"Second best stealth game after Thief" is actually a pretty good topic for a thread.

[Lancehead]

Rereading DefJam's post, to me that partly defines "immersion". Immersion has more to with the ways the player can interact with his environment than visuals or art direction which only help complete the experience. One other aspect of immersion that Thief games did very well was the sound design which was modelled after real sound propagation taking into account distance travelled and different mediums it travels through. This was immersive not because it was realistic (well, it was, ultimately) but because it opened up new ways of interaction.

For example, consider the player hears footsteps of a guard from the upcoming chamber. The player can come out into the open or take a peak to see where the guard is, but if the player does not want to risk detection because there are no shadowy corners, he can rely on sound to estimate the guard's position. Not only that, an attentive player can map out the patrol path of the guard, approximate the different surfaces in the chamber, and perhaps even sketch out the layout of the chamber.

On the other hand, in our sticky cover tpp game, you simply enter cover.

 

[Silva]

Nah. Immersion is too subjective. I can fart in your face right now and you can get immersed the farm of your old granny, when you woke in the morning with the smell of cow shit.

fake edit: Just remembered that Nintendo 64 had a stealth game too - Mission Impossible. In the game you had a device called "Facemaker" that let you copy faces of enemies to infiltrate complexes.

 

[Roguey]

Hmmm... ok, I agree with DefJam now.

What he is advocating sounds like a kind of emergence in gameplay. And Im all for that.

"Emergence" in gameplay results in breaking a level's geometry because you jumped on a roof you weren't supposed to. Everything must be accounted for.

 

[Bilgefar]

"Emergence" in gameplay results in breaking a level's geometry because you jumped on a roof you weren't supposed to. Everything must be accounted for.

This is an idiotic statement, not just because everything is never accounted for in even the most bug free, least emergent game. Accounting for everything in an emergent game is of course, impossible, because if the developers could account for everything the players could do, it wouldn't be emergence. So what, just don't make games emergent at all because you can't account for everything?

Here's an anecdote I remember from Thief's development. One of the Beta testers managed to climb into a place the level designer never for a minute thought a person could get to. Unfortunately, once there, there was no way out of that place. So what did the level designer do? Instead of blocking that area off, he added a ladder so you could get back out if you managed to get there. Now, obviously they weren't going to find all of the places in the game like that, because Thief gives you enough tools and the levels are open enough so that there's an enormous number of things a player could do and it's impossible to test them all. What that doesn't mean, is that you should try to narrow down the tools and the levels to make sure that some players who try to explore and find new means of doing things don't get stuck or don't break the level geometry, because that would also means taking away the real emergence that the game has.

I've broken the game trying to find things once or twice too. It's not a very common occurrence but it does happen. The number of times I found a solution in the game that felt organic and not simply placed there by the developer is far, far higher, and made playing the game a lot more fun. That's easily worth a little broken level geometry.

 

[FeelTheRads]

"Emergence" in gameplay results in breaking a level's geometry because you jumped on a roof you weren't supposed to. Everything must be accounted for.

Typical next-gen retardation. Hey, let's remove everything because it might cause problems. So much fun.

 

[Volrath]

Hmmm... ok, I agree with DefJam now.

What he is advocating sounds like a kind of emergence in gameplay. And Im all for that.

"Emergence" in gameplay results in breaking a level's geometry because you jumped on a roof you weren't supposed to. Everything must be accounted for.

You utter utter moron, do you even realise what you're saying?

 

[Roguey]

The number of times I found a solution in the game that felt organic and not simply placed there by the developer is far, far higher, and made playing the game a lot more fun. That's easily worth a little broken level geometry.

But it's all placed there by the developer. Illuuuuuuuuuuuusion.

Anyway it looks like a demonstration of why a third person camera is no different from leaning or observing from shadows is in order:

Here's Jensen observing a couple of guards from the safety of cover. They finish talking and the one on the right starts walking right. Jensen remains rooted right where he is.

What's this? He was spotted! But you guise said hiding behind cover makes you 100% safe forever unlike sweet nostalgia games like Thief where you sometimes have to move from a spot to avoid detection!

Now some of youse might say "But you have a radar in the lefthand corner there! You don't neeeeeeeeed to hide behind cover to see where they are." That's true for this particular situation. Here's another.

The radar shows the robot, the guy on the ground, and one of the soldiers up above on the left. It doesn't show the other guy on the ground farther away or the other guy up above on the right. You need to be able to see all these guys to make an informed decision about your plan to get through them.

Since I used illustrated concrete examples and everything, any more hypothetical hogwash is going to be white noise to me.

 

[FeelTheRads]

anything resembling reason is going to be white noise to me.

Fixed.

 

[Ninjerk]

Just stick to quoting Sawyer.

 

[Roguey]

All right that's two people who chose empty one-liners over an actual attempt at a rebuttal.

