Crossbow?

[oDDity]

You're not wrong. There is a reason we aren't taking on the huge task of trying to make a Thief virtual reality simulator and all the gameplay problems that will subsequently need to be dealt with.

 

It's always like this - add more realism, break part of the gameplay, add more realism to compensate, break another part of the gameplay, etc. etc.

...not to mention the 20 or 30 years of development it would require.

[New Horizon]

It's always like this - add more realism, break part of the gameplay, add more realism to compensate, break another part of the gameplay, etc. etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not to mention..hobble the players system with so many real world calculations that it crawls at a snails pace. That would make everyone really happy.

[Domarius]

Great article that Gleeful linked to in the Off-Topic forum

http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/?p=676

 

It's the essence of what I'm talking about. Choose a narrow, manageable scope, but do it really really really well.

 

Also another concept mentioned in that article is that trying to add realism can actually take you out of the experience. A good comparison is Deus Ex vs Thief conversations. Being able to make conversation choices is more realistic, but people having long pauses int he conversation while you read over your choices isn't realistic, and neither is asking people questions only to have them repeat the same thing every time.

 

If you think back to when you had player->npc conversations in Thief 1 and 2 (Especially the FM calendra's legacy), maybe it felt more special than having a conversation in other games. It did for me, cause I wasn't expecting any player conversations. So when they happened it was more exciting than a conversation heavy game. More importantly, when they happened they were more cinematic, because they happened when they were supposed to and the timing wasn't t broken up by choice dialogue boxes.

 

It's just something to think about. How actually NOT adding something can sometimes make the game feel more immersive.

 

The calendras' legacy example is my favorite, because when I first had the conversation with the old lady, I seemed to be doing things at the right time - looking otu the window when he was expressing his impatience. You start out holding a cup (this was in a tavern) and I set the cup down on the table right when he was expressing his annoyance. I felt like I was taking part in an interactive movie even though the conversation was on rails. Deus Ex by comparison felt like every other conversation in a conversation game. The focus is more on making the choices, at the expense of a more realistic feel to the conversation flow.

[Maximius]

Good points Domarius, sometimes less is a lot more. Its true what you say, the AI conversations with the player were much more compelling than any q&a dialogue precisely because you never left the "moment" to read through an unconvincing list of possible responses. The AIs always said the right thing at the right moment, barring scripting errors and such, and it kept the flow of immersion moving right along.

[FishFace]

On a similar note, I hope TDM doesn't get bogged down in "option frenzy" whereby the player essentially chooses what game they're going to play. As far as I'm concerned, it would take far too long to evaluate all the possible choices, then ascertain which is best. Hopefully enough design decisions will be made by you lot, and then the FM makers. At the same time, I hope we either and up with a lot of campaigns, or individual missions mostly sticking to the similar bunches of settings. One thing I wouldn't want is for you to end up being required to get used to a whole new game for every single mission. Naturally, this wouldn't be a problem for a campaign, where it may as well be a whole other game, and it is worth investing time in learning everything required.

[Domarius]

Man we spent a long time arguing and discussing that, and we came up with something pretty darn cool.

 

Without getting into too much detail, the only options are number type things, like AI combat stats, etc. So it'll hardly be a different game, unless they go to the effort of changing the actual mod of course

[FishFace]

Yes... The question is how many creators will bother to do that, I suppose. On second thoughts, for a single campaign they're unlikely to bother hacking the mod.

[obscurus]

Regardless of how closely you want to model reality or not, the game needs to be fairly tightly defined by the FM author - giving the player too many options to change the gameplay results in a poorly focused game that will not give a very good experience for anyone without a LOT of work. One of the things I liked about Thief and more so in Half-Life were the little scripted bits that really built a story into the game. I totally understand what you are saying about how narrowing the focus of the game and creating a more stylised, less realism focused but internally consistent game world will be more immersive and enjoyable than a poorly implemented reality simulator, but I still don't like rope arrows Realism aside, for purely subjective aesthetic reasons, I just don't like them. But since pretty much everyone else seems to love 'em, I guess I'll just have to pretend they aren't there, and hope that FMs provide players with other means of gettting places that don't force you to use rope arrows (actullay, I like being able to finish a mission without using any gear at all wherever possible - for me it is about using the environment as it is without relying on tools and weapons to reach my goals, so I hope there are a few mission along those lines released).

