Picasso on 5/7/2002 at 22:46
I posted a big message responding to PowerCrazy last night, but IE fucked it up. I started to retype it, but then I realized that I am really tired of debating this specific point. So I'm going to say a short bit and leave it at that.
Quote:
What if i just wanted to drive a tank around in DX. Should I be Able to do that? NO! of course not. That would be stupid, and take ALL the fun out of DX.
Not for someone who likes tanks.
But tanks and dual pistols aren't really comparable here, anyway. The DX2 team has already stated that there will be no vehicles in DX2 because the game is intended to have a claustrophobic, indoor atmosphere. Adding tanks would require the DX2 team to spend time coding in vehicles and modelling a bigass tank, as well as creating large outdoor environments to accommodate this tank. THAT is why I'm against having tanks in DX2, not because they're "stupid".
Dual pistols, however, would require a relatively small amount of coding, not much modelling at all, and already suit the environments of DX2.
I think dual pistols can be done realistically, using the system I outlined about halfway up the page. You seem to be saying "People never do it in real life, so it's unrealistic and you shouldn't be able to." I'm saying "People never do it in real life, but it is possible in real life and it contributes to gameplay, so you should be able to."
I'm NOT saying that you should be able to carry dual pistols and get aimed headshots from a mile away. I AM saying that if a player wants to lay down some suppression fire, or if they're extremely close to their target and they feel that a higher rate of fire is more important than shooting straight, then dual pistols should be an option.
The advantages of dual pistols? Greater flexibility to pistol-oriented characters (or any characters, for that matter). More player freedom to play how they want. For those that do find it stylish, they can get a lot of fun out of it.
The disadvantages? It's not done in real life.
I, personally, can look past that disadvantage. If you can't, that's fine; it's where our opinions diverge. But none of us are bringing anything new to the argument, only stating and restating our tired opinions and not getting anywhere.
If anyone can bring a better reason to not have dual pistols in DX2 aside from "People don't do it in real life", then I'll be more than happy to listen and respond. Until then, I'm done with this argument.
PowerCrazy on 6/7/2002 at 06:16
I never said don't do it because "it's not done in real life" I mean thats obvious. But for the role of Alex Denton, Anti-Terrorism elite, There is no reason for him to use dual pistols. Anything done with two pistols can be done with one, better. Suppression fire? Use an ingram it fires pretty fast, Defeinetly fast enough to Suppress. so you have an ingram, and a 9mm, desert eagle, whatever. The ingram for close up work, the 9mm/whatever for your precision weapon. And besides Lets say you have dual pistols? Ok. But your using it for suppression. Does the enemy "care" that you have two instead of one. I can say for sure, that if you were shooting at me with ANYTHING it would do its job of suppresion quite well. The addition of another pistol won't "supress faster" or better. It will just use twice the ammo, with much less accuracy, Why not just use one pistol and possibly be able to aim and kill the person rather than just make them hide? i mean your end goal is too kill him right? Now lets say there are Lots of enemies, they have you out gunned essentially, well pull out your ingram, it fires MUCH faster than two pistols, and in that scenario your trying to suppress the enemies so you can escape. If you've ever fired an ingram, or sometihng similar you'll know that there is no way in HELL ANYONE can fire two of them. So again no reason for TWO pistols.
responding to first point. Yes I KNOW DX one had Many problems with realism, plot holes, inventory everything. Right I know. Those are givens for any game. I would HATE to play a 100% realistic "Game." It would SUCK and be about as far away from "Fun" that you could be. However, just because a game is unrealistic in some ways, or even a LOT of ways doesn't mean we should make it MORE unrealistic.
example:
Hey this isn't realistic, they didn't model the ENTIRE CITY OF NEW YORK WTF? Man how gay, I should be able to Fly (without cheating) and use dual GEP guns, and be an elite dual sword bearing ninja, that can take on 10 guys at once, and can teleport, and Defeines laws of Fizix(intentional), and make teh world BOW to me, just because this game is not "Realisitic". I should be able to Stay underwater indefinetly just because its "unrealistic" Hell i shouldn't even have to fight people, because the combat is "unrealistic" so i might as well be "Zero-Point Energy man" Omnipotent, and Omniscient, and what i point at Dies instantly. HAHAH, might as well go Totally overboard, just because the game is unrealisitic.
