I liked Art of Theft you made. A half way decent version could no doubtly be made in that Unity 3D engine.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Stealth
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Beyond Good and Evil has all 3. There's 2 types of direct combat: on foot and in the hovercraft; although the direct combat in the hovercraft is a bit of a joke until the finaleWolfram01 said:
at which point it's a spaceship, not a hovercraft.
I don't believe the game really suffers overall, for including all three (plus more) gaming styles. It suffers for being the too-short first part in a trilogy that may never be completed... =[
About the "three corners", I think the first two Gothic games use them all to an extent. (EDIT: Yeah, I know, the third game kinda does it too, but it's not as well implemented. And the Orcs are just wimps!).
When you start, you are too weak to take on virtually very enemy you'll come across, and you'll be running away a lot. As you level up, you start being able to single out one enemy from a pack (which involves some stealth to do properly), but if you try to take on the whole pack you'll be mincemeat in no time. Then, as the game nears the end, you are an unstoppable killing machine who can face an entire platoon of Orcs without a single scratch.
And, different from other RPGs I know, the enemies don't get tougher as you level up; they are all around, and you can bump into powerful ones right at the start if you're not careful.
That is one of the reasons why I love those games so much... And that's why I'm enjoying my new acquisition, Risen, so much as well.
When you start, you are too weak to take on virtually very enemy you'll come across, and you'll be running away a lot. As you level up, you start being able to single out one enemy from a pack (which involves some stealth to do properly), but if you try to take on the whole pack you'll be mincemeat in no time. Then, as the game nears the end, you are an unstoppable killing machine who can face an entire platoon of Orcs without a single scratch.
And, different from other RPGs I know, the enemies don't get tougher as you level up; they are all around, and you can bump into powerful ones right at the start if you're not careful.
That is one of the reasons why I love those games so much... And that's why I'm enjoying my new acquisition, Risen, so much as well.
Once again you've come up with another interesting article Yahtzee. I applaud you for correctly pointing out that anime is a medium and not a genre. I get the impression that this is something that a sizable number of people don't understand. But even so I don't think that the term "animation style" is the best way to describe it because different anime titles generally have their own distinctive visual styles. Or in other words I think you're using the word "style" in too broad a sense. I think a better term might be "kind of animation", or "form of animation", or something like that.
And if games are all about conflict then how exactly do you explain "The Sims"?
And if games are all about conflict then how exactly do you explain "The Sims"?
It's interesting that a few (or maybe one) poster has pointed out Metro 2033 as a game which allows you to organically experience all three corners of the triangle, as I was about to point out STALKER a a game where I have performed similar feats of sneak/evade/murderdeathkill.
Actually, Fallout 3 is another example of the genre. I remember evading many enemies through my early levels, getting sneak kills during the mid levels, and pretty much running up to and murdering face on everything at high levels.
Perhaps apocalyptic games tend to display this triangle is because they are designed to be pseudo-realistic - i.e. ammunition is limited, you can't just duck around the corner and heal up in 5 seconds when you get shot, etc.
Actually, Fallout 3 is another example of the genre. I remember evading many enemies through my early levels, getting sneak kills during the mid levels, and pretty much running up to and murdering face on everything at high levels.
Perhaps apocalyptic games tend to display this triangle is because they are designed to be pseudo-realistic - i.e. ammunition is limited, you can't just duck around the corner and heal up in 5 seconds when you get shot, etc.
Splinter Cell Conviction as a a stealth game was alright, what I actually thought about it was that it was more like the "Predator" gameplay of Batman Arkham Asylum and that it wasnt really about sneakinng past everyone but more of determining when to pop out of the shadows to strike and take people down and thats what I really actually liked about Conviction because it was just Arkham Asylum with guns
Holy hell I HATE when they throw in unneeded stealth into a game, or force you to use stealth. Snooping and pooping isn't acceptable in every game, and while every game doesn't feature it, there are entirely too many that do, and often without good reason.
Splinter Cell has been a thorn in my left butt cheek for a while because of how it forces you to use stealth, even to the point where you CAN'T EVEN KILL SOMEONE.
