Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

Uh, AC isn't really a stealth game.

Think more Hitman or Thief.

NINJADEDIT: Metal Gear's a good choice too.

[Urist Tilaturist]

I have never actually seen anyone playing those games. What constitutes stealth in them? Why are they just puzzles in disguise? I know they often involve terminating enemies silently, but why is handicapped AI needed for this? A player would not be able to see another player behind him either.

[Arx]

You have to avoid guards and such. I think killing may be an option, but it carries risks with it. It's a puzzle in disguise because you have to predict guard moves, find alternate routes, sneak through gaps, misdirect, etc.

It would be wrecked by randomness because if a guard walked more slowly than normal for some reason a gap could close, and any number of similar simple things.

[Urist Tilaturist]

There is a thing called initiative, and adapting the plan. Plans which are too outlandish and rely on the enemy doing certain things usually fail (see the attempted Iran hostage rescue, Operation Eagle Claw, for an example of this).

"No plan survives first contact with the enemy." - Helmuth von Moltke
"...and few survive first contact with our own troops." - added by many commanders since.

[Arx]

I don't know. When looking out for something, I occasionally randomly turn around. Would you enjoy a game where every now and then you just... died? Guaranteed loss, for no reason whatsoever. I'm pretty sure it would get old fast. The thing with these games is that for them to be challenging, there must be a narrow margin of error. If there's time to adjust your plan, the margin is so broad it's not difficult.

[Neonivek]

The thing is that here is how guards ACTUALLY act

"Ok we are standing at our post"
*Suspicious sound*
"Hey there is a suspicious sound near my post, requesting back up. I'll stay my distance"
*Suddenly gets violently ill*
"Calling for an emergency change of guard"
*Gets knocked out*
~You havn't reported in, sending reinforcements~
*Sees suspicious uniformed man*
"State name and rank"

I remember a game with stealth and the female character was actually superior to the male one because she could wear any disguise in the game.

EXCEPT! for one aspect. The guy could wear lousy male disguises at low disguise rank and she couldn't.

It kind of balanced out, except not really because wearing any disguise in that game pays off more.

[Zangi]

? In Payday 2... civilians/guard/camera patrols and locations are semi-random everytime...  It does make stealth much harder, since a random guard(or 2) could walk in on you at an unexpected time.
It ain't wrecked anything, but you want to be able to survive when it gets hot.  (Of course, there are times where its all-in on stealth and the host simply restarts on failure, since most players are the heavy armor type and the lack of big guns for dozers.)
I believe Metal Gear patrols and placement are also semi-random, but not to the point that Payday 2 is.  Plus, you can normally fight your way out and/or clear the witnesses to stealth again.  (It has been awhile since I last played one of em though.)

Because a stealth game is a puzzle game with a paintjob that you can relate to in real terms. If you make the actions more random then you can't be sure that it won't become unsolvable.

I have no idea what a stealth game is anymore. I thought they were mostly about jumping around, winning unfair fights with big numbers of handicapped enemies, and not being very stealthy at all. Maybe the people I saw playing Assassin's Creed were the wrong sort of players...

If they want to be puzzle games, should they not just be so openly?

... That is when you fail at stealth... or don't even bother with it to begin with.

[Zangi]

Edit: Blurgh double post, sorry

[Urist Tilaturist]

The thing is that here is how guards ACTUALLY act

"Ok we are standing at our post"
*Suspicious sound*
"Hey there is a suspicious sound near my post, requesting back up. I'll stay my distance"
*Suddenly gets violently ill*
"Calling for an emergency change of guard"
*Gets knocked out*
~You havn't reported in, sending reinforcements~
*Sees suspicious uniformed man*
"State name and rank"

I remember a game with stealth and the female character was actually superior to the male one because she could wear any disguise in the game.

EXCEPT! for one aspect. The guy could wear lousy male disguises at low disguise rank and she couldn't.

It kind of balanced out, except not really because wearing any disguise in that game pays off more.

And what is wrong with guards acting that way? It just makes the game harder, not impossible. It is hard to break into secure facilities.

Surviving if the enemy attacks is a mixture of skill and luck. Why is there such an aversion to some things being decided by luck (the enemy just happened to walk out behind the player and spot him)?

[Neonivek]

ok, in this scenario YOU break in.

[Urist Tilaturist]

It would be much more sensible to get somebody already on the inside to do the job, and that somebody can be the player. Join the organisation as a guard, and be obedient for a while to gain their trust. After getting close enough to do whatever he wants to, maybe spending months as a sleeper agent before, the player can do it and escape.

If the player cannot do this for some reason, he can use an accomplice to do it.

[Arx]

Surviving if the enemy attacks is a mixture of skill and luck. Why is there such an aversion to some things being decided by luck (the enemy just happened to walk out behind the player and spot him)?

Because a game where there is a chance of 'oh LOL looks like you just lost GG" is not usually a fun game. Imagine Dwarf Fortress, but every tick there is a one in a hundred thousand chance of the HFS tunneling into your fort. Would you enjoy playing, knowing that statistically all your forts would fall within a hundred thousand ticks, without any chance of stopping it barring extreme luck?

[Neonivek]

It would be much more sensible to get somebody already on the inside to do the job, and that somebody can be the player. Join the organisation as a guard, and be obedient for a while to gain their trust. After getting close enough to do whatever he wants to, maybe spending months as a sleeper agent before, the player can do it and escape.

If the player cannot do this for some reason, he can use an accomplice to do it.

A simple background check weeds you out and your accomplice.

[penguinofhonor]

And what is wrong with guards acting that way? It just makes the game harder, not impossible. It is hard to break into secure facilities.

Surviving if the enemy attacks is a mixture of skill and luck. Why is there such an aversion to some things being decided by luck (the enemy just happened to walk out behind the player and spot him)?

Because a consistent game is one where you are always rewarded for your skill at that game. Real life is inconsistent - you can do everything right and still get screwed over. People play games to get away from things like that.

[Neonivek]

And what is wrong with guards acting that way? It just makes the game harder, not impossible. It is hard to break into secure facilities.

Surviving if the enemy attacks is a mixture of skill and luck. Why is there such an aversion to some things being decided by luck (the enemy just happened to walk out behind the player and spot him)?

Because a consistent game is one where you are always rewarded for your skill at that game. Real life is inconsistent - you can do everything right and still get screwed over. People play games to get away from things like that.

Well that... and how is it fun to just lose because the game arbitrarily tells you that you lose?

Imagine playing an RPG where it rolled a dice waaay at the start that determines whether or not the game is even beatable.