BlackCapedManX on 8/12/2008 at 06:19
Props on delivering the article, much appreciated!
I want to say that this "Four Paths" thing has got me worried, as though they're specifically engineering the game to have four different approaches, because I feel like this, in the end, will actually be limiting to the game. DX succeeded because it had nearly limitless approaches, sure you could hack, but are you going to turn off cameras and sneak by, or open up the transgenic cages and turn on the turrets and release an all out blood bath? Social interaction wasn't an "option" per say, but rather an element that integrated smoothly with the rest of the game. Action and stealth were both facets of infiltration, because in nearly every mission, the point wasn't about how you dealt with the enemies, but rather how you acheived the goal, and that usually entailed getting somewhere, and enemies happened to be in the way. I feel like in DX the options were well integrated and sublime, where as now they're like "hey guys, don't worry, we've figured out what DX is, and it's these four things" and the want to make each option clear and overt, which would totally destroy the immersion. DX didn't present you with options, it presented you with an environment in which options were a natural ingredient of, and I'm afraid that Edios Montreal might not entirely get that.
sergeantgiggles on 8/12/2008 at 06:43
I think that this excerpt from the (
http://nuwen.net/dx.html) postmortem bears mentioning:
Quote Posted by Warren Spector
Multiple solutions falling out of our simulation didn't happen as often as we'd hoped. We just didn't have a deep enough simulation nor did we have the time or personnel to create one. We found ourselves in the position of having to brute-force the multiple-path idea, as developers on Ultima games, for example, have done for years - though I think we do more of it, more consciously and more effectively, than anyone else has to date. Designers have had to plan a "skill" path past problems, an "action" path and a "character interaction" path. It works, but it's not what we originally intended.
I certainly hope Eidos Montreal is trying to create an environment where all options appear naturally, but in cases ISA did brute force multiple paths and it seems to have worked out well enough.
(I really really hope that the devs have read linked postmortem and project proposals. The buzzwords from the marketing would certainly make it seem so, but appearances have been deceiving before)
BlackCapedManX on 8/12/2008 at 07:42
That's actually one of the most reassuring things I've read in a while, because if that's the case than DX did a really good job with what was available. I think in someways though, not offering multiple solutions is what allows the player to get inventive and fight against the game to come up with solutions of their own (M Chow for example, basically you talk to her, get the sword and kill her at some point, there's not a lot of other options, but the myriad ways you can approach this really one dimensional situation are astounding, and I'm afraid that's what'll get left out). I guess I feel like Montreal will say "here's you 4 options, pick one" instead of "here's your objective, now figure it out." But again, if the ISA team managed to make something this enveloping than maybe Montreal will too (though they don't have a decade of Ultima under their belts, so it's still left to be seen if they possess the skill they need to do so, rather than simply the assessment of the problem.)
DDL on 8/12/2008 at 12:28
Essentially, they just need to make sure taking one path doesn't stop you doing the others.
The beauty of DX was that, if you were thorough, you could probably end up getting the same code for a computer from two different people (one requiring a bribe) and from a datacube. Or you could hack it.
And then the computer wouldn't actually need to be used anyway.
It was fairly rarely that you end up doing the bare minimum of 'things required' to progress, because they stuck so many different things in there. Perhaps a tad unrealistic, but it definitely made the world feel richer.
What I guess we're all dreading is talking to the first NPC and getting something like
"Hello sir, how can I help you?"
>[SOCIAL] Afternoon, ma'am: I'm here to inspect the generators. Mind if I take a look around?
>[HACKING] Mind if I take a quick look at your computer?
>[STEALTH] OMG LOOK! WHAT'S THAT OVER THERE? *hides*
>[COMBAT] NOW YOU DIE!
:erg:
Chade on 9/12/2008 at 01:50
I tell you what, as a DX:IW fan, I am finding it damn hard to avoid getting bitter everytime the devs try to distance themselves from the title ... :(
Re: mutiple solutions ... I think one problem is that a lot of the abilities you got didn't do a good job of helping you overcome a wide variety of obstacles, and didn't necesarily have a lot of flow-on effects to other parts of the game. In the original DX this was particularly a problem with many of the stealthy options, such as swimming, hacking, hazmat suits, bribery, etc ...
Speaking of which, I wonder if one good hacking option to include would be the ability to tell guards to change their patrol routes (in some limited way). It could potentially be applied in an open ended way, would integrate very well with a stealthy playstyle, and could have a lot of flow on effects that with a bit of imagination might be usefull over a wide variety of play styles.
Papy on 9/12/2008 at 06:42
Chade, I'm among the people who believe IW was only average at best, but I would not worry too much if I were you. I highly doubt DX3 will be like DX1, at least from a gameplay point of view. For example, I highly doubt they will implement the same reticle as DX1 or force the player to use an inferior weapon because of a lack of ammo. And even if the devs truly want to do it like DX1, there will be focus groups who will force them to make things "right". ;)
Also, I agree with you that some things had a lot less value than others with DX1 and there were some "paths", for some situations, which were a lot less efficient than others, but... That's a good thing! Isn't the point of a game to find out the best way to win? DX1 was not a good shooter, it was not a good sneaker, it was not well balanced, but that's exactly why it was a great game (at least for me). Yes, I know that, now, games are about letting the player have his own fantasy and letting him do whatever he wants, but I'm old school...
