796 replies to this topic

[Johnny Drama]

i dont see how checkpoints negatively affect re-playability. quite the opposite, if you can choose to start playing from a specific checkpoint that will indeed increase replayability.

but what directly influences replayability and linarity are the options presented to the player by the game design, features, choice of diguises, routes, props and even weapons. and im certain h5 will be the by far most replayable game of the series.

a checkpoint can be as large as console memory allows. only when we cant stuff more gameplay and level into memory will we have to either change level or checkpoint to progress and load the next part. but a checkpoint can also be artificial and doesnt have to mean loading but just a safe spot where game state is saved. a level can even be one big checkpoint which would equal a full level in say bloodmoney, everything loaded at once. its all down to design, layout and storytelling, so basically its up to the game team on how they will use the system and not so much that the system indicate anything about one or the other.

/daniel

But if we look at the Run For Your Life level. The first checkpoint is when going through the rooftop door to the helicopter scene, right? Let's say, that just before that checkpoint you die or get spottet in your hard struggle to get Silent Assassin rating. How will the game handle this if starting over? Are we going to start all over from the beginning of the level (as it was the last "checkpoint")?

When talking about replayability, I also think of situations when you just "have fun". You know - fucking around, killing them all silently one by one. In the previous games that was possible because you could just safe before doing something really insane - if it worked, then great - if not, you could just reload your last safe where the player decide the savespot. With checkpoints, you might start a long way from the previous spot where you got spotted/killed, and then I think the frustration kicks in.

Hope you understand?

Edited by Johnny Drama, 14 January 2012 - 04:13 AM.

[Frantz Fuchs]

@Johnny drama, Run for your life is an escape mission, that's why it's linear. Don't compare everything with that mission, wait for more

[Johnny Drama]

@Johnny drama, Run for your life is an escape mission, that's why it's linear. Don't compare everything with that mission, wait for more

It's not about how linear the level is. I mean the whole concept of checkpoints/manual saves in general.

Example; manuel saves: if you want to save before you grab Fasano as a hostage, because you want to make sure you have a backup if going the wrong way with him. Then if you fuck it up, you just start with this spot before grapping him. But with checkpoints, you have to maybe get past different spots JUST to get back to the spot you failed. You get it?

[Nitro]

@Daniel: thanks for your posts on graphics and checkpoints - it's always very appreciated to hear from you guys on the inside at IO, and I find what you're saying about checkpoints to be reassuring (though, of course, my hunger for more and more information will never be fully satiated).

I get the gist of what you're saying. "with simple graphics you are forced to convey a mood and a setting" - doesn't that imply that with shinier, high fidelity graphics a designer can just rest on their laurels and excuse dubious choices in level design and gameplay mechanics with that argument? Maybe I misinterpret what you wrote. Please clarify that statement a bit more. A game is more than just graphics, no? Shouldn't a game studio always to strive to create a sort of consistent style for whatever franchise they're working on?

I don't think Daniel is making the argument you're claiming, or really any "argument" for that matter. He's simply describing some of the considerations, complexity and challenge in designing a videogame's visuals (both technically and art-style), designing effective and fun gameplay, and marrying the two together. He says "higher graphics capabilities is a curse and a blessing" - meaning the higher capabilities open up certain opportunities as a game designer, but also certain challenges (i.e., effectively conveying mood and setting) that are *more* challenging than when you are using the more simple images and 2d effects of, say, the classic Sierra games you are pointing to. He's describing to you the considerations and challenges involved in his job as a game designer, not making some sort of claim that high-fidelity graphics excuse poor level design and gameplay mechanics, or that a game is only its graphics. I don't even understand how you can possibly jump to that being his argument -- I honestly think you have a proclivity for deliberately misunderstanding people so that you can disagree with something they're not saying.

Even with high resolution graphics a developer should still strive to create/uphold a certain mood. Just take a look at the past Hitman games, to name something out of your own vaults. Sure, today the graphics might be "outdated", but there were a ton of things (great and small) that added to the realism of these levels/locations. Yes, level design and construction has a lot to do with that as well, but level design and visual style are two means to the same end. These shouldn't ever be mutually exclusive, right? Shiny graphics might be nice to look at, but they should never mask questionable level design. I doubt a lot of gamers cling to games because of their graphics, gameplay and narrative are ultimately what keeps a player coming back for more. In my opinion, graphics are merely a tool, one part of a greater whole to create an engaging game experience. All these tools should work in unison to create an engrossing game experience, be it graphics, level design, audio (sound/music) or overall creative direction.

