Slashdot Mirror


Hide and Go Sneak - The Rise Of Stealth Gaming

Thanks to Slate for its article discussing why stealth elements are now integrated into some of the most interesting new videogames. The author argues: "10 years after Doom, the rampant weapon-play can start to seem tedious. Kill your enemies, reload, kill some more, reload - man, what a drag. You become a pacifist for the weirdest possible reason: not because the virtual violence seems so awful but because it's so bloody repetitive", before suggesting that, although "many of these games do, in the end, require you to resort to at least some violence", an "unexpected benefit" of stealth titles such as Thief: Deadly Shadows is that "Your aesthetic experience becomes much better. Most lightning-fast 'twitch' shooter games are so fast-paced you barely have time to notice how wonderfully detailed the 3-D world is... Stealth turns gamers into tourists."

73 comments

  1. hide and go seek by lawngnome · · Score: 1

    hide and go seek rocks! I remember it for the atari 2600... good times... (switching the cart when the other person was "hiding" was fun too...)

  2. Mostly true by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

    "You become a pacifist for the weirdest possible reason: not because the virtual violence seems so awful but because it's so bloody repetitive"

    I play Q3 with a coworker nearly every day. The fun of the stealth mode isn't because it isn't repetitive, but because making him say "PUNK!!!" never gets old.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  3. On the other hand... by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 4, Interesting
    10 years after Doom, the rampant weapon-play can start to seem tedious

    Yeah, but sitting and waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to walk around the corner so you can sneak by him can be pretty damn tedious also.

    For the record, Doom is my favorite game of all time.

    1. Re:On the other hand... by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why campers are seen as assholes in games where there's not an implicit objective of stealthing...

    2. Re:On the other hand... by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but it's part of the game. Actually, that's why I like Counterstrike quite a bit. Death is permanent for that round...no respawning, so you have to be careful. Not necessarily always sneaky, just careful. Can't expect to just be able to respawn and run back to do some killing, and you know that the people you kill are going to stay down until the round ends. It makes camping more legitimate, in my opinion.

    3. Re:On the other hand... by Shinglor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll second that, Far Cry MP with less than four people is incredibly boring. You end up running around the map, meeting an enemy every few minutes then running around again.

      I guess it helps if you know the map well, then you can meet up in one area.

    4. Re:On the other hand... by dtfinch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I say let the best strategy win. If you weren't meant to hide in a weapon-unreachable spot at the top of the tallest tower and shoot everyone with guided missiles, then they shouldn't have put those elements into the map.

    5. Re:On the other hand... by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      The standard argument.
      Make a difference between camping and ambushing.
      What everyone hates is that a stupid newbie is sitting in the damn BEGINNING of the map or some deserted place on the map, waiting for someone to come kill them. Making it so that it's common to see THEM hiding, for 3 mins and the people on the other just go to search for him.

      --
      ^_^
    6. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Camping is always legit. Except in Seattle. Damn City Ordinances.

    7. Re:On the other hand... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I say virus writing and exploiting programs is legit, after all, if they didn't want you to exploit it they wouldn't have built in those bugs in first place, right?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How old are you? Can't you tell reality from a game?

  4. Maybe not? by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Maybe it's not an issue of "kill/reload/kill" being boring, but because games are progressing to a more realistic level, adding more features in an attempt of adding "virtual realism" to the game?

    Don't forget that online games are moving in the direction of turning themselves in virtual realities, and that most games are adding "online" capabilities to them (or are fully online)...

    It's just a predictible step to the future...

  5. Stealth is hard enough in real life by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In a game, I don't have as precise control of my body. In a game, I cannot see how well I blend in with the surroundings, because I cannot see my in-game self.

    What little stealth I have in real life I have learned from slow-paced non-life-threatening situations.

    I guess I should go play Thief or Splinter Cell or something.

    1. Re:Stealth is hard enough in real life by oskillator · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Thief series and the Metal Gear Solid series both have interface additions to help with this issue: Thief has an indicator which shows you exactly how well you're illuminated, and Metal Gear Solid has a radar system which shows the locations and FOVs of nearby guards. Both interfaces work pretty well.

    2. Re:Stealth is hard enough in real life by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      This is also the case in Splinter Cell that the grandparent mentioned.
      You have a visibility indicator. Moreover, in all 3 games, you are either always in 3rd person or can switch. When you look at yourself in 3rd, you can see "how well you blend".
      Moreover, in Thief3, you CAN see you body if you look down, so u can really see how you blend, in 1st person.

      --
      ^_^
    3. Re:Stealth is hard enough in real life by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      However, the human eye and the game's AI might disagree on the visibility of, say, a camo pattern.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Stealth is hard enough in real life by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      That's very true, and it gets even funnier than that!

      I haven't checked, but i'm pretty sure it will go like I say. Consider the following:
      A big enough room which is very well lit, except for a circle of darkness in the middle. You character stands inside that circle, in a way the "light meter" states complete darkness. Now consider an enemy looking there. A human will certainly see the silhouette of your character, yet the in game AI will probably not see you.

      I'm not sure if the AIs already see the shadows of the chars, but I believe that actually is already implemented.

      Now about the camo pattern, that's something which is very difficult to implement on the PC.
      The only way I can think of to simulate this realistically is to have a world view rendered for each AI, and then computer vision algorithms. Ofcourse this is an overkill, but I can't think of a better way. Maybe approximate this with a low detail (from various aspects) render and use simple algorithms to state things like "the area where my enemy is is blurry, so I will ignore it".

      I believe there are people way smarter than me and they will implement very nice algorithms which I can't even comprehend with my currenty knowledge.

      --
      ^_^
  6. Not so sudden by inkless1 · · Score: 1

    Sneakers have been around since before Wolfenstein got a "3D" to it's name...

  7. It's a NEW PARADIGM by slubberdegullion · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm personally startled by the degree to which "shoot and reload" games like Thief 1(1998) have been replaced by stealthy games like Unreal Tournament 2004. Surely it heralds a new era of gaming!!!!!

    1. Re:It's a NEW PARADIGM by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

      Funny? Yes

      But FPS games are not being "replaced" by 'sneekers', but they are being complemented.

      There is more then one way to make a game, and 'shooter' and 'sneeker' are only two of the ways to make one

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
  8. Stop and ogle by empaler · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought tourist gamers had been around for quite a while in FPSers?
    Think about all the video booths and strippers in DN3D...
    "Shake it baby..."

  9. stealth in games by alphaseven · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article: You're always fretfully observing your opponents. To get past a guard, you might spend five minutes just standing there, stock-still, spying on him to figure out his movements, the better to creep by.

    Stealth games regularly force you to slow down, to observe, to go carefully. I spent over an hour going through the Theif III demo, if it was the type of game where I just had to go around and kill everyone, it probably would have taken me less than ten minutes.

    The cynical part of me thinks stealth is popular with game developers because they can slow the player down and stretch a 5 hour game to 20+ hours.

    1. Re:stealth in games by Snowmit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The cynical part of me thinks stealth is popular with game developers because they can slow the player down and stretch a 5 hour game to 20+ hours.

      The disadvantage for developers is that because you're slowing down and observing things, it's much harder to make a realistic world. I mean if it's live combat, and the AI is shooting at you and not doing much else, that makes sense. But making AI that can believably wander around and do interesting non-immersion-breaking things while the player stares at them for hours - that's hard.

      --
      I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
    2. Re:stealth in games by Darkstorm · · Score: 1

      The cynical part of me thinks stealth is popular with game developers because they can slow the player down and stretch a 5 hour game to 20+ hours.

      And what is wrong with that? I have to admit I am hooked on Thief, I've played all 3 of them not...well, working on the third. I love it.

      I wish there were more games like it. :(

      --
      If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
    3. Re:stealth in games by dswensen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting point, but I think that reasoning is a bit flawed. A game that requires you to go slow and take your time as part of the gameplay, and the fun, isn't artificially inflating its play time. If it takes you 20 hours to finish it, playing it the way it was meant to be played, then it's a 20-hour game.

      Now, a game with no way to save except between missions, or ridiculous caveats that hinder or reverse your progress -- that's artificially inflating play time. So far as I know none of the Thief games have ever done this.

  10. Stealth Paradigm in Multiplayer by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One problem was the time problem. In the time it takes to get one stealth kill, you can get many run and gun kills. The solution is a heavy penalty for dying, like not respawning.

    Now the problem with the stealth paradigm is that it can be boring for those already dead: you really want to wait for a 20 minute stalk match with the last two players?

    CS I think balances these two, despite being the first game in the genre to populatize the no-respawn rule. I get most of my kills not because I'm the faster shot, because I see the other player first and can line a shot up without him even noticing me (and no, I don't camp, I just go alternative routes). I can play CS like a stealth game (especially in maps like oilrig) but you don't have to, which is what's so great about it. (In America's army and RC3, it's stealth only (or sit at a choke point and fire into the smoke) which is less exciting. I want to stalk an enemy who isn't necessarily stalking me.) The max time limit of 4-5 minutes in most maps (though it can seem like forever) also helps as well as the ability to stalk a specific target (e.g. the VP or the bomb sites) on offense.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Stealth Paradigm in Multiplayer by Kaali · · Score: 1

      > CS I think balances these two, despite being the first game in the genre to populatize the no-respawn rule.

      I'm quite sure that Action-Quake2 came before CS, and it was popular at the time.

    2. Re:Stealth Paradigm in Multiplayer by droleary · · Score: 1

      Now the problem with the stealth paradigm is that it can be boring for those already dead: you really want to wait for a 20 minute stalk match with the last two players?

