Stealth

[Nateman742]

I think in good games, the 3-act system isn't in the plot at all, but the gameplay. You start out in the first act, a completely new player losing constantly. Then you get to know what you're doing and start moving along a little bit faster, and finally by the end you're mopping the floor with challenges that would have destroyed you when you first began. You create the drama, the game shouldn't create it for you through the story. Maybe this is why I love old Megaman and Metroid so much: The story is a bookend, and everything important happens during gameplay.

What happens when the mainstream demands of "accessibility" culminate to a point where the amount of incessant hand holding and (almost) ubiquitous "upgrade systems" create even worse inverse difficulty curves than you described, that start at almost nothing and just spiral downward, effectively cutting away the first two "acts" you describe?

Ideally, people would pitch a ***** and demand those first two "acts" back, but thats not happening. Stupid games make stupider gamers, so with each successive generation prioritizing "accessibility" over all other concerns, gamers are starting to think challenge is frustrating, difficulty is pointless, and easy means fun. They're going back to games they used to utterly dominate, getting their ass' curbstomped, and then think its somehow the older game's fault or they're getting old. Few realize they've been spoiled by newer games's focus on "accessibility."

Ideally a game, like yahtzee describes, faces you with progressively harder challenges, never allowing you to "mop up" anything, as that quickly becomes boring, unless you're really into that type of vicarious masturbation.

Well, I wasn't talking about making the game overall easier as it goes on. The developer definitely needs to introduce new challenges, but the point is that the player feels confident in their own ability to eventually work through those challenges with the skills they've acquired. Take Ninja Gaiden for instance. At the start of the game, you're faced with those damned ninjas in the training camp. You die over and over again, a hopeless case. By the end of the game, though, you've progressed so much as a player that you wouldn't even have to try to defeat those same enemies.

 

[Axzarious]

You know, I have always wondered what the most effective way for a game to tell a story would be... I have a general idea, but, it is hard to put into words.

 

[CAW4]

...stealth games are much better when you sneak into some place your not to be keeping deaths to a minimum and sneaking out without being seen...you can't do that on Splinter Cell.

Why the fuck does everyone try to make Splinter Cell Conviction equal the entire Splinter Cell series? At least half the people here are lying about playing a Splinter Cell game other than Conviction.

 

[The Gray Train]

It's been a while since I played it, but I thought that Starcraft did a pretty good job of using all three corners of the triangle. I remember several missions where all you're supposed to do is not die long enough for help to come. I also remember sneaking into facilities to rescue allies.

Good point. Ground Control 2 did something similar. in Starcraft, the avoiding and stealth bits made sense. in the stealth bits, we know that there's nowhere to set up a base, or the enemy heavily outnumbers us and would destroy us before we had a chance to prepare. that, and it's explained (or at least insinuated) early on that the Raiders actually have very little in the way of men and materiel that they keep with them. as for avoiding/surviving, the whole running from the wall of fire was interesting, though the secret mission really conveyed a sense of "Holy shit we're gonna die!"

 

[OCAdam]

Ideally, a game with a three-act plot would use all three corners of the triangle - start out with evasion when you're vulnerable, use stealth in the middle to redress the balance guerrilla-style, then gain sufficient strength to sort everything out with violence in the end. But that's mixing gameplay styles, which is almost inevitably rubbish.

I'd really suggest taking a look into the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series (well.... maybe skip Clear Sky). The beginning starts you with pretty crappy equipment, so you're gonna rather stay away from conflict until you either get better equipment, or are pretty good and can stand whatever gun you are using to actually hit more than the broad side of a mountain (or save so often that when something goes wrong you reload the game (cheater)). You can use just about any way to tackle various missions, although several of them do involve needing to kill whatever else is in the way, but there are ways around this if you are creative.

Even if you are using the best equipment in the game on a sufficiently hard enough difficulty, you still aren't going to want to run in guns blazing. Yes, there is health regeneration, but unless you feel like spending 10 minutes waiting on a small chunk of your health to come back, it might as well not exist. Try taking on just 2 guys and you might find yourself hard pressed to go wailing on them unless you actually have the skill to do so... or a lot of med kits and bandages.

TL;DR S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series does mix all three and I suggest maybe reviewing one of them when you have downtime between major releases or something. Maybe some other people would like this as well?

 

[Chaelim]

Your three-act scenario described my experience with Fallout 3 fairly closely. In the beginning, I had crappy armor and pretty limited ammo. As the game progressed, I built my character to be "stealthy", focusing on sneaking around and ambushing enemies, but I had enough ammo and stimpacks to pull out on top if things got too hairy. By the end of the game, I had more ammo and stimpacks than every NPC in the game combined. I would just jump into any battle, hook up my stimpack i.v. and let the minigun, laser, nukes roll.

 

[M4A1Sopmod]

While Splinter Cell lacked the mind bogglingly variety of games such as Thief or Hitman it had its own charm in my eyes. It allowed players to be a predator. You decided whether the poorly trained loud-mouthed terrorist in front of you lived or died. Whereas in games like Thief and Hitman your primary objective was usually very specific and the goal was to cause as few waves as possible in your execution of your primary goal. Whereas a game like Splinter Cell is less of a perfectly planned out OP and more of dumping Sam Fisher in a baddie base and telling him to fuck with their shit. Splinter Cell did something very good with its game Chaos Theory by incorporating secondary and object of opportunity objectives. It promoted a sense of being part of a sprawling spy network that was constantly bringing in new data being relayed to you by your handlers. Of course I may just like seeing the startled faces of terrorists when I sneak up behind them and give them a wedgie that even their unborn children felt. As a closing note Chaos Theory, while still quite linear, did allow the player to pick their route to the objective and even though they all lead to the same place there was usually at least 2 or 3 routes to pick from. Of course this is all my opinion and is in no way more correct than anyone else's opinion as the above paragraph is just my personal recollection of a game I enjoyed.