Granted, the run 'n gun genre is a bit overdone, but occasionally I prefer to spray 'n pray over having to hide behind a box in the shadows for a half an hour before strangling some dingleberry, then getting noticed by someone across the map! There are plenty of flash games that require you to only use stealth, never kill anybody, and make it to a certain point on a map to continue. If you get noticed, you get bum-rushed by everyone on the map.
I didn't like Arkham Asylum because of the level of stealth that was required. Ok, swooping down from the rafters looked cool in the movies, but totally sucks when you are doing it in real time because of how long you have to wait for just the right conditions before jumping down to break some fool's neck and then quickly zipping away before you get noticed. That sucked for me... mostly because I stunk at it. I always thought I had a good opportunity to snap some spines, but I always got caught by another guy and gunned down in short order. Kinda made me hate Batman for a while.
I don't mind a game with a decent cover system... I don't really see much of that in stealth games. Granted, Splinter Cell does feature this, and it has come in handy. But to combine stealth and cover... it almost blurs the line between which is which sometimes, and can actually make playing the game more complicated when the system can't tell which you are trying to do. I feel there should just be two positions behind a cover: either the left or the right. None of this waiting in the middle crap because it usually takes that half a beat before the system realizes you want to peek over the top to shoot someone, and often that is all it takes for them to run around your cover and shoot you in the head while your character is stuck squatting behind a box looking like a sitting duck.
I like Hitman because at least you can kill anybody and everybody who is or appears to be a threat. You can duck into an alley or a room to avoid them or surprise them when they come looking for you. Why this isn't more of a consistent system is beyond me.
Splinter Cell has been a thorn in my left butt cheek for a while because of how it forces you to use stealth, even to the point where you CAN'T EVEN KILL SOMEONE.
Granted, the run 'n gun genre is a bit overdone, but occasionally I prefer to spray 'n pray over having to hide behind a box in the shadows for a half an hour before strangling some dingleberry, then getting noticed by someone across the map! There are plenty of flash games that require you to only use stealth, never kill anybody, and make it to a certain point on a map to continue. If you get noticed, you get bum-rushed by everyone on the map.
I didn't like Arkham Asylum because of the level of stealth that was required. Ok, swooping down from the rafters looked cool in the movies, but totally sucks when you are doing it in real time because of how long you have to wait for just the right conditions before jumping down to break some fool's neck and then quickly zipping away before you get noticed. That sucked for me... mostly because I stunk at it. I always thought I had a good opportunity to snap some spines, but I always got caught by another guy and gunned down in short order. Kinda made me hate Batman for a while.
I don't mind a game with a decent cover system... I don't really see much of that in stealth games. Granted, Splinter Cell does feature this, and it has come in handy. But to combine stealth and cover... it almost blurs the line between which is which sometimes, and can actually make playing the game more complicated when the system can't tell which you are trying to do. I feel there should just be two positions behind a cover: either the left or the right. None of this waiting in the middle crap because it usually takes that half a beat before the system realizes you want to peek over the top to shoot someone, and often that is all it takes for them to run around your cover and shoot you in the head while your character is stuck squatting behind a box looking like a sitting duck.
I like Hitman because at least you can kill anybody and everybody who is or appears to be a threat. You can duck into an alley or a room to avoid them or surprise them when they come looking for you. Why this isn't more of a consistent system is beyond me.
I think Farcry and Crysis do a remarkable job of the 3 act thing. You start out running from everything with a gun (less with Crysis than Farcry) then learn to even it out with stealth, then the enemy becomes either mutants or aliens and you move into straight combat.
See, I understand where Yahtzee is coming from. The other day I was watching my friend play Splinter Cell: Conviction, and I just realized that it's a terrible stealth game. He spent the whole of the first couple of levels to make sure he killed EVERYONE. And he had this annoying tendancy to shoot out all the lights he could, but that's not the point here.
This was my friend's basic gameplay strategy. Sit outside a window, shoot one guy, another guy walks by and immediately yells,"Where are you Fisher?!" Friend shoots him, no one shows up for another 5 minutes. And sometimes he would break this overwhelming tension by busting in and just shooting everything in sight. Wash, rinse, and repeat until the level is complete. Watching my friend play Conviction, shooting countless henchmen, I realized that Conviction, while upholding some basic stealth ideas, is not a stealth game. If one guy sees another dead guy, shouldn't that set off some kinda alarm all across the base? Like Yahtzee says, true stealth doesn't require having to kill anyone.