 

I think realism needs to be restricted to things that can be done well, but the problem there is that if you have, for example, very realistic graphics, but unrealistic physics and object interaction, it spoils the illusion quite a bit. Whereas if you make the graphics a bit cartoony, there will be less expectation that the world will behave realisticly.

 

When I say I want a realisitic (not real, but realistic, I hope everyone understands the difference in meaning there), I don't mean I expect every blade of grass to have realistic physics, or NPCs to be able to discuss philosophy with me, or for arrows to obey the laws of physics perfectly with every bounce and ricochet, I mean I want a magic free setting where everything the player can do is resonably plausible in the real world, but not necessarily that the player can do everything they can in the real world, ie that within the confines and limitations of the game, everything the player can do is reasonably realistic, even though the player can't do everything they can do in RL. I hope the distinction is clear. Medal of Honour is a reasonably realistic (up to a point) WWII FPS combat game, as long as you don't try to make it into a game it isn't by doing something outside the paramaters of the game.

 

I guess the more realistic you try to make a game, the more you will depend on the player to keep themselves immersed by not doing things outside the scope of the game and still expecting it to remain realistic.

 

So a less realistic game can be more immersive because there are fewer illusions to shatter

[Domarius]

It's striking the balance that is the art. The right amount of realism with the right amount of video-game-ness. I guess we all understand this, but at least it's out on the table now.

 

Well, the thing about the rope arrow, is that it's the simplest solution for a "grappling hook". I beleive it's the most beleif-stretching tool in the game, but it's tried and true, so it's what we're going with. Ideally one day we will replace it with a real grappling hook. After a LOT of work.

 

Yes... The question is how many creators will bother to do that, I suppose. On second thoughts, for a single campaign they're unlikely to bother hacking the mod.

This happened with T2 and it's gonna happen with the DarkMod. It's not something you prevent, you encourage it. The thing stopping most people will be the amount of work involved. It'll hardly be a common thing. And l.ike T2X, it's kind of obvious the scale of the modification and what you're getting into, when you read the accompanying text file.

 

the game needs to be fairly tightly defined by the FM author - giving the player too many options to change the gameplay results in a poorly focused game that will not give a very good experience for anyone without a LOT of work.

We totally discussed this to death, don't worry

 

Maybe one of the moderators will have to censor me but I can't help telling you how cool our system is.

The user chooses easy medium or hard, and the fm author specifies game settings for each of these. Eg. at easy, AI visual acutity could be 3, on medium it could be 10, etc. Then the author can also make parts of the mission available or not depending on easy medium or hard. This gives incentative to try harder and play the way the FM author intended it.

 

The user also has the option to increase the difficulty of these settings individually to make the game harder, but this will not change the difficulty setting (from easy medium or hard) and therefore will not unlock something from the hard level if you choose medium, no matter how high you subsequently modifiy the settings.

Also if the user has a problem with one of the settings, like too much loot to get on medium setting, they can always lower the difficulty setting to easy and then raise up the other settings to what they were on medium, thus lowering the loot requirement, but not getting the special things in the level that would be unlocked by chosing medium.

 

So the user has the ability to tune the game they way they want to play it, but the author can design it so that unless they play it at least as hard as the author wants, they won't see everything in the level, to give them incentative to try harder and play the way the author wanted them to.

[obscurus]

Cool... Sounds like you guys are really on the ball there! I look forward to the release!

[Hylix Ulyx]

I guess the more realistic you try to make a game, the more you will depend on the player to keep themselves immersed by not doing things outside the scope of the game and still expecting it to remain realistic.

