should be able to tell his patrol route by his tracks. It probably wouldn't be too hard to implement, being basically an overlay texture applied at walking footprints on certain forms of ground.

Irate_Iguana
30th Apr 2009, 17:03
More interestingly, how can we make the player smell things, seeing as the player can't rely on a simple text string? Could it be represented a multi-coloured clouds allowing you to see enemies around corners, as well as leaving trails behind them? A small HUD piece telling you that you currently smell 4 different people, robot diesel, two dogs and a coffe machine?

Almost all visual descriptions of smell on other people would be highly distracting. Normal human smell is not that acute and I think we will do well enough with just visuals. You could potentially use sound comments from your avatar for exceptional circumstances, such as the enemy falling into a septic tank before hunting for you.

With augs anything is possible. Olfactory input could be represented by could or by being assembled into a ghost image of whatever produced the input.

Blade_hunter
1st May 2009, 22:35
The thing I can't understand is why Ninjerk compare an indicator with a gameplay mechanic, it's like if "I say a sound meter could be helpful" and he respond "In that case universal ammo is helpful too" or "If I say a range finder for weapons can be cool" and he respond "In that case the BE regen is a great feature" ....
Did anyone can see the relation ?

Blade_hunter
2nd May 2009, 14:57
Eh it's not only me even the game Splinter cell justified that by the suit, and even you can use your clothes add solar cells and put an analogue ammeter on your arm and you got an homemade shadow meter suit.

A shadow meter is perfectly logical and feasible

Also a shadow meter isn't a gameplay mechanic, it's for that reason I didn't see the the logic of the comparison, because it doesn't have sense.

Ninjerk
2nd May 2009, 19:52
Eh it's not only me even the game Splinter cell justified that by the suit, and even you can use your clothes add solar cells and put an analogue ammeter on your arm and you got an homemade shadow meter suit.

A shadow meter is perfectly logical and feasible

Also a shadow meter isn't a gameplay mechanic, it's for that reason I didn't see the the logic of the comparison, because it doesn't have sense.

Justifying dumbed down mechanics because they're "logical and feasible" in real life is a poor choice for game design, in my opinion.

EDIT: It's the type of mechanic/design decisions that inspired Warren Spector to name the game Deus Ex--a dig at other developers' arbitrary choices in shaping the player's gameplay (if I remember the sentiment correctly).

Blade_hunter
3rd May 2009, 01:36
A "shadow meter" isn't a gameplay mechanic, it's like if you say an oxygen bar is a gameplay mechanic, that is a nonsense, the comparison doesn't match.

GmanPro
3rd May 2009, 01:46
A Shadow meter would actually be awesome. Because then the stealth would be just like Thief. Which would be epic win

Ninjerk
4th May 2009, 02:17
A "shadow meter" isn't a gameplay mechanic, it's like if you say an oxygen bar is a gameplay mechanic, that is a nonsense, the comparison doesn't match.

Justifying any design decision solely with canon or by "making up a suit" is ridiculous. It is arbitrary. The designer should be held to gameplay justification first, and then explain the technical details as necessary/resources allow.

Are you being deliberately myopic about this? I understand the difference between a gameplay mechanic and UI feedback. My point is pretty much this:


They need a way to feed you this information. The problems arise because the meter is pretty absolute. You know exactly when you will be invisible up to the millimeter on the scale.



BH, I see it like this;

You wanted to justify shadow meter with "the suit", but Ninjerk thought it still doesn't make sense even with "the suit", it sounded to him like you approve that "a magical suit" can be used to justify all illogical gameplay mechanics and he said something like "So should we accept even health regen if the suit regens the health?"

And health regen is an appropriate example because as we all know health regen is the new universal ammo, the new bat nipples, the new bat credit card, the new "talk to the hand", the new 3-installs-maximum copy protection, the new Games for Windows Live, the new Bethesda, and the new Uwe Boll.

You must have missed this post. I quoted it so you could read it.

GmanPro
4th May 2009, 02:40
They need a way to feed you this information. The problems arise because the meter is pretty absolute. You know exactly when you will be invisible up to the millimeter on the scale.

It worked for Thief. Maybe in a DX game you could have an item (like thermoptic cammo or ballistic protection suit) that you could equip and receive a Thief-like light meter. But it comes at a cost, some sort of limitation or negative effect.

