Goldmoon Dawn on 31/10/2013 at 01:07
Quote Posted by Brethren
with the exception of the usual blather from GMD
Brother Brethren.
:ebil:
Starker on 31/10/2013 at 01:07
Quote Posted by Chade
However, you most certainly
do lose the challenge arising from not being able to lean from shadows in some situations! You can't have it both ways, man. Either leaning from shadows gives you helpful thiefy abilities, or it doesn't. You can't claim that it simultaneously gives you helpful thiefy abilities while also claiming that you don't lose the interesting challenges arising from not having those abilities.
Place the light source where there is no line of sight from shadows. Done.
Quote Posted by Chade
I never said that restricting it to specific spots makes it better then not restricting it to specific spots. I described two systems: the old one which is absolutely free in where you lean, but only gives you a few discrete lean options, and a hypothetical new one which allows you to freely move your head around while leaning, but limits the positions from where you lean. They are both limited in different ways. If you want to imagine a third system which let's you do everything, well, that's a different kettle of fish altogether.
There is nothing that prevents you from adding more fidelity to the old system of leaning. However, adding fidelity might actually not be an improvement, as you also need to add controls for changing your view. This is a step away from direct simulation, adding layers to interface and interaction.
Furthermore, I don't think that the gains from being able to explore places in more detail are that great. The old robust system already gave you a lot of flexibility for looking at things. I think that if you added some way of looking upside down from near the ground, it would cover most of the places where the player would actually want to look.
yxlplig on 31/10/2013 at 01:34
Quote Posted by Chade
Responding to specific parts of a post is normal forum discussion, and is generally easier for others to follow then quoting the whole post and responding in one big unorganized blob.
I commend him for making his post easy to follow but I'm more bothered by how whenever I take the time to address someone's post point by point 80% of what I type gets completely ignored. I'm trying not to be too rude here, but It's a waste of my time, and people that don't want to argue in a thorough manner are a waste of my time.
Quote:
We could only interact with the environment in previous games in ways that the level designers specified, too. However, we like to think that we can combine those predetermined interactions in ways that the level designers did not think of*.
* is a silly benchmark, really ... maybe we should just hire insanely stupid level designers and every game would be awesome! We really just care about the player's creativity, not whether the designer happens to be more or less creative then the player.
When it comes to moving around the level, what does it mean to say that you combined movement commands in ways that the level designers did not think of? Maybe you twisted around in mid air and leaned forward and mantled onto some ledge? It seems unlikely you'll do the same in thief 4.
There's a significant difference between giving players a toolset with a set of rules, like in Thief 1-2, and Thief 4 where you have tools that can only be used at specific trigger points. Rope arrows attach to wood or softer materials vs. a rope arrow attachment point.
In regards to what I meant by "in ways that the level designers did not think of". First of all I'm completely alright in making certain assumptions about authorial intent. I do not think anyone intended you to use lit torches as steps. I don't believe mantling was meant to negate fall damage. However my main point is, if you give players a toolset instead of contextual event triggers, the designer can't possibly conceive of all the solutions. Maybe most of them won't be very impressive, but they're still somewhat unique creations of the player and I would argue that kind of gameplay is more rewarding. It has nothing to do with the player outsmarting a game designer.
EDIT: Maybe there was a misunderstanding, we seem to basically be in agreement on this point.
Quote:
However, when it comes to sneaking around, it's not so clear. You've got swooping, slowing down time, lots of distraction opportunities, AI which will permanently change guard patrols in response to stimulus, all the normal sneaking tools, etc ... if you have any imagination at all, you should be dreaming up all sorts of the creative things you might be able to do with these ingredients.
I tend to agree. I don't like the swoop or time slowing, but better AI has the potential for some interesting stuff. We've only seen press demos so far so it's hard to say what it will be like interacting with the guards in the final game on high difficulties.
Chade on 31/10/2013 at 01:37
Quote Posted by Starker
Place the light source where there is no line of sight from shadows. Done.
I don't understand how this ties into the argument.
Quote Posted by Starker
There is nothing that prevents you from adding more fidelity to the old system of leaning. However, adding fidelity might actually not be an improvement, as you also need to add controls for changing your view. This is a step away from direct simulation, adding layers to interface and interaction.
