Poll: do stealth games need more kills?

[spacecowboy86]

I like stealth and assassination games like assassin's creed but i've been thinking that i want more. All the kills you get in games like that are only one or two guys at a time. I want to know what you guys think about this idea: a stealth game where you attack groups, battalions, maybe even armies at a time. kind of like a convoy ambush but with infantry. so i want to know your opinion on a stealth game where jump out trees at the least expected moment, maybe have a few traps out, and slaughter and unsuspecting battalion with some sort of confusion mechanic kicking in so that the enemies don't even understand what's going on enough to pull their weapons, making killing them as easy as an assassination in any other stealth game. please comment.

EDIT: also, to balance the difficulty, when they finally do gather their wits, they'll be really tough so you want kill as many as possible before they recover

EDIT EDIT: you've all made it clear this wouldn't count as a stealth game so think of it now as an action game where you kill with tactics and suprise instead of brute force.

 

[Pimppeter2]

A stealth game were you ambush large groups of enemies?

I sense a conundrum.

 

[Cheery Lunatic]

A stealth game were you ambush large groups of enemies?

I sense a conundrum.

Beat me to it. Dammit.

 

[Insanum]

The thing is, The idea of Stealth[/B] is that you take people out without the others noticing.

Unless your taking on the army of the deaf & blind i dont think you can manage what you want.

 

[Zacharine]

What I want is a new stealth game period.

Let's be clear, Screed II is not a stealth game. Wayyyyyyyyyy too much combat out in the open with swords.

What we need is the spiritual, well executed successor for Thief II.

 

[rockingnic]

Aren't stealth games suppose to be stealth kills? Ambush is more of surprise than stealth. And it's impossible to kill a convoy stealth without guys already trying to shoot, you'd have to kill all of them in seconds with what? A gun? You would need a bomb. A good stealth game would have multiple ways to reach your objective, rather than one or two, tons of tools and satisfy kills. They don't need more kills, they need more rewarding kills.

 

[spacecowboy86]

A stealth game were you ambush large groups of enemies?

I sense a conundrum.

Beat me to it. Dammit.

sorry, what?

The thing is, The idea of Stealth[/B] is that you take people out without the others noticing.

Unless your taking on the army of the deaf & blind i dont think you can manage what you want.

i didn't explain this but thats kind of something you can use the last poll option for, saying that if this game where to exist, it couldn't go under the stealth category

 

[Kanlic]

What you are talking about is a game that focuses on ambushes, not stealth. That could be a good idea for a hybrid of RTS and hack-and-slash, but as a stealth game, no way

 

[spacecowboy86]

Aren't stealth games suppose to be stealth kills? Ambush is more of surprise than stealth. And it's impossible to kill a convoy stealth without guys already trying to shoot, you'd have to kill all of them in seconds with what? A gun? You would need a bomb. A good stealth game would have multiple ways to reach your objective, rather than one or two, tons of tools and satisfy kills. They don't need more kills, they need more rewarding kills.

yeah in my idea (another detail left out(sorry,first topic)) you actually set up ambush points with things like charges and traps and things. i'm hoping anyone who creates this game would get creative with these

 

[Zacharine]

Using explosives is the very antithesis of stealth....

The point of stealth is to be unheard, unseen, undetected until you have achieved your objective and then sneaked out, still unheard, undetected. Preferably, no-one will be able to tell you've visited even after you're gone.

Killing at all is pushing this line. Using explosives is going Cthulhu mind-raep on it.

 

[scott91575]

Let's see...1st stage - Kill single file army starting from the back. 2nd stage - end credits since that is the only large group you will be able to successfully kill using stealth (although I guess that deaf and blind thing could be stage 2).

 

[BonsaiK]

I like stealth and assassination games like assassin's creed but i've been thinking that i want more. All the kills you get in games like that are only one or two guys at a time.

Stealth games need less kills, not more.

The Thief games had the right idea, where the "expert" difficulty insists that you kill nobody. Stealth games work best when you use stealth not to kill people but to collect information, frame people, steal things, escape prisons... anything BUT killing people. That's why Thief 2 is considered by so many people to be the definitive stealth game that nobody has surpassed.

