Deus Ex 3

[ShadowScythe]

I think the feature is unnecessary because it just seems like cover based shooting and takedowns can be done in first person without the need for a perspective shift

Of course the cover shooting and takedowns in DX:HR could be done in first person, just as all the conversations in DX could have been in first person instead of switching to third. Was is necessary that Eidos Montreal or Ion Storm Austin design their games this way? Of course not, there is no need for a perspective shift in either game, but that's the way the devs did it. Games are chock full of "unnecessary" elements, but people tend only to label the elements they dislike in that way, and I think it's a poor criticism.

 

Still haven't answered what the purpose is for the perspective shift or any of what I've said for that matter. I'm asking why a developer would change the perspective when the first person perspective is fine the way it is without constantly shifting the camera mode and I've explained fairly clearly why I don't understand the need for this and instead you've simply said "Deal with it...oh and just stating that you think it's unnecessary is 'poor criticism'". I'm not criticising the damn thing, I thought that was pretty clear, I'm asking why people think it's a good design choice and you're being overly defensive for some reason.

 

Do you find entering third person conversations in DX disorientating? If not, why not? What is different about pressing a button to enter a conversation and pressing a button to enter cover? The camera position changes in both, but when entering cover at least you still have control of the camera.

 

Because that's a cutscene and this is gameplay and I find that to be a huge difference. I'm ok with control of the camera being taken away in a scene that already consists of my control being taken away (mostly, I guess there's still dialogue but that's beside the point). I'm not...as receptive...to control of the camera being jerked away from me randomly in gameplay when I should have proper control and interaction.

 

Isn't that...sort of cheating? I mean you abuse the camera to look around a wall that your character shouldn't be able to see in his current position...it feels really cheap and what's wrong with just leaning?

I don't think so, I happen to have excellent peripheral vision in real life. Try working that into a game mechanic.

 

To check this, I took cover in my bedroom next to the doorway leading into the living room. I could see the other side of the room fairly clearly with peripheral vision but not the side I was taking cover behind. Maybe the camera could be restricted so that you couldn't tilt the camera enough to see the side you were hiding behind but could still see the other side of the room fairly clearly?

Edited June 29, 2011 by ShadowScythe

[Hell Kitty]

I've explained fairly clearly why I don't understand the need for this

The problem is that you seem to think devs include a feature because they need to, that an element is included only because it is necessary. EM and ISA didn't include a perspective shift because they needed to, they did it because they wanted to. Why? Why not? The EM devs have said they think it's cool to be able to see your character. They first used the feature in R6:V, and obviously they liked it and decided to use it again.

 

Sawyer already explained why he likes it. There is never going to be a single reason to include this or any other feature that's going to satisfy everyone and allow them to understand its inclusion. First person in conversation or third person? There is no right answer. Its like trying to understand why other people like to eat food you don't like. It's just different tastes and opinions.

 

I'm asking why people think it's a good design choice and you're being overly defensive for some reason.

 

I'm not defending anything, I'm attacking your labeling of a feature as unnecessary when necessity has nothing to do with it's inclusion.

 

I'm not...as receptive...to control of the camera being jerked away from me randomly in gameplay when I should have proper control and interaction.

 

There is nothing random about it, it's entirely player controlled. You do have proper control and interaction, because the camera switch only occurs when you, the player, press a button to make it occur.

[Oner]

Still haven't answered what the purpose is for the perspective shift or any of what I've said for that matter.

Imagine having to sneak around with zero area awareness. You don't see where enemies are, where they're facing, you can't even check their patrol pattern. What was already a test of patience becomes a luck based mission for every piece of cover.

[ShadowScythe]

^^Fair enough...I guess I just feel like elements in the game have to have some sort of purpose...but whatever, 3rd person is optional- I don't have to stick to walls and cover if I don't want to, and I guess I might end up appreciating those elements as I actually play.

 

^This would be true if it weren't for the fact that you already have a radar on your UI that seems to have some basic elements like guards outlined on it.

[Oner]

^This would be true if it weren't for the fact that you already have a radar on your UI that seems to have some basic elements like guards outlined on it.

Too bad you still don't know the exact distance between you and them, where they're facing..

Plus the radar isn't any better than seeing "through" cover, just better justified (in-universe).

[ShadowScythe]

Ah, I couldn't tell from the video preview that the radar isn't accurate at determining where the guard is.

 

And I agree with you on the second point.