Bloodwolf806
4th May 2009, 03:03
I like the idea of Deus Ex 3's stealth system. It's very Metal Gear Solid like.

Bluey71
4th May 2009, 09:51
I like the idea of Deus Ex 3's stealth system. It's very Metal Gear Solid like.

Maybe this game should be called MGS 5 then? 'DX3' seems to have more similarities to other games than it does to its own franchise. :hmm:

Irate_Iguana
4th May 2009, 11:40
It worked for Thief. Maybe in a DX game you could have an item (like thermoptic cammo or ballistic protection suit) that you could equip and receive a Thief-like light meter. But it comes at a cost, some sort of limitation or negative effect.

The Crystal did work for Thief. Then again Thief was focused totally around that and all levels were build around the concept of hiding in shadows. The same goes for the SC light meter. Again a game totally focused around hiding in the shadows.

Don't get me wrong. I like those games. I like shadow stealth. I'd like it to feature prominently in DX. But it should always be one of the four pillars of stealth. As said in DX we need them to build the system around:


Always remember the four basic tactics to avoid detection: crouch behind concealment, stay behind enemies, move slowly to avoid making noise, and use shadows to conceal yourself. Be alert to every possibility.

I don't want them to start designing levels with shadows that don't make sense just to be able to have shadow stealth options. If there are should be shadows then they should aid stealth. If there shouldn't be shadows, such as a research lab, then don't try to force them in.

An augmentation or a consumable that make you able to use shadow stealth more effectively would be good. It could even be one of the first levels of the cloaking augmentation. Don't give the player immediate invisibility, just allow him to use shadows more effectively.

Bonus points to EM if they find a way to add disguises into the stealth system. Not being seen is great, but if you can't avoid detection then not being recognized as an intruder is the next best thing.

ZylonBane
4th May 2009, 14:40
Bonus points to EM if they find a way to add disguises into the stealth system.
The original DX already had this. It's called "clearance". That's how you were able to wander around MJ12 HQ without getting shot at, remember?

WhatsHisFace
5th May 2009, 14:16
I like the idea of Deus Ex 3's stealth system. It's very Metal Gear Solid like.

And that is why it sucks.

lumpi
5th May 2009, 15:23
And health regen is an appropriate example because as we all know health regen is the new universal ammo, the new bat nipples, the new bat credit card, the new "talk to the hand", the new 3-installs-maximum copy protection, the new Games for Windows Live, the new Bethesda, and the new Uwe Boll.

qft

Blade_hunter
5th May 2009, 19:39
Normally the shadows should be a parameter of the stealth system, shadow meter or not.
The shadow meter is just an indicator to help the player to see how much he is concealed by the shadows and nothing else.
Also I just think if the robots use IR or radar as a visual sensor (IR in DX 2 and radar in DX 1) the robots must have a perception in relation of their visual sensor.

K^2
5th May 2009, 19:52
Also I just think if the robots use IR or radar as a visual sensor (IR in DX 2 and radar in DX 1) the robots must have a perception in relation of their visual sensor.
Radar and long wavelength IR are not affected by shadowing. Radar has source at the same point as the receiver, and for long wavelength IR, the target is the source. So in either case, as long as there is a line of sight, the target will be spotted.

There are ways of reducing IR emission and Radar crossection, of course, but we already have these in both DX and IW in form of items and augmentations.

Edit: Though, the very idea of robots and humans seeing differently was very cool, and largely depended on shadows. Too bad that aspect will be gone, since it will be a line of sight check for everything.

Ninjerk
6th May 2009, 16:28
The shadow meter is just an indicator to help the player to see how much he is concealed by the shadows and nothing else.


You really are beyond hope, aren't you?

Blade_hunter
6th May 2009, 20:02
I remember thinking it would be pretty cool if you could gauge how much in shadow concealment you were by paying attention to how dark your gun (or whatever was in your hand) was while I was playing Deus Ex. The effect might be similar, but I think we've been over that in the regeneration discussion.

Here you say you used a shadow meter form in the game by paying attention to the darkness of the gun


Justifying dumbed down mechanics because they're "logical and feasible" in real life is a poor choice for game design, in my opinion.

