it’s the logical progression of what we’re given though, if they don’t want that to be an option they should either explain it away ingame or not add that opportunity in the first place
Does anyone know if it’s possible to make the artist in Mumbai paint the picture by himself? I was kinda wanting to use the Kashmirian’s rifle from the chawls to shoot him by myself.
yes, the paint he’s missing is underneath the stairs on I think the bottom floor, in the room with all the food
simplest way to keep it from being a no brainer easy kill like ken/resa’s poison is the jumpy cartel guards murder the hippie on the spot when franco drops and he starts panicking, and gives the player a nontarget kill (like when messing with the curators remote penalizes you for his suicide).
you could still use emetic poison well by lacing it, giving the glue, and sneaking in on your own to the spot where franco pukes - letting you take SA advantage of the opportunity while staying suit only and challenging a bit
This is the big problem for me, as I’ve noted.
I mean, I do think there should be at least a couple of fallbacks in every map to make it feel more organic, but I don’t expect every mission story to have a bunch of them, that’s unrealistic. IO needs to make sure that the lack of fallbacks is explained away in game though, as opposed to the way it (mostly) is in Santa Fortuna, where it feels like it should be possible based on the situations.
I would like to add my two cents, because I feel that there might be one possible explanation that nobody mentioned above. What if those fallback situations are absent for gameplay related reasons. I specifically remember an old interview right around release time of Sapienza where IO designers talked about their original plans for Francesca. In earlier iterations she had a much longer, more involved rout through the town that took her to church and even lawyer’s office. But as they started testing the level it became apparent that this made gameplay much more frustrating, since players often had trouble locating her or had to wait for her for far too long. Eventually they settled on a much shorter cycle that was confined to the mansion.
This is where I have to put on my speculative hat. What if fallbacks create similar issues? Mission Stories often break characters out of their routine and lure them into different locations. Can you imagine confusion and frustration of new players when their targets start to disappear or move sporadically through the map because of triggered fallback of a mission story that the player might not even be aware of.
As it stands right now, players almost always have control over targets’ movement and general pacing of the level. Personally, I do not necessarily agree with this approach. But I can easily see how this design philosophy might come out on top during testing.
that is a non factor imo. the whole point of the game is to learn and improve in subsequent runs. Its better to be able to learn a mistake than to have an option completely gone because of fear of mistakes.
Not necessarily. All things equal, early experience is more important than late one. If your game is initially confusing and frustrating but becomes much better after few playthroughs, it is quite possible that many of your players would drop it long before they actually learn it.
But even beyond that, there are still other potential problems. Imagine trying to poison Novikov with a cocktail only to find out that he decided to meet with Decker instead. There’s just going to be way more waiting.
I do believe, that this highlights potential problem with the way mission stories are designed. They all exist in parallel with each other, pulling characters in different directions and constantly threatening to interfere with each other. This naturally leads to a solution where most, if not all stories are put on hold awaiting for player’s input.
I think you are right if it was the case for every single story mission. I think IO has more or less had a good balance where some if only one opportunity was timer based. but the problem with colombia and Isle of Sigail is that NONE of the opportunities are timer based, makjng it feel mich less organic. I think eavh level should have at least one where player input isnt necessary
It seems to me that the problem you’re talking about is unpredictability, but I think a lot of what (IMO) is the problem is exactly that what is possible or not is not predictable.
If, for instance, you could talk P-Power into going to do his job, by dressing as the bartender, you would know where he is, because you made him go there.
Likewise, if you go to the Taita while dressed as a soldier and tell him he needs to go to the burial / contruction site I don’t think you would be surprised to see him go there.
And so on…
I am a big proponent of minimizing the frustration of new players, but I don’t necessarily think this would have anything to do with that.
And also with communication. Let’s use P-Powers as an example.
This story, like many others, is designed to railroad players into “the kill”. It is easy, relatively safe, provides new players with an opportunity to explore the layout of the mansion. It is basically a form of integrated tutorial.
The fallback on the other hand, while cool for players already familiar with the mission, would not provide new players with the same convenience. Because sending Powers into the mansion on his own does not necessarily open any new opportunities for you, especially if you are not yet familiar with the level or the way this story plays out.
And yes, this wouldn’t be a problem for us. But imagine if, say, 15% of new players just send Powers into the Mansion without actually knowing what exactly it gives them.
And I’m not saying that you can’t plan around this kind of stuff, only that it is very hard and, probably, doesn’t give you that much of a payoff in the end.
Surely, this is what mission stories are for? They tell these 15% of players what to do. They could even feature a warning that your action is about to break the mission story if needed.
Doesn’t seem that way to me. It really just takes a few extra minutes of thinking to come up with how to clearly communicate consequences, and the slack can be picked up by Mission Story hand-holding.
The payoff, by the way, is a level that makes a hell of a lot more sense, and feels a lot more organic / alive. Plus a lot of added replayability. To me that is massive.
And also a few weeks of coding, testing, writing and so on. We have the benefit of hindsight on one hand, but a complete lack of information in regards to the way this sings are iterated upon and how they come through in testing.
For what it’s worth, I do agree – more “Broad Strokes” and less “Deadly Art”. But I doubt that every mission can be “Broad Strokes”.
Thanks :> (20 paints)
Is the same possible for Vanya and the foreman?
Yeah. You have to give the foreman his documents which makes him meet up Shah himself
See, this is the kind of stuff that’s good.
I’m thinking with the P-Power thing, having him go up and isolate Rico in his office grants a snipimg opportunity. Especially if halfway through Rico gets up for the toilet and then you could snipe him through the window.
I agree with @Kent, the game needs more of these fallbacks
It’s not too much to ask every mission has at least one “broad strokes” approach. as they did do that more or less with Season 1. It might just be the SUMO vs IO internal thing?
Without sounding too harsh, they are already catering to new players wayyyyyyyyyyyy too much. So much so that at times i get the impression that its their only priority: pleasing new players and casuals.
What about us loyal fans who’ve been playing all the games, the ones that were responsible for keeping season 1 alive for over 2 years?
When the tattoo is done Rico goes to the bathroom to check the tattoo in the mirror, so nothing would really need to change in that regard. It would be a sniper opportunity as well as a “sneak into the bathroom and kill him” one.