      The bigger issue is that multiplayer usually doesn't support a real stealth game type. That is, the "mission" is too obvious for both sides, and so you know what the win/lose situation is. The plot behind single player, however, is that your enemies aren't specifically looking for you or actively guarding a "flag". They're just putting in another day's work, expecting it to be as uneventful as the last 100 days.

      I want to stalk an enemy who isn't necessarily stalking me.) The max time limit of 4-5 minutes in most maps (though it can seem like forever) also helps as well as the ability to stalk a specific target (e.g. the VP or the bomb sites) on offense.

      Exactly. What needs to be offered is a multiplayer setup where no individual/team knows the win condition for their opponent. Your mission might be to kill a particular person, but that person (and their team) might instead have their mission as moving a package from point A to point B. So even if you allowed respawning in general, nobody would run-and-gun on the chance that their death is the sole aim of the other guys.

  11. Woah Woah by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The whole stealth thing is seriously getting old. How many metal gear solid games are out there. Add splinter cell, tenchu ninja game.... whoopie.

    This market needs more team play like wolfenstein enemy territory and the bloodfest will be all worth while.

    1. Re:Woah Woah by der_joachim · · Score: 1

      Have you played BF1942/Vietnam lately? Although the games were specifically created for teamplay, most online games are just a bunch of loners trying to shoot as many as possible without any sort of cooperation.

      der Joachim

      --
      Geek runner, motorcyclist and professional know-it-all
  12. reload? when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Kill your enemies, reload, kill some more, reload - man, what a drag."

    That is why doom features the CHAINGUN! Cut out the reload part for 100% fun!

    1. Re:reload? when? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know you meant delay between shots, but DooM didn't keep track of rounds of ammo in and out of the weapon, it just subtracted rounds from your total ammo each time you shot. If I remember correctly, the shotty did have reloading animation, though, which slowed down the rate of fire. The first fps game I remember seeing that kept track of both bullets in the clip and a separate stockpile, requiring reloading, was Goldeneye for N64. I'm sure it's not the first though.

    2. Re:reload? when? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      I believe Bungie's Marathon for Mac did it first, back in 1994.

    3. Re:reload? when? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      In Duke Nukem 3d you had to reload the pistol, IIRC, but it didn't show you how many shots you had left. I'm not sure when DN3d came out, though.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:reload? when? by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      In Duke Nukem 3d you had to reload the pistol, IIRC, but it didn't show you how many shots you had left.
      Actually, it did. The reload animation gets played when the number of bullets remaining reaches a multiple of 12. (And the number of bullets is listed on the HUD.)

  13. Stealth = Realism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I love stealth games. If I actually went ahead with my plans to infiltrate a super-secret military/criminal facility, killing the administrator and his minions and stealing his secret plans, whilst armed with only a shotgun and a crowbar- well, let's just say my plans call for LOTS of hiding.

    Stealth aspects are low-rent immersion, I love it!!

    Of course, all the tetrahydrocannabinol delta 9 I take helps the immersion as well. Enough of that and you'll *want* to hide.

    1. Re:Stealth = Realism by johannesg · · Score: 1

      If you do go ahead, be sure to pick a site with lots of man-sized ventilation shafts. They are a tremendous help in this kind of situation.

    2. Re:Stealth = Realism by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1

      For tips about how to lay out your evil lair and run your evil empire when you become an evil overlord, based on mistakes many previous evil overlords have made in the past, including this one (man-sized ventilation shafts), see Peter's Evil Overlord List .

  14. don't be a whiner by dh003i · · Score: 1

    If it's a strategy that works, it works.

    I'm a long-time Descent player. There are essentially three styles of play, which can be integrated: dogfighting, tunnel-fighting, and hit-and-run. All often use some element of camping. The dogfighter is often patrolling "his room". Of course, everyone knows this, so it's not so lame. But camping isn't a viable long-term strategy. Works once or twice, then people start doing clever things like using smart-missiles to kill campers.

  15. bah, Descent is still fun by dh003i · · Score: 2

    Descent 2 is still a great game, even though there's now Descent 3 (which is better). A game like that feels much more realistic than a "person" game, because you have what feels like complete, perfect, and natural control over yoru ship. Furthermore, there's so much talent required, due to all the degrees of freedom. If you play against good players, Descent never really gets boring.

    The game has a simplicity which is graceful. Elements of stealth, dogfighting, and close-quarters tunnel fighting are all built-in, as is hit-and-run.

  16. Shooters are not getting old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's just that game writers have given up trying to write a decent one. How many good shooters have come out in the past few years? Maybe three. I'd kill (no pun intended) for a good one. Halo 2 and Doom III are definitely on my 2-get list.

