I'm confused.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Shooting mechanics not based on stats should make the core shooter gameplay more solid, at the very least.

 

What do you mean by "not based on stats"? There are definitely stats involved.

[Slowtrain]

Shooting mechanics not based on stats should make the core shooter gameplay more solid, at the very least.

 

 

Stat based shooting in a game not like Jag 2 or XCOM usually doesn't work very well.

 

Which means, I agree.

 

I would have preferred the game to be in first person, but other than that, I am hopeful.

[Slowtrain]

Shooting mechanics not based on stats should make the core shooter gameplay more solid, at the very least.

 

What do you mean by "not based on stats"? There are definitely stats involved.

 

 

I was under the impression that in AP, stats do not affect chance to hit. Did I misread that somewhere?

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

They don't affect chance to hit, but they affect damage. Since when is how many shots it takes to kill somebody not an important part of a shooter's mechanics?

[Slowtrain]

They don't affect chance to hit, but they affect damage. Since when is how many shots it takes to kill somebody not an important part of a shooter's mechanics?

 

 

it definitely is.

 

But its weird when you are shooting at an enemy at point blank range and you keep missing because your skill isn't high enough.

 

For me, personally, chance to hit is the big one. Having chance to hit based on stats is fine in a squad level tactical game, but in a first or third person action games it really makes the game seem clunky.

 

Having stats affect damage or weapon degradation or the availability of special attacks is fine.

 

edit: grammar!

Edited March 24, 2009 by CrashGirl

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I personally go the other way. Delivering a perfect shot and having it not affect the enemy is a pet peeve of mine. Having to repeatedly pump headshots into an enemy to make them go down is just not satisfying to me. It also makes no sense and breaks any sort of continuity in the world (continuity like a 9mm hollow point is a 9mm hollow point). If some lowly thug shoots you between the eyes, you glare at him and punch him in the face. If Jack Bauer shoots you between the eyes with the same gun, your skull explodes. Why?

 

Think of it this way: even a layperson can score good hits with a firearm at point blank (unless they get disarmed). The solution for a character with low accuracy would just be to get within their effective range before firing. By contrast, there isn't really a solution for a character whose weapon won't do enough damage. He has to expose himself to enemy fire in order to deliver hits, but his hits don't do sufficient damage and the enemy always gets to return fire. This results in a constant downward trickle of health and eventual death by attrition. Gee, wasn't that an exciting firefight?

 

Since we already know which way AP is going with it, this is somewhat of an academic point, but I think a poor handling of damage stats can be just as disrupting to the experience as poor handling of accuracy stats.

[Slowtrain]

but I think a poor handling of damage stats can be just as disrupting to the experience as poor handling of accuracy stats.

 

 

I don't really disagree. I'm currently playing FO3 and having to empty 2 30 round magazines to bring down a charging raider is pretty disruptive to gameplay.

 

For me, it's just LESS disruptive than chance to hit.

[Oblarg]

but I think a poor handling of damage stats can be just as disrupting to the experience as poor handling of accuracy stats.

 

 

I don't really disagree. I'm currently playing FO3 and having to empty 2 30 round magazines to bring down a charging raider is pretty disruptive to gameplay.

 

For me, it's just LESS disruptive than chance to hit.

 

They're the exact same mechanic, except one relies on a random number generator and the other doesn't.

[Humodour]

To nitpick, AP is not in first person, hence does not have FPS combat.

 

Anyway, as DX showed, even if the combat isn't great, if the rest of the game is good, mediocre combat can be tolerated.

 

Speak for yourself. A lot of people I've spoken to enjoyed DX1's combat.

[Sargoth]

Its also heavily influenced by My horse and me RPG element:

 

 

 

[Oblarg]

IT BURNSSSSSSSSSS

[Llyranor]

I guess that's a fair point that constantly hitting but doing very little damage with a gun would feel pretty unrewarding. However, as Crashdude says, it's certainly less disruptive than affecting accuracy. Guess there'll be a sense of progression either way.

[mkreku]

I don't really understand the critique against Deus Ex's combat. I think it's the best implementation of stat based fps combat I've seen. Compared to Bloodlines or Morrowind (ugh), it's absolutely fabulous. The problem with the combat in Bloodlines was that even if you had your sights dead on a target, you would still miss it if your skill was low. That felt incredibly wrong and frustrating. In Deus Ex, instead of making you randomly shoot around your own aiming reticule, they made the reticule move around as if held by an unsteady hand. This, to me, is a much more natural way of showing how the character skill influences your own aiming skill. At least you weren't tricked into thinking you would hit something like in Bloodlines!

 

Also, I felt it was incredibly rewarding to finally get that unsteady hand to become steady, with the help of weapon modifications and skill point spending.

