hexarith on 25/3/2007 at 15:10
Quote Posted by sparhawk
People believed that D3 can not do open spaces, because in the game D3 they saw mostly corridors. Well, I don't expect to much open spaces in such an environment, because a space station is built with extreme effeciency in mind. HL2 played a lot in outdoor areas, so of course it is to be expected that you see open areas. But from that, it doesn't neccessarily follow that the engine can not do one or the other. You have to observe very carefully to see wether an engine can really do something, or if it just has been faked. As an example - From such observertion I definitely know that HL2 can not do shadows well, even though it looks ok in most cases.
Just have a look on FarCry/CryEngine (BTW, although being a shooter, stealth is essential if you want to survive on the Veteran difficulty level). In FarCry you had a lot of confined spaces, but the huge outside areas were most awesome.
The AI is mostly unscripted, and doesn't even require "info nodes" like the AI in HL[2]. This can be best seen, when using the "Sandbox" editor: You build some map, place some NPCs, 2 vehicles, maybe a helicopter and push a button and you can testplay the map directly within the editor. Without doing some scripting stuff on the map the NPCs will use the vehicles and the helicopter and make your life a bit difficult. Instead the AI of each NPC contains a set of behaviour patterns, that are accessed and mixed depending on the situation.
Of course there are some scripts, but mostly to push the player into certain situations. E.g. in the Swamp level you're chased some trucks and a helicopter, and their movement are purely scripted, but the movement of the truck you've to defend with the on board cannon is scripted, too, so this is ok.
imperialreign on 25/3/2007 at 20:16
Quote:
And I really don't think Doom3 should ever be mentioned when talking about a good FPS. The graphics are of a high standard but the gameplay and the design, even the art direction, is pretty mediocre.
I'd have to partially agree; the design throughout most of the game was extremelly repetitive, and once you "learned" [id]'s event triggers, it became very easy to predict when and where the next AI spawns were going to come at you, and that, IMO, is what really brought the overall impression of D3 down.
The only reason I brought Doom3 into the mix was because it was a massive hit, [id]'s programs typically are, and it set the FPS level a little higher when it was released.
vx D3, though . . . Quake4 didn't really help it out much, actually, I thought Quake4 really hurt my impressions of the D3 game and game engine. Q4 proved the D3 engine can do open spaces (I remember hearing that rumor, too), but proved also that the game engine tends to not do a lot of light well, or many AI or effects (as in it slows down the game immensly).
but, [id] games have never really been known for "advanced" AI, either. Even though they claim this and that about their AI in D3, I can't see a difference really between the AI in D3 versus Q1. Until I can actually see the source code, though . . .
sparhawk on 27/3/2007 at 11:09
Comparing the AI with Q1 is a bit unfair, as it is definitely a bit more advanced. :) In Q3 they had a pretty good AI IMO, at least as far as the challenge for a shooter is concerned. It wouldn't really help in a stealth game though, but it was never designed for this anway.
kewlazme on 27/3/2007 at 17:34
Quote Posted by poroshin
Pure stealth games haven't taken off (I don't even know others other than Thief), because the general public doesn't want to take the time and patience it takes to play these games right. Most people can't grasp this concept. I watched a friend of mine try to get into Thief. It was pitiful. Running all over the place with the sword, etc.
I agree.. Patience and strategic gameplay is a virtue that grasps only a small handful (relatively speaking) of gamers. Most get bored easily or get irritated and lose their cool. And most just want to hold down that fire button, close their eyes, and run around in circles.... those
simple minded types of people just like it quick and simple.
Quote Posted by Vigil
That's like saying that golf games haven't taken off because the general public doesn't want to take the time and patience it takes to play these games right.
Some people just don't like golf.
Well both are correct, some dont like golf, and some don't have the patience. Plus there is a missing feeling to that kind of game.... and nowadays we are seeing a trend of games that own or control others. Madden is the ONLY football game now. Golden Tee is the preferred choice compared to console or pc golf games.. Its just a cornered market in some cases.
But I think people also like a bit of a choice. You could sneak thru, snapping necks quietly, or you strap on your fire arrows, or mp5s, or minigun and goto town. Plus making a run-n-shoot AI is a hell of a lot easier than coding AI to not see you and not hear you and not know where you are... that takes a hell of a lot more money and skill and most game companies want the quick buck with some flashy graphics.
Zapmeister on 27/3/2007 at 22:43
Quote Posted by kewlazme
I agree.. Patience and strategic gameplay is a virtue that grasps only a small handful (relatively speaking) of gamers.
I say again - this just doesn't grok with the fact that Thief sold very well. It made millions of dollars for LGS and temporarily saved them from financial collapse. That wouldn't have happened if the market didn't have enough patience for stealth games.
sparhawk on 28/3/2007 at 11:06
Also strategy games, while maybe not in the top, are still doing rather well. Operation Flashpoint seemed also to do very well, so I don't think that it can be just blamed on impatient gamers.
I really think that the publishers are cutting monmey in development for profits, because looking at the marketing numbers, I don't really see support for the claim that gamers don't accept such games.
kewlazme on 28/3/2007 at 15:47
Quote Posted by Zapmeister
I say again - this just doesn't grok with the fact that Thief sold very well. It made millions of dollars for LGS and temporarily saved them from financial collapse. That wouldn't have happened if the market didn't have enough patience for stealth games.
Well compartively (and I don't know the actual numbers so its just a guesstimate), I'd have to think the Unreal Tournament series, HalfLife, hL2, Doom, and a handful of other run-n-gun games have outsold Thief sales tenfold. Sadly its the early adolescents that takes a decent chunk of that as they are able to run-n-gun, but not quite
tactical patient enough for strategic thought.
Vancore on 29/3/2007 at 08:45
We are an untapped market, plain and simple.
Shooters are popular cause they are simple. The people in the industry that do this for profit understand that concept pretty well so undoubtable they'll get the go ahead most the time. Some are good most are bad. Trying to pitch the stealth concept is just a bit tougher so its less likely to get the go ahead in the first place. Not saying it can't be pitched I just don't think anyones tried hard enough to pitch it.
Zapmeister on 29/3/2007 at 10:22
Quote Posted by Vancore
The people in the industry that do this for profit understand that concept pretty well so undoubtable they'll get the go ahead most the time. Some are good most are bad. Trying to pitch the stealth concept is just a bit tougher so its less likely to get the go ahead in the first place. Not saying it can't be pitched I just don't think anyones tried hard enough to pitch it.
I also think this is the most likely explanation.
Ziemanskye on 29/3/2007 at 15:17
Not to mention it's hard to come up with a decent stealth concept to pitch.
We've got Splinter Cell for "real" world spy.
We've got Metal Gear Solid for "almost real, but more cold war and +/- 30 years setting" world spy.
We've got Hitman for the "other side" and being technically the badguy in a modern setting.
We've got Thief (and DMMoM, and any Neverwinter games - no matter that the rules/implementaion isn't great: it's there) for Fantasy.
And of course Stolen completely screwed the pooch on anyone getting a Non-lethal Modern game done (at least not without a massive uphill battle).
Of course there's things like S.W.A.T. and the better Tom Clancy games for more tactical "stealth" - at least to the extent of getting the drop on folk.
Riddick and the upcoming The Darkness do the sci-fantasy/comic book settings, and seem to be in good hands for it.
Assasin's Creed for more medieval stuff in the near future.
Manhunt, and the upcoming sequal for the brutality mode, and the facets of it that GTA: SA and The Warriors borrowed, and Bully/Canis Canem Edit might have (can't rememeber)
Most videogames are at least adopting basic line-of-sight and audio-proximity checks so there's soft stealth there.
Oh, and of couse you *can* kill or blackjack damn near everyone in Thief - in all of the games - so it's not like it's so singular in it's mechanics either.
We aren't short on games with a stealth component, but it is hard to come up with a pitch original enough for a stealth-centric game.
