Stealth
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I agree with breadbinman and JustinA, I don't think it's the mixing of styles that create the lousy games we know it's the reduction in choice. The developers produce a game and state "Go into that room and kill the 20 enemies before we'll let you through" then in the next room "Don't be seen by any of the guards or it's mission over".
Why can't I sneak past the initial guards and kill the others? Because that's not how the developers want to tell the story. It's possible to play both Thief and Hitman as 'shooters' it just comes with penalties and that's what the developers need to do.
So they want me to kill all 20 enemies so instead of making it a pre-requisite; just have them patrol in awkward ways, keep them in radio contact so I can't just kill one without the others running in. In the next level have them check in with HQ at regular intervals; I can try to kill them but I have to stake out the order in which they report, make sure the others don't find any bodies.
In other words make it easier to just have to kill all 20 in the first room and evade the ones in the next, but don't make me have to do it.
Why can't I sneak past the initial guards and kill the others? Because that's not how the developers want to tell the story. It's possible to play both Thief and Hitman as 'shooters' it just comes with penalties and that's what the developers need to do.
So they want me to kill all 20 enemies so instead of making it a pre-requisite; just have them patrol in awkward ways, keep them in radio contact so I can't just kill one without the others running in. In the next level have them check in with HQ at regular intervals; I can try to kill them but I have to stake out the order in which they report, make sure the others don't find any bodies.
In other words make it easier to just have to kill all 20 in the first room and evade the ones in the next, but don't make me have to do it.
My friend is a massive splinter cell fan, but dislikes Hitman, and I am the opposite. I loved hitman and its sprawling levels and its multiple choices. I cant wait for the next game simply because Blood Money has an ending and I just want to go on and on.
I would like a game structured around, the "Conflict Triangle". Sounds like it could work if done right.
I not it's a futile hope, but I'd really like to see Yahtzee review crazy russian Art Game "The Void" one of these days.
It's almost on the fourth peg of the triangle- almost. You play in this strange afterlife where everything is desolate and barren. You're told that "Color", a type of quasi-magical soul-juice that feeds everything, used to be plentiful here- but now, everything is starving. You're given tiny, tiny amounts of this Color, which acts as health AND the way you do basically everything, including attack, and you have to manage it to survive.
It's... complicated. Basically, though, It'd be nice if more games strayed from the "Kill the guys who want to kill you" conflict. There's so many other ways to do it.
It's almost on the fourth peg of the triangle- almost. You play in this strange afterlife where everything is desolate and barren. You're told that "Color", a type of quasi-magical soul-juice that feeds everything, used to be plentiful here- but now, everything is starving. You're given tiny, tiny amounts of this Color, which acts as health AND the way you do basically everything, including attack, and you have to manage it to survive.
It's... complicated. Basically, though, It'd be nice if more games strayed from the "Kill the guys who want to kill you" conflict. There's so many other ways to do it.
Like other recreational activities, video games vary from person to person.
This is why there is such a smaller industry in the psychological area, usually they resort to the basic fight or flight since they apply to every human beign that hasn't gotten the idea of runing in shooting bullets everywhere with my invincible armor and giant cock is a fool-proof perfectly respectable plan of action.
This is why most games tend to just have the 'scare' or death, since thats the only identifyable trait within all gamers that aren't teary eyed heroics waiting to jump infront of a bullet to impress a girl. Slightly pleasing the masses is more economically rewarding than pleasing a small cult of followers that consists of 4-5 people.
Most developers produce to gain not to please.
I agree with this statement, when it comes to psychologically based recreational activities (games in particular) they have to be tailor made for each specific person in order to push their buttons in the perfect manner. If you see a game that will claim to psychologically assess the player and then adapt to push their buttons (Silent Hill: Shattered Memories for example) usually the result is more than lacking.psychodynamica said:
This is why there is such a smaller industry in the psychological area, usually they resort to the basic fight or flight since they apply to every human beign that hasn't gotten the idea of runing in shooting bullets everywhere with my invincible armor and giant cock is a fool-proof perfectly respectable plan of action.
This is why most games tend to just have the 'scare' or death, since thats the only identifyable trait within all gamers that aren't teary eyed heroics waiting to jump infront of a bullet to impress a girl. Slightly pleasing the masses is more economically rewarding than pleasing a small cult of followers that consists of 4-5 people.
Most developers produce to gain not to please.
