Production on Deus Ex 3 officially announced

redrain85 on 14/10/2008 at 00:51

I came across this on the FEAR 2 site, and I thought it was highly relevant to the debate about auto health regen in DX3.

(http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/Medkit)

To quickly sum up: the devs at Monolith were planning the same thing for FEAR 2. But during testing, they had a member of the test group exhibit behaviour that abused the regen system. In the middle of a big firefight, the player ran away and waited until he fully recovered his health. Totally ruining the intended gameplay experience.

If one of the designers on FEAR 2 can come to realize, and explain convincingly, why full auto health regen is a bad idea . . . then maybe the devs at Eidos working on DX3 can take a hint from a fellow developer, and rethink their plan.

Chade on 14/10/2008 at 01:39

This isn't really directly applicable to DX3 though, as DX3 is hopefully not going to be based around major staged fights which "have to be dramatic".

On the other hand, as a game which hopefully mixes stealth and action, it will probably be relatively easy to slip away from a fight and start sneaking, so full health regen might well unbalance the game.

redrain85 on 14/10/2008 at 02:29

Quote Posted by Chade

This isn't really directly applicable to DX3 though, as DX3 is hopefully not going to be based around major staged fights which "have to be dramatic".

No, I know the situation with FEAR 2 is not entirely applicable to DX3.

I think the main takeaway point from that posting, is that even in a game like FEAR 2 there should be some form of strategy in the gameplay. To keep battles from turning into mind-numbing repetition. But the health regen was contributing toward just that. And it could end up doing the same for battles in DX3.

Here are what I think are the most important quotes, though, that could equally be applied to DX3.

Quote:

I wasn't on the project back when the decision was made to switch to a regenerative health system, but I understand the motivation for trying it. Games like Call of Duty 2, Rainbow Six: Vegas, and Gears of War had proven that not having to worry about your health could help keep your focus on the action. The problem is that F.E.A.R. isn't just about action. It's also about tension, much like Half-Life or Resident Evil. Regenerative health systems guarantee you're always at full health except during combat, meaning you never experience those nail-biting stretches where you're close to death and praying you find medical supplies before the enemy finds you.

When you're making a sequel, there's a definite risk of alienating fans of the first game any time you “fix” something people don't necessarily think was broken.

These changes (removing the regen) had an immediate effect in playtests. Players became more aggressive, used slowmo more often, varied their tactics based on their current condition, and reported that the fights felt more dynamic and less repetitive than before.

I have no idea what I was thinking when I set the max to 10 in F.E.A.R.. Medkits are also much scarcer in F.E.A.R. 2 than they were in F.E.A.R.. Again, it boggles my mind how ubiquitous they were in the first game.

Even some people on the team who had been resistant to the change ended up acknowledging that it made the combat more dynamic and engaging and that the additional pickup items provided further incentive for exploration. My hope is that fans of the first game will be relieved to find the system has been refined instead of replaced and that new players will enjoy the tension you get from occasionally being at less than full health.

I threw in the bit about about medkits being "ubiquitous" as a little dig at Bioshock. Sorry, couldn't help it. :sly:

Chade on 14/10/2008 at 02:51

Quote Posted by redrain85

No, I know the situation with FEAR 2 is not entirely applicable to DX3.

Ok, sorry! :)

But I can't resist ... is the first bolded part really relevant to DX? I don't remember any "nail-biting stretches" in either DX game.

Anyway, I don't actually mean to defend auto health regen ... I should shut up. Clearly I am just in a nitpicking mood.

Fafhrd on 14/10/2008 at 05:55

Good news for FEAR2. This is why I'm an unapologetic Monolith fanboy. Definitely take note, Eidos.

Another thing to consider in the 'anti-health regen' argument is environmental hazards. With health regeneration they're not particularly hazardous. I don't know how many times in DX1 I've been zapped by electricity, or fallen into toxic pools, or decided to attempt to run through a room full of gas, or accidentally ruptured barrels of toxic gas, or misjudged the placement of a LAM been too close to the blast radius and had a not insignificant chunk of health knocked off for my lack care, which then informed how I approached a later situation. Automatic regeneration makes all of those types of situations moot. Why bother with a radiation suit, when I can run into the radioactive room, grab the thing I need, run back out, and just stand around for a minute to get better?