Now, back to rational arguing again, using the previous example: If one little aspect of the game is unrealistic, ok, so. The Game has "flaws." Though some "flaws" are intentional. The 8 hour trip across the world, to keep the night atmosphere. I say that is just fine. However Dual-Pistols just cause you CAN, is not a good reason. I CAN do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean its a good idea, or that it belogns in DX. Lots of things that i CAN do are ruled out in the DX universe because you are a professional, and therefore you behave in a professional manner, i.e. NO Dual Pistols.
Oh and BTW SOF 2 Is HORRIBLE at modeling weapon, damage, range, and and accuracy. But thats a debate for another thread.
:thumb: :cheeky: Sorry if this is just rambling but i'm on a sugar/caffine High and i am REALLY tired. Just extrapolate what i don't say exactly. ;)
Picasso on 6/7/2002 at 07:23
I know I said I wouldn't continue all this, but there are no other discussions going on, so sue me.
Quote:
I never said don't do it because "it's not done in real life" I mean thats obvious.
Sorry. When I said:
Quote:
You seem to be saying "People never do it in real life, so it's unrealistic and you shouldn't be able to."
I was really meaning more of a collective "you" encompassing ICEbreaker, Phydeaux, et al.
Quote:
Suppression fire? Use an ingram it fires pretty fast
But pistol-oriented characters won't always be carrying an Ingram, or the DX2 equivalent. They WILL be carrying pistols. Hence "Greater flexibility to pistol-oriented characters". A character designed around submachine guns, conversely, will never have need for dual pistols; they'll just use the Ingram.
Quote:
Does the enemy "care" that you have two instead of one.
No, they care that they're getting shot at.
You care that you have two instead of one, because it effectively doubles your round capacity in a firefight, so that you're able to suppress them for that much longer.
Quote:
Why not just use one pistol and possibly be able to aim and kill the person rather than just make them hide?
Players would, of course, have that option if they wanted to play that way...
Quote:
i mean your end goal is too kill him right?
Not always. Many people like to play through DX nonlethally. There are many circumstances where you would prefer to suppress someone rather than kill them.
I'm going to put this in a spoiler box, since it concerns the storyline in DX1:
[SPOILER]For example, right after you send the transmission to the terrorist cells at the warehouse. You've just defected from U.N.A.T.C.O., and suddenly all these troops are trying to shoot you. A few minutes ago they were your friends, and you don't want to have to kill them, so you draw two pistols and fire randomly back in their direction. They take cover, while you escape.[/SPOILER]
This is, of course, assuming the AI in DX2 is capable of taking cover (I'm betting it will be).
Quote:
well pull out your ingram, it fires MUCH faster than two pistols
How convenient to use a weapon that expends it's ammo supply so much faster, thereby giving you less time to escape. Ingenious.
Quote:
So again no reason for TWO pistols.
As I said above, unless you don't have an Ingram, but you DO have pistols.
Captainclone on 6/7/2002 at 07:25
Ah...Ronald, I have come to join the battle of Dual Pistols, see I'm not strictly a Thief3 forum regulator, but a multi-forum entity.
Dual Pistols should be in the game, simply for flexability as well as style. Like stated before most of the game will take place indoors not in big grassy fields of Nebraska. When indoors you really aren't faced with crazy long distances all the time, so I figure dual pistols would be a good sidearm for that kind of situation. As well if the enemy AI is as good as they say, it would make sense to lob some cover fire while you advance up a barrel or whatever the nearest cover is. Just make sure there are penalties, like lower accuracy, longer reloading, so forth. I think most pistols should be able to go akimbo with, think of the space saver, two blocks for pistols compared to 4 for a crappy assault rifle,which they promised to fix. It's a space saver you could have two sets for the price of the assault rifle. So you can save space for whatever you need lockpicks, multitools, tuna sandwich, assorted item and such. It only adds another persona for DX2, the dualpistol akimbo, tuna wielding, assorted item carrying angel of death. It make sense just to make it availible.
Look at Hitman, sure using guns most of the time wasn't the brightest thing to do seeing how death could rain down on you in a few seconds. But in those situations when you need to kill as many people in the room and don't got the smg or the rifle you wanted booya, your trusty eagle/hardballer combo took out everyone who needed shooting and even some who didn't. It makes the game more interesting, because you didn't go around the place pretending to be Max Payne or John Woo. They were a nice fall back. Plus look how many bullets you needed to put in a guy's chest to get them to run away call for more supermen that can take bullets in the chest or in the face like it was rain drops. DX2 isn't a tactical sim like Raven Shield or any of the Tom Clancy series. Yes I realize how inaccurate it can get when you don't fire a pistol with another hand to steady the gun when firing several shots. But say you want the first 2 or 3 to count, and the next 3 for covering your run to the next cover. You put one away and aim for the stragglers. It's for those situations when you need a little bit more firepower.