    Another sad turn is the move away from having multiple weaker monsters and towards one big monster. Yeah, it's really hard to animate twenty baddies coming at you in one room with today's expected quality, but I fondly remember certain levels in Doom II where you'd run around with hordes of monsters chasing your ass. I'd be willing to sacrifice some quality for that experience.

    Shooters are plain boring, and I have not found one I liked with the exception of Hitman II. And it wasn't the genre, but I kinda got a kick from the storyline and backdrops.

    1. Re:Shooters are not getting old... by togofspookware · · Score: 1

      Blah! After being used to Doom monsters, I tried to pick up quake. I'm used to these guys taking a few shotgun blasts at most to kill for non-bosses, but as far as I could tell, the weakest Quake monster took 5 grenades! Going around the next corner just to find another monster that I'd have to shoot in the face 50 times with a shotgun got old pretty quick. I think Doom was more fun.

      --
      Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
    2. Re:Shooters are not getting old... by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      Blah! After being used to Doom monsters, I tried to pick up quake. I'm used to these guys taking a few shotgun blasts at most to kill for non-bosses, but as far as I could tell, the weakest Quake monster took 5 grenades!


      I'm not sure which monster you are talking about... The weakest "monster" in Quake would be the Dog, which is killed by two shotgun blasts with standard accurracy. Next would be the Solder and Enforcer, which require 2 and 4 hits respectivly.

      The toughest monsters in Quake would be the Fiend, which can be killed with 10-20 shotgun blasts (or a few grenades), and the shamber (which is defeated by unloading the Nailgun/Super Nailgun). These two monsters are generally rare enough that you don't have to worry about them (in fact, on Easy/Normal, there is usually one nearby Quad for each shambler.)

      Whatever you do, don't use the GL/RL on the shambler - it is resistant to explosive attacks.
  17. Thief is _not_ a good example of your case by MikShapi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thief is an overmilked cow. Sorry, but it is. If Deadly Shadows was the first Thief installment you played, and you're completely oblivious of other fun things people put in other contemporary games (such as character buildup and improvement over time) and you're still too new to computer games to understand what "game balance" is and why (or whether) it's important, then hell yes, Thief is a great title.

    But let me point out the following:
    1. This is a third installment of the game. It boasts nothing new from the first two, except for a nicer physics engine and visual candy. This is good for a GOOD game, but BAD for a game that has a large amount of serious design problems. Read on.
    2. Even on expert mode, the game is just too damn EASY. I'm not against giving the player options, I'm against all of them doing such a tremendously good job solving the problem. It renders proper choice of technique (read: require player to THINK) useless. You don't need to think which way is best to solve a problem. All of them are. Douse the torch, or sneak when the guard is on patrol, or clobber him and hide the body. Or head-shot him with a broadhead. Or flashbomb him and run past. It's not like he'll alert every other denizen of the map if you do. On a sidenote, the game is damn too forgiving.
    3. The game does not reward excelence, meticulousness. Obtaining >90% of the loot doesn't require you to be attentive to small details so much as just be systematic.
    4. It's ONE OF THE MOST REPETITIVE GAMES I HAVE EVER PLAYED. Probbably more than Doom 3 will be.
    5. Character enhancement? Leveling? where?
    6. AI - In Thief III everybody is a combination of Sherlock Holmes and a retarded cockroach. Someone will see an object, turn away, you grab it, he turns back, sees its not there, and he'll not raise the entire house. If you leave a door open however, he'll call a guard (which will come, peek in the shadows, find nothing and forget the entire thing).

    Let's put this in contrast: Let's look at the Competition.
    A. HITMAN series.
    They too didn't change much for the last two installments. With them however, I consider it to be a GOOD point.
    PRO: The game most definitely rewards excelence. On the "Expert" mode (i.e. Finishing all levels with "Silent Assassin") It's HARD (read: more challenging and less boring). Technique choice is critical in many situations to do a clean job. Not every technique is good for every situation. This is so not only because [some] hitman weapons make significantly more noise and ruckus, but also because of proper level design.
    CON: While level-up doesn't exist in Hitman, you do get better weapons and are allowed to stash them and later take them with you on missions, but only if you wish to replay the missions a second time after you completed the first time with the default weapons. I did however find the "side-goal" of bringing a weapon back each mission to enrich my stash quite fun.
    PRO: Excelent level design.
    CON: You only notice how excelent the level design is if you play hardcore and attempt Silent Assassin. The casual player can just easily barge through, and the levels are untolerably easy.
    PRO: (I don't believe I'm saying this but after a bit of thought I'm firmly resolved on this):
    You can't save more than X times per level.
    Usually I stress this is a cheap, sorry and pathetic way for devs to artificially extend the amount of playing hours a game contains.
    I'm making an exception here. In Hitman the ability to make only so many saves forces you into taking care and doing things right, and generates suspence. I LOVED IT. Really.

