Okay... I understand that you're saying it's hard to beat a level with just your knife, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about.

This is about advancement of enemy gun fighting and stealth navigation tactics.

I see how you're saying that it's pointless to advance gun fighting tactics because we don't want to waste our ammo anyway, but the point I'm pushing across is that a major advance to their coding would give us an incentive to not engage in fights, because we would be more likely to survive by avoiding than we would to engage. Make their gun tactics so difficult to predict and so advanced that you'd be struggling to survive against one mercenary behind a table, and most people will choose to stay hidden rather than engage. And at the same time, I'm also saying that for those of us who think we can handle the challenge, at least it will be worth our while now. After walking out of a fight from shooting ten enemies, feeling like I could've taken on twenty, it's needless to say that gun fights are a bit too easy in Splinter Cell, to the point that some people don't feel the need to be stealthy at all because they can just run and gun. Maybe if they make shooting one enemy a challenge, people would think differently about walking out in plain sight and kicking over a table with guns blazing.

Wouldn't that make it the same 'frustrating' trial-and-error game as L&S? 'be seen or not' vs 'able to take out 1 merc or not'. After all, he's got you pinned down.

Since SC is still stealth, I think the best decision, in that case, would be the more sneaky way. Thus L&S. Because the other way is more like GOW or Kane and Lynch.

No, not like that. Challenging, not frustrating.

As in, you have to really focus to win, not try again and again to win.

Challenges can be mastered sooner than frustrations can be. Both are possible to master, but challenges, once mastered, are more stable and easy to keep under control. Frustrations can continuously happen long after you've mastered them, less frequently than as before, but they still happen. I've played the original about five hundred times over and the only level that I don't have to reload every five minutes is the first Chinese Embassy mission.

But never mind, I'm not really making a ton of sense anyway. Maybe it was a bad idea.

quote:

But never mind, I'm not really making a ton of sense anyway. Maybe it was a bad idea.

No, it wasn't. Don't be afraid to stand up for yourself, because your ideas and arguments make sense, both from a general logic and game standpoint. What you pitched seems more than possible, and should be included if Ubi wants the game to succeed in its ambitions. Don't be afraid to get bullied or get into an argument (if people are truthful about their opinions, they won't start flaming).

quote:

Wouldn't that make it the same 'frustrating' trial-and-error game as L&S? 'be seen or not' vs 'able to take out 1 merc or not'. After all, he's got you pinned down.

Since SC is still stealth, I think the best decision, in that case, would be the more sneaky way. Thus L&S. Because the other way is more like GOW or Kane and Lynch.

I don't see the comparison between TPS and a stealth action game. An intelligent stealth game will always allow you to implement stealth even in the most volatile situations. With Light and Shadow, you had one choice. Quickload over and over again, each time studying the fixed patterns of the guards. Once they hear you and start investigating, you might as well start over or take them out, because there's no more room for dynamic stealth gameplay. The AI is not designed for the possibility of combat. There's unaware, there's aware (aka almost ready to shoot you), and combat. The previous SC's did not have a combat AI to speak of (unless you call running at you guns blazing intelligence), and your characters abilities and the core nature of the gameplay did not allow for enjoyable and practical combat at all, let alone allow you to escape and live to fight another day. It was all or nothing, it was basic, it was stupid, and it got tedious. In Conviction, combat will become a regulated, intuitive experience. And most of all, it will be fun. Enemy AI will undoubtly have to become smarter for this game to succeed. They'll need to give chase if you run, search obvious locations when you hide, and behave realistically in combat, which is no longer solely based on shooting you in the face. Guards will have to navigate the environment, dodge H2H combat and thrown objects, and find adequate cover to last in a fight. All this combined will lead to a seamless, dynamic combat system that's leaps and bounds beyond the previous SC's "now you see me, now you don't, now I'm reloading" method of detection. And that's not even mentioning the Conviction's suspicion meter, depending on your actions and proximity.

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
No, not like that. Challenging, not frustrating.

As in, you have to really focus to win, not try again and again to win.