[Wombat]

Again, I suppose I should actually go play rainbow 6 or something to determine just how it actually plays but the previews don't give me a good impression on the constant perspective shifting (rest of the game looks good however)

Yea, how could you see it a problem if you haven't played any game of this type? I played Splinter Cell series and the view-shift felt quite seamless. In fact, it's quite established in its own way. I have my own preference but I see no problem in the Ubi scheme.

 

HK, you must have played video games many more than I do and you just have these over-generalizations.

In any case, I don't think it is wise to make (ex-)Ubi team a game such as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Thief and vice versa. For some mechanisms just work in their own schemes. Since Deus Ex series have always been TP game, I think the team is one of the most desirable choices...at least for the game-play wise.

This post baffles and confuses me.

It's just simple. I found your post lacked concrete examples considering the list of games you must have played. For my own stock of shooter game-play example is quite limited and such examples would help (In fact, Thief series aren't meant to be played through by direct attacking, which is why I needed to take an examples from both S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Thief series). However, I think you noticed it since you began to include them to your argument, anyway.

 

Still haven't answered what the purpose is for the perspective shift or any of what I've said for that matter.

Imagine having to sneak around with zero area awareness. You don't see where enemies are, where they're facing, you can't even check their patrol pattern. What was already a test of patience becomes a luck based mission for every piece of cover.

Actually, not necessary as long as some devices such as thermovision are implemented. I cannot remember a part where I relied on "cover system" than those scopes given in Splinter Cell series.

That said, I don't know a single game which has heavy stealth game-play with assault option and sticks to the first person game-play view except Deus Ex. In Thief series, assault is not an option.

[Hassat Hunter]

I've yet to play a cover-based system where cover added to the game instead of me just yelling $@@^^@$ get off that $#$@$ wall! ME2 probably came closest but didn't hit the spot either.

Games where I dispise the cover-system and the game would have been better without it (that I recall just now)

GTA IV

ME 1

Alpha Protocol

The Witcher II

[WorstUsernameEver]

The Witcher II

 

??????????????????????????????????????????????

[Nepenthe]

I've yet to play a cover-based system where cover added to the game instead of me just yelling $@@^^@$ get off that $#$@$ wall! ME2 probably came closest but didn't hit the spot either.

Games where I dispise the cover-system and the game would have been better without it (that I recall just now)

GTA IV

ME 1

Alpha Protocol

The Witcher II

There was a cover system in ME1?

 

Joking aside, I don't think I used much cover in the game, even on insanity, so considering it's optional nature, I'd consider it a small problem and doubt that removing it would have made the game better...

[Oner]

There was a cover system in ME1?

 

Joking aside, I don't think I used much cover in the game, even on insanity, so considering it's optional nature, I'd consider it a small problem and doubt that removing it would have made the game better...

I got stuck on cover once or twice in a bad moment, so actually yes, it would've been better.

[Raithe]

The thing about ME2's cover system that most annoyed me.. was the multipurpose key.

Hold space down to run..and if you happened to be passing too close to a piece of cover.. Shep would stop running and dive into cover regardless...

 

That left me stuck on the wrong side of cover, or various related annoyances.

[Hell Kitty]

I found your post lacked concrete examples considering the list of games you must have played.

 

Still confused. Lack of concrete examples? Of what? Are you referring to this:

 

No more than having a convenient crosshair to tell me where my bullets go while shooting from the hip; or being able to carry around more weapons, ammo and items then is physically possible; or the game being paused while I heal myself from the status screen; or...

 

Because those are all things from the original DX, not to mention a billion other games.

[sorophx]

GTA IV

I loved it in GTA, a very welcome change. some of the firefights are insanely tough if you don't use covers.

[Wombat]

I found your post lacked concrete examples considering the list of games you must have played.

 

Still confused. Lack of concrete examples? Of what? Are you referring to this:

 

No more than having a convenient crosshair to tell me where my bullets go while shooting from the hip; or being able to carry around more weapons, ammo and items then is physically possible; or the game being paused while I heal myself from the status screen; or...

 

Because those are all things from the original DX, not to mention a billion other games.

Talking of over-generalization. In any case, as I said, my own experience with cover system is limited to Splinter Cell series. So, I just wished someone had come up with better examples.