    B. Deus-Ex. (1, not 2!).
    Deus-Ex was NOT a sneaking game. It could be though. It was a successful combination of about 4 types of games, of which sneaking was a major one.
    If we only look at aspects of it that are present in sneaking-only games, we find excelent level design (which you could replay 3 times and find new stuff you haven't found before each time you play it) and very good rewarding of attentivene

    --
    -
    1. Re:Thief is _not_ a good example of your case by Yuioup · · Score: 1

      Dude,

      Read this:

      Thief 3 Deadly Shadows Bug Neuters In-Game AI

      and this:

      Thief Deadly Shadows 1.1 Patch Fixes AI

      .. and play the game again.

      Yuioup

    2. Re:Thief is _not_ a good example of your case by johannesg · · Score: 1
      I haven't played Thief, so I cannot comment on that, but I disagree with your assessment of Hitman. It was an incredibly frustrating experience for many reasons, including:

      - Getting stuck in doors. Yeah, like an assassin would find himself unable to operate a simple, unlocked door...

      - Not being able to save. You play for an hour, make a tiny mistake, game over. Next step: repeat the previous hour exactly as before...

      - Enforces illogical situations. In the restaurant mission you cannot kill your target with a gun, it can only be done with the poison. If you shoot him he just shrugs off the bullets. I've never actually been able to deliver the poison into his food; you only get to try after playing for about an hour and that's just not worth it.

      - Guards with eyes in the backs of their heads. You break out the garotte, they shout "weapon, weapon" though you are clearly behind them.

      - Getting stuck, period: in some missions you can do things that render the mission impossible for no obvious good reason. Talking to the guards in the restaurant before talking to the receptionist is a good example: the receptionist will never offer you the key through the door afterwards.

      Maybe the next games in the series were better (I understand they actually solved the point about saving), but the first outing was a minor disaster.

      Have you tried Far Cry? What did you think of it?

    3. Re:Thief is _not_ a good example of your case by HFXPro · · Score: 1

      Deus Ex is almost best played as a Stealth Game. I really enjoyed playing as a stealthy ninja who only kills people when absolutely necessary. My only complaint was that if alerted enemies would turn towards you if you tried to run up behind them to knock them out (even with full silent running). Bots and Men In Black where you couldn't sneak past were about the only time I ever used heavy artillary.

      --
      Reserved Word.
    4. Re:Thief is _not_ a good example of your case by bugbread · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking as someone who has played Hitman II and Hitman Contracts, but not the original Hitman:

      1) No door sticking (but I'm playing on XBox, and I've noticed "sticking to the scenery" seems more frequent in PC games. Not trolling, as I love my PC games. Just an observation)

      2) You can save up to 5 times per level (6? I forget), which is enough to make it clearable, but not so many as to make the FPS quick-save-marathon approach work.

      3) I don't remember many illogical situations.

      4) The guards only kinda have eyes in the back of their head. If they hear you, they'll probably call for backup, but they don't call out "weapon" for unseen weapons, etc. Plus, disguises work very very well.

      5) I can't remember anything that rendered missions plain impossible, but I may have just been lucky.

      That said, the frequent complaint is that, in addressing everyone's problems, they made a pretty unpopular change: it's possible to clear the whole game with no stealth whatsoever. You get a rating at the end of each level for stealth, from Silent Assassin to Psychopath or Butcher or something. So, if you have the self control to try to get Silent Assassin, it's hella fun, but if you just go guns blazing, it's a very subpar FPS. Why anyone would play it that way is beyond me, but, you know, kids today...

    5. Re:Thief is _not_ a good example of your case by voodoo1man · · Score: 1

      My experience was a lot different. I found some of the doors clumsy if you approached them running, which was doubly annoying since the only time I ran in that game was when I was being chased by a gang of machine-gun wielding guards. I liked the challenge of the no-save gameplay. The saves in Hitman II definitely changed my playing style. The only time I found it annoying was when I had to replay the Rotterdam docks mission twice (nailed it on the 2nd time). I did the Honk Kong boss assasination mission the plain old poison way, and had no problems, so I can't really comment. I thought Hitman II was worse in terms of illogical and just plain linear mission situations than Hitman. The Malaysian twin towers missions were particularly frustrating and disappointing. Now as far as eyes in the back of the head, I thought Hitman II was far worse in that respect. Whereas in Hitman, the garotte was my most used weapon, in Hitman II I abandoned it's use entirely after fumbling around with the thing on the first level. Knives were useless as well (but the katana was pretty entertaining for a while). That was pretty disappointing. I haven't played Hitman Contracts yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

      --

      In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.

  18. Making Theif harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you find Thief to be too easy, I suggest you make it harder for yourself. One of the BEST things about the Thief series is you can make your own rules. One of the most popular and widely accepted difficulty increasers for Thief is that of "Ghosting". Ghosting is basically one rule:

    Never, EVER be seen (fully spotted).