 

[spacecowboy86]

Using explosives is the very antithesis of stealth....

The point of stealth is to be unheard, unseen, undetected until you have achieved your objective and then sneaked out, still unheard, undetected. Preferably, no-one will be able to tell you've visited even after you're gone.

Killing at all is pushing this line. Using explosives is going Cthulhu mind-raep on it.

it worked in arkham asylum...

Let's see...1st stage - Kill single file army starting from the back. 2nd stage - end credits since that is the only large group you will be able to successfully kill using stealth (although I guess that deaf and blind thing could be stage 2).

okay guys i get it! it doesn't count as stealth! but still consider it as a game where you kill enemies with suprise and tactics instead of brute force.

 

[insectoid]

You're not even talking about stealth...you're talking about ambushing and surprise tactics. Yes, a game using those mechanics certainly could be fun, but it's not stealth.

 

[Zacharine]

it worked in arkham asylum...

You chose a poor example, as Arkham Asylym is not a stealth game. It has some stealth elements in it, but if it were a stealth game, you would not see any combat until the final meeting with Joker. And even then only to lure him into a trap and cart him back to his cell without throwing a single punch. Failing to do this should result in every single escaped convict knowing you location from accross the island as the first person disappearing starts a chain of radio-calls redirecting them all to your location.

And then getting swamped by the few hundred fire-arm wielding thugs.

AA is a combat game. It's almost a Smash 'Em.

Even Deus Ex did stealth better, as you did not have to kill any enemies to beat it. And in fact several solutions were a lot easier when you did not let the enemy know you were there at all.

 

[jedizero]

Personally, I would prefer an option to kill who I want, or if I'm in a charitable mood, not killing.

For example: I'm in a bad mood. A guard is getting too close, so I decide to take him out...Quick stab, twist of the neck. He's down...Finally I've calmed down though. And there's another guard ahead. I slip past him, Or knock him out.
Wait. MGS.

Right, adding onto that, I'd like a game that doesn't demand you memorize guard patterns. That adds a bit of...randomness to it.
Let you go forwards best you can and react to situations as they come. Not demand you sit there an hour, watching everyone and memorizing things before you go. People are random. Guards don't follow pre-programmed routes.
That's one reason I loved the stealth sections of MW and MW2, It had a sense of randomness to it.

 

[Zacharine]

Have you by any chance played Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis? In most mission you are a standard soldier, fighting in a squad. On some cases, you take the role of a SpecOps officer.

In both cases, you are a glass cannon. Most of the time, one shot kills you. Same applied to the enemy. Charging the enemy with 'superior firepower' is the easiest way to get killed in that game.

 

[YuheJi]

Aren't stealth games suppose to be stealth kills? Ambush is more of surprise than stealth. And it's impossible to kill a convoy stealth without guys already trying to shoot, you'd have to kill all of them in seconds with what? A gun? You would need a bomb. A good stealth game would have multiple ways to reach your objective, rather than one or two, tons of tools and satisfy kills. They don't need more kills, they need more rewarding kills.

yeah in my idea (another detail left out(sorry,first topic)) you actually set up ambush points with things like charges and traps and things. i'm hoping anyone who creates this game would get creative with these

That sounds more like a game that consists mostly of setting up ambushes. Ambushes doesn't equal stealth.

 

[blue heartless]

Sounds like an RTS.

 

[jedizero]

Have you by any chance played Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis? In most mission you are a standard soldier, fighting in a squad. On some cases, you take the role of a SpecOps officer.

In both cases, you are a glass cannon. Most of the time, one shot kills you. Same applied to the enemy. Charging the enemy with 'superior firepower' is the easiest way to get killed in that game.

No I haven't. I'll have to look into it. But from looking over ARMA 2, Which was very interesting and very nice on the demo, It appears to be FAR too complicated. I'm sorry, I couldn't memorize the million or so buttons on it. I might try it later when the price comes down. Who knows, Maybe I'll be surprised by my capabilities.
But in general, It got a bit....too much.