BlackCapedManX on 18/12/2003 at 12:00
Quote:
Originally posted by Crion I don't recall them
ever using grenades or hiding/taking cover to reload.
I just have to share an event that happened yesterday while playing DX1, I'm sitting on one of the roofs lower to the ground near the
power generator, shooting the hell out of the NSF with my little pistol, when I hear one of them arm and see him throw a LAM. So I'm thinking "meh, the AI is dumb, he'll never be able to throw it right" and then it lands right next to me. At which point I run like hell. After the LAM goes off, I run back, and the guy who threw it was in range and waiting for me so that he could shoot me with a tranq as soon as I showed my face. All of this sounds like really good manuvering onthe part of the AI. Here is where I now have to agree with everyone about the crappiness of the AI: the AI didn't plan this, it was accidental that throwing a grenade would have me run away just long enough for him to get siuated where he could nail me with the crossbow. Here's the problem though: if the AI was
always this good, you couldn't win.
Crion on 18/12/2003 at 12:25
Fair enough. :)
Kinda reminds me of Worms Armageddon. Crank up the difficulty level and they'll beat you silly with just grenades, the shotgun, and the bazooka. However, the point remains that I can trouch them by exploiting weakness in the programing by bear hugging their teammates or by maneuvering my worm around the landscape better than they can.
By giving the player the ability to pick up,move, and stack items, place mines, mantle and jump on terrain or objects, use ladders, you give the player a great advantage over the AI. At best, they can compensate for that by increasing it's awareness (sight and sound or even if items moved around), health, firepower, and accuracy.
Granted, the developer is shooting to get as many customers as possible but that's what difficulty levels are for. ;)
I'd love it to have one of those experiences. They really need to scope out the air duct entrances or chuck a LAM in there. Even some scripted responses would be fine. Shoot a guy with a tranq and have him ask his buddy for a medkit? Eh? Eh? WIN. :thumb:
BlackCapedManX on 19/12/2003 at 02:11
Some excelent points all around, but what I really have to comment on is this:
Quote:
Originally posted by Crion Kinda reminds me of Worms Armageddon. Crank up the difficulty level and they'll beat you silly with just grenades, the shotgun, and the bazooka. However, the point remains that I can trouch them by exploiting weakness in the programing by bear hugging their teammates or by maneuvering my worm around the landscape better than they can.
I can all too well relate to stuff like this. Super Smash Bros. Melee became my bitch when I discovered the ultimate weaknesses of the computer. I complain that you can't get a difficult enough one-on-one match vs. the computer because a lvl 9 opponent isn't tough enough. It's all too easy to exploit their glaring weakness, (sich as certain moves they will entirely neglect to use) and otherwise pummel them to death by using combos they can't get out of, or (with marth) countering their all-to-predictable attacks. I suppose this is why human opponents are so much more fun to play against.
Another thing, while I never have enjoyed mulitplayer "death match" (and CTF and the like) style FPS games (other than the ultimately realistic games like the R6 series, Ghost Recon, and America's Army) I did dabble in the single player mode of Q3 for a while. I was highly dissapointed when increasing the difficultly didn't actually make the enemy any smarter, it just gave them more "all-knowingness" of where you are, a higher frequency of fire, and more accurate fire (where at max difficulty you had the equivalent of an opponent that always knew where you were, fired as much as possible when it could hit you, and almost always hit when it fired), and no matter the difficulty they would continue on the same path over and over around the map.
Eh, AI in human vs. human designed games has always annoyed me.
Aegeri on 26/12/2003 at 08:19
Try UT2k3 actually, it's pretty damn good overall, not up to a human, but good.
As for Dues Ex 3, I can't say I really care. I wasn't stupid enough to buy a console dumbed down game that relegated PC users as unimportant customers, I won't be a second time either.
I'll just stick to Dues Ex and pretend Invisible War never happened.
Garret_729 on 27/12/2003 at 02:24
Deus Ex 3? Can't wait! I'm a little more than half-finished with DX1.
Crion on 27/12/2003 at 02:39
I take it you haven't heard much about DX:IW. :p
CannibalBob on 15/3/2004 at 03:52
I hope they learn from their mistakes in DX2.
Andy_X69 on 3/4/2004 at 13:38
May I inquire as to why DX fans seem to bash System Shock fans?
I like both series of titles, although I do prefer Shock.
Reasons:
1: Shock games are scarier than DX games.
2: DX's augmentation/biomod system is basically the same as SS1's Neurograft system, although improved.
3: Shock games have more immersive plots.
4: SHODAN is far more intimidating than Majestic 12.
5: I found DX 1 to have utterly anemic voice acting. Polito's suicide note in SS2 nearly had me mourning for her by comparison.
Overall, even though DX may be more realistic and allow more choice with player actions, the gameplay is primarily a conglomerate of recycled ideas from System Shock. In System Shock, you had multiple ammo types, computer hacking, electrical intrusion, cybernetic augmentations etc. almost a decade before Deus Ex (as a tangent, ID software and assorted Doom clones put gaming through a dark age. System Shock is more advanced than Half-Life in terms of gameplay and this level has, IMO, only ever been exceeded by its sequel).
In gameplay, I would put Deus Ex only slightly ahead of SS1. I deducted ponts for a lack of evolution but awarded points for the freedom of choice that you had in DX. What sets the Shock series apart is atmosphere. Shock 2 is the scariest game ever, and Shock 1 still manages to send severe chills up my spine. DX had very little atmosphere for me, and it didn't really feel like true Cyberpunk. Invisible War actually had more atmosphere and felt more Cyberpunk, regardless of the fact that it was less epic than the original.
Also, the acting of the DX series is far inferior to that of System Shock and SS2. Again, this is because SS has a central villain that is far more intimidating than anything concocted before of after. SHODAN is terrifying, with severely harrowing voice work. JC Denton and Walton Simons are total monotones that bore me to death.
I would like to point out that I am not attempting to bash DX fans, just point out what I find as inadequacies in the game. I still feel though that many DX fans seem to have a built-in disdain of Shock fans.
ilweran on 4/4/2004 at 19:53
Quote:
May I inquire as to why DX fans seem to bash System Shock fans?
I like both series of titles, although I do prefer Shock.
I like both as well. I prefer Deus Ex, but only because I happen to like conspiracy theories. SS2 was amazing, & the scariest game I've ever played.
Nobody I know, except my boyfriend, has even heard of SS2, and a lot of people here seem anti-console, but we've got an xbox & I think the creepy sounds it makes are very SS2.
I loved DX:IW, really enjoyed it & I'm looking forward to a third DX.
Cyborg on 5/4/2004 at 19:32
I really liked the Deus Ex 2. It was really good, though the first one beats it.
It was a great experience, and Im waiting for the third part!
Hehe.. One nice note on Invisible war, when I was visiting the old unatco, some bums kept talking about the Skulgun for Gunther.. That really made me laugh.. :joke:
