Mirror's edge, looks promising. - by Fragony
Muzman on 29/9/2008 at 10:55
One does have to sympathise with developers to some extent in all this sort of thing. Endless consternation in any game you can name that the gun stuff isn't as realistic as it could be (as it is here). But take a gander at discussion of games that actually are realistic (or have more naturalistic movement and ballistics) and what do you get? A similar sized litany of complaints that it's not fun, 'I can side step quicker than that in full kit and rifle, I know I was in cadets', debate on bullets travelling too fast, too slow, can't duck or go prone or wall hug or slide down the banisters or do some kung fu gun disabling like you would in real life because you're fucking badd ass.
Every time, without fail. I hope like hell it's not the same people. Anyway, point is; I know that if I'm about 20 meters away from a semi trained pistolier with a .45 I'm probably dead or at least crippled in one fairly easy shot. Hell even running full tilt probably just makes leading the shot easier as I'm moving at a fairly constant speed and can't manouvre. I don't to be reminded of this all the time. While this is the game where badass disabling-fu is on display I bet the fidelity of the simulation still couldn't support the kind of subtle control necessary to fight unarmed against someone with a gun realistically, and do all the other stuff. Certainly not to the realism nuts' satisfaction anyway.
My suspension of disbelief can quite happily accept the idea that if she's moving fast enough everyone just happens to miss; that is very acceptable fiction for a game of this sort. And it's just speculation.
In summ: who cares.
Jashin on 29/9/2008 at 10:56
Quote Posted by catbarf
And honestly, why is it that the idea of not getting hurt by bullets while running offends you, and yet you go and suggest that the enemies fire in a way so that they cannot hit you while you move?
Isn't it obvious? Cus you can abuse it and it kills the thrill.
Chade on 29/9/2008 at 11:03
It's a pity that the "recharging shield" mechanic (ala Halo) has become a bit of a joke, because if they could fit it into the game's fiction, it could actually work quite well in a game like this: providing the player with nice "on-the-fly" short term goals.
Gambit on 29/9/2008 at 11:12
The thrill is still there.
You aren´t running in open plains, you´re running on rooftops.
So it´s a question of choice:
1/ Don´t run so you can plan your route but be vulnerable to shots.
2/ Always run and be invincible to shots but you need fast decisions and a lot of skills to choose your route, get past the obstacles and avoid all falls.
Quote Posted by henke
But mostly it'll be about moving at a fast pace and making split-second decisions to maneuver around tricky obstacles.
That´s the spirit of parkour.
Move as fast and efficiently from point A to point B.
And the mechanics will help those who play parkour-fu.
Thirith on 29/9/2008 at 11:18
Quote Posted by Jashin
Isn't it obvious? Cus you can abuse it and it kills the thrill.
Clearly I can't say whether it works like this in the game, but based on the information we have it looks like the game works as follows:
- When you're really fast, bullets will miss you.
- When you're really fast, it's difficult to navigate your path successfully, i.e. you're more likely to fall off a roof and die horribly.
- When you're slower, bullets will hit you.
- When you're slower, it's easier to navigate your path successfully.
I.e. when you're fast your enemy is the terrain, when you're slow your enemies are bullets.
How does this automatically kill the thrill and how can it be abused? The only way I can see the latter happening is if, say, you run around in circles and can't be shot, but at the same time you're not getting anywhere, so it's not as if you're beating the level.
Edit: Basically my post is a "me too" addition to Gambit's. Sorry. ;)
Koki on 29/9/2008 at 12:56
The problem is that it's not really difficult to navigate when the road you have to follow is marked.
What really pisses me off is that this is another example of devs waving off the logic just so they can make place for the gameplay, instead of taking a look at it and thinking about it as a problem to solve.