 

Talking of that, I just watched Conviction game-play briefly (No time for reinstalling and playing) to refresh my memory. For, at earlier parts, there are no vision-based items and the players have to rely on even a broken mirror. However, the new game-play tie the cover system with the 3D puzzle factor (means, which route would be safest, where should I climb, and drop relatively safely...such kind of things...Steam even recommend me Tomb Raider series.), so, it's kinda hard to consider them separately... At least, the game-play feels pretty stream-lined and works its own right although I miss the old stealth system, to some extent.

[Orogun01]

Imagine having to sneak around with zero area awareness. You don't see where enemies are, where they're facing, you can't even check their patrol pattern. What was already a test of patience becomes a luck based mission for every piece of cover.

Yeah it's called Metal Gear on high difficulty levels, and we manage.

[Lexx]

But I find MGS without radar to be very stressful. :> Plus, the game is very linear in terms of enemy patrol pattern, so if you play the game a few times with radar on, you can master it with radar off as well.

 

/Edit: But most of the time you "play" the game, you are watching some cutscene instead anyway.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Lexx

[Tale]

Imagine having to sneak around with zero area awareness. You don't see where enemies are, where they're facing, you can't even check their patrol pattern. What was already a test of patience becomes a luck based mission for every piece of cover.

Yeah it's called Metal Gear on high difficulty levels, and we manage.

The original Metal Gear or the Solid games? Solid games become dependent upon memorization at harder difficulties, either from trial and error, or having played the lower difficulties. Neither do I consider an ideal design for games. But I accept them as fair gimmicks on a case-by-case.

 

I guess there's probably a way to play those higher difficulties without the prior knowledge, but I can't imagine doing so and it being entertaining.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I've never known a person who likes MGS stealth mechanics who also likes SC stealth mechanics, or vice-versa. Personally, I've never liked MGS stealth mechanics and always loved SC stealth mechanics. Both have their own idiosyncratic absurdities, but for me it comes down to which is more enjoyable to use.

[Tale]

I don't know where I can say I fall on that. MGS 1 and 2 can be fun for me, but I have to intentionally restrict myself. Just shooting people with a tranq gun, then running by, can be boring. But watching the patrol pattern and timing movements to sneak behind their back is almost like an action-puzzle game. 3 and 4's camouflage systems didn't really improve my enjoyment of the sneaking.

 

Splinter Cell's not too different. Except you're sometimes trying to find a way to sneak right in front of the guy through a shadow. But you're still fighting the urge to just say "#@%@ it" and knock him out.

[Oner]

I've never known a person who likes MGS stealth mechanics who also likes SC stealth mechanics, or vice-versa.

,o/ Now you do.

[Lexx]

Is the MGS system a "stealth system" anyway? For me it's more a puzzle game, where you try to avoid enemies sight cones. You can even run past enemies (at least in 1, 2 and TTS, didn't played any other) without them noticing you, as long as you don't cross a "loud tile" on the ground.

 

So... yeah... I personally can't see MGS as a pure stealth game. The SC games (except the last one) are more what I would call "stealth gameplay."

[Wombat]

Haven't played MGS...haven't played any Japanese game quite a long time... And yea, SC seem to use some randomness in AI...

 

I've never known a person who likes MGS stealth mechanics who also likes SC stealth mechanics, or vice-versa. Personally, I've never liked MGS stealth mechanics and always loved SC stealth mechanics. Both have their own idiosyncratic absurdities, but for me it comes down to which is more enjoyable to use.

Well, any game has its share of absurdities as HK pointed out. However, stealth games seem to be based on quite a delicate balance to drive players attention away from the absurdity.

 

The SC games (except the last one) are more what I would call "stealth gameplay."

Yea, in Conviction, I needed to fight my way through in quite many occasions if not frontal attacks...loved the system which allowed me to sneak past guards while achieving objectives.

[Raithe]

One thing about the "radar" in DE:HR is that it starts off being quite fuzzy. Or at least, it doens't give you all the detail.

When you start to improve various augmentations, then it'll start to add in things like visual cones of people, highlights of where they can start to hear you.. things like that.

 

Which makes it interesting is that they combine hearing as well as visual aspects for the sneaking.. and that the AI is designed so guards will (supposedly, at least according to demo's they've given) randomly look behind them and such like.

 

It's the little things like that that add to the overall stealth experience, not just whether there's a "cover" system or a "light/shadow" system or such like..

[Oner]

and that the AI is designed so guards will (supposedly, at least according to demo's they've given) randomly look behind them and such like.

Nice touch indeed, but sadly it's not random.