    Of course, lots of people add additional rules to make things even harder. Popular choices include:

    Never kill anything not human, or never kill anything at all
    No knocking guards out, or a KO limit (usually one per level).
    No stealing things infront of guards even if they can't see you
    Never leave physical evidence/leave everything as you found it (arrows, open doors, no dousing torches, etc)
    Never arouse visual suspicion ("Did I see something move?" etc)
    Never be heard (VERY hard to do)

    Sometimes you'll hear players mention "Pure ghost" or "Lytha style", which is basically the idea of a perfectly invisible ghost. Never ever alert anything to your presence, and never leave a trace. Its insanely hard to Lytha every single level, but with time and patience it can be done. In general though, everyone creates their own style of ghosting. You just try to never leave a trace of your actions (other than all the missing loot) thats acceptable to your standards. Myself, I try to always think about "the morning after" scenario. As in, what would the guards say the next morning when everything was found missing? Thus, no one can ever see me (no description). One KO per level (one guard saying "I got knocked out" sounds like an excuse for sleeping on the job: two or more hints of a thief), with the exception of drunk guards (Benny!) who would probably pass out on their own anyways. Noise is OK, but I try to keep it tame and (if possible) explainable. Bumping a cup off a table (a rat?), or opening an unlocked door to the outside (wind?) is good, but throwing furniture around and stomping around the place is unacceptable. Also, I rarely leave a trace of my presence. So that means no unretrieved arrows, very few torch dousings, almost all doors closed, etc. No killing either: i'm a thief, not a murderer (plus, arrows sticking out of someones body or a slashed throat is kind of obvious). Undead and non-sentient animals are generally exempt to my rules, since they won't tell anyone they saw me -- BUT, I try to play as if i'm more afraid of them (which ain't hard to do). So where I have no problems walking right behind a guards back, I try to keep a good 6 feet or more between me and the undead. Its definitly a challange, but its also a hell of a lot of fun.

    The point is though, you can make Theif games anything you want. Some people play by the stock rules. Some people like to kill or KO everything that moves while hopping around like a bunny, while others can never be seen or heard. Some like rushing through a level as fast as they can, others won't leave until they've stolen everything that isn't nailed down. Do whatever you want - the real rules of the game are totally up to you. :)

    1. Re:Making Theif harder by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      1. I'm well aware of the AI-reverts-to-normal-level-after-loading-bug and played it patched to 1.1

      2. I DID play the game with my own rules. I never killed anything human. and I only clobbered people who had stuff I wanted and there was no other way of getting it off them.

      The problem with playing it with your own rules is that it's utterly unrewarding. No different from, say, completing Thief without ever using the Strafe Left button. Whoopee!

      As for the rules thing - I strongly disagree with your approach.

      The reason is simple: I like a game to reward me.
      If the devs don't know what rules you'll be playing by, they can't reward you.

      Just HOW are you rewarded by not killing/KO'ing a single sould on a level? (simple answer: you aren't).

      The reason I liked playing Hitman for SA rating is to get the rating and the unique weapon in the end.

      The reason I liked spotting the really hard-to-find secrets in Deus-Ex is because of the charachter-enhancing goodies in them.

      Damn, I remember when I was playing Baldur's Gate II a few years back, on the sub-quest of the Red Dragon where most courses led you to reaching some form of standoff with him, but given enough ingenuity and effort you could actually kill it. If you did, it clearly mentioned your achievement in your journal.
      I know, it's reeks of infantile, but having the game acknowledge that you did something HARD is.. fun :-)

      --
      -
  19. Uhh.. by Kwil · · Score: 1

    You *have* patched your version of Thief III right?

    Otherwise if you're playing on expert and save your game, you're not playing on expert any more.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  20. Difficulty by DownloadTHIS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the main problem with stealth games is that they can never give the character the proper combat skills. I remember playing Metal Gear Solid, and while I mostly hid through the game, I recall not worrying much when I did get caught because I could still gun down quite a few gaurds before dying, even make it out alive often. Meanwhile, when playing Splinter Cell I felt that Sam's combat skills were subpar for someone who the NSA put so much trust in. To be fair, the emphasis is on stealth, but shouldn't he at least have some chance in a gunfight? Now, I'm not asking for Sam to be able to charge through without worrying, but there should be at least a little room for error, especailly seeing as save point were presented in a checkpoint system, not a save anywhere system like a PC game. (Note: I played the Xbox version, I don't know if the save system is different on PC.)

  21. Neocron by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    The MMORPG Neocron makes use of stealth ability for the Spy character class, who can stealth for short periods of time once they achieve a certain level. It does make the game interesting when you have to take into account that you might not be alone when you think you are. There are ways to combat stealthed players, such as AoE weapons and the Psi Monks have a spell that can cancel stealth - the classes really are designed to compliment each other.