You telling Daniel this is preaching to the choir. I believe this is his point in his posts and exactly what the design team is aiming to do in Absolution. Listen to the developer commentary on RFYL when they describe how the mood/style of the levels and art will subtly change throughout the game to reflect 47's current state and the narrative at large. This is very much like the mood and style behind Contracts imo, but better because its more dynamic and not just the one "dark" mood throughout. And when Daniel says "there are also contradictions in that a super detailed world might work against gameplay. stuff lying around doesnt make for very good cover, character might get stuck in it and so forth. so you want a simple world with simple mechanics for gameplay but details for graphics fidelity which can be difficult," he again is describing a *challenge* as a game designer in getting the tools of graphics, gameplay and level design to "work in unison to create an engrossing game experience." Part of that challenge is having the right balance between enough detail for graphics detail but not so much detail in the world that it interferes with or interrupts gameplay (character might get stuck in it, etc.). Your examples of Dead Space, Bioshock, etc., are good examples of games that have found that right balance, where visually there is a ton of detail but the world itself from a gameplay perspective is simple enough that it can be navigated and played in; and Daniel is saying that this is exactly what they're trying to do. Think about how HL2 was designed (look up old articles on it) - they designed all the levels in a very, very simple visual style, like orange building blocks, and then once it was fun to play the level and all the mechanics worked, they went back and had the art designers put the look, mood, textures, all the visual stuff on top of that.

[daniel.ben-noon]

Even with high resolution graphics a developer should still strive to create/uphold a certain mood.

they should, and they do of course. my entire point was that they workload just becomes larger with every small step up in fidelity the workload increases tenfold. on top of that you introduce issues that then needs to be adressed as well.

Yes, level design and construction has a lot to do with that as well, but level design and visual style are two means to the same end. These shouldn't ever be mutually exclusive, right?

no, though of course not mutually exclusive they are working against one another- and they have absolutely nothing to do with one another. if i can make a game fun and make fun levels in a world of square boxes then i have good gameplay, no amount of graphical details in the world will make that gameplay more or less fun. however- introducing all that detail can make my gameplay suffer, suddenly there is a turned over bike laying in the middle of the road that i have to run over, and when i try to the character gets stuck in it, then code suddenly becomes more complex as well, having to handle animations and collision in a more complex world- neither of which directly improves the game, but only tries to keep making it work still despite more details and more issues.

I like to point to Dead Space, Bioshock, Ratchet & Clank and the Uncharted series for examples of how (insanely) detailed worlds/locations can, in fact, be very effective and thoroughly believable, without ever "working against gameplay".

uhm, none of those games are particular detailed. they look good, but if you notice and refering to my previous paragraph the actual play-area is devoided of any actual detail, and mostly consists of flat planes.

How exactly does a "super detailed world" work against gameplay? Isn't it the developer's/game studio's job to tweak these things to a satisfactory degree? If there's props lying around and "stuff lying around doesnt make for very good cover" or "the character might get stuck in it" - it is clear (to me, at least) the level designers aren't doing their job well enough[..]Isn't there a lead designer in charge to notice these things? Who's keeping the holistic overview on the product? There's plenty of games that come to mind that are filled to the brim with props

you seem to have been missing the point entirely. and there isnt plenty of games that does that- there are exactly none.

i can give you another example. in one game we added a lot of dynamic objects, so that when you shoot or run into it, things will fly around- it looks great and it adds fidelity. however, introducing all these dynamic objects, suddenly a chair gets stuck sideways in a doorway and the player cant get past it and is stuck- thats details ruining gameplay. another issue was that these physics objects, little boxes and similar things could be pushed by running into them, so pushing a lot of these objects up against a wall the player had suddenly made a staircase that he could scale and jump over the wall and out of the level- fidelity ruining gameplay again.

and those are just two of two million reasons why it works against one another.

whenever you introduce details and fidelity you also introduce complexity in game design and code and all other aspects of the game. issues that games like monkey island doesnt have due their simple nature, or ratched and clank avoid due to their simple toon style that lets them create a much simpler cartoon world.

I'm not advocating one specific style over another (which wasn't my point), but visual style and graphics should work together towards the same objective: creating a believable game environment. A environment that both aesthetically pleasing (from a design/artistic point) while being highly functional (from a technical/gameplay point) and using the hardware available to most effective extent (coding).

i never argued your point. i even said it was valid and i entirely agree with this statement.