Yet in the same series we had Silent Hill 2 which produced different endings depending on how you played the game as well as which events you might trigger.mrsketchy said:
But yes people do find different things scary which is why it the theme of stick the player in the dark and make things jump out of them is so prevalent. It takes time and effort to craft a convincing psychological storyline so why bother when the developer can just produce some linear levels and point the player along them with a hearty cry of "There be the enemy".
Interesting bringing the 3-Act structure out into the light in video games. I had a think, something I try to avoid for fear of cranial hemorrhaging, of what games (if any) fit into the 3-Act structure. Here's one that I may have discovered;
Metroid (Super and all the iterations thereafter) - They expose you to a huge world after, you spend the most of the time powering up, you are still in harms way with stupidly overpowered final boss. But then (at least in Super Metroid) you are given powers by a Metroid itself and suddenly comes the climactic denouement.
This got me thinking again (getting dizzy now) games don't fit into the 3-act story arc because of how we experience them. Not all of us go through Half-Life 2 in one long playthrough, because it is much much longer than a 'normal' film, or television series. Which brings me to Alan Wake. Alan Wake hasn't been out yet so I have yet to see if this format works, but the episodic content and the use of chapters gives (should give) each chapter an arc, and by doing this letting us step away from the game as we would a book. The the game should also have an overarc as well, like any good television series. (well... that's a debate for another forum)
Metroid (Super and all the iterations thereafter) - They expose you to a huge world after, you spend the most of the time powering up, you are still in harms way with stupidly overpowered final boss. But then (at least in Super Metroid) you are given powers by a Metroid itself and suddenly comes the climactic denouement.
This got me thinking again (getting dizzy now) games don't fit into the 3-act story arc because of how we experience them. Not all of us go through Half-Life 2 in one long playthrough, because it is much much longer than a 'normal' film, or television series. Which brings me to Alan Wake. Alan Wake hasn't been out yet so I have yet to see if this format works, but the episodic content and the use of chapters gives (should give) each chapter an arc, and by doing this letting us step away from the game as we would a book. The the game should also have an overarc as well, like any good television series. (well... that's a debate for another forum)
I always thought Fallout 3 had a sort of film like character progression. I spent the first half of the game literally running away from most creatures because I hadn't had enough chance to stomp on radroachs to level up my character, so while my inclination to explore the vast environment was strong, I was reluctant because everywhere interesting was full of big spiky monsters.
It was only until I'd levelled up enough and found big guns that I was stomping around killing everything that i'd become the inevitable bad-ass at the end of the film, except this film didn't end and i kept wandering the wastelands
It was only until I'd levelled up enough and found big guns that I was stomping around killing everything that i'd become the inevitable bad-ass at the end of the film, except this film didn't end and i kept wandering the wastelands
And once again Deus Ex proves to be a perfect game, with all 3 points on the triangle and all are at the discretion of the player. Not much evasion but enough to make it memorable.
Oblivion/Fallout 3 have stealth but it is ignorable and not mandatory. The sneak attacks in Oblivion become useless after a few levels unless you use mods.
As for story games that is why STALKER is perfect. There is a cursory narrative but the real star of the story is the Zone. The weird mutants, the bandit gangs, the ruins, the guys at the camp who bust out their guitar occasionally.
Oblivion/Fallout 3 have stealth but it is ignorable and not mandatory. The sneak attacks in Oblivion become useless after a few levels unless you use mods.
As for story games that is why STALKER is perfect. There is a cursory narrative but the real star of the story is the Zone. The weird mutants, the bandit gangs, the ruins, the guys at the camp who bust out their guitar occasionally.
Great stuff Mr. Croshaw. As per usual. I think you bring up the whole "games and movies are different and we shouldn't be trying to make them the same" point in a nice blunt well formulated way. Maybe people will get it this time...maybe I'm a dreamer.
It's an interesting point well made, if done in an extremely blunt way. My point would be that maybe a freedom fighter game would be possible. Whereby evasion and stealth are your starting focus, by dwindling numbers of the evil power (clichéd I know) and eventually getting enough support to start taking groups on directly. Although having reread the beginning of my second sentence trying to get that idea to fly in the current 'War on Terror' is about as likely as me being locked in a room with whoever though Wii Music was a good idea.
Alright, people, listen. I don't think anyone's talked about the one three-act game that I can think of--Homeworld!
Think about it. The first bunch of missions are you fleeing the Taiidan's overwhelming forces. But even as you're doing that, you're very slowly and painstakingly building frigates and bomber wings (or Defender screens). Throughout this, your main goal is to get to your homeworld, while not dying. In fact, plenty of 'win' conditions are actually "escape the battlefield with as many intact ships as possible". It's a survival RTS.