EDIT: It's the type of mechanic/design decisions that inspired Warren Spector to name the game Deus Ex--a dig at other developers' arbitrary choices in shaping the player's gameplay (if I remember the sentiment correctly).

Here you say it's a mechanic, and mechanic is gameplay, you said you know the difference, but not, a shadow meter isn't a gameplay mechanic, also why you are against a thing you have used in a Deus Ex even if the form is different.

I didn't see any problem by the absolute form, in deus ex by the method you have used if you can't see your item in hand, you are entirely concealed.
Compare the SM and the auto heal is nonsense, I keep that opinion, also the pha's post doesn't give me any new information about, the fact you consider the SM is dumb like the health regen is for the game, I've read that post much before you've quoted it, but the thing is, the SM isn't a game mechanic, and the health regen is one, and the SM isn't any upgraded or downgraded mechanic, because it doesn't change the gameplay since we got a shadow based stealth system.
It just allow you to know how much you are concealed and nothing else.

Also if you consider the SM as a dumb thing by the absolute information it provides to you, why you don't criticize the oxygen bar that gives you the information about when you need to go to the surface.
The absolute information about a thing doesn't cause any problem for me if you could gauge that by your pistol being dark, you could gauge that with a shadow meter and without to have any item in hands ...
Your argumentation against it doesn't match, because you said you used a SM in a certain form (paying attention to your item in hand), you said SM is a game mechanic and it isn't (it's a visual representation of an existing mechanic, the shadow stealth), and you even consider the feasible things as a dumb argument.
Why an argumentation without logic should be approved ?
I'm not beyond hopes, I just consider you don't saying any argumentation that could justify that shadow meter is stupid, and I find more illogical the fact you said you used an item in hand to gauge that, that put your argumentation out.

Ninjerk
7th May 2009, 12:45
Here you say you used a shadow meter form in the game by paying attention to the darkness of the gun



Here you say it's a mechanic, and mechanic is gameplay, you said you know the difference, but not, a shadow meter isn't a gameplay mechanic, also why you are against a thing you have used in a Deus Ex even if the form is different.

I didn't see any problem by the absolute form, in deus ex by the method you have used if you can't see your item in hand, you are entirely concealed.
Compare the SM and the auto heal is nonsense, I keep that opinion, also the pha's post doesn't give me any new information about, the fact you consider the SM is dumb like the health regen is for the game, I've read that post much before you've quoted it, but the thing is, the SM isn't a game mechanic, and the health regen is one, and the SM isn't any upgraded or downgraded mechanic, because it doesn't change the gameplay since we got a shadow based stealth system.
It just allow you to know how much you are concealed and nothing else.

Also if you consider the SM as a dumb thing by the absolute information it provides to you, why you don't criticize the oxygen bar that gives you the information about when you need to go to the surface.
The absolute information about a thing doesn't cause any problem for me if you could gauge that by your pistol being dark, you could gauge that with a shadow meter and without to have any item in hands ...
Your argumentation against it doesn't match, because you said you used a SM in a certain form (paying attention to your item in hand), you said SM is a game mechanic and it isn't (it's a visual representation of an existing mechanic, the shadow stealth), and you even consider the feasible things as a dumb argument.
Why an argumentation without logic should be approved ?
I'm not beyond hopes, I just consider you don't saying any argumentation that could justify that shadow meter is stupid, and I find more illogical the fact you said you used an item in hand to gauge that, that put your argumentation out.

Deus Ex didn't do that, and I didn't say it did. I realize that the shadow meter is a feedback method in the UI, and not itself the shadow cover system. My second response was a general response, although I did mistakenly use the word "mechanic," to design decisions justified solely by the story/tech/whatever.

The fact that "your suit does it" has nothing to do with anything. I don't think a game revolving around stealth should have a "hidden meter."

ZylonBane
7th May 2009, 14:10
I wonder if Blade_hunter is aware that the more words he uses, the less sense he makes.

Blade_hunter
7th May 2009, 14:37
Most games using the shadow stealth have an hidden meter, if they doesn't have that, that would mean the shadow stealth isn't accurate, I mean you can be entirely hidden or clearly visible and nothing in between if the game doesn't have that hidden meter ...
The shadow meter is used for enemy AI for their own perception, if the game doesn't use a shadow meter or a two state detection, that would mean you don't have shadow stealth, even on its basic form.