Challenges can be mastered sooner than frustrations can be. Both are possible to master, but challenges, once mastered, are more stable and easy to keep under control. Frustrations can continuously happen long after you've mastered them, less frequently than as before, but they still happen. I've played the original about five hundred times over and the only level that I don't have to reload every five minutes is the first Chinese Embassy mission.

But never mind, I'm not really making a ton of sense anyway. Maybe it was a bad idea.

It's kind of a matter of perspective, though, don't you think?

For me, with most games, what would be a challenge (and probably not a big one ) for most players, is impossibly frustrating to me. When it comes to aiming a gun, for example...I can't. I don't know why. All I know is, no matter how much time I spend, I never get any better...

However, if I fail in one of the SC's (aside from the assault sections...) it's because I did something stupid; I rushed when I shouldn't have. It is a bit of trial and error, but really, if you just wait, observe, and plan, it's almost always possible to get through cleanly (and for some players, always ). There are some tricky sections, sure, but that's where things really get fun.

About the tricky parts may I remind you the part in the bathouse after Shetland kills Kaneida and runs away. Later on you have to get through Shetlands men which have night vision which make it even more annoying and the part where he starts planting bombs and the freaking mercenaries start coming from everywhere especially from the second bomb where two guys would come one from up top and one below. That was one of the most difficult parts in SC and if you get detected it was hard to make it out in one piece which would suggest that you stay out of sight. Now if the AI was like that in every single mission my knife wouldnt even do a thing and even killing one guy would do nothing seeing that there was about 20 guys just as hard to kill as that one. Sometimes avoiding guards is even more simple.

Well, I've only been talking about gun fight tactics, but I did also mention stealth navigation tactics.

Like guard patrols, for example. In real life, even when a security guard is told to patrol a certain path, there is an obvious variation to that path. Progression in Splinter Cell has always been to sit in the shadows, memorize the patrol pattern, look for that perfect window of opportunity, and move on to the next shadow, study a new pattern, and so on.

But in real life, a guard is going to sway from the path, he's not going to stay perfectly on it. While he may follow a straight line one time, he may have a slight bee line to his path the next time. If his patrol route has a place where he has to go around a turn, he may make that turn at ninety degrees or cut corners and make a round turn. He's not always going to stop at the same points either. He could turn around right after coming to the end of the hallway or he might just walk past the end, around the corner, or maybe even take a step into the next room. He's not going to follow a pattern with thoroughly examining each shadow; one shadow he doesn't shine his light on, he may check on his way back or on the next sweep, or in the next three sweeps. And one thing I've always noticed, he is never going to follow it like clockwork. A simple thing to observe: in the game, a guard will walk his path, stop for two seconds, turn around, walk back the other way, stop for two seconds, and keep repeating until he's either knocked out or triggered to investigate. In real life, a patrol will have different paces, he may walk faster one time around, slower the next time, and when he stops, he'll most likely turn around immediately and head back unless he gets suspicious and pauses. And along the way he might randomly slow down or speed up. I do it all the time. If I feel tired, I stop walking so fast. If I'm busy, I speed up. Guards do that too. They're not perfect, don't work on clockwork, and they don't have this invisible line inside their head like a bird's migration instinct that dictates the exact path they must stay on at all times and where exactly to stop or make the turn.

And, sadly to say, these guards have some horrible tunnel vision. That doesn't have anything to do with their field of view or line of sight, because I know that even walking beside them is in their line of sight. But that is to say, obviously whatever end their tush is facing, their head has to be facing the opposite way. Do they ever turn their heads when they're walking? Not really. Do they glance over their shoulder? Thankfully, for the sake of easy sneaking, no they don't. The only time they truly ever do anything with their head is when they're standing still. Sometimes they yawn, look around, scratch their butt, or whatever else, but not when they're patrolling. Whatever is directly in front of their face is too important.

Adding course variance, walking speed variance, random shadow checks, sometimes even forgetting to check a shadow, glancing around while they walk, putting off a patrol for a few seconds, it may not seem like it would make a difference at all, but it adds up to a huge amount. You can have countless variations of the same path, and I have plenty of examples.