Then, as soon as you have a balanced (albeit small) fleet, Act II begins, and you're taking out Taiidan outposts like the Supernova Station or entering the derelict graveyard. This is the stealth part of the game--it's not really stealth, but the enemy AI won't trigger until it sees you, and taking it head on is suicide. The Supernova Station is particularly good at this--there are plenty of paths, but you absolutely have to find the weak point and you absolutely should keep your forces hidden until you're in a strategically advantageous position. Again, you have a fleet, but if that Taiidan fleet came right at you, you're dead.
But then, several missions and a lot of salvage corvettes later, you have a large fleet. This starts with that level where there is a sphere of around 250 ion frigates for you to destroy/steal, and all levels after that. This is Act III. I've had trouble explaining to people who haven't played the game why Homeworld is so satisfying, and now I know why. It's definitely because it adheres to this tight, well-proven plot structure. It doesn't give you the tools to fight an obnoxious enemy until the last third, but when it does, you know exactly what to do. And the fights have more purpose than any other RTS I've played--those Taiidan have been after me the whole game, but now finally I have a chance to throw a punch (and then some).
Since I first played it back in the day, I've felt that Homeworld told the best story of any video game, and I think now I know why.
Think about it. The first bunch of missions are you fleeing the Taiidan's overwhelming forces. But even as you're doing that, you're very slowly and painstakingly building frigates and bomber wings (or Defender screens). Throughout this, your main goal is to get to your homeworld, while not dying. In fact, plenty of 'win' conditions are actually "escape the battlefield with as many intact ships as possible". It's a survival RTS.
Then, as soon as you have a balanced (albeit small) fleet, Act II begins, and you're taking out Taiidan outposts like the Supernova Station or entering the derelict graveyard. This is the stealth part of the game--it's not really stealth, but the enemy AI won't trigger until it sees you, and taking it head on is suicide. The Supernova Station is particularly good at this--there are plenty of paths, but you absolutely have to find the weak point and you absolutely should keep your forces hidden until you're in a strategically advantageous position. Again, you have a fleet, but if that Taiidan fleet came right at you, you're dead.
But then, several missions and a lot of salvage corvettes later, you have a large fleet. This starts with that level where there is a sphere of around 250 ion frigates for you to destroy/steal, and all levels after that. This is Act III. I've had trouble explaining to people who haven't played the game why Homeworld is so satisfying, and now I know why. It's definitely because it adheres to this tight, well-proven plot structure. It doesn't give you the tools to fight an obnoxious enemy until the last third, but when it does, you know exactly what to do. And the fights have more purpose than any other RTS I've played--those Taiidan have been after me the whole game, but now finally I have a chance to throw a punch (and then some).
Since I first played it back in the day, I've felt that Homeworld told the best story of any video game, and I think now I know why.
Only stealth game I ever really liked was In Cold Blood. It's sort of half an adventure game - I think it's creator was one of the ones behind the Broken Sword series - and there's a healthy emphasis on having to think, rather than blast your way out of situations. It also had good writing, which is a rare enough quality in video games to be worth mentioning at every available opportunity.
I would really like to see more whole games based around the "evasion" part of it.
You know, like Mirror's Edge, except they don't make you want to cut yourself.
But in my perfect evasion game, it would be about 75% running, and 25% "you just got lucky there's only one guy in this room time to kick his ass" gameplay.
That way you could make a more realistic game (not that that's particular important, but it'd be a nice breath of fresh air) where your character CAN'T take on ten machine gun toting guys at once (IMAGINE THAT!) but would have to flee.
It could be a game where you would be rewarded for using the environment around you, but it wouldn't be required, for example, you just ran through a door, it's a waiting room with a receptionist desk, and another hallway leading out, if you think fast, you can push the desk in front of the door and buy yourself a 10-15 second lead on the guys behind you while they bust through, but again not required.
You know, like Mirror's Edge, except they don't make you want to cut yourself.
But in my perfect evasion game, it would be about 75% running, and 25% "you just got lucky there's only one guy in this room time to kick his ass" gameplay.
That way you could make a more realistic game (not that that's particular important, but it'd be a nice breath of fresh air) where your character CAN'T take on ten machine gun toting guys at once (IMAGINE THAT!) but would have to flee.
It could be a game where you would be rewarded for using the environment around you, but it wouldn't be required, for example, you just ran through a door, it's a waiting room with a receptionist desk, and another hallway leading out, if you think fast, you can push the desk in front of the door and buy yourself a 10-15 second lead on the guys behind you while they bust through, but again not required.