Most games that use stealth or even not stealth with AI's with a little complexity, uses gauges to determine if you are detected or not, more the AI have gauges and precision with that gauges, more the AI will feel to you close to human in therm of detection.
We got gauges for player detection, sound, lighting and range, for the most common
(Player detection, I mean by the fact how much the enemy becomes suspicious about you and are under alert and become hostile, hitman got that and farcry too)

Some games make them visible to help the player to play with the stealth elements of the game player detection or sound even some games without real stealth (I mean more focused in combats) like Far Cry or Soldier of fortune got visible gauges and they aren't stealth games.
But that gauges gives the information to the player that element is a part of the gameplay, and you can use it to play with that gameplay element.

The suit is just a roleplay reason to say you got that visual information realistic or not.
Some games have visible gauges and doesn't justify their presence, you just know you can use it to play with stealth

The suit in DX 3 makes it only usable for the ones who wants to use that gauges and plerhaps with other benefits provided by the suit

ZylonBane
7th May 2009, 16:04
...

That would be a big "No" then.

gamer0004
8th May 2009, 15:57
Also if you consider the SM as a dumb thing by the absolute information it provides to you, why you don't criticize the oxygen bar that gives you the information about when you need to go to the surface.


The point is that when you are holding your breath, you can feel how long you can hold out and when you are out of oxygen. You can't feel that as a gamer, so we need a bar or something similar to show it to us. We can however see whether we're in the dark or not; i.e. having a stealth bar means dumbing down the stealth element, because players don't have to actually look around and think for themselves but can simply do what the game tells them to do, and immersion is lost.

Tracer Tong
9th May 2009, 00:59
...

That would be a big "No" then.

I lol'd.

Irate_Iguana
9th May 2009, 12:07
We can however see whether we're in the dark or not; i.e. having a stealth bar means dumbing down the stealth element, because players don't have to actually look around and think for themselves but can simply do what the game tells them to do, and immersion is lost.

It is pretty hard in most games to tell if you are hidden enough. Often games are very random with the amount of shadow that constitutes concealment. The need to actually see in the game makes it even harder to accurately guess concealment. It is a problem that exists because they try to recreate senses and fail to do so convincingly. A meter of some sorts allows you to more accurately guess your amount of concealment. The biggest problem I have with most of these meters is their accuracy. I want an idea of whether or not I'm accurately concealed, not a millimeter scale that tells me exactly when the guard can't see me.

Jerion
9th May 2009, 12:33
It is pretty hard in most games to tell if you are hidden enough. Often games are very random with the amount of shadow that constitutes concealment. The need to actually see in the game makes it even harder to accurately guess concealment. It is a problem that exists because they try to recreate senses and fail to do so convincingly. A meter of some sorts allows you to more accurately guess your amount of concealment. The biggest problem I have with most of these meters is their accuracy. I want an idea of whether or not I'm accurately concealed, not a millimeter scale that tells me exactly when the guard can't see me.

How it should be done is, IMO, not by helping you along in any way through a HUD element or whatnot. You should have the basic guidelines to avoid being noticed in real life, and then apply them:

-Stay out of their LoS & FoV
-Stay crouched behind cover and/or concealment
-Remain perfectly still when you are in their FoV
-Don't produce any or enough sound to alert enemies to your presence
-When it's dark, stay out of the light

What will make you noticed by the enemy is movement. No matter how dark your clothes are and how well they blend in, if somebody notices movement out of the corner of their FoV (or at all) it will grab their attention and they will look closer. When they look closer they pick out the details, i.e. you. That's why it's imperative to make sure that either they can't pinpoint your position right away (be silent and blend in) and that you're concealed enough to move on without them tracking you. The *best* way to avoid being noticed is to stay out their LoS so they don't pick up on your movement at all, and stay quiet so they don't hear you going past. And if they do notice your presence, stay absolutely still until they look away. Really, you should be able to take all this theory and apply it in a game without a meter telling you whether or not you've been noticed. If you've been careful and covered your bases, it should be pretty evident that you're hidden.