Papy on 14/10/2008 at 06:02

Quote Posted by Chade

Nonetheless, I believe my post is accurate enough to make it prohibitively hard to make games appealing to both a mainstream audience and the traditional hardcore game fan.

I know I'm pretentious, but I think you should always take general people complaints with a grain of salt (unfortunately some devs and publishers take it with far too much salt, but that's another story). Most people start from a general impression (this game is boring) and then try to explain their feeling. A few can get to a pretty accurate answer (I won't name anyone from here because I don't want to look like I'm kissing asses), but introspection is not something common and the result is a lot of people are mostly oblivious about the real reason for their own feeling. In the end, they just compare some superficial characteristics of another game they liked and get to the conclusion "this is different, so this is the problem".

Can a game both please a hardcore gamer and a mainstream "gamer" who just seek a pastime? I am a bit ashamed to admit it, but I am hardcore. Not hardcore as "obsessive" (I don't care much about details) or "addicted" (I see no problem with a game that can be played only once, even if it last only 5 hours), but hardcore as "I can't stand a game where there is no challenge" (I prefer intellectual challenge, but I sometimes I also like a good dexterity based challenge). I'd rather lose a game, I'd rather be unable to complete a game if I'm not good enough, than play a game where I'm sure to easily win. A game is to me first and foremost about winning or losing. Everything else is at best secondary. This means I will usually do only what is necessary to win, and rarely anything more. I have no interest in pretending I'm playing a game, I want to play a real game. Yet I loved the same BioShock mainstream "gamers" loved.

I guess some explanations are needed. Disabling Vita-Chambers and playing with no save (except for the automatic saves at the beginning of each level) completely change the type of gameplay of BioShock. Vita-Chambers are not a simple detail, they are core gameplay element. turning them off transforms the game from a dumb pastime where nothing matters and where you just move around and shoot, to a very challenging game. A lot of things goes from "unimportant and you can ignore if you wish" to "better care a lot about them or you won't be able to finish the game". Managing resources and tactical gameplay become crucial to be able to finish the game (at least on your first play when you don't know what's ahead). As a consequence, it puts your mind in a state of high awareness, which is what I guess most hardcore gamers like (and as a bonus, you even begin to care about the story because of your state of mind).

I know there is a lot of people who will complain about a lot of things. They'll complain about level design, AI, scripted sequences... They are probably justified to critic those, but it doesn't really matters. Look at Deus Ex objectively and you'll see this game has so many flaws it's almost funny. Ridiculous AI, empty and unrealistic levels, linear story... Yet, people (including me) didn't really complain about those because the gameplay was able to get their attention. Basically, it's like when you see an average looking girl. You won't care about her and if someone tries to tell you she's great you will begin to criticize the shape of her nose, her lips, the way she dresses... but if she begins to talk and you realize she's extremely intelligent, funny and sweet, then all her flaws won't matter anymore. You'll concentrate on what you like instead of concentrating on what you don't like.

I believe you don't need to answer everyone complaints, you just need to give them a bone to chew on. It won't be a perfect game, but no game is perfect anyway. Deus Ex and SS2 were far from being even close to without major flaws. I hate hand holding levels, I hate scripted events, I hate respawing, I even don't like FPS in general, but with BioShock I got my bone to chew on. The result is my attention was on what I like, not on what I dislike. The result is I loved the game.

Quote Posted by Chade

My final argument is nothing but an appeal to authority. If it's so easy to cater to multiple play styles, then why don't game designers do it? I've read enough game designer blogs and academic papers to know that catering a game to multiple audiences is something game designers are hugely interested in. Why alienate potential buyers if you don't have to?

That's really a question I'm asking myself. I don't know the answer to that (and I guess different developers will come with different answers), but not knowing the answer won't make me believe the reason is because it's too difficult.