Another thing, I think the animations (like stated previously) on the reloading need to be redone. I think the idea how when you move up in skills they get better or more fluid, instead of fumbling for clip when you hit dry-lock, on master you already have one ready to slam in when you eject the clip.
And as for SoF2, I found the weapons entirely too shiny, damage is pretty good, range is insane, picking people off with a shotgun...come on now.
PowerCrazy on 6/7/2002 at 09:16
But you can use Burst Fire. Not Hold it down and Spray. If you've ever played Paintbal, you'll know about Suppression techniques. Even the losers who spend $800+ on fully automatic 'Angel' Guns (i'm not one of them) don't just hold the trigger down to suppress. They fire a burst, run a little see the enemy pop their head up, fire another burst, repeat until out of range/ammo. The faster rate of fire is to ensure that the enemy does not feel safe enough to make a shot. If I make a sweeping motion with my hands in a 90 degree arc, firing at 300 rounds per minute i'm A LOT more likely to hit someone thats peeking, than if i use a pistol and fire a maximum of what 60 rpm? in this example I could use LESS ammo, and be 5 times more likely to hit them. See the "ingram" used in my previous post, doesn't exist. Its just a rapid fire replacement for two pistols. Of course an automatic weapon would have increased clip capacity so the faster rate of fire doesn't matter. If you are concerned about saving your ammo, you won't be using suppression fire anyway. You'll be going for the one shot one kill. But forget all that. Because we can't WIN this argument neither of us can, We'll just make everything a moot point. (Realism, preference, etc.)
The MAIN reason i'm against Dual Pistols, is because it is HIGHLY uncharacteristic for ANYONE in a real world Scenario (Deus Ex IS a real world SCENARIO) to use Dual Pistols, even for cover fire. If i was ever in the Marines (Army Sucks) or Navy Seals, and in a combat situation, you'd NEVER see me using Dual Pistols. I'd use my M-16 for cover fire. and if I found another pistol on an enemy, I'd steal the ammo and discard the gun. In deus Ex substitute M-16 for a sub-machine gun / automatic pistol. BUT NEVER Dual Pistols. Thats the reason i'm against Dual Pistols. It destroys atmosphere by creating a Quake type feel. The only games that have Dual-Pistols are first person shooters, Deus Ex while technicly it IS an FPS, it does not play like an FPS and Dual Pistols would turn it into your traditional Death-Match / Gib-fest game. Effectively destroying what it is.
Ok You can respond I'll read it, and we can have some good laughs, but since DX2 is already done. And I haven't heard of Dual Pistols being included, this thread doesn't matter. So unless you personally attack me. I'm going to bring this discussion to a close.
I have only one request, tell me your Final and Foremost reason that you want Dual Pistols to be included. I mean the REAL reason, not Style, or "Cause I can."
Can't Argue Opinions.
Because Everyone is right! :thumb:
Picasso on 6/7/2002 at 21:32
Quote:
But you can use Burst Fire. Not Hold it down and Spray.
Okay, so what will suppress someone longer? 5 rounds full-auto from an Ingram MAC-10 (which by my calculations will take about a third of a second to fire)? Or 5 rounds from two semi-auto pistols (my estimate: about two and a half seconds)?
Quote:
If you've ever played Paintbal,
Sorry, I haven't, so I can't comment on this.
Quote:
i'm A LOT more likely to hit someone thats peeking
Like I said in my previous post, the intention isn't always to hit them. If you wanted to hit them, you'd be using a single pistol and aiming carefully.
Quote:
than if i use a pistol and fire a maximum of what 60 rpm?
With a single pistol, probably a bit faster than that, but we'll say 60 rpm for the sake of arguement. Of course, with two pistols your rate of fire is instantly doubled, with the added advantage that you can fire at any rate under that you want, since it's not dependent on the gun's RPM so much as it is on how fast you click the mouse.
Quote:
in this example I could use LESS ammo, and be 5 times more likely to hit them.
If you really wanted to hit them, you could aim with one pistol and use even less ammo. The intention with dual pistols is to suppress them rather than kill.
