Deus Ex 3 - I'll just leave this here

[DDL]

Coming in late to say...CtC: I kinda overlooked the lensing entirely, given that (as people have pointed out) it's becoming massively common now. I kinda view it more as a sort of 'precipitative sonic boom' effect rather than actual gravitational lensing or whatever: ok, this presupposes that the "relative humidity in the vicinity of jensen" is just below precipitation point, but fuck it (and hey, given the amount of..what, phlegm? Teeth? Random globular...stuff? coming out of the faces of people as they spin round, maybe the humidity IS that high?).

Also rule of cool, sure, yeah.

Thing that gets me, though, is the NECKS. I can happily tolerate WHOMP distortion as being cool, but when someone's face goes from looking forward to basically looking over their own back in that short a time....yeah, they ain't getting up. Ever again.

Still, it does look cool. My favourite is still the bit where he grabs one person and uses them to block a punch from the other person. Sure it's all scripted, but my god is it funny.

[Dragon]

Concerning the 1BW with cover systems. By default they are mostly a