Adding a touch of randomness adds the human element. That three second window you saw a second ago is not going to be there the next time around, and the shadow you're standing in right now might not be the best place to be standing when he comes back.

What about this if guard #1 is supposed to report a 5:30 say Sam comes in and kills him at 5:25 then guard 2 starts to wonder where guard 1 one is a 6:00 and calls backup to check out his position and searches everywhere for guard 1 and wont stop until he finds guard 1 or then he would become more alert but of course that would be a problem because a lot of people will start to become more alert meaning that you would have to eliminate the guard at some time and Im sure nobody wants to have to do that.

That actually was another idea I had but never even thought of mentioning. But not to the extent that you put it. Endless searches should only start once Sam has been sighted or a body has been dug up. But having multiple guards in close proximity who don't even pay attention to each other isn't a very immersive feeling.

On that note, something else I forgot. When two guards have seen Sam or found a dead body, or even just heard a noise, and are both searching together, as it is now they simply walk with one person directly behind the other. I would say about any tactical approach is better than that when you're searching for an armed intruder. All you have to do is get behind the rear person, knock him out quietly, and move onto the next one. I think a good approach could be that the person behind would act as a rear guard and walk backwards close to the soldier in front. Not back to back, but within two or three feet.

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
That actually was another idea I had but never even thought of mentioning. But not to the extent that you put it. Endless searches should only start once Sam has been sighted or a body has been dug up. But having multiple guards in close proximity who don't even pay attention to each other isn't a very immersive feeling.

On that note, something else I forgot. When two guards have seen Sam or found a dead body, or even just heard a noise, and are both searching together, as it is now they simply walk with one person directly behind the other. I would say about any tactical approach is better than that when you're searching for an armed intruder. All you have to do is get behind the rear person, knock him out quietly, and move onto the next one. I think a good approach could be that the person behind would act as a rear guard and walk backwards close to the soldier in front. Not back to back, but within two or three feet.

That would be pretty cool, though I would want it to be at least somewhat determined by difficulty, as well as the type, and alert level of guards/location (random office building vs. secret underground bunker)/the type of noise (footsteps vs. whistle vs. bottle breaking, etc.).

I like that idea. Two guys all alone in the middle of a jungle guarding a worthless iron gate on a worthless dirt road, and have just seen a shadow and heard footsteps, might bunker down and fortify instead of trying to flood out the surrounding area.

That would be interesting, but with all those factors, it sounds a little impossible on current technology.

Location multiplied by intensity of the suspicious occurrence multiplied by current awareness multiplied by number of guards, ah...

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
I like that idea. Two guys all alone in the middle of a jungle guarding a worthless iron gate on a worthless dirt road, and have just seen a shadow and heard footsteps, might bunker down and fortify instead of trying to flood out the surrounding area.

That would be interesting, but with all those factors, it sounds a little impossible on current technology.

Location multiplied by intensity of the suspicious occurrence multiplied by current awareness multiplied by number of guards, ah...

I think they could do it...if they wanted to... It's all values, anyway.

True, it's possible I guess.

I just think it would be funny if you tip-toe past a guard and he hears you, and then it gets laggy because the system is deciphering between the massive amount of different courses of action he should take.

Lol...

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
Adding course variance, walking speed variance, random shadow checks, sometimes even forgetting to check a shadow, glancing around while they walk, putting off a patrol for a few seconds, it may not seem like it would make a difference at all, but it adds up to a huge amount. You can have countless variations of the same path, and I have plenty of examples.

Adding a touch of randomness adds the human element. That three second window you saw a second ago is not going to be there the next time around, and the shadow you're standing in right now might not be the best place to be standing when he comes back.

Lauren, I kind of agree with scworld, all of these things are just going to make it harder for the player, and it really pushes it back to frustrating trial and error.

You say you want more challenges and less frustration, so why push for these kinds of advances?

And, things like course variance, speed variance, how do they add up? You said you have examples, would you show them to us?