Quote:
Of course an automatic weapon would have increased clip capacity
Ingram MAC-10: 30 round magazine capacity. Dual M9 Beretta pistols: 30 round magazine capacity together.
But this all doesn't matter anyway. The point is that it offers a better suppression fire option
for pistol-oriented characters, like I've said a dozen times. Sure, if you really wanted to suppress someone effectively you'd use an Assault rifle. Equal magazine capacity, semi-automatic setting, relatively fast reloading, high RPM even on semi-auto. It would be MUCH better than two pistols! But it doesn't matter that an assault rifle, or an Ingram, or a huge fucking machine gun would be better, because we're talking about
pistol-oriented characters who don't carry those weapons!
Quote:
If you are concerned about saving your ammo, you won't be using suppression fire anyway. You'll be going for the one shot one kill.
Unless you're more concerned about preserving the lives of your enemies than you are about conserving your ammo.
Quote:
If i was ever in the Marines (Army Sucks) or Navy Seals, and in a combat situation, you'd NEVER see me using Dual Pistols. I'd use my M-16 for cover fire.
And if you designed your character in DX2 with the same skills and capabilities as a eal-life Marine, your character would never use dual pistols either.
This isn't a balanced comparison anyway, since we'd never see you using riot prods or tranquilizer darts either. Modern soldiers in the field rarely use or carry pistols at all, since the M-16 is so much more effective. If everyone in DX2 were trained to use an assault rifle and to always carry one, none of them would ever use dual pistols either. But that's not going to be the case.
Quote:
It destroys atmosphere by creating a Quake type feel. The only games that have Dual-Pistols are first person shooters, Deus Ex while technicly it IS an FPS, it does not play like an FPS and Dual Pistols would turn it into your traditional Death-Match / Gib-fest game. Effectively destroying what it is.
Not if done right. You can allow a player to use dual pistols, in extreme situations where it would be the logical choice, without instantly turning DX2 into a flashy deathmatch game with jump pads and rocket launchers and BFG's.
Quote:
I have only one request, tell me your Final and Foremost reason that you want Dual Pistols to be included. I mean the REAL reason, not Style, or "Cause I can."
First of all, don't discount style. You seem to think that style isn't a real reason, but all this really means is that you don't like that particular style. There are thousands of others that do, and their opinions about style aren't any less valid than yours.
Second, realism. Yes, realism. Tell me, which is more realistic: Through some kind of cosmic intervention to never be able to hold more than one pistol at a time in your hands? Or to be able to hold and use two pistols, with severe accuracy penalties, and with double or triple the time needed to reload? Is a healthy, normal, two-armed person physically capable of holding and operating two handguns simultaneously, despite how impractical it may be?
Third, I'm going to quote again what I've said dozens of times:
Quote:
Greater flexibility to pistol-oriented characters (or any characters, for that matter).
The "pistol-oriented characters" part means that characters that are built around pistols (which isn't uncommon, heck, they had an entire skill devoted to them in DX1) can have more tactical options and opportunities when they engage in combat. The "any characters, for that matter" part means that even if I have an assault rifle, and am trained in it's use and it is my ideal weapon for suppression fire, perhaps I'm incredibly low on rifle ammo. But what do you know, I'm
overflowing with ammo for my two backup pistols, so how about that! Problem solved!
Fourth, I will again quote myself:
Quote:
More player freedom to play how they want.
THIS means that if someone wants to play in a John-Woo type of way, they're that much closer. Sure, they may not be able to shift into bullet-time or anything, or do diving rolls through flocks of pigeons while headshotting eight guards within a few seconds, but hey, at least they have a
bit more freedom.
PowerCrazy on 7/7/2002 at 02:01
Now that we have the dual-pistol situation (clears throat) "resolved," lets us move on to what ELSE we want in DX2. I definetly want Machine Guns to be what they are in real life. Guns that are HIGHLY effective vs. people. When I have my "M-16" i should be able to take a room full of soldiers by surprise, and bam in about a second the soldiers are no longer a threat. There should be no reason that i can't be a stealthy one man army. Now of course i also want Augmented agents that the above tatic won't work against. That one second of armaggedon should be enough time for the Augmented agent to draw his pistol(s) and retreat under cover. Then I've got a good ol' spy vs spy battle. And Those are fun.