/daniel

[Nitro]

^^ Daniel can obviously make his points for himself, and doesn't need me to try (much less effectively) to do so for him as I did in my previous post. Guess it's just the lawyer in me and the need to point out when someone (Choronzon) is making counter-arguments to arguments that weren't made.

[Mr. ME]

So, uhm, will the game have free roam levels or not? I do not want long answers just yes or no. Thank you.

[daniel.ben-noon]

So, uhm, will the game have free roam levels or not? I do not want long answers just yes or no. Thank you.

yes

[Mr. ME]

[Pew Pew]

Im genuinely happy for you.

[sgg847]

(The Secret Of) Monkey Island (1990)

Here typical example of "how ioi advertise their project but at the end comes something that destroys your dream.
Pay attention to the dream background.

[Dev J Chand]

So, when will the next gameplay video come out? I'd want to see more of the stealth mechanics, as the action mechanics have already been focused upon enough, I think.

[Expert]

Now 47 avoids people: http://www.youtube.c...UUSL4r9Y#t=980s (720p HD)

Edited by Expert, 18 January 2012 - 12:00 AM.

[Sir Joe]

So, when will the next gameplay video come out? I'd want to see more of the stealth mechanics, as the action mechanics have already been focused upon enough, I think.

Yes i'm wondering this too, would like at least a hint or something

[statler]

Will there be easter eggs?

[DeadlyShadow47]

Will there be easter eggs?

Yes, Nick confirmed that long time ago in questions thread.

[agent-49]

Yes, Nick confirmed that long time ago in questions thread.

Nick didn't confirm that. :I

[DeadlyShadow47]

Nick didn't confirm that. :I

Yes he did. Sorry if Im mistaken but if it's not from question thread then it was somewhere in the other threads. Im 100% sure Nick confirmed that the easter eggs will be making return in Absolution

Edited by DeadlyShadow47, 17 February 2012 - 08:42 AM.

[Habit]

Yes he did. Sorry if Im mistaken but if it's not from question thread then it was somewhere in the other threads. Im 100% sure Nick confirmed that the easter eggs will be making return in Absolution

I remember it to. Tore has made several references to putting Easter eggs in absolution as well. Agent 49 is just a troll and its best not to engage him. Then he'll go away.

Edited by Habit, 17 February 2012 - 05:47 PM.

[Queue]

I finally watched this video today (yes, I've been living under a rock), and posted a few moments ago in the "Bring Back Bateson" thread about how much the tone of the voice used for 47 reminded me of Batman from the Dark Knight film. But I wasn't surprised that the brief instance of the voice summoned the caped-wonder as the tone for the whole video had, for me, a Batman-film-like feel. I will say this, it was enthralling to watch, filled with tension that at times had my mouth hanging open. But in the end, I wondered to myself if I could enjoy playing in the style-presented. An answer for which is that I'm still up in the air on that one, but mostly doubt it. The game-play shown in RFYL is highly cinematic, and beautiful...absolutely stunning with a grittiness (and even an astonishing level of vulgarness) that didn't exist in the previous games. I'm not saying that's bad: I love gritty and vulgar. But, the level shown expresses a view that's more about the world going on around 47 -- drawing the player's focus more toward the other characters and their interaction with each other, and the scenery of the level -- within a setting for which 47 (who now seems as if he had been cloned from a combination of Bruce Wayne, Garrett, and Desmond Miles) becomes more of a bystander than the central character. I wonder if this has to do the third-person view, the bombardment of dialog, or simply not knowing the context for this level within the overall story? Either-way, it was like watching a movie in which the player simply interacts.

I'm assuming that this is nothing more than the training level (which would make sense in how it plays out, and the level of interaction...previous training levels show 47 sneaking around behind low walls and such), or just a demo level to show off 47's new moves and the beauty of the game's design. So I hope there is not a lot of this within the actual game. I know there has been talk of "cinematic" and "scripted" levels combined with "sandbox-style" levels, and I sort of understand the notion of using cinematic and scripted levels to advance the story-line if necessary and the only means--though I find that to be a lazy approach. But for me, after watching the video, it felt too much like being nothing more than a two-dimensional character existing within the celluloid confines of a 24 frames-per-second world. So, if this is the "feel" one can expect for much of the gameplay, than I'd rather just watch a movie without having to interact with it--and in the end, my hands will be free to eat popcorn.