Yeah. I don't see how to do it nicely either.
Quote Posted by Starker
Furthermore, I don't think that the gains from being able to explore places in more detail are that great. The old robust system already gave you a lot of flexibility for looking at things. I think that if you added some way of looking upside down from near the ground, it would cover most of the places where the player would actually want to look.
But then you've got a fourth command. Three command is already not so nice, four commands is getting a little ridiculous. (I wonder how many people played thief without realizing you could lean forwards. What's the default button combination again? I can never remember because I always changed it, but wasn't it holding down three buttons?)
I don't think the old system gave you much flexibility for looking at finer details (of course, there weren't many fine details in the architecture back then anyway!). It seems good because it's better then the competition, but no game I'm aware of gives you lots of flexibility here.
(LATE EDIT: Actually, I take that back ... well, kinda. If you think of, say, the first few minutes of one of those puzzle games where you're stuck in an apparently featureless room and have to get out. And then you start looking into everything and realize there's a wealth of detail in the cracks and crevices that wasn't obvious at first glance. And then after a few minutes you get into the really crazy stuff, but I'm just talking about the first few minutes here. All those interactions are completely scripted, of course, but an unscripted version of that would be roughly similar to what I think you could achieve with the peek system. Except of course there should be more obvious loot and readables too!)
What I imagine is one button to say "peek around whatever reachable edge I may be currently looking at". You are free to move around or look around as you wish. At any given moment in time, as long as you have that button held down and are looking at a reachable edge, your character will be peeking around that edge (well, that's the high level goal: the nuts and bolts of it all would require a bit of thought and experimentation).
--- LATE EDIT ---
Quote Posted by yxlplig
I commend him for making his post easy to follow but I'm more bothered by how whenever I take the time to address someone's post point by point 80% of what I type gets completely ignored.
That's kinda par for the course, though. And in my experience it's better that way. If you've seen arguments where people stubbornly respond to every. single. point. the other guy made, you'll see how before long the individual points diverge and become separate arguments, but both people are still arguing on all fronts at once, and their posts become very long, fractured, and frankly plain tiresome.
If you want a good example, well ... see this post. :p
Quote Posted by yxlplig
There's a significant difference between giving players a toolset with a set of rules, like in Thief 1-2, and Thief 4 where you have tools that can only be used at specific trigger points. Rope arrows attach to wood or softer materials vs. a rope arrow attachment point.
True.
Quote Posted by yxlplig
In regards to what I meant by "in ways that the level designers did not think of" ... However my main point is, if you give players a toolset instead of contextual event triggers ... they're still somewhat unique creations of the player and I would argue that kind of gameplay is more rewarding. It has nothing to do with the player outsmarting a game designer.
Hey, that's become the standard phrase, you should use it. I just think it's a bit silly. I vaguely remember some of the Dishonoured interviews, and the devs claiming that playtesters were doing all these things they "hadn't thought of", and giving some examples. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember thinking there was no way in hell the devs hadn't thought of those examples.
Starker on 31/10/2013 at 02:06
Quote Posted by Chade
I don't understand how this ties into the argument.
When you have to go out into the light (with the shadows being too far from the shooting point even with leaning) you lose the advantage of leaning from the shadows and gain the advantage of the challenge arising from not being able to lean from shadows.
Chade on 31/10/2013 at 04:08
Sure. So in some fairly boring architectures you can effectively get the same challenge. But who wants that sort of architecture to be common in levels? Rooms shouldn't be big convex blobs with nothing breaking them up (and even then you've got the pathways between rooms which you'd have to neuter somehow).
Starker on 31/10/2013 at 05:38
You do not have to achieve this effect with architecture. You can do it with light sources that can't be extinguished.
Chade on 31/10/2013 at 05:59
You mean not have shadows anywhere near the light source? That's even worse then boring convex layouts ...
Starker on 31/10/2013 at 06:17
No, just keeping the place where you shoot from illuminated will suffice. Actually, this can probably be done with creative placement of extinguishable light sources alone.
Chade on 31/10/2013 at 06:47
This isn't equivalent, though. If you can't shoot while leaning from shadows, you can have shadows and still have the extra challenge. You want alternating light and shadows, after all. You want architecture near light sources casting little pockets of shadow around the room.