ICEBreaker on 7/7/2002 at 18:52
Ronald, do you realise that every time someone wants something added to DX2 that was not in DX, they start to use the "player freedom" argument. I have even heard it used when people wanted a love theme added to DX2's plot. Of course the argument for dual pistols is far more sensible then a love story, but it suffers from a similar problem albeit on a much smaller scale. As I have said already, the combat system in Deus Ex demonstrated an effort for realism. Utilising dual pistols is uncharacteristic of Deus Ex. As a fan of Deus Ex, I want to see JC's style transferred to Alex. To me, using dual pistols is pathetic, and I certainly don't want a pathetic Alex. Now let's examine your points on Deus Ex's realism.
- JC's inventory is realistic. Marines regularly carry an astonishing 150lbs. An engineered human can certainly carry even more.
- JC's stamina is astonishing but he does rest in the game whenever he is in his helicopter. He consumes soy food and drinks soda. He probably does get hot but there is no indicator to show his surface temperature. He does not trip over, get scared, stub his toe, stutter, nor drops his clip because he is well trained.
- What is so astonishing about having a computer in his brain which records information? Deus Ex is about a world of advanced technology.
- JC does not stop time when he goes into his inventory. The player stops the game to rearrange inventory, something that is not necessary in real life and so would have taken no time anyway. When the player returns to the game after instructing a reload and change of weapon in the game, it still takes time for JC to switch weapons and reload too. Yes the medical kit is unrealistic. They should improve on that.
- The SH-187 uses high-efficiency ethanol fuel cells that are capable of a range of 9000 miles. You have spotted a plot hole because the distance between New York and Hong Kong is greater than that. As for the speed, it seems to be 6 times faster than the Lynx ZB500, which is conceivable with the technology of the future. Of course I would have preferred it if they used a vertical take-off jet instead. Anyway there is nothing shockingly unrealistic about this.
- MJ12 taking over the world is not unrealistic. It is fictional but possible.
- It is possible for aliens to have landed to earth who have the ability to project radiation.
- It is not an uncommon notion that any systems with AI routines that are complex enough would develop self-awareness. While this is naïve, it is not that unrealistic.
- In the future, organic "robots" like the MIBs are certainly possible. Portable plasma weapons are unrealistic and should not have been included. There are lots of underground government facilities. With improved genetic engineering, animals like greasels (where did you get rats from) are definitely possible.
- The skill point system is done for the player's benefit. Since the game cannot realistically allow the player to train himself at something without getting bored, the skill point system was implemented. It is a practical way of modelling something realistic.
- Low yield nuclear weapons do not cause much more damage than conventional weapons and does not irradiate entire areas. From the satellite pictures, it is obvious that an airburst missile was used and therefore would not create a noticeable crater. Soldiers would be able to survive just by being on the other side of a concrete building. Area 51 is huge and Jock probably landed JC at one of the entrances with the least radiation residue, which would also be the one with the least damage and one where some troops could have survived. By the way nuclear bombs are currently quite inaccurate, although that is bound to change in the future.
- People in Hong Kong can speak English today. By 2050 with the integration of Europe and even higher standards of education world wide, I am not surprised to see ordinary French and Chinese citizens speaking basic English. They don't seem that fluent to me in the game. Several monks in Hong Kong could not speak English and some merchant's spoke broken English.
- What is so unrealistic about Hermann? It is possible.
- The sewers didn't take JC to all the right places. In fact it placed him in a rather dangerous position in Paris Metro. Besides sewers are suppose to cover the whole city.
- New York had many stations and many neighbourhoods. JC just didn't need to visit those places. One could clearly see Manhattan's skyline from the Statue of Liberty.
- Nanomechanical virus is very possible! It is definitely a cause for concern in the future. Releasing a plague to dominate the world is nothing new. I think Hitler explored this idea seriously.
I took the time and effort to answer these because I wanted to highlight your inability to differentiate the differences between something that is unlikely and something that is impossible. Fiction is the exploration of something unlikely, but not impossible. When things that are unlikely happen, it is interesting. When things that are impossible and unrealistic happens it is pathetic. Most of your points above were to do with things that are impossible today, but will be possible in the future when the technology becomes available. Dual pistols have nothing to do with technology. It is something that will always be unrealistic except under very unique situations. Besides I have always been talking about combat realism not plot realism. I have clearly differentiated between them early on.