Having said that, I can imagine a few reasons. The first one is some people, I guess particularly teens, play video game so they can feel good about themselves. They "win" a video game and think "I'm good". That's what they like with video games. I remember someone I know who was always boasting how good he was and how he was always playing at highest difficulty. I once went to his place... and saw the guy quick saving every 30 seconds and quick reloading after each little mistake. He was really a very bad player, he was cheating his way out, but he just wanted to believe he was "good" (he was 32 by the way). If you make a hardcore mode where long term resources management is important, then that guy could simply not complete the game. I'm not sure how many people are like him, but if they are a significant number it would mean making a hardcore mode could alienate a significant number of people.

A second reason is tradition and expectation. We generally have this idea that a game is only one game (it certainly made sense in the 80s as a game was mostly about programing the gameplay and not about multimedia assets). So how people would react if one game had four of five modes? It works with flight simulator, people even expect it now, but what about a game like BioShock or Deus Ex 3? Could it confuse the customer? (BTW, one of my numerous pet peeves is keyboard. We are still using keyboard where the keys are positioned so hammer don't jam. This makes absolutely no sense, we could at least have straight columns even if we keep the qwerty layout, but no, we keep our flawed keyboard because of tradition. It's a chance old typewriter didn't have a numeric keypad or it would also have slanted columns...)

A third reason is how will you market a game which is all at the same time an FPS, an adventure game and and RPG? When I hear about a new game, the first thing I do is to ask what kind of game it is. If I get the answer that it's everything, then I'm not sure I would take the answer seriously. Well... I might because that's what I wish, but I'm not sure it would work with the regular mainstream audience who never thought about it.

Of course, all those reasons are really about marketing. Maybe the true reason is simply a consequence of why someone is chosen as a project manager in the first place. Imagine two people for a project management job. Both were successful, but one wants to repeat his last success using the same model, the other want to scrap it and try something new with his multi-million budget. Guess which one will get the job.

BlackCapedManX on 14/10/2008 at 06:04

Quote Posted by Papy

Then why do you complain about healing and having to search for medkits if you didn't need them in the first place?

Mostly from experience of other games that aren't DX (but experience that wouldn't be entirely irrelevent to how DX3 might play out). I'm not complaining about how health was handled in DX (I'm perfectly fond of it, in fact) I'm more so trying to articulate two (and a half-ish?) things: That if auto-heal is being incorporated, rather than simply state "It's not an RPG staple so obviously there's no way it could ever be good and I don't want it and it won't work and it's a dumb idea (ETC)," I'm trying to look at possibilities for how it could work in a new game (because, I like that my mind is capable of such abstract things as entertaining a concept without accepting it) rather than simply denying it because it hasn't been used in an agreeable context previously. The arguements that against auto-heal that are steeped in "resource-management" dogma (from the perspective of DX), are bullshit, because health was never in short supply in DX.

And that finitizing health, in the end, limits the player choices overall (as I've said earlier, I would like to see options with how auto-heal is handled, including one to turn it off), while a mild auto-heal encourages the player to take chances at unneccessarily dangerous risks that might not be pertinent to the main progression of the game. Say for example there's a totally not plot critical side quest, but one well more hazardous than what you would normally be facing, that would most likely expend all of your resources (if you want to talk about "pure" RPGs, these would be comperable to optional super-bosses), in a standard FPS/RPG model, it would be highly discouraging for the player to approach this in anything other than a very timid, eke-the-most-out-of-everything-you-have, manner. Rather than simply obey this doctrine of game design, I think opening the language to new possibilities would allow for a wider range of scenarios than one limited by a finite health build would have to offer. (The easiest parallel is to a game like Morrowind, which is so open that you potentially have unlimited resources, along with stipulations that allow the player to get things like auto-heal, amoung other more ridiculous powers, the question then is, how can some of the experiences attainable in a build like this be translated into a game with a standard linear progression like DX3, retaining both the scope of the FPS aspects, but opening to even more varied scenarios that a true RPG could offer?)

Now, this is thinking very progressively and conceptually. This is being excited about ideas of really tackling what could be potentially done with auto-heal (to turn it into a system pertinent to gameplay, rather than a manner in which you simply no longer have to deal with medkits.) This isn't saying this is going to happen, and that I'm expecting the manner of auto-heal being implimented to work better than medkits in practice, this is just saying I can have hope, and save all of my bitter dismissal for something more deserving (I mean, if we can't be optimistic about something as pointless in the greater span of things as video games, then what does that say about how we address the rest of life?)