As for manipulating patrol routes with hacking, I'm not sure that's a good idea. Hacking a computer to shut down a robot, that's great. Hacking to also modify a human patrol route? I guess there is a danger they'll end up with a doomsday tool, like the Spy Drone of IW (which was an even worse mistake than universal ammo in my mind).
BlackCapedManX on 9/12/2008 at 09:42
I kind of like the idea Chade proposes, but used within a really context sensitive environment (as oppossed to every computer having a "guards go somewhere else" option.) For example, if you're infilitrating some kind of factory, and any of the workers might sound an alarm and turn on defenses, so you go to the PR room computer and issue a plant wide "Everyone assemble for a management speach" announcement (having worked at factories and had this happen) and the whole factory shuttles up to the break room or wherever and you're free to go about your business unhindered (until everyone there realizes this announcement isn't going to happen and things get suspicious.)
In this scenario a really fascinating implementation of the "4 Path" system would be something like this: Say your "social option" is to get a plant tour badge, probably by talking to the same people in PR, or (via good old DX standby) through bribing them. Okay that's well and cool but maybe you don't have money, or your presence here might tip off people later on (I always thought is was a little odd that you could waltz straight into Versalife without anyone knowing who you were), so instead you hack the security system and sneak through when people aren't looking, or straight out disable the alarms. Or maybe you want to be really tricky, so you take the tour badge (or even more fun, maybe you "apply for a job" and act like it's your first day) then trigger the plant wide announcement, show up at the meeting place with everyone else, act just as confused as they are, and the go back to the part of the plant where you were intending to go to in the first place, but with the people who work there, and no one's the wiser. Or combine everything, and get a tour badge, stealth your way into the meeting area, plant a proxy mine, set the announcement, wait for everyone to assemble, set of the mine, and kill everyone in the plant in one fell swoop and be totally free to go about as you wish (and potentially suffer reprocussions later on for your thouroughly violent actions, and the fact that you can't really cover up a whole plant worth of factory workers dying.) But as long as the more "inventive" ideas aren't blatantly obvious (just because it's an option doesn't mean the game has to tell you it's there, probably 60% of DX, especially in the earlier levels, can be totally ignored, and the game doesn't make any attempts to force you to witness it) than this I think would be a more ingenuitive application of this "4 Path" deal, rather than the oversimplification that some of us are affraid might happen.
Chade on 9/12/2008 at 11:30
Papy, I'm not worried about DX3 being more like DX1 ... I'm a big fan of both games! My feelings of bitterness in response to the DX2 comments have nothing to do with my feelings for DX1, which I also love.
Not sure what you mean by doomsday device, btw ... do you mean that the idea would be overpowered? I agree that it is potentially overpowering ... but then, so are water arrows in thief, except for the fact that their use is carefully rationed and restricted. I think the fact that it is potentially overpowering is really just due to it affecting one of the core compnents in the DX simulation, which I think is a good thing. (As opposed to options like Bribery, which only really play around the edges of the DX simulation.)
BlackCapedManX, I'm glad you like the idea, but it's interesting that you have gone for something quite different to what I was thinking of. Rather then an occasionally useful but very powerful tool, I was thinking more of a continuously applicable tool of limited but flexible power. Say, for instance, the ability to change the current destination of a single patrolling guard to a point in fairly close proximity to the original destination - with the player being able to invoke this ability from any or most points in the map.
BlackCapedManX on 9/12/2008 at 13:51
I guess my extrapolation of the concept was just for more of a real world feel, relating to uses I've actually encountered. I think it's a little bit more obscure to suggest that guards receive patrolling orders in real time via computer (I could see that as more a prep thing, like giving guards patrolling orders a day before hand or something, so that they wouldn't impede your objective.) It would be interesting if implemented well but I can see Papy's arguement that it could become too overpowered (especially if put in poorly), i.e. "all guards go over here while I peruse through this section all by myself," if something like that were the case it would be a bit too much (I mean, isn't the point of flesh and blood security that it can adapt where automatic security is a victim of system "break-ins"?) I think what Papy is saying is that this would make the hacker the ultimate infiltrator, needing no other skills because he can use a computer to open all the doors for him, and I think that would break the game.
Chade on 9/12/2008 at 21:57
It would definately require carefull balancing, that's for sure ... but so does any tool that affects one of the core components of the game systems, be it a gun, a cloak aug, etc ... I would suggest that repeated use of the tool should make guards suspicious, and that the tool should not work on alerted guards.
As far as in-game fiction goes, I currently see it being justified as some item you acquire with which you can hack the encryption the guards theoretically may use when electronically communicating with each other, and therefore broadcast signals to the guards on-the-fly. Would you consider that to be sufficient justification?
