Yakoob on 30/5/2012 at 21:02
Havent played NOLF2 but the stealth levels is where I ragequit NOLF1 - trying to shoehorn a insta-fail stealth sections into an engine that cant handle stealth just drove me nuts. also, for some reason the sense of humour never clicked with me, but then again I was never much into spy movies.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
It's probably a difference in
re-play. (Not necessarily, but in a typical implementation.) I.e., if you reload, the other guy will still be there, but the head turn might not. In this case, I'm actually on the side of randomness: on reload I have to face the same uncertainty that I faced the first time, whereas in the deterministic case I now "magically" know where the next challenge will be.
Aye, I can remember a few games (coughCoDcough) with obnoxiously hard difficulty which gameplay basically resorted down to "keep reloading until you memorize whre each enemy will pop up from at which time so you can get your crosshair ready." Hitman is the worst offender and why I never enjoyed the games; sure it's fun for the first 20 minutes of the level, but once you get towards the ending, replaying the same initial 20-minutes in the exact same way OVER AND OVER just to see how the guards towards the end act so you can learn their patterns and formulate a strategy was just so goddamn obnoxious. Having more randomness, but also giving more room for the player to adapt would have been a big improvement. As it stands, it's either "do everything perfectly the way Devs Wanted You To" or "deviate from the path, get noticd, and end up mowing EVERYONE DOWN. or just die and redo until you get it right." There is no middle ground.
That's what I mean by "puzzle" disguised as stealth.
Papy on 31/5/2012 at 00:11
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Papy, but isn't what you are saying basically contrary to the idea of "immersive" and "organic" games? And hence my point - if everything follows a clear and predictable (if you had all the info) pattern, it's more akin to a first-person puzzle game than a simulation.
There's a guy who once said : "God doesn't play dice".
Now, I'm curious... What will be your counter argument to THAT!
(OMG! I'm thinking of so many quotes I could use as a counter argument that I'm tempted to create another account and have an Internet argument with myself!)
Quote Posted by Yakoob
otherwise I always end up feeling like I am not making up
my own solutions, but rather, figuring and retracing
what the developers were thinking.
Let's leave abstract theory alone for a minute. Is that what you were feeling while playing Thief The Dark Project for the first time? Where you thinking : "Damned! what is the solution to this stupid puzzle?"
I know I wasn't. Not for a second. I was completely immerse with the game. So I must admit I have a bit of difficulty understanding your point.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Why do you care about that distinction? [...] that's basically just in your head, it's not a difference in gameplay
Of course it's in my head. So?
Having said that, there is very important difference in gameplay. If I fail because of something random, there's nothing I can do about it and so there is nothing I will do about it. I will just reload and continue reloading whenever necessary. On the other hand, if I fail because I didn't have enough information, then I will adapt my way of playing and spend more time gathering information to avoid reloading. Do you understand the difference?
Quote Posted by Pyrian
And sometimes, Papy, I think what's going on in your head
completely unnecessarily is your biggest impediment to enjoying some things.
And you think you are different? You think that all your feelings about anything are purely rational? Really?
Ok. Let's talk about politics! Or even better... religion!
As for my feeling about Bioshock... Have you noticed that when kids are having fun playing, they could hurt themselves badly and yet barely feel it? On the other hand, if they are bored, then any small scratch becomes an unbearable pain.
If you have a passion for video games, that's great, but personally I don't think video games are really that interesting. I always wish someone will make THE video game which will be as good as a movie or as a book from an intellectual or an artistic point of view, I still have some faith, but the truth is I'm now very pessimistic with video games. I'm not saying I never had fun playing video games, I'm saying it's becoming very rare. The truth is I'm now mostly bored when I play a video game... and any small scratch becomes an unbearable pain.
I'm among the people who think Bioshock was a very good video game and in the end I enjoyed it. But, let's be honest, the beginning of the game was really not that great. Scripts were too obvious and the gameplay was too dumbed down. I was bored, I didn't feel like wasting my time with another bad video game and the small scratch of Vita Chambers became unbearable.
demagogue on 31/5/2012 at 01:49
Quote Posted by Papy
There's a guy who once said : "God doesn't play dice".