 

[Mofleaker]

Well done, you managed to pick one of maybe 3 or 4 situations in which you couldn't rely on the radar in HR. I considered HR to be my favourite game of all time after I played it (which changed after I played the original Deus Ex...and then again after I played Thief). It's for sure a great game. But you're trying making it something it isn't: a good stealth game (or one on par with thief ).

I, like everybody who played stealth in HR, spent most of my stealth playthrough staring at the shitty wallhax radar. Considering most of the game consists of small office areas and corridors, the radar covers you in most every case.

From what I remember, the only "informed decisions" I made were "go through the blatantly obvious vent over there to avoid everything ever".

 

[tuluse]

I have nothing to rebutt against. I never said 3rd person stealth doesn't work at all. I said Thief's first person stealth had two things that differentiated from 3rd person view mode.

 

[agentorange]

I am staring into a wall, in a room with a closed door, but I can see my objective and three guards on the minimap.

Note that I am in the high alert state. No one seems to see me through these bars; I stayed like this for about 15 seconds, the guards just kept passing by on their assigned routes. I can also see like every enemy and the securitron on my minimap, without having to take the risk of getting out of cover. I also kept doing that thing where you leap from one piece of cover to the next, the guard would turn my way for like a second then go back to patrolling.

I am still in an alert state but neither of these guards see me.

 

[DefJam101]

Hmmm... ok, I agree with DefJam now.

What he is advocating sounds like a kind of emergence in gameplay. And Im all for that.

"Emergence" in gameplay results in breaking a level's geometry because you jumped on a roof you weren't supposed to. Everything must be accounted for.

The number of times I found a solution in the game that felt organic and not simply placed there by the developer is far, far higher, and made playing the game a lot more fun. That's easily worth a little broken level geometry.

But it's all placed there by the developer. Illuuuuuuuuuuuusion.

So let's think about this for just one second.

You're saying that emergent gameplay is bad, because it allows the player to do things the developers haven't anticipated (jump on a roof you're not supposed to).

You're simultaneously saying that "finding solutions that weren't simply placed there by the developer" is an illusion.

Anyway it looks like a demonstration of why a third person camera is no different from leaning or observing from shadows is in order:

A first person leaner would not even be able to see the right guard from this angle. Moreover, I never said that leaning from the shadows was "functionally different" from third person snooping, so not only is your example poorly chosen, it's also completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. Please stop trying to roll the topic of discussion back two pages just because you said something silly. Thanks. ^_^

All right that's two people who chose empty one-liners over an actual attempt at a rebuttal.

You've yet to respond to any of my distinctly not-one-liner posts with messages over one line. So, like, while it's highly possible you're eventually going to post yet another one-liner declaring how no one can refute your brilliant arguments, the unfortunate reality for your future credibility is that those posts aren't going to disappear when you hit the reply button.

 

[Ninjerk]

Seriously, who gives a fuck about the dumbshit radar? You can never look at the radar and be just fine because you get third-person god camera.

 

[Declinator]

I remember my first third-person stealh game: Hitman.
The first time I noticed that I could see everything on the other side of a wall with the hitman himself certainly unable to see all of that...I wasn't sure if it was a bug or what but it just felt like cheating.

Anyway it looks like a demonstration of why a third person camera is no different from leaning or observing from shadows is in order:

Here's Jensen observing a couple of guards from the safety of cover. They finish talking and the one on the right starts walking right. Jensen remains rooted right where he is.

What's this? He was spotted! But you guise said hiding behind cover makes you 100% safe forever unlike sweet nostalgia games like Thief where you sometimes have to move from a spot to avoid detection!

If I understood the space correctly it's like this:

And quite frankly even if none of this was true the switching between first person and third person is annoying and jarring. Of course your mileage may vary.
There is also the fact that you must press and hold a key to stick to the wall (or put it to toggle which is even worse) whereas in first person you just walk up to the wall. Of course if you lean you must hold q/e but it certainly feels less uncontrolled and artificial as all movement is directly in my control.

 

[Roguey]

It's for sure a great game. But you're trying making it something it isn't: a good stealth game (or one on par with thief ).

It's a good stealth game because you can make observations from safety and then execute your plan. It also has more gameplay beadth overall than Thief even if the stealth mechanics in particular don't match it.

From what I remember, the only "informed decisions" I made were "go through the blatantly obvious vent over there to avoid everything ever".

This doesn't match my experience.

images and words

Your problem is with AI. I can find similar dumb AI things in Thief.

So let's think about this for just one second.

You're saying that emergent gameplay is bad, because it allows the player to do things the developers haven't anticipated (jump on a roof you're not supposed to).

You're simultaneously saying that "finding solutions that weren't simply placed there by the developer" is an illusion.

If you solve a problem then obviously the designer expected you to solve that problem and gave you the tools required to do so.

A first person leaner would not even be able to see the right guard from this angle.

He could if he was closer.

Moreover, I never said that leaning from the shadows was "functionally different" from third person snooping, so not only is your example poorly chosen, it's also completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. Please stop trying to roll the topic of discussion back two pages just because you said something silly. Thanks. ^_^

I believe you said "one is fun and the other isn't because I'm autistic."