    It's a great game and they are about to launch a major update (check out the video) or you can get a demo version or download the full game for a full trial.

  22. Just don't force me to sneak by Dasaan · · Score: 1

    Sneaking is a nice option, but IMO it should be just that, an option.
    Also if I get caught sneaking, then give a chance to fight my way out of the situation. For example in LoZ: The Wind Waker at the forsaken fortress there are sections where you have to sneak past some moblins. If you are seen then you get taken to a holding area with no chance to try fighting the moblin. This is only a mild example however.
    A more annoying example is Jedi Knight 2 : Outcast. In particular the Cairn - Docking Bay level. Geez I'm supposed to be some kind of uber jedi-wannabe with a huge pile of weapons and yet if some git hits the alarm panel I don't get the chance to fight my way out. I don't care if the game designer decides to send 10 times as many enemies at me if the panel is activated just give the chance to fight my way to freedom.

    --
    XP is basicly 98 with a lot more extra features to hunt down and disable. --Dram
    1. Re:Just don't force me to sneak by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      A more annoying example is Jedi Knight 2 : Outcast. In particular the Cairn - Docking Bay level. Geez I'm supposed to be some kind of uber jedi-wannabe with a huge pile of weapons and yet if some git hits the alarm panel I don't get the chance to fight my way out.
      Yes, I remember that section all too well. I wouldnt' find this to be a problem, if it werent for the fact that there were a few points where you were in a very high risk of being detected (and there wasn't a way around them, since it was a one-route map).

      It's also inconsistant with the rest of the game - you kill many reminant soldiers, reborn, and dark jedi, but fail to one alarm. There wasn't really much of an explination on exactly how that happened.

      The only place where forces stealth is close to being acceptable would be "Casing the Joint" in Thief II: The Metal Age - you are trying to map the place out before you steal an objective item in the next mission. If you get spotted, it is assumed that the masks won't be brought to the mansion. (I'm not sure that the casing mission is even required - however, it's part of the story where the master thief wants to make sure he knows the place before retrieving the critical items.)

  23. Problems by johannesg · · Score: 1
    The downside of the MGS approach is that you spend 90% of your playing time just looking at the radar, instead of the gorgeous backdrops. That kinda sucks.

    And I've been playing Far Cry recently and I find that guards tend to notice you in situations where I could have sworn I was utterly invisible (like lying on my belly, behind a tree, in some bushes, in near total darkness). "There he is!" Arg, another hour of sneaking around gone to waste...

  24. holy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    Character enhancement? Leveling? where?



    Jesus fucking christ. We need automated satellite lasers or something to shoot down all the retard armchair game designers.

    It's like the shit train just keeps coming..

  25. GSS by VendingMenace · · Score: 1

    hmmm...
    now, PLEASE don't think that i am attacking you personally, per se. But you have kinda hit on one of my pet peeves, so i gotta comment.

    Bassically, i think this sort of attitude is what is bred by our educational system. That is, people think, "why would i do this, if I am not being aknowledge/rewarded?"

    I call it the "Gold Star Syndrom" (GSS)

    I mean really, why does an inatimate computer need to reward you for anything? Why does aknowledgement make what you did any better/hareded/more important, ect? Why can't people just set goals for themselves and then accomplish them and feel like meeting their own personal goal is reward enough? Really.

    Frankly, i see this kind of behavior everyday, and it is kinda sad. People are so very concered with being recognized for what they have done. Or they will not do anything if they do not hear that they have potential and what they are doing is worth it. Seriously. This is so bad. But this is what happens when people learn early on that nothing is worth doing unless it is rewarded. This is what happens when people are taught to expect a gold star everytime they turn in a report in school. *Sigh*

    NOw i would like to say that i kinda see where you are comming from in THIS case. I mean, you just really want to see some more content from the developers. You want to see a more rich gameplay experience -- and who wouldn't? But to have the attitude that things are not fun, if they are not rewarded or aknowledged is kinda a poor one. I mean, isn't making the game harder than it was indended to be AND beating it that way, satisfying. To know that you can set goals that they developers thought were to hard to include. ANd then pwning the game that way?

    Perhaps i just am not smart enough understand why GSS is a good thing. But it seems like with this attitude, why would people ever go running for exersise or go hiking or do ANYTHING that others are not around to see and reward them for. As such, i see many people that just don't try new things -- not becuase they are afraid of trying and failing, but they are afraid of trying and not being rewarded. Quite sad.

    Again, i don't know that this is YOUR attitude, and i do not mean to attack you, personally. I just wanted to comment on an attitude that i saw comming through in your post. :D

    1. Re:GSS by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      First off, thanks for the insight, and no, I'm not offended.
      In fact I pretty much share your view of how sad this GSS as you call it is, and was fully aware of it at the time I wrote the above as well.