 

So a less realistic game can be more immersive because there are fewer illusions to shatter

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'll probably get banned or flamed for replying, but this was all I was trying to say in the first place. The more a game touts "realism" the harder it becomes for a player to overlook very unrealistic limitations inherent in all games (up to the present), thus losing the sense of immersion. It's the very nature of the beast.

 

Speaking strictly in terms of immersion, when a game is consistent, it's simply more believable, even if it's not realistic. Rope arrows seem perfectly resonable in a world where a leather-covered bludgeon can take down a weapons-ready, fully armoured guard....quietly.

 

Me personally, I'm glad that TDM team is staying this course, using Thief as an inspirational base, continuing in spirit what LGS started. I know that this won't be Thief 4, but at least we'll get that nostalgic feeling we lost when T3 was made. Do I think T3 was bad? No, but I don't think anyone here will deny that something was lost in the translation from old to new.

 

*even in games where realism is a big marketing point, they tend to stick to one or two aspects of the game entire that are touted as realstic, while the rest of the experience becomes a painful reminder that you are playing a game.

 

I admit that my definition of realism if far too cut and dry.

I also admit that my definition probably doesn't apply here in lieu of TDM.

 

I guess I think the very idea of realism in games is ridiculous because even hardcore simulators are fun not because they're realistic, but because at the end of the day when your submarine explodes, or your ship sinks, or your plane crashes, or you character dies, you can just reload, restart, cheat, or just turn it off.

 

Reality is not that forgiving.

 

Of course, it's all just my opinion.

 

Humble Hylix.

[bob_arctor]

I hope I can play the whole mission with good AI without a stupidly high lootcount. Is that possible?

[New Horizon]

I hope I can play the whole mission with good AI without a stupidly high lootcount. Is that possible?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We're not going to go into any further detail about those systems at this point as it's far too early to give any real answers. In my opinion, loot count should be determined by the FM author as this is one of the goals that determines how the author intended the level to be won.

 

I included playstyles in Minimalist Project 1.4 as a way to test how adjusting the required loot on the original missions would affect the gameplay. Yes, Thief Deadly Shadows was my guinea pig. That being said, loot adjustment is not something I would want to see as an option for the player. It should be determined by the fm author for each difficulty level.

[Domarius]

Well, the way I currently see it - without complicating our current system (which is still conceptual, so hardly set in stone) your only hope is that whatever loot count they put on medium or easy is one that you personally dont' think is ridiculous, so you can choose that setting and up the AI difficulty independantly.

 

I personally think that anyone who is a half decent FM maker would not be so stupid as to put fairly difficult settings down on the easy setting.

 

*edit* ah NH, you posted at the same time as me. Well like I said, it's still conceptual, so like NH said, it's not real answers, just speculation.

 

I love our current system. I thought of its base, if I remember correctly.

[oDDity]

In my opionon there should be no generic loot objective at all. apart from special items. It's always been a lazy objective tacked on to the end of the real objectives, and is invariably annoying towards the end when you've done everything and just want to end the mission, but you have to carry on and look for a few more candlesticks. Tedious.

[FishFace]

Sorry, when I said "single campaign" I meant "single mission." For a campaign, modded behaviour is fantastic. For a single, standalone, once-off, non-contiguous mission, when every single one is different, it would get confusing. A campaign gives you the chance to acclimatise yourself to the quirks and nuances of the "game" you're playing - essentially each campaign becomes a new game, perhaps with a new lead, set within the same world.

 

On realism (again) I think it's important to remember that realistic applies within the gameworld, not necessarily to the real world. This is where the word "consistency" comes in - if slightly fantastical things are possible, but are presented well and in consistency with other elements, then there is no immersion break. This is the whole premise of good fantasy - that you can alter the world, but as long as you do it properly, it still provides a cohesive experience. As such, a fantastical setting can be as fun and immersive as a non-fantastical one. Thus, the choice between real-world and fantastical realism is a design one, not an objective one - as long as the team has the capability to realise a consistent fantasy.