You've yet to respond to any of my distinctly not-one-liner posts with messages over one line. So, like, while it's highly possible you're eventually going to post yet another one-liner declaring how no one can refute your brilliant arguments, the unfortunate reality for your future credibility is that those posts aren't going to disappear when you hit the reply button.

There's more substance in my brevity than any of those.

The first time I noticed that I could see everything on the other side of a wall with the hitman himself certainly unable to see all of that...I wasn't sure if it was a bug or what but it just felt like cheating.

Does it also feel like cheating when you're standing straight up in deep shadows and observing enemy patterns? That's stealth gameplay. Observing from safety, making a plan, executing it. In my image, if DX:HR were Thief, there'd be a big pool of black instead.

There is also the fact that you must press and hold a key to stick to the wall (or put it to toggle which is even worse) whereas in first person you just walk up to the wall. Of course if you lean you must hold q/e but it certainly feels less uncontrolled and artificial as all movement is directly in my control.

Autism.

 

[JarlFrank]

Since I used illustrated concrete examples and everything, any more hypothetical hogwash is going to be white noise to me.

Third person gives you a wider range of view - if you hide behind a crate and lean to the right, you will not be able to see what is directly above/behind the crate. That robot in your example? It's likely you wouldn't see it because it's hidden behind the crate and leaning doesn't let you look above the crate. Also, leaning can expose you (if you are in a bright light and lean out, you can be seen by guards in Thief) while third person mode keeps you safe behind your cover where enemies in front of you cannot see you, while you *can* see them.

 

[Darth Slaughter]

It's a good stealth game because you can make observations from safety and then execute your plan. It also has more gameplay beadth overall than Thief even if the stealth mechanics in particular don't match it.

By "breadth", I think roguey means that you have options like: stay behind cover, look, plan and execute. So if your plan is getting out of cover and start openly shooting and killing (after stealthly observing your enemies), does that qualify as a "good stealth game"?

 

[Roguey]

Third person gives you a wider range of view - if you hide behind a crate and lean to the right, you will not be able to see what is directly above/behind the crate. That robot in your example? It's likely you wouldn't see it because it's hidden behind the crate and leaning doesn't let you look above the crate. Also, leaning can expose you (if you are in a bright light and lean out, you can be seen by guards in Thief) while third person mode keeps you safe behind your cover where enemies in front of you cannot see you, while you *can* see them.

As I mentioned, if this situation existed in Thief there'd be a big pool of black where you'd be able to make observations from safety. Or if it were Thief 2 you'd be able to throw a scouting orb and see everything. Being caught during the observation phase without it being properly telegraphed = bad thing.

By "breadth", I think roguey means that you have options like: stay behind cover, look, plan and execute. So if your plan is getting out of cover and start openly shooting and killing (after stealthly observing your enemies), does that qualify as a "good stealth game"?

Breadth being the numerous verbs you have at your disposable. Anything you can do within a game. DX:HR is a stealth action game so killing everything should be an option. Jensen is pretty fragile, so openly killing things requires some consideration and is made easier by spec'ing your character for combat.

 

[JarlFrank]

As I mentioned, if this situation existed in Thief there'd be a big pool of black where you'd be able to make observations from safety.

That is just not true. There are plenty of places where there is a well lit area and a guard around the corner, so you can't just hide in the shadow but have to stay behind the wall and either wait for the guard to pass or shoot out a torch with your water arrows to create darkness for you.

 

[FeelTheRads]

All right that's two people who chose empty one-liners over an actual attempt at a rebuttal.

Rebuttal of what? I'm not gonna bother to seriously argue with someone who believes jumping should be removed from games because you might fall through the level. You're a retard of gigantic proportions. Anything you say is white noise to me.

 

[Roguey]

As I mentioned, if this situation existed in Thief there'd be a big pool of black where you'd be able to make observations from safety.

That is just not true. There are plenty of places where there is a well lit area and a guard around the corner, so you can't just hide in the shadow but have to stay behind the wall and either wait for the guard to pass or shoot out a torch with your water arrows to create darkness for you.

Not once was I caught during the observation phase in Thief 1 and 2 because it's always telegraphed. If visual observation isn't possible for whatever reason then there's aural observation by hearing footsteps get closer/farther away and/or whistling/chatter. The focus on sound fell outside of DX:HR's scope but that doesn't mean it couldn't be added to a game where visual observation is done through a third person camera.

 

[JarlFrank]

But don't you see the difference? Aural observation is necessary because you have the limited view of first person perspective. And this is a good thing. It's why some people prefer the stealth gameplay of Thief, which is first person, to third person stealth gameplay. Your limited perspective means that you have to use your tools (water arrows to create darkness, scouting orb to look around corners) and pay more attention to your environment than you would if you had third person view.

 

[Roguey]

Aural observation could be equally necessary when there's no direct way to see your enemies even with a third person camera. DX:HR uses the enemy radar instead.