Deus Ex had a pretty easy meter (and it was one that worked with the simplistic stealth system): If your weapon is dark and they haven't turned to look at you, You are hidden. And that's fine for what it is. But once you start adding in more factors to stealth, a meter seems little more than a Easy Button™.

Irate_Iguana
9th May 2009, 13:50
Really, you should be able to take all this theory and apply it in a game without a meter telling you whether or not you've been noticed. If you've been careful and covered your bases, it should be pretty evident that you're hidden.

That is exactly my point. In most games it is just guess work whether or not something works. They aren't being consistent. Sometimes a certain shadow will offer complete concealment while the exact same shadow twenty meters down the corridor will leave you completely exposed. Just make sure that you are consistent and your need for a meter disappears.

I'm not in favor of a meter such as in SC. I would appreciate a feature like in DX. Something besides just seeing from a distance that an area is dark.

Ninjerk
9th May 2009, 22:48
Deus Ex had a pretty easy meter (and it was one that worked with the simplistic stealth system): If your weapon is dark and they haven't turned to look at you, You are hidden. And that's fine for what it is. But once you start adding in more factors to stealth, a meter seems little more than a Easy Button™.

Generally speaking, yes, but I always found it odd that if you waved your weapon back and forth in complete darkness you could find angles that would completely illuminate the gun. I don't know if this was supposed to simulate light reflecting off the gun and illuminating it or just a curiosity of the engine.

Jables_Kage
14th May 2009, 08:38
i liked the stealth system in deus ex however i would like them to implement the shadows and destruction of a light source in order to get past an area... aka the thief series.

lumpi
14th May 2009, 16:01
i liked the stealth system in deus ex however i would like them to implement the shadows and destruction of a light source in order to get past an area... aka the thief series.

Gamedesign has outgrown gimmicks like that.

LatwPIAT
14th May 2009, 20:16
Gamedesign has outgrown gimmicks like that.
I take it you are ironic.

Ashpolt
14th May 2009, 23:39
^^

Didn't you hear? The industry as a whole has moved on!

Jables_Kage
15th May 2009, 07:50
Gamedesign has outgrown gimmicks like that.

thats funny they used light destruction in splinter cell and thats a newish game

lumpi
16th May 2009, 17:10
thats funny they used light destruction in splinter cell and thats a newish game

That's because they are behind!



... ;)

Capital_G
24th Feb 2010, 16:05
thats funny they used light destruction in splinter cell and thats a newish game



its more like ''temporary desactivation''

Pinky_Powers
24th Feb 2010, 16:39
Moving in the darkness is not a "gimmick", ask any Ninja (http://askaninja.com/).

ArcR
4th Mar 2010, 04:53
Who need stealth with augs like multikill. :P

LyreOfNero
4th Mar 2010, 15:20
In my experience, hiding in the dark only works under a given set of circumstances. First, that its really dark as in its hard to see myself when I look down. Second, the target isn't paying much attention. Third, you don't move. When you move you create noise which gives the target another sense to detect you with plus you are changing the pattern of what little he can see. I'd buy it if all of that is worked in.

Then again I haven't had to sneak up on a most of the people I've run into.

Blade_hunter
4th Mar 2010, 17:08
Normally people who like to play stealth would play that way, normally the game is supposed to give to players the choice to do it or not.
As long as the level design doesn't force the fights, as long as the AI could react correctly, and as long as players have enough tools and accessories to do the stealth, people could play that way.
Except if you don't find the stealth amusing/entertaining enough people would play action and fight with the tools they have and options they have.

Being able to use stealth or fighting or even both is a matter of AI, level design and available tools to perform each ways.
You need tools to be hidden / distract the enemies to perform the stealth.
You need weapons / means to protect yourself to perform a fight

Pinky_Powers
4th Mar 2010, 18:08
In my experience,

You're not a stealth assassin, therefor your experience is uniformly useless... and a misnomer.

LyreOfNero
4th Mar 2010, 18:08
I'm a soldier. In the infantry we have to know how to lay ambushes and circumvent enemy scouts and patrols without enemy command becoming aware. Its possible that I do have experience in this matter sir.

Pinky_Powers
4th Mar 2010, 18:51
I'm a soldier. In the infantry we have to know how to lay ambushes and circumvent enemy scouts and patrols without enemy command becoming aware. Its possible that I do have experience in this matter sir.