Of course computer games are meant to be fun. If people like dual pistols, then I think some games should cater to this. However Deus Ex is not about these things so it should be left out. I keep repeating this analogy because I think it is good. Some people love chilli sauce. It is great to add it to burgers and noodles, but just because it tastes nice does not mean you add it to creamy cuisine or vegetable salad. Deus Ex has a degree of combat realism that is ruined by the use of dual pistols. It would label itself as a Max Payne genre type of game, and I don't want to see that. You mentioned that dual pistols is an icon for cool and violence imageries. It is exactly these imageries that Deus Ex opposes. The game clearly encourages the player to try a less violent approach. By the way, Soldier of Fortune is a game for weapons realism? It was rubbish. Soldier of Fortune was clearly in the same genre as Counter Strike. It was not realistic. Most of your argument for dual pistols is very poor. It is mainly "I want it, who the hell are you to tell me what is allowed" attitude.
Picasso, if people want suppressive fire, they better use a submachine gun. Secondly at the moment, I am not so sure if DX2's AI understands the idea of suppressive fire. I have not yet had a gaming experience where I can fire my weapon that makes the AI dodge while I run away. Most likely I will get shot in the back. What always happens is that I hide in a corner and the AI run to me and I shoot them as they appear creating a pile of dead bodies. I actually agree that having two pistols is handy in this situation where aiming is unnecessary and you get double the ammo, but this is easily over come by reequipping yourself with a second pistol which is allowed in Deus Ex. Switching weapons is much faster than reloading so it works. In your NSF HQ example, there is no way you can simply fire away to scare the troops to make your escape. It is funny how you mention that using an Ingram is a waste of ammo. Waste of ammo is one of my key reasons why using dual pistols is silly. Anyway with an MP5 set to single fire, a clip of 30 bullets is the same as two pistols with 24 bullets. When the time for reloading comes, I'd be laughing at the guy with dual pistols. Style is important, and it is exactly the style of dual pistols that I dislike. JC is a government agent and this style is completely unprofessional. Alex is probably not a government agent, but for those who loved Deus Ex we would want DX2 to have the same style, and thus hope that Alex would adopt the same style as JC. I wouldn't want him to be a gangster. While it is realistic to be able to hold two guns, it is also realistic for Alex to be a martial arts master and turn him into a street fighter, but that is a bit silly, because that is not Alex's or DX2's style! A pistol-orientated player would not benefit from dual pistols if it were modelled realistically by incorporating the inaccuracies and reloading times. Is suppressive fire the only point you have for dual pistols? The AI can't even respond properly, and even if they can, suppressive fire is not too useful for single player. Once the AI are alerted, the player have to kill them all or risk getting shot in the back. Don't forget that players who have cloak or gas grenades can just use them instead of suppressive fire. Picasso, I don't want to sound like I disagree with everything you say. I know you have a decent knowledge of firearms, but I am not convinced enough, and still hate the idea of dual pistols.
I actually quite liked what Captainclone said. His points are right, but for me, they are not enough to outweigh the negative style it projects on JC. That is my opinion and why I dislike dual pistols.
Picasso on 7/7/2002 at 23:18
Quote:
Secondly at the moment, I am not so sure if DX2's AI understands the idea of suppressive fire.
I remember reading somewhere that if there are 20 soldiers patrolling a level, and if you stalk and kill 19 of them, the last one "won't be in very good shape".
That specific tidbit isn't really relevant to the topic at hand, except to show that AI is undergoing some great improvements in DX2. It's being completely redone, and a good bit of it is being shared with Thief 3. In fact, Warren Spector has stated that some of the biggest mistakes they made in DX1 were with the AI, and it certainly seems like they've learned from their expriences.
I feel certain that the A.I. in DX2 will be top-notch, and better than any of us expect. Personally, if being shot at doesn't intimidate the A.I., or at least negatively affect their accuracy, I will be disappointed.
Quote:
Anyway with an MP5 set to single fire,
Sure, I 'd prefer an MP5 set to semi-auto too, in that situation. In our example, though, we were discussing the Ingram, which (I believe) doesn't do semi-auto. The point I was trying to make is that, while keeping a steady amount of suppressive fire going, two pistols will last you longer than a full-auto submachine gun (even if you try bursting it). I could be wrong, though, I'm not sure what exactly the Ingram can and can't do, firing-rate wise.
