Yeah I say play it (and most likely in my case love it) and then judge it. Call me crazy.Ack wrote:There was some mention on the RPS article about this trailer that it may fall into a typical trap for stealth games, where it shows the action-packed parts as opposed to the stealth action that takes up most of the gameplay.
I can't remember where I read/heard it, but I believe that seeing inside the lock and directly manipulating the tumblers is only available by utilizing Focus, which can be disabled. Otherwise, I think it's just audio cues.Menegrothx wrote:1. Lock picking mini game=You don't need to worry about your surroundings when picking locks.
I'm pretty sure the only possible take-down is from above. That said, I agree with Stark. Don't like Takedowns? Don't use them. No one is forcing you to play one way or another.Menegrothx wrote:Games today are so keen on "empowering the player", the bad thing is that it ruins the atmosphere and challenge in a stealth game, when the purpose of the game is to make the player weak and scared of engaging with enemies.Stark wrote:Again, this is a trailer and the way it is cut does not indicate for sure that you hop on a guy and press a button and he's taken down. There is clearly a cut in the action for the trailer's sake. I don't see how you can judge this accurately until you play the game.
Garret states in the trailer that the mob trying to storm the manor is responsible for the fire and the bridge collapse. He's simply trying to escape.Menegrothx wrote:3. Shit ton of explosions. Thief games were about staying undetected and leaving as little evidence behind as possible. Explosions and breaking stuff up goes completely against the idea that no one should notice that you even entered the building before it's too late (you've stolen all the valuables and escaped by the time they notice it).Stark wrote:This all seems part of a problem, that seems to be independent of Garrett's actions, but it's hard to tell for sure. This bridge is burning down and you have to get to the other side. Sounds exciting to me.
Okay but on this point, I can't be the only one who finds any kind of button prompt icons in games to be pretty annoying? As in, I can't ignore them and do it in most cases.Wispmage wrote:Don't like Takedowns? Don't use them. No one is forcing you to play one way or another.
Yeah, like I was intimating before, these things are hard to judge too harshly until we've played it. Okay, so there's takedowns, but do we know that Garrett doesn't have a blackjack and can't take silently take down enemies like he did before? Nope.Xeogred wrote:Menegrothx and others like myself are just cranky.
Okay but on this point, I can't be the only one who finds any kind of button prompt icons in games to be pretty annoying? As in, I can't ignore them and do it in most cases.Wispmage wrote:Don't like Takedowns? Don't use them. No one is forcing you to play one way or another.
Not sure how I feel about takedowns, but I think they did say in articles the game will really have them (for Stark's point there). It's not like the blackjack mechanics were amazing either, but it was tense having to slowly creep up on enemies and get that close to them before taking them down.
The thing is is that I generally take down everyone in sight in stealth games, not in an explosive way, but slowly one by one I prefer knocking enemies out. So I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I can definitely say I felt like the takedowns in Deus Ex HR were way too much and so easy... the win button as some like to joke. If they trim down that massive range it might be fine. But again, on the flipside I just can't stand ignoring icon prompts and such.
I think in the long run here, as long as Garret doesn't really have any true weapons or too much range stuff, these things might not be a big issue for me. Deus Ex is a little different with guns thrown into the mix.
How is "Looks bad so far"=This game sucks? I'm saying that based on the information given to us so far (screenshots+gameplay trailer), it does not look very promising so far, though the actual finished product might be different.Stark wrote: Yeah I say play it (and most likely in my case love it) and then judge it. Call me crazy.
So cameras that magically appear behind your back to show what's behind a corner aren't in any way unrealistic or immersion breaking, when most of the game is played from a first person perspective?Stark wrote: I don't see this as killing immersion. I also don't think the original intent was for immersion, it was because that was the capabilities of the engine. I doubt you could even go up to a mirror in Thief because Garrett wasn't even rendered.
That is stupid. If the feature is in the game, it means it's meant to be used. That means the game is designed accordingly. Just because I dislike cover based shooting as a gameplay mechanic does not mean that I'm not going to use any cover when playing a cover based shooter. It'd be suicide, because the challenge and levels in cover based shooters are designed knowing that players will stick to cover as much as possible. If you add meaningless features to your game, then as a designer you are doing something wrong.Wispmage wrote:I'm pretty sure the only possible take-down is from above. That said, I agree with Stark. Don't like Takedowns? Don't use them. No one is forcing you to play one way or another.
I also didn't say you said the game sucks, I'm saying you're judging a game that's not out yet, based on a trailer that is cut to appeal to certain gamers.Menegrothx wrote:How is "Looks bad so far"=This game sucks? I'm saying that based on the information given to us so far (screenshots+gameplay trailer), it does not look very promising so far, though the actual finished product might be different.Stark wrote: Yeah I say play it (and most likely in my case love it) and then judge it. Call me crazy.
Dude, no. You're talking about "emergent" gameplay a couple of posts ago and then this? I'm confused. The games of this era were about gameplay choice. You could go through all of Thief without even so much as knocking someone out, but you could kill someone with a fire arrow. It's not a meaningless feature, it's just a way you could play if you want.Menegrothx wrote:That is stupid. If the feature is in the game, it means it's meant to be used. That means the game is designed accordingly. Just because I dislike cover based shooting as a gameplay mechanic does not mean that I'm not going to use any cover when playing a cover based shooter. It'd be suicide, because the challenge and levels in cover based shooters are designed knowing that players will stick to cover as much as possible. If you add meaningless features to your game, then as a designer you are doing something wrong.
I'd agree with you in that third person can break immersion. However, as far as making the actual stealth too easy, you should realize that the third person you've shown from DX:HR is during actual gameplay. The third person view shown in the Thief trailer was for a cutscene. There will be no third person camera options during gameplay, so you won't have to worry about the 'peek around the corner with the camera' technique.Menegrothx wrote:So cameras that magically appear behind your back to show what's behind a corner aren't in any way unrealistic or immersion breaking, when most of the game is played from a first person perspective?
Not only is third person view in a game like this immersion breaking because it turns you from the character to a spectator, third person view also makes stealth way too easy. Adam Jensen is literally staring at a wall in that picture. How the hell would he know that there's a security camera and enemy up ahead?
Comparing cover based shooters to stealth games is like comparing apples to oranges. Cover based shooters are largely linear and absolutely require you to utilize the cover in order to survive. Stealth games, however, and Thief in particular, are typically designed to accommodate different play styles and different paths to objectives. If a feature is in a game like this, it's meant to be used if you want to use it. The devs have repeatedly stated that if you want to ghost through levels, you're encouraged to do so. Takedowns are completely optional. And to Xeogred's point, I would agree that the prompts can be distracting, and shouldn't be so incredibly obvious. However, I think I have any easier time of ignoring them when they're presented to me.Menegrothx wrote:That is stupid. If the feature is in the game, it means it's meant to be used. That means the game is designed accordingly. Just because I dislike cover based shooting as a gameplay mechanic does not mean that I'm not going to use any cover when playing a cover based shooter. It'd be suicide, because the challenge and levels in cover based shooters are designed knowing that players will stick to cover as much as possible. If you add meaningless features to your game, then as a designer you are doing something wrong.Wispmage wrote:I'm pretty sure the only possible take-down is from above. That said, I agree with Stark. Don't like Takedowns? Don't use them. No one is forcing you to play one way or another.