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
True, it's possible I guess.

I just think it would be funny if you tip-toe past a guard and he hears you, and then it gets laggy because the system is deciphering between the massive amount of different courses of action he should take.

Lol...

You were tip-toeing and the guard heard you? Were you on bubble wrap?

I really don't think it would be that bad, though; if the game knows how Sam's pinky is supposed to be positioned when he's throwing a hot dog at some innocent bystander, appropriate guard reactions should be no problem.

Well, more like walking at barely audible speed.

That's how I do it, spook 'em out with quiet noises and then slow down and circle around behind them while they check out the source

Speaking of the detail in pinkies, I'd love to see the day when a team shows up with a budget to make a game with the graphics of a cheap 2001 PS2 game, and take all the leftover space and focus it on AI and flawless gameplay.

I dont think many fans would approve of bad graphics for the cost of good AI I would say I wouldnt mind it but the other gamers would say that whoever made the game is a lazy bum because he couldnt take the time to add good graphics to the game.

quote:

Originally posted by DallasOConner:
Lauren, I kind of agree with scworld, all of these things are just going to make it harder for the player, and it really pushes it back to frustrating trial and error.

You say you want more challenges and less frustration, so why push for these kinds of advances?

And, things like course variance, speed variance, how do they add up? You said you have examples, would you show them to us?

I see why you'd agree with him, it really does sound like I'm trying to put players in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare on Veteran difficulty with no ammo.

But... there are ways to make a game more challenging and all the while less frustrating. Adding the human element can be random and slightly unpredictable, but humans follow a basic idea of fluidity, not just stopping in their tracks and turning around, but looping in a small u-turn, things like that, that make them predictable and challenging at the same time. As it is, the guards have a very rigid back-and-forth-and-back-again system, very simple. I'm not pushing for an AI that will actually, literally sit down and read a book instead of staring at it. Just a few variables and random measures, nothing fancy.

I'm thinking that, if this kind of AI would be built, along with a few other adjustments, it would actually make it easier to sneak up on a guard or slip past him, not because of any new skills they give you to compensate for it, but because it would set the player in a new, and in my opinion, a more correct frame of mind for these kinds of situations.

Examples... okay, but they will be long... Iceland Mission, from Shanghai's Double Agent. As soon as you infiltrate the base by zip line, slip past the guy on the balcony, go halfway down the stairs, and then climb over the railing and drop on top of the crate, and we'll keep Sam right there so he doesn't become part of the equation. The example is of the guard patrolling the area around the bunker and of the guard in front of the crate. And I'll give two separate examples of different sweeps, the same basic path, but two very different approaches. This is actually an extremely good example because this guard has a complex path in a well-constructed environment and a strong climate.

The set path of the patrol guard without variables is from the gate, through the shadows below the tower, across the lit ice, to the outside of the bunker's window, and then into the shadows between the boxes and the crate, backtrack to the start, and then repeat. And the set path of the crate guard is obviously just to stand there forever and ever.

Example one of that path, with variables added:

After the conversation, the patrol turns towards the shadows and walks into them, shining his light on the pillars of the tower. When he gets under the light, he stops to look over his shoulder at the shadows behind him. At this point, the crate guard steps inside the crate to get out of the cold. The other continues his patrol and speeds up his walk to the bunker window, then turns and follows closely along the wall until he reaches the end of the boxes at the fence. As he comes around the corner of the boxes, he shines his light on the crate, but doesn't see the other. He gets suspicious and slows down his pace, keeping his flashlight ahead of him, and then comes up to the door of the crate to find his buddy inside. After seeing him and calming down, the patrol simply walks over to the gate to make a complete circle instead of backtracking.

This was the basic path he was supposed to follow, but he carved his own steps a bit. The second example will obviously be the same basic path, but with many different variables so that they won't be close to the same type.

Example two:

After the conversation, the guard walks over to the stairs and up the first flight, while the guard at the crate walks inside of it, through it, and over to the other end. From the first flight's platform the patrol stands for a second observing under the tower ahead of him, walks back down the stairs, then turns left between the stairs and the crate. He searches under the tower, then slowly walks toward the bunker to go inside for a minute and warm up. A few seconds later he comes back out and walks in between the boxes and the crate, and without slowing down he loops around the boxes to backtrack.