But watching this, I had a second thought. Is it possible that the video game industry has produced so many action-oriented, shooty shooty games, that most gamers don't know how to sneak properly anymore? I mean, I personally did my best in my playthrough of Conviction to kill as few people as possible. But I digress. Discuss amongst yourselves, what do you all think? Is stealth a dying genre, slowly being swallowed by the action genre?
This was my friend's basic gameplay strategy. Sit outside a window, shoot one guy, another guy walks by and immediately yells,"Where are you Fisher?!" Friend shoots him, no one shows up for another 5 minutes. And sometimes he would break this overwhelming tension by busting in and just shooting everything in sight. Wash, rinse, and repeat until the level is complete. Watching my friend play Conviction, shooting countless henchmen, I realized that Conviction, while upholding some basic stealth ideas, is not a stealth game. If one guy sees another dead guy, shouldn't that set off some kinda alarm all across the base? Like Yahtzee says, true stealth doesn't require having to kill anyone.
But watching this, I had a second thought. Is it possible that the video game industry has produced so many action-oriented, shooty shooty games, that most gamers don't know how to sneak properly anymore? I mean, I personally did my best in my playthrough of Conviction to kill as few people as possible. But I digress. Discuss amongst yourselves, what do you all think? Is stealth a dying genre, slowly being swallowed by the action genre?
I actually saw this article in my head ZP style... that's pretty crazy..
like, you mentioned the 4 possible options of conflict.. and for the 4th option, no attackers, I just saw in my head your ZP avatar and an imp just looking at each other confusedly, shrugging, then going about their day.
like, you mentioned the 4 possible options of conflict.. and for the 4th option, no attackers, I just saw in my head your ZP avatar and an imp just looking at each other confusedly, shrugging, then going about their day.
I must disagree with your assessment that, just because a videogame doesn't tell a story the same way a film does, it is not art. I mean, a film doesn't tell a story the same way that a painting does, nor painting like music, nor music like sculpture, etc etc ad infinitum. Just because one art form doesn't get its 'artiness' across the same way as another medium doesn't mean it doesn't get its 'artiness' across. Moreover, the rather vague definitions of art make it very hard to say that something is NOT art, especially if it is visually intriguing and gives the person viewing/listening/sensing it strong emotional response.
Splinter Cell isn't really a stealth series, it's a time travel series. You get a long path of obstacles put at specific points with the intention that that spot provides a specific obstacle...of course you don't figure it out, a guard spots you, sounds the alarm, and Lambert yells at you...then you hit your reverse time button and go back to the checkpoint, knowing that obstacle on your next run through that section of the level, shoot the guard before he can spot you, go down a corner and get shot by the next one, warp back. Kill the first guard, shoot the light so the next one won't see you and then wait for him to walk his preset path for you, kabonk him, make it into the next room, get spotted by someone looking through a window, warp back.
That's what kind of bothers me about Splinter Cell stealth, it's less about employing stealth skill than figuring out what the specific obstacle points are and using the specific moves that the game wants you to use to defeat that specific obstacle. PT onward that is, I loved the original game, but that's mostly because I played it with the benefit of Quicksave and Quickload.
Oh, and will people stop blowing what he said about "Ebert was right" out of proportion: he was just making a (extremely cogent and very, very good) point about narrative style using hyperbole...please pop your monocles back in.
That's what kind of bothers me about Splinter Cell stealth, it's less about employing stealth skill than figuring out what the specific obstacle points are and using the specific moves that the game wants you to use to defeat that specific obstacle. PT onward that is, I loved the original game, but that's mostly because I played it with the benefit of Quicksave and Quickload.
Oh, and will people stop blowing what he said about "Ebert was right" out of proportion: he was just making a (extremely cogent and very, very good) point about narrative style using hyperbole...please pop your monocles back in.
I agree that it's difficult to properly implement the three-act story telling system in a game. Because indeed the player needs to win and win. But there is possibility to pass a challenge by failing, right? For instance I really enjoyed the plot in GTA IV: you start off at the very bottom, than get things going a little bit, then thugs burn down your house and you start over again, to eventually get back to them.