 

I realise (obviously) that certain people (obscurus, oDD) would rather TDM be real-world than fantastical, or at any rate, nearer to real-world than Thief was. Simultaneously, we have those who don't care and those who want lots of fantasy. Hopefully it's been realised that this preference is subjective, rather than based on a general immersion scale, and that whatever camp someone belongs to, the game will probably be enjoyable AND immersive.

 

With that said, there is still nothing stopping an FM author leaving out rope arrows, or making other changes. Since we all survived the first missions of TDP/TMA without them, I think we'll survive an FM for TDM without them?

[bob_arctor]

We're not going to go into any further detail about those systems at this point as it's far too early to give any real answers.  In my opinion, loot count should be determined by the FM author as this is one of the goals that determines how the author intended the level to be won.

 

I included playstyles in Minimalist Project 1.4 as a way to test how adjusting the required loot on the original missions would affect the gameplay.  Yes, Thief Deadly Shadows was my guinea pig.    That being said, loot adjustment is not something I would want to see as an option for the player.  It should be determined by the fm author for each difficulty level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well yes I really like the Thief and ... Ghost. Yes those two. Good AI, no lootcount. Mind you I gave up on ghost as I kept on mucking up so play on Thief with giving myself only 3 blackjacks (like Shoalsgate on Hard) and being good generally.

I ghosted the latter half of the human missions on T2x as well, easy (difficulty: hard)

See the thing is I hate loot hunts at the end.

 

Yes I agree with Oddity, hence I really like the optional one of COSAS GATI. Although on Hard I met it while looking to solve the other bits and bobs.

 

But I don't want to cut off 50% of a mission due to my fear of the "Expert" or "L33t" lootcount.

Edited August 11, 2005 by bob_arctor

[Domarius]

Well that was the argument presented many times in our discussion. In the end, it all boiled down to:

 

1. They award gold medals in the olympics for exceptional acheivement, and the difficulty settings on a game are no different. The author has every right to create a story the way he/she wants it to play out.

2. No one can stop an author from making a shit mission.

[Maximius]

In my opionon there should be no generic loot objective at all. apart from special items. It's always been a  lazy objective tacked on to the end of the real objectives, and is invariably annoying towards the end when you've done everything and just want to end the mission, but you have to carry on and look for a few more candlesticks. Tedious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yes, this is by far the most annoying of any objective Ive ever come across, except for the dreaded TIMED missions which make me want to scream, realistic or not I hate em. I dont mind a reasonable loot minimum, but to collect it all is often boring to say the least. An to me its anti-immersive, if I have enough loot why force me to remain, get the hell out why the getting out is good. You have beaten all the AIs, figure out all the secrets, but you gotta get that damned copper goblet you missed in the basement storage room. Blecch!

 

Leaving loot up to the player works well in FM series where you have to purchase new resources between missions. Its a more immersive decision matrix, stay and collect everything to make the next mission easier or get done with what you are doing and play a tougher mission next time through. Its a decision a RL thief might have to make, especially one that has to buy super expensive equiptment for each run. Like, for instance, rope bolts......

 

Eeek!

 

(runs from room)

[obscurus]

I liked those missions in T2, like the warehouse one at the beginning, where the amount of loot was part of the story. You need 500 in loot to pay your rent. Makes sense. The "collect 95% of the loot" stuff in TDS was stupid, because it was presented as an abstract percentage instead of a concrete amount for a particular purpose. And if you are going to make the player collect a lot of loot and it isn't your primary objective, you had better reward them by allowing them to purchase something pretty spiffy.

 

It is a bit pointless also if you are making a single mission FM, since the player won't be able to use the loot at the end. So if you aren't going to include the loot as a part of the story, or reward them player with a worthwhile toy to buy, don't reduce the mission to a loot hunt by putting a silly loot requirement in.