So there are two completely different approaches to the same path, with countless more varieties.

Any questions, Texas?

quote:

Originally posted by ERN456:
I dont think many fans would approve of bad graphics for the cost of good AI I would say I wouldnt mind it but the other gamers would say that whoever made the game is a lazy bum because he couldnt take the time to add good graphics to the game.

Well, when you think about it, most people probably wouldn't even notice.

In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, there was like a whole article in Game Informer about how the grass and weeds will all flow perfectly in the wind, and it mentioned all the amazing graphic technology and engine power that it takes to do that, and I thought it was really interesting. But to be honest, the entire time I've spent playing it on Easy and Veteran difficulty, I had that information in the back of my mind every time I turned on my console, and all the while when I was getting shot at and having grenades tossed at me every which way, I didn't take one second to stop and admire the weeds.

And Assassin's Creed, brought to you by the makers of the Prince of Persia series. The prince himself was an extremely advanced character in his console's generation, having 800 different animations, and that's a lot. But Altair has a staggering 4,000 I believe. And that's really cool, but I bet half the people who've played it wouldn't even notice if he had just 2,000.

There are a lot of things that games are doing to look more realistic, but in the end people will just stop noticing the quality of the graphics because it will be so realistic that no one will care about achieving realism anymore. In two years, no one is going to remember Crysis's outstanding graphics, because by that time, every game will look like that. And yet, people are still talking about games like Ocarina of Time, side scrollers for the SNES, Metal Gear Solid, the first Final Fantasy titles, and Halo: Combat Evolved. The graphics which were very good quality in their time are now considered poor, but the gameplay is outstanding, and I'd say any of those games could match up story-wise to some of the best games out today.

When Double Agent came out, I bought Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory for my cell phone, they were cheesy side scrollers, but really they were good. It was line-of-sight based, and each new screen had a puzzle you had to solve, but they were pretty good actually.

Castlevania and Zelda still stick to the old style, side scrolling and screen sliding. Phantom Hourglass didn't focus on graphic competition, instead putting more budget into a fun game, and it pays off. Fans still love it.

And I think that, if games would stop trying to have the latest facial mapping textures, or the coolest wind particle effects, and ambient light casting a shadow six different ways, stuff that a lot of people aren't going to notice anyway, and stop trying to make it look real, then try to make it actually play real, that's when it will be remembered. Stuff like Alpha Protocol designing a talk system where conversations can end in thirty different ways depending on what you choose to say, and then the person you just talked with will have either one impression of you or an entirely opposite one, and stuff like ConViction allowing you to pick up a chair at any angle, at any speed, quickly and realistically without sliding, it's things like this that will make them remembered.

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
Any questions, Texas?

Yep, for starters, if you get to call me Texas then what do I get to call you? What is mosh by the way and why are you so mosh?

quote:

But... there are ways to make a game more challenging and all the while less frustrating.

I'm thinking that, if this kind of AI would be built, along with a few other adjustments, it would actually make it easier to sneak up on a guard or slip past him, not because of any new skills they give you to compensate for it, but because it would set the player in a new, and in my opinion, a more correct frame of mind for these kinds of situations.

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

quote:

This is actually an extremely good example because this guard has a complex path in a well-constructed environment and a strong climate.

I guess you mean well-constructed as in lots of things around to interact with like the crates and the stares and around the pillars and boxes? And I'm assuming you're meaning the strong climate is cold?

quote:

So there are two completely different approaches to the same path, with countless more varieties.

Okay, I can see how it makes a difference in the paths, but I don't really see how it makes a difference to you. Could you explain, please?

And also, when that first guard got suspicious because he couldn't see the second one, it sounds like that could turn into a problem because if you sneak by everyone and continue the mission, guards earlier in the mission will keep losing track of each other and start up alarms for no good reason. Right?