Now, I'm curious... What will be your counter argument to THAT!
(OMG! I'm thinking of so many quotes I could use as a counter argument that I'm tempted to create another account and have an Internet argument with myself!)
That's not the way to argue this anyway. The way to argue this is people have to distinguish between "random vs determined" mechanics and "open vs closed" mechanics. Random vs determined is what the player can expect, e.g., for an AI to react in a given situation. Open vs closed is how much freedom of interaction the player has with the thing... Is there like a few dozen different approaches the player can navigate past the AI, or is it designed so the player is dealing with every AI in exactly the same way?
In terms of the fun-factor, I think the openness of possibilities is what we're arguing about. The thing is that of course there is a relationship between them, but it's not dirt simple. A little randomness can open up new ways the player can deal with an AI, but there has to be some determination too so the player knows generally what will happen when he tries different things with the AI, and if the AI were totally random it wouldn't be much of a game mechanic at all.
So there is something to discuss here IMO, to what extent does adding different kinds of randomness open up or close off how the player can deal with AI in a fun way, is there a sweet spot there, but my general point here is you should at least get clear on the actual thing you're arguing about. I don't think it's random-vs-determined per se.
Livo on 31/5/2012 at 03:41
Quote Posted by Papy
There's a guy who once said : "God doesn't play dice".
Now, I'm curious... What will be your counter argument to THAT!
(OMG! I'm thinking of so many quotes I could use as a counter argument that I'm tempted to create another account and have an Internet argument with myself!)
Einstein, don't tell God what to do!
Digital Nightfall on 31/5/2012 at 09:22
I'm really wishing I could comment on this discussion, but I have enjoyed reading it.
Keep an eye on Gametrailers.com tonight. (Not sure if it's EST or PST). :)
henke on 31/5/2012 at 10:21
I shall keep my peepers peeled and pointing gametrailers.comwards. 8|
faetal on 31/5/2012 at 10:22
My reference to NOLF2 wasn't about the stealth aspect of that game per se, just about the radiant AI and how it would latch on to parts of the environment to carry out small scripted actions, e.g. making a cup of coffee from the machine etc...
This idea that once you remove the patrol loops, everything becomes random is not supported. What instead you might end up with is set of potential things the AI might do, which can be inferred by observing them in their environment in order to study their behaviour.
Now THAT would be the kind of stealth to raise some eyebrows. If people want stealth how it was done in Thief, then play Thief, or the other games which used its stealth system. Personally, I think it's great that Arkane are not just saying "stealth is already nailed in other games, let's just use that".
Also, let's face it, if, during play-testing the people playing find the stealth mostly frustrating, then they are going to tweak it. But still, kudos for deciding to try something different.
Kuuso on 31/5/2012 at 14:10
Reiterating what has been said already, but I think Papy is thinking in a bit too extreme. I don't think "randomness" will be guys making instant u-turns in the middle of nowhere for no reason. It's going to be more subtle, handled through interaction with objects and characters. The aforementioned u-turning would be annoying, I don't think anybody would deny that, but the latter isn't. A guard stopping to look at a painting (which he might not do ever again at that spot) and then glancing around before continuing is plausible and good. It might force the player to a different reaction and create tension.
This kind of "randomness" is important, because a player like me who's usually very good at video games tend to have no problems in games like these. The only tension is created with set pieces and atmosphere. A game forcing me to do unexpected moves is good as long as it is plausible. If I screwed up my stealthing at that painting, it is my fault even if it was due to the guard's "randomness".
It basically comes down to the fact that giving the player absolute control is boring in the long run. Incorporating randomness is a good way to handle it (against tropes like losing your guns at some point etc.). It really comes through in RTS games, where missions without any limits end up being about massing an unstoppable army - that is why they have timed and otherwise restricted missions, which really give away, if the developers know what they're doing.
Of course, the randomness that Dishonored is supposedly going for feels like it would be extremely hard to implement in such way that it actually remains challenging instead of a just another thing to consider in the puzzle. Time will tell.
SubJeff on 1/6/2012 at 06:35
Good Lord that's violent. Rather a lot of blood, what?
Count me in though; barring a roasting at the review table this will be a purchase for me.