For example: Okay, so we need AI to oppose the player. But if we give the AI guns, the player will have no chance of surviving. So let's say the AI can't use guns. Now why wouldn't the AI use guns? Most simple answer to that is that they can't kill the player. Why wouldn't they want to kill the player? Maybe the government needs the player alive for some reason(propaganda, information, whatever). So they won't shoot the player, but they will chase you and try to grab you. Of course the player would have an option to get out of a grab. Maybe later in the game the gov would sent military parkourers against the player and you'd essentially have to run away from them because when they catch you it's over. And finally they could send people with tranq guns, evading a tranq bullet is much more plausible than lead. There are also the net guns, traps start becoming plausible, etc.
I came with all that up in one minute, and not only it makes the game less dumb, it also possibly enriches the gameplay and story. Does that make me good or the devs bad?
Matthew on 29/9/2008 at 13:03
I was under the impression that the road being 'marked' was a function of the difficulty level selected?
Muzman on 29/9/2008 at 13:09
Correct
Shakey-Lo on 29/9/2008 at 13:21
Quote Posted by Koki
The problem is that it's not really difficult to navigate when the road you have to follow is marked.
What really pisses me off is that this is another example of devs waving off the logic just so they can make place for the gameplay, instead of taking a look at it and thinking about it as a problem to solve.
For example: Okay, so we need AI to oppose the player. But if we give the AI guns, the player will have no chance of surviving. So let's say the AI can't use guns. Now why wouldn't the AI use guns? Most simple answer to that is that they can't kill the player. Why wouldn't they want to kill the player? Maybe the government needs the player alive for some reason(propaganda, information, whatever). So they won't shoot the player, but they will chase you and try to grab you. Of course the player would have an option to get out of a grab. Maybe later in the game the gov would sent military parkourers against the player and you'd essentially have to run away from them because when they catch you it's over. And finally they could send people with tranq guns, evading a tranq bullet is much more plausible than lead. There are also the net guns, traps start becoming plausible, etc.
I came with all that up in one minute, and not only it makes the game less dumb, it also possibly enriches the gameplay and story. Does that make me good or the devs bad?
How terribly idealistic and naive.
Do you really think the devs never came up with ideas similar to that? They would have had a bigass brainstorming session listing everything they could come up with. They then have to figure out what is actually feasible.
It's all very well to come up with an idea but to actually have the money, staff and time to implement them at a workable, fun and bug-free level is a heap of work. There is a huge huge gap between an idea and a finished product. Coming up with a one paragraph idea on an internet forum proves nothing.
Ostriig on 29/9/2008 at 14:04
Quote Posted by catbarf
Well, which is the greater evil- immunity to bullets while running fast, or dying every so often completely at random? You can't dodge a bullet in an FPS. It's utterly random whether they hit or not.
Similarly, which of the following would bother your immersion more: being effectively impervious to bullets while you move, or having enemies who aren't all that accurate with firearms? I mean, what does it even matter if they were all gold star sharpshooters if they can't harm you while you run, anyway? It would kind of equate to them missing you with each shot they fired (again, while you were running).
And yes, you can't dodge
a bullet, but you can attempt to dodge/stay out of the general line of fire by keeping on the move, which seems to be the point of the game.
Quote Posted by Jashin
Immunity to bullets is worse.
There's no need for bullet damage to be random at all. You can have the shooters become more and more accurate as the game progresses as you learn to more effectively dodge them.
I'm pretty much thinking along the same lines.
Quote Posted by henke
It looks more like a racing game than an FPS. I'm sure there'll be places of cover where you can pause and catch your breath, scope out the following area, much like the shadows in Thief. But mostly it'll be about moving at a fast pace and making split-second decisions to maneuver around tricky obstacles.
Oh, I'm well aware that you're most likely right. And I'm fine with it, I won't storm back into GAME demanding my money back. What caught my attention with this game were the trailers and the feeling of free movement and speed they conveyed, and I definitely want to try that out. That said, I would like to see alternative ways of play, but I won't be surprised or very disappointed if I don't.