Quote Posted by Fafhrd

Why bother with a radiation suit, when I can run into the radioactive room, grab the thing I need, run back out, and just stand around for a minute to get better?

This is something that had occured to me, and is part of the reason why I think auto-heal could work if it's incorporated as a comprehensive system, rather than simply a blanket for dealing with the "problem of regaining health." As environmental hazards create interesting scenarios that are often very well fit into a FPS/RPG hybrid, simply leaving them out would be a shame (like how there wasn't any water in DXIW and it was really really stupid, *hint hint @Rene and Co.*) A contextual, or smarter auto-heal that possibly turned off for a significant period of time in hazardous areas might be appropriate. As it is, it's often never really explained in FPS games why a pool of lethal toxins will kill you right quick if you're in the pool, but somehow as soon as you leave all of the noxious gases you've been inhaling immediately disappate and though your lungs have nearly rotted themselves out, you're a good quick bandage away from perfect health. An auto-heal that's put into the context of the game could explain that in attempting to fight off what would otherwise instantly kill a normal man, the advanced-metabolic-technobable is no longer capable of performing basic health regeneration for some span of time. In this way hazardous areas could become more threatening, because if you're facing a fight behind it, you're suddenly out a normally relied upon asset, and you have to think of your other resources to manage the situation (again, enforcing the idea of creating a gameplay dialogue that can handle a greater range of scenarios.) This, I repeat endlessly, is only if auto-heal is handled in a comprehensive manner.

And real quick (hopefully but not likely):

Quote Posted by Papy

A game is to me first and foremost about winning or losing. Everything else is at best secondary.

This may explain some of the disparity in our view points. As an artist, and as a gamer interested in some of the ideas art has to offer, I play games to acquire new experiences. I see games as offering an array of interactive events/stories/idea/whatever that have been previously impossible throughout human history (honestly, that there exists a simulator by which you can dynamicaly throw yourself through arbitrary portals at something approximating familiar physics may be fundamentally groundbreaking in what humans consider "experience"), and primarily look for games that offer that in new and inventive ways. While I would state that a game that doesn't require consideration of actions is boring, I don't think that consideration need be as stark as "these are my # of resources, this scenario will require #-X of resources, unless I perform action Y, in which case it will be #-2X" (to drastically simplify the equation.) I think that management can potentially be more dynamic, and that interests me because I haven't seen it done before. I also do not have the time (or money) to waste on experiences that will terminally offer no recourse if I am not above and beyond capable at them (unless they offer a genre or play style I find particularly inviting, Armored Core, for example), on Penny Arcade, Gabe has greatly extolled the virtues of "Strange Attractors 2," which while looking like it has the potential to be fun if I invested heavily in it, doesn't appear to be much more than a clever new kind of puzzle game, and requires more skill developement than I have the time to put into it. I used to appreciate such challenges (like the Iron Man playthroughs of Diablo 1) much more, but now my obligations to life get in the way, and I am not quite so embittered should an otherwise fascinating and engaging looking game be "spoiled" by something as (to me) un-important as auto-heal.

Also, I think a lot of your experience that is colored you away from something like auto-heal comes from the Vita-Chambers in BioShock, I on the otherhand didn't quite catch the implications of what they were supposed to do until nearing the end of the game (the first time that I died, having gone to such lengths previously to avoid it, on account of not knowing I would be immediately revived,) and didn't find them to be so off-putting for the span of the game. I think your "no-vita beginning of level save" build actually sounds like a lot of fun, and makes a lot of sense for players looking for something more. I also think if it shipped like that, the fan base it would appeal to would be minimal, and seeing a game made with some shortcomings for the hardcore is more important to me than a game not getting made because it doesn't hold up to every one of my standards of how hard it should be. Hopefully, someday in the abstract future, devs will just give over many of these options to players, and we can build challenges as we like. (something which we can clearly do anyway, as evidenced by the "ghostings" of the theif games, and the "no-confrontations" or indeed "no items, skills or augs" playthroughs of DX)

Chade on 14/10/2008 at 12:31

Papy, to cut a long story short: I think that was a pretty awesome post. And I agree with everything you wrote. Except for the overall theme (just to be difficult).