And of course it's still a moot point, because, again, pistol-oriented characters wn't normally be carrying around SMG's. Of course dual pistols are only going to be useful to character that carries only (or mainly) pistols, and that carrying an MP5, or a Assault Rifle, or whatever will make that option obsolete. It's not for everyone.
Quote:
this style is completely unprofessional.
I think that the "Professionality" is part of your own personal style, not DX2's. If The Powers That Be behind DX1 had specifically wanted you to act professionally, they would have found a way to punish you for slaughtering civilians and animals, even if it were just a penalty in skill points, or something.
I quote from the (
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20001206/spector_01.htm) Deus Ex Postmortem:
Quote:
It's all about how you interact with a relatively complex environment in ways that you find interesting (rather than in ways the developers think are interesting), and in ways that move you closer to accomplishing your goals (not the developers' goals).
And:
Quote:
The idea was to create a believable world and then offer game systems that encouraged players to explore that world in whatever way or ways they chose.
The game would tune itself (however slightly) to the player's play style rather than forcing the developers' desired play style on players. We were tired of games that kept us on rails, offering the illusion of freedom and interactivity but without the reality, and we hoped players were as tired as we were of guessing what developers had in mind. We're a long way from being able to create a game in which players are truly free to do whatever they want -- believe me, there's plenty of illusion in Deus Ex -- but we knew we wanted to start taking at least some steps on the road to player control.
If you were specifically intended to act professionally in DX1, during combat you'd move and fire in groups. You'd aim for center mass, not the head. There wouldn't be any of this sneaky-lone-wolf-James-Bond-infiltration crap. You wouldn't be allowed to kill people with a sword, or throwing knives, or a crowbar.
Quote:
A pistol-orientated player would not benefit from dual pistols if it were modelled realistically by incorporating the inaccuracies and reloading times.
I disagree. It gives them more tactical options, and more options is never a bad thing.
Anyway, enough of all that. Another suggestion I've been thinking about is enemy reinforcements.
I think IGI was the game that was lambasted for horrible AI, and one of the gripes was the enemy reinforcements. You could clear an enemy barracks of soldiers, but a few minutes later a half-dozen more guys would spontaneously spawn into it. I'm not talking about that.
I'm saying that if you're in MJ12's Hong Kong Helibase, and you're slaughtering troopers left and right, every alarm has gone off, you're raising hell with a flamethrower and generally blasting the place apart, it's not illogical to assume that in such an area where MJ12 has so much influence, they might choose to send a few soldiers as backup. I mean, they have a huge lab and universal constructor beneath Versalife only a block or so away, and even though the helibase sends alarms and distress signals until hell freezes over, nobody bothers to send a few guys up through the elevator to help out?
Stealthy players wouldn't have to worry about this: If you can incapacitate the population of an enemy base without setting off an alarm, then not having any reinforcements is both logical and a plus. And if you specifically want more people to kill, you can hit the alarm yourself. If you're a soldier-kill-em-all type, however, all those reinforcements are basically rewarding you by giving you more people to kill! Hurrah!
Anyway...
Amorpheus on 8/7/2002 at 04:57
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker As I have said already, the combat system in Deus Ex demonstrated an effort for realism.Not that much. You can clearly see that it had less priority than gameplay balance - which the addition of a dual pistol option for pistol-oriented characters would mainly be.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I took the time and effort to answer these because I wanted to highlight your inability to differentiate the differences between something that is unlikely and something that is impossible. Fiction is the exploration of something unlikely, but not impossible. When things that are unlikely happen, it is interesting. When things that are impossible and unrealistic happens it is pathetic. I think it was made clear that Akimbo isn't unrealistic - using it effectively as portrayed in movies is. I would dare to say it's totally realistic to use them efficiently in combination with a targeting augmentation, like the one in DX1.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker However Deus Ex is not about these things so it should be left out. I keep repeating this analogy because I think it is good. Some people love chilli sauce. It is great to add it to burgers and noodles, but just because it tastes nice does not mean you add it to creamy cuisine or vegetable salad. Deus Ex has a degree of combat realism that is ruined by the use of dual pistols.And what is the problem if some like their food that way? It's not like
you have to eat it. To say DX isn't about customization and player freedom is simply wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Most of your argument for dual pistols is very poor. It is mainly "I want it, who the hell are you to tell me what is allowed" attitude.And yours is mainly that it's unrealistic(see above) and highly pathetic - which I assume is the biggest reason why you keep on arguing so rabidly why it's awful for DX if others were given the option to use them.
