The Shroud on 18/10/2013 at 20:34
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Unfortunately the game/Stonemarket City hub has a lot of not-so-easily-definable areas without sharp shadows as in the previous games, still they have contrast and you can see something in them, there is barely pitch black darkness to be found. It's there where you'd have a hard time to determine your visibility based on the body model alone. You can find my summary (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142519&p=2215527&viewfull=1#post2215527) here, if you haven't read it already. So we don't have to hijack this thread any further.
Oh I read your summary the day you posted it. I was thinking though...
Should the player always know for
certain when they're completely hidden and invisible, or might it not actually be more suspenseful and exciting to always be a little
uncertain about whether a guard might see you? It would feel more like a gamble that way, rather than a sure thing, and I think that fits right in with the essence of what makes stealth so exciting as a gameplay mechanic. Never having an absolute guarantee that you're safe...always being a little nervous, a little apprehensive that maybe your cover isn't as fool-proof as you hope it is, maybe the shadows won't obscure you as much as you hope they will... Wouldn't that just add to the experience? Holding your breath...praying that a patrolling guard will pass by you without noticing you, but never being 100% sure...
DJ Riff on 18/10/2013 at 20:46
Quote Posted by The Shroud
Never having an absolute guarantee that you're safe...always being a little nervous, a little apprehensive that maybe your cover isn't as fool-proof as you hope it is, maybe the shadows won't obscure you as much as you hope they will... Wouldn't that just add to the experience? Holding your breath...praying that a patrolling guard will pass by you without noticing you, but never being 100% sure...
It will get annoying very fast. If stealth is unreliable, it just encourages violence as dispatching of guards is more reliable than keeping them alive. Try ghosting first Deus Ex for example.
Vae on 18/10/2013 at 21:05
They have to make the visibility state explicit, in order to compensate for a lower-fidelity stealth system.
With NuThief we have...
Shroud On: "Hey, now I have this distracting, anti-immersive crap all over my UI...to let me know that I'm hiding and they can't see me...Hooray!"
Shroud Off: *Flash*..."Wow, that strobe light to the face wakes me up everytime, to let me know the guards can see me now...EM, I love you!"...:mad:
The Shroud on 18/10/2013 at 21:22
Quote Posted by DJ Riff
It will get annoying very fast. If stealth is unreliable, it just encourages violence as dispatching of guards is more reliable than keeping them alive. Try ghosting first Deus Ex for example.
Oh no, I'm not saying that stealth should be
less reliable than violence, I definitely think stealth should be the player's greatest and most dependable asset, and that violence should be where it really gets risky. I'm just saying that maybe the player should get a sense that their chosen hiding spot is...say, 80-90% reliable rather than 100% reliable. While violence should be more along the lines of around, let's say, 30-40% reliable. So that stealth is still the best and most preferable option, but the player is kept in some degree of suspense about just
how hidden they are.
Starker on 19/10/2013 at 00:54
I think keeping players guessing whether they are visible or not would be detrimental to stealth gameplay. When player fails stealth it should be because they made a mistake, not because they guessed wrong.
Beleg Cúthalion on 19/10/2013 at 06:00
I believe it's exactly the uncertainty caused by (realistic?) half-shady areas (and still high contrast/GFX so you don't need to ramp up gamma..?!) which led to the very clear states of the three-part visibility gem meter and the two-part Shroud. Personally I'd prefer to be able to judge my visibility based on the darkness of my environment but honestly, sharp shadows like in the previous games would probably look artificial (or artistic) in a modern engine.
The Shroud on 19/10/2013 at 07:04
Quote Posted by Starker
I think keeping players guessing whether they are visible or not would be detrimental to stealth gameplay. When player fails stealth it should be because they made a mistake, not because they guessed wrong.
But what I'm saying is,
if (and I know this is a big if) the game communicates a logical and discernible correlation between how dark your surroundings are and how hidden you are when in those areas, then the player should be able to acquire a good grasp of their chances of being spotted based on that visual criteria. In other words, if the game does a good job of simulating realism, then the player's natural ability to use reason and common sense should be adequate for determining how likely they are to be detected in various surroundings. If that
weren't possible, then no one would be able to hide in darkness in real life either.
What I'm saying is, stealth is really about using reason and logic, and intuitively gauging the limits of human perception. Once you have a good idea of what the average person can and can't detect in various degrees of darkness (as we all do in real life, we just don't think about it), gauging effective hiding spots becomes possible. For example, if I look at a shadowy area with stacks of crates and other items, I can pretty much instantly gauge whether or not I'll be able to hide there from a person standing at my current vantage point based on how distinguishable each of those objects are from my distance. All I have to do is visualize myself crouching there among those crates for a moment, and I'll have a decent estimate of whether or not it's an effective hiding place. We're all capable of doing that in the real world. The trick is whether the
game gauges hiding places as effectively as we can.
Vae on 19/10/2013 at 07:43
Once again, The Shroud is correct...and I will further clarify.
You see, it's all a matter of Visibility vs Distance...with 16 visibility gradations calculated against a variable distance...This produces a very deep interrelational spatial immersion, because of the high fidelity cross-feedback...and the perceived size of the tension-generating unknown zone, bears relation to player intelligence and experience...with it being a large gap for the novice, and only a sliver for the master...In this way, spatial immersion and psychological immersive tension, synergize and become exalted.
Hit Deity on 19/10/2013 at 11:35
A game has got to have a reliable means of conveying to the player how well hidden they are. Too many (myself included) would just give up on the stealth aspect if you could never be sure you were hidden. Many games that have (failed to) used stealth over the years suffered big time because stealth was "broken" in some way like this. You just can't have players guessing all the time whether they're hidden or not.
Take real-world vs game-world versions of 'stealth'. In the real world, you've got an infinite number of positions a person can stand, lie, crouch, slouch, lean, and blend in with their surroundings, all at an infinitely possible number of speeds, depending on situation. Switching over to a game's world and its rendition of the stealth mechanic: most things are boolean... You're either standing, crouching, lying down, or "wall-flattening" like in TDS or in some of the Splinter Cell game. You don't really have that many options in a game environment, so you've got to give the player something tangible to gauge visibility with. The more random you make it, the more frustrating it becomes for most players.
I just don't think a randomly determined level of stealth would work. When it's unintentional in "broken stealth" games, it's bad...if it's intentional...that would be even worse. :eww:
Starker on 19/10/2013 at 12:26
The reason the light gem was gradated and so granular was precisely to give the player a good idea of how well they are hidden. Not only does it give you a clear idea where the boundaries are, but you also get a sense of your relative position to those boundaries and how fast you are accelerating towards them. Also, in addition to that the player was given ample warning by the AI.
To introduce uncertainty or luck into this system would necessarily mean that either the player will be given less information or that the information would have to be unreliable to a certain degree. I don't think this is desirable for Thief stealth. In my opinion, stealth was the one thing that Thief absolutely nailed and you should not try to reinvent it without a good reason.
Besides, I think there's enough uncertainty already with the limited equipment (you don't know when you should use it), changing light states, erratic AI patrols, unfamiliar territory, etc.