      It's Interesting. I'm sorta trying to figure out what it is that makes my funhaving tick.

      My personal opinion - I like the sense of accomplishment, and I get it when I did something hard. I guess the gold star is a way of the devs saying "we knew someone would get to this hard-to-get-to point", and I guess I like games which know I exist in spite of the onslaught of Joe 'Casual' Gamers in recent years.

      Maybe I'm just trying to prove to myself I haven't turned Joe 'Casual' myself.

      Yep. You're right. I'm sad.

      So... when is Hitman 4 hitting the shelves?

      --
      -
    2. Re:GSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bassically, i think this sort of attitude is what is bred by our educational system. That is, people think, "why would i do this, if I am not being aknowledge/rewarded?" I call it the "Gold Star Syndrom" (GSS)
      I was going to mod this comment up, but quite frankly I don't know if you would appreciate it or not!
  26. Everything new gets old and old new again. by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

    Everything new gets old and old new again. This illustrates a law of psychology is that things get old the more you expose yourself to them for the vast majority of people. The fresher they are in your memory while you are consuming a product you will soon get burnt out on it after you no longer get some sort of psychological reward or satisfaction from it.

    But then years later you may go back to it and play game X or watch movie Y all the way through again. Think about it, even some of the greatest replayable games of all time eventually people master them to such a degree where it is no longer challenging or they are so familiar with it that they seek a different/new enviornment or set of challenges and circumstances. Novelty and enjoyment can only last so long if you are overdosing on it. I'd say the principle is kind of like pesticide/poison resistance in organisms the more you expose yourself to it the more you become immune to it's effects. The same thing goes for the opposite end of the spectrum, pleasure.

    Or for instance another example, you can get nearly the same sex from most any girl on the planet or find a girl you like and can enjoy but you eventually get bored or become disinterested over time to seek out someone who's life and behaviour you don't know inside out because once you know all there is to know interest wanes.

  27. parent worth mod up.... by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    not familiar with the game, but that does indeed seem lame....

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  28. Re: Your sig. by OneDeeTenTee · · Score: 0

    El Goonish Shive?

    --
    Stop the world; I need to get off.
  29. I can't stand sneak games by stecker · · Score: 1

    I love it when I come across my friends playing some whimpy sneak-around game. I routinely taunt them with "Oh, be careful! You don't want those bad men to see you! You had better hide! Go and hide behind the wall like a little girl!"

    Give me a real grame like HL or Quake or FarCry any day. I've totally given up on sneaky shooters.

    No amount of storming into rooms armed with loads of guns and laying waste to massive amounts of my enemies will ever become dull.

    1. Re:I can't stand sneak games by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      No amount of storming into rooms armed with loads of guns and laying waste to massive amounts of my enemies will ever become dull.
      As you know, some games have attempted to make the enemies more challenging. For example, Red Faction gives the mercenaries a rail driver, which is a one-hit kill weapon designed to penetrate walls (you can see enemies through walls with its thermal scope.)

      I have yet to see a player who can complete a map containing such enemies without having to excessivly save and reload.
  30. Nearly there by superultra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I almost believed author Clive Thompson until he called, at the end of his article, Manhunt "another superb recent stealth game." Recent, I can believe. Supberb, not so much.

  31. Ever tried playing Final Fantasy VII w/o saving? by tepples · · Score: 1

    if you're playing on expert and save your game, you're not playing on expert any more.

    How many hours is Thief III? Is a player supposed to temporarily dedicate a $1,000 PC to playing Thief III and play a few hours each day? I know somebody who beat Super Mario Bros. 3 without warping that way; at the time, I considered it ridiculous.

  32. God damn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the fuck is it noone mentioned the original Metal Gear?

    You're all fucking idiots.

  33. Acronym overload? by Limburgher · · Score: 1
    I need to spend more time in RL, not on /.. I just spent 30 seconds trying to figure out what the heck LOTS stood for. Lord Of Teh Suck? Lettuce On The Side? Lift Off The Scab? No idea.

    (sigh)

    --

    You are not the customer.

  34. Re:Ever tried playing Final Fantasy VII w/o saving by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

    It is a bug (and a pretty bad one, IMO). Not an intentionally stupid design decision.

    --
    There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
  35. Why at least I found it plausible by tepples · · Score: 1

    I realized that about ten minutes after I posted that. Super Mario All-Stars had a different rule for its port of The Lost Levels: if you warp or you load a saved game, you can't get to World 9, and the game skips to World 10.

  36. "Prime Grenade" by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1
    Actually, it did. The reload animation gets played when the number of bullets remaining reaches a multiple of 12. (And the number of bullets is listed on the HUD.)

    And the Grenade launcher needs to get reloaded when the number of Grenades drops to a prime number.

    Seriously, might be a good way to teach math to kids. Or horses.
    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.