I guess, at the end of the day, you have more faith then I in the ability of the hardcore audience to compromise.

heywood on 14/10/2008 at 18:43

Quote Posted by Aja

Bioshock's not exactly literature, but it comes closer than most games I've played, and certainly more than any FPS.

Please play DX1 already.

Quote Posted by Chade

But I can't resist ... is the first bolded part really relevant to DX? I don't remember any "nail-biting stretches" in either DX game.

Hmm, I had a few of them on my first play of DX1, but I was playing on Hard. On subsequent playthroughs, I knew when the ambushes were going to occur so I was prepared. But I still occasionally get myself into trouble with boneheaded moves like dropping TNT crates on my feet. The classic was blowing my legs off with a TNT crate right next to a gas barrel, so I couldn't run out of the gas cloud and ended up using a bunch of medkits.

I thought DX was awesome for making you feel incapacitated when hurt, with different liabilities depending on where you got hit. That really added to the immersion. It's something I've missed in practically every other game since. It seems so silly now to perform 100% normally until your health reaches zero.

Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX

I'm trying to look at possibilities for how it could work in a new game (because, I like that my mind is capable of such abstract things as entertaining a concept without accepting it) rather than simply denying it because it hasn't been used in an agreeable context previously.

It seems to me you're trying to find some way to shove it into the game in a diminished role that sucks less. I think you're trying too hard.

Quote:

And that finitizing health, in the end, limits the player choices overall (as I've said earlier, I would like to see options with how auto-heal is handled, including one to turn it off), while a mild auto-heal encourages the player to take chances at unneccessarily dangerous risks that might not be pertinent to the main progression of the game. Say for example there's a totally not plot critical side quest, but one well more hazardous than what you would normally be facing, that would most likely expend all of your resources (if you want to talk about "pure" RPGs, these would be comperable to optional super-bosses), in a standard FPS/RPG model, it would be highly discouraging for the player to approach this in anything other than a very timid, eke-the-most-out-of-everything-you-have, manner.

It's supposed to be a risk vs. reward thing. If you design a difficult side quest, there should be a worthwhile reward.

Also, the "eke-the-most-out-of-everything-you-have" approach is a consequence of high difficulty, low resources, and/or low player skill. Those who don't want a challenge should be able to select Easy difficulty and be assured they won't have to scrounge for health and won't have trouble completing the missions. Those who want a challenge should be able to select Hard difficulty knowing that they might just have to eke the most out of everything they have to get through some parts of the game. And you know what, they will actually enjoy being challenged in that way.

Quote:

That explains a lot. It sounds like you're more interested in sandbox games and adventure games than FPS/RPG hybrids. Personally, I like being challenged by games and I like mastering game systems. If you remove the challenge and streamline the game systems, then the game can't be "fascinating and engaging" to me.

Quote:

Hopefully, someday in the abstract future, devs will just give over many of these options to players, and we can build challenges as we like. (something which we can clearly do anyway, as evidenced by the "ghostings" of the theif games, and the "no-confrontations" or indeed "no items, skills or augs" playthroughs of DX)

That is precisely the justification for richer, deeper gameplay systems. You can play DX1 in different ways and enjoy different gameplay experiences. You can't do that in Bioshock because the gameplay is arcade style shooting no matter how you try to play it.

Quote Posted by Chade

I guess, at the end of the day, you have more faith then I in the ability of the hardcore audience to compromise.

Huh? I think you've got that backwards. The ability of the "hardcore" audience to compromise should not even be a question. We're the ones who have been compromising more and more as game developers pander to the console crowd.

What I'm hoping for is some sign that the devs are interested in accommodating both audiences, rather than designing for the lowest common denominator and taking the "hardcore" audience for granted. There's a breaking point at which many of us won't be able to compromise any further and will lose interest. After Bioshock, I think I'm already there.

Chade on 14/10/2008 at 19:25

I wasn't actually advocating anything with that sentence. It was solely a description of the market as I see it, not a statement of values.