 

That is also why I favour having a limit on how much stuff the player can carry - purely for the sake of gameplay if not realism - it means the player has to consider what they put in their loot sack a bit more carefully, and carry only the tools and weapons they need, and it stops the game from becoming a mindless loot hunt or from shooting all the AI full of arrows until they are all dead, thereby circumventing the stealth aspect. Realism aside, being able to carry 40 broadheads, 35 water arrows, 15 fire arrows, 10 gas arrows, 5 noisemaker arrows, 5 rope arrows, a blackjack, and sword seriously unbalances the game in my view (my numbers might be a bit off, but you get the idea). If you have all that stuff (TDS made it ridiculously easy to accumulate a full armoury), you can pretty much play the game like a FPS without giving a damn about stealth, so tighter limits on what you can carry, realistic or not, make the game more focussed on stealth rather than using a huge arsenal to blunder your way through the mission. And as I have no doubt mentioned before, I like the idea of the player having to choose between a trade off between having more loot and moving more slowly and noisily, and having less loot and moving more quickly and stealthily. Puts more of an element of strategy and objective planning into the game. Maybe not everyones cup of tea though.

[Domarius]

In a single mission, you need a loot objective, otherwise there is no point picking it up other than to hear the *dring!* sound. The objective is there to simulate a requirement that would otherwise be there in a campaign.

 

But at the same time, I really really really hate when I'm like, 5% below the requirement, and have spent longer searching for that last 5% than playing the rest of the actual mission!!

 

Our difficulty setting may let you aleviate this, but you wouldn't know its ridiculously hard till you were near the end anyway.

 

The only thing we can really do is hope FM authors can create a good balance of loot requirement and giving clues about where to find it, if you read enough things.

The most annoying thing is having to play virtual scavenger trying to cover every polygon of the level for any randomly placed loot.

 

It's one thing to scour someone's house or bedroom for the stash that you know for certain is there.

 

It's something totally different when just randomly having to search - to be wandering the streets randomly searching for some coin someone dropped in a random drain or gutter somewhere, and you have no idea where to start.

[oDDity]

It's very simple.

If the player wants to collect loot because he enjoys it, then he'll do so regardless of objectives. If the player doesn't like collecting loot, there's no point in forcing him to do so.

End of story.

Like I said, having to get special loot items is fine, since it can add a lot of gameplay if said items are hard to find or hard to steal becasue of where they are placed or the security surrounding them, and yes its fine if there's some good reason in some misisonas to why you need to steal 500 loot, but to say you need it to pay your rent in every mission is stupid - I mean, did you see the grotty little shithole Garrett was renting? He could have bought the whole street for 500.

[bob_arctor]

yes, this is by far the most annoying of any objective Ive ever come across, except for the dreaded TIMED missions which make me want to scream, realistic or not I hate em.  I dont mind a reasonable loot minimum, but to collect it all is often boring to say the least.  An to me its anti-immersive, if I have enough loot why force me to remain, get the hell out why the getting out is good.  You have beaten all the AIs, figure out all the secrets, but you gotta get that damned copper goblet you missed in the basement storage room. Blecch!

 

Leaving loot up to the player works well in FM series where you have to purchase new resources between missions.  Its a more immersive decision matrix, stay and collect everything to make the next mission easier or get done with what you are doing and play a tougher mission next time through. Its a decision a RL thief might have to make, especially one that has to buy super expensive equiptment for each run.  Like, for instance, rope bolts......

 

Eeek!

 

(runs from room)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well put. And if in an FM I only have the loot to go and it's no fun I will say "meh" and say I have completed it, as long as I have explored everything (of interest) and seen all the cool architecture etc.

[New Horizon]

I'm sure there will be plenty of FM's that won't have a loot requirement but if it's the way the author intended it to be, I wouldn't support deactivating it.

[Maximius]

Well put. And if in an FM I only have the loot to go and it's no fun I will say "meh" and say I have completed it, as long as I have explored everything (of interest) and seen all the cool architecture etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I do exactly the same thing, the loot objective is the one I refuse to hang around to finish, I just end the mission and call it a day. Its no fun looking for a few coins when you have found the magic sword, the ancient masks and the Horn of Quintus and you are ready to cruise.

 

I also second obscurus' notion of limiting what you can carry out. I personally think that being forced to choose would be an added dimension of realism, of course left up to the FM authors discretion.