Shadows will always play a large part in covert operations. Anytime you can reduce your visibility even a little, a soldier will take it. That's why night ops are preferred if you can swing it. No one was arguing that shadows should be the end all stealth mechanic, but to neglect them in any covert circumstance is not wisdom.

LyreOfNero
4th Mar 2010, 19:01
I think we just came to an agreement. It would be outright foolish, that's why the Army invests so much cash in night optics. One thing that isn't taken into consideration in video game mechanics is how much the human eye adjusts to given light. We're actually most vulnerable during the time when our eyes are adjusting. Its one of the reasons we plan attacks for dawn and dusk. But given enough exposure to the dark, people can function better than I think we give them credit for. I think that would be a really cool game mechanic to include if done properly.

ArcR
5th Mar 2010, 01:37
Shadows will always play a large part in video game covert operations.

Fixed it for you buddy.

IOOI
17th Aug 2010, 07:07
I don't have any ideas for a cover system but I thought of a way to implement an Hardcore Difficulty Mode to work with the TP Cover system.
Instead of making NPC's harder to kill, there could be a mode where the player, when behind cover, wouldn't be able to see NPC's (Yes, this could be easily accomplished by just playing in FP but the intention here is to allow the continuous enjoyment of seeing AJ's *cool augs* at work for those who like to play in TPV) or, after peeking and getting behind cover again, the player would be able to see the NPC's movements for only about 2 seconds or so (the NPC's body would fade away).

The player would only see the NPCs when peeking and this would only work when cover is active, because the PC stays invisible and it's better protected when entering cover mode.
So blind-firing would really be blind-firing, plus it would be thrilling - the player would end peeking more but there would be the risk of beeing caught. And even with seethrough-walls vision the player would need to be careful to not spend all the energy in this one aug.

I don't know exactly how this could be implemented within the game's system. Maybe making an invisible plan contiguous to the cover surface. Whenever an NPC touched that plan he would become visible to the player, if the NPC went through the plan to the PC's side it would stay visible but if the NPC went back to other side of the plan it would become invisible or fade away after 2 seconds or so.
Of course that the size of cover object matters. If the PC is hidden behind a small box or a thin column he would be able to see more to the sides than if he was hidden behind a long wall.



PS: Is there any game that tried this before? And yes, Splinter Cell: Conviction was my main inspiration.

Cronstintein
17th Aug 2010, 07:27
ooh, never heard this idea before, very cool.
As a lover of all things stealth I'm intrigued.

DeusWhatever
17th Aug 2010, 12:40
I think it is not really possible to implement stealth an daction-fps-gaming. Honestly its technical possible but in reality its rather strange for example:

1) Player A plays the action approach, ruhses trough the level, shoots everybody down, looses 10 Health.

2) Player B plays the stealth approach, uses every shadow, plays tactical, it takes a lot of time.

My problem with this is, if i were Player B i would feel utterly retarded knowing that even if they saw me it would still be childsplay to get trough the level, it makes the whole stealth approach rather pointless if there is no reason to be stealthy.

Maybe its just me, but i want to do things ingame because they are usefull, not just for the heck of it.

Also lately i saw alot of videos of consolegames, i really hope the pc-version will be adjusted, there are some things that are rather annoying, for example, look at the enemies in console-FPS, they all seem to magically run straight for you, so you wont have problems with fast aiming, pls dont make DeusEx Whackamole ...

@Cover-System

Please dont make a sticky-cover-whack-a-mole shooter! If there is a cover system it should feel authentic and not be forced, for example if i run to a wall, and press my movement Button to the wall, my charackter will press himself against the wall, but just as long as i press the button, and i would also really prefer if there was an option like "stay in first person while taking cover", also i would like the old-school mechanics like lean left/right etc.

Cronstintein
17th Aug 2010, 19:17
I would argue that having an action/stealth hybrid is possible but there should be a cost associated. With stealth the cost is time. With the action route the cost is ammo, health packs and increased chance of dying.
Now super-regen diminishes the cost of the action route. If ammo is also highly available, then the 'cost' associated with run and gun becomes a farce.
So really it comes down to implementation.