[Llyranor]

I guess it's all relative.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I guess that's a fair point that constantly hitting but doing very little damage with a gun would feel pretty unrewarding. . . . it's certainly less disruptive than affecting accuracy.

 

How is it "certainly" so?

[Trenitay]

How is it not certainly so?

[Hell Kitty]

When it comes to guns and stats I prefer something like RE 4 & 5, where it's the guns stats that I raise.

[Niten_Ryu]

As a hardcore fps fan, I've loved combat in DeusEx, Bloodlines and Mass Effect. Stats can make combat even more fun but if combat system is too much based on non-twitch like in Fallout 3, then system usually degenerate fast.

 

Original Splinter Cell is work of art IMO. You could even use sticky cameras as stun projectiles, if you aimed your gren launcher like bow. Felt really good to drop enemies from distance with careful aim. Sneaking was better then in all Thief games, thanks to modified Unreal engine. Really good work from Ubisoft Montreal. Just like in Thief games, you had option to fight, stun or just sneak undetected. Combat and sneaking in AP is going to get compared to Splinter Cell and for good reason. Both are modern 3d person high tech spy games and Splinter Cell set the bar. AP is also RPG and that area of the game should only be compared to other recent cRPGs.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

The dialogue system will no doubt be compared to Mass Effect. That said, given that the Mass Effect dialogue system was not as exciting as it was cracked up to be, AP should have a pretty easy win there.

[Hell Kitty]

The dialogue system is more Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy) than ME.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

ME is waaay more popular though.

[fastpunk]

The dialogue system will no doubt be compared to Mass Effect. That said, given that the Mass Effect dialogue system was not as exciting as it was cracked up to be, AP should have a pretty easy win there.

 

Not only was it not as exciting, it was borderline misleading. Something I'm hoping AP's system will avoid. Also, it's really hard to believe how people are actually seeing AP's dialog system as similar to ME's. I mean, ME had nothing innovative in this regard, it just had shortened responses which were arranged on a wheel. It's the same old system with a slightly different presentation. And the press threw itself at the game's feet for being so innovative...

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

The concept is similar: attempt to boil down options to the essence of the response without telling the player the particulars, and also include skill-based dialogue options.

 

I think both systems attempt to make the dialogue feel more "alive" and less like interactive fiction. This involves forcing the player to make a decision based on incomplete information. Hopefully, what information AP *does* provide on your choices will be useful.

[fastpunk]

The concept is similar: attempt to boil down options to the essence of the response without telling the player the particulars, and also include skill-based dialogue options.

 

I think both systems attempt to make the dialogue feel more "alive" and less like interactive fiction. This involves forcing the player to make a decision based on incomplete information. Hopefully, what information AP *does* provide on your choices will be useful.

 

Yes, the two systems have similar goals. But AP' dialog system gives you the choice between stances, it's timed, and you can't go through the same pieces of dialog twice. Maybe it's just me, but the differences are pretty big, which is why I don't agree with all the AP's dialog system looks a lot like ME. Hell, it's not even similar on a visual basis.

[Musopticon?]

Sneaking was better then in all Thief games, thanks to modified Unreal engine. Really good work from Ubisoft Montreal. Just like in Thief games, you had option to fight, stun or just sneak undetected. Combat and sneaking in AP is going to get compared to Splinter Cell and for good reason. Both are modern 3d person high tech spy games and Splinter Cell set the bar. AP is also RPG and that area of the game should only be compared to other recent cRPGs.

How exactly did Splinter Cell better sneaking than all the Thief games? Your claim is rather bold when the original SC had a very different, almot puzzle-oriented focus, which concentrated on tackling enemies instead of avoiding them entirely like Thief games. Each encounter had a very narrow set of options, usually a choice between environmental takeout or a gadget(shoot a roll or gas them). You had to approach each encounter with the developers options in mind and the levels were long railways with little freeroaming or backtracking and instead featured set-piece sneaking encounters interrrupted by short radio chatter vignettes followed by a checkpoint. Then you tackled the next corridor of traps and half-deaf and blind enemies. The sneaking itself, how you traversed the environments and how enemy AI worked and reacted owed more to MGS games than Thief or Deus Ex. I haven't played Double Agent yet, but Chaos Theory on the other hand broadened the levels to something resembling a real location, instead of an indrustial walkway.

 

Now, I really liked SC 1 because of the puzzle-like nature of it. Every encounter felt like a mindgame with the devs and the very strict policy on alarms and enemy encounters made that even more so. Very atmospheric and mindbendingly hard at parts. Like the oil rig level which has only one right way to solve it. Comparing SC to Thief games, however, is bit like comparing Company of Heroes and Rise of Legends, sure they are both RTS, but...