 

[TheEldestScroll]

i agree. i'm going to use an ironic example to make two points: the bank mission in chaos theory

1) it is totally fun and rewarding to have nobody notice you at all thus not interrupting the natural order of things in a pre existing area (as you just communicated) i guess this is why that was my favorite mission in the whole series.

2) i guess splinter cell isn't all that bad because that isn't the only mission.

so yeah i guess i agree with you, but what you said splinter cell didn't have is exactly what i loved about a lot of those missions. god i wish they would make more decent stealth games.

 

[simon oeyen]

Hi there everyone,

If there is one stealth related game I truly love and haven't heard mention by Yahtzee it's Commandos. Okay, the first one and its expension pack where piss-easy because you could solve almost all problems by standing behind a wall and clicking very fast with your pistol on every enemy that wondered around the corner... But I enjoyed the second and third instalment very much (and considered checking them out again to see if they held up to my memories). I feel like there aren't many stealth-based games, and certainly none where you benefit careful planning. The fact that you clear a certain area at the first go because you studied guard patterns and planned when to take out which guard and where to hide the bodies is extremely satisfying. I certainly wonder if Yahtzee ever played them.

PS: A little praise to Yahtzee because I've been a long time fan of his reviews (or criticisms) and had to agree on them even when they were about a game I love. Keep 'em coming!

 

[simon oeyen]

you said mixing game styles would be rubbish. well AC2 does it. you sneak around with your hidden blade. then there are fighting gaurd moments. and escaping gaurd moments. all 3 combined. and it generally scored highly. you can even do nothing (tea party).

Though I think you are right about the elements all being in Assassins Creed 2, but it lacks in execution... In the original AC were moments when you HAD to flee because of a huge horde of baddies following you, but in AC2 are no moments of fear. Even when my health dropped as low as just one block, I'd still focus for a sec and finish the fight with no problems. In fact, the only moment when I was running was for time challenges or just for the fun, but never with someone following me...

 

[simon oeyen]

you said mixing game styles would be rubbish. well AC2 does it. you sneak around with your hidden blade. then there are fighting gaurd moments. and escaping gaurd moments. all 3 combined. and it generally scored highly. you can even do nothing (tea party).

Though I think you are right about the elements all being in Assassins Creed 2, but it lacks in execution... In the original AC were moments when you HAD to flee because of a huge horde of baddies following you, but in AC2 are no moments of fear. Even when my health dropped as low as just one block, I'd still focus for a sec and finish the fight with no problems. In fact, the only moment when I was running was for time challenges or just for the fun, but never with someone following me...

 

[JoshGod]

you said mixing game styles would be rubbish. well AC2 does it. you sneak around with your hidden blade. then there are fighting gaurd moments. and escaping gaurd moments. all 3 combined. and it generally scored highly. you can even do nothing (tea party).

Though I think you are right about the elements all being in Assassins Creed 2, but it lacks in execution... In the original AC were moments when you HAD to flee because of a huge horde of baddies following you, but in AC2 are no moments of fear. Even when my health dropped as low as just one block, I'd still focus for a sec and finish the fight with no problems. In fact, the only moment when I was running was for time challenges or just for the fun, but never with someone following me...

Please refrain from messaging in old topics, this is over a year old, also please edit your second post when you get a double post. As you are a new member these mistakes are understandable, but please learn from them. As this topic is so old Lets no longer bump it, if however you wish to contine talking do so directly through my profile instead of through this thread.

 

[TheUnbeholden]

a game with a three-act plot would use all three corners of the triangle - start out with evasion when you're vulnerable, use stealth in the middle to redress the balance guerrilla-style, then gain sufficient strength to sort everything out with violence in the end.

that's exactly what Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth did!

bingo, yahtzee!!!

though I don't appreciate the respawning enemies in alot of the stealth sections... forcing evasion on us when we've just gotten some guns was a bad move. But the game did the triangle pretty well for the most part.

Hmmmm....

The whole conflict triangle thing got me thinking about Uncharted 2 oddly enough.
See you begin that game in a very weak position and have to literally climb your way up through death and destruction. In fact you don't have a legitimate conflict with an enemy until about half an hour into the game. But the game does do a good job of making you feel less than all powerful at times.
There are plenty of evasion set pieces as well of slap dash plans that only succeed due to luck and skill. You can stealth it up a little bit, but those generally take a back seat to the action.

There are probably better examples of this, but really Uncharted 2 seems closest to your desired triangle to me....

Hitman my friend. There where some parts where evasion was a better choice and where going in guns blazing was usually a bad choice making the game harder but could if you want.

Splinter Cell doesn't appeal to all people. Still I find it stupid that Ben likes Hitman stealth but seems to dislike Splinter Cell stealth, even for the reasons he mentioned.

-_- Hitman is one of the most non-linear games out there. Its a oxymoron as no game can be 100% non linear like Yahtzee said, but its not as linear as Splinter and probably one of the best games out there when it comes to giving players choice.
There are many routes to enter / get to your target and many ways to go about doing it. Enemies/innocents go about their daily routine regardless of whether Agent 47 is around or not which makes the world feel alive... and not dependent on the player like Sam Fishers is.
Very few games do not use position triggers (or use it sparringly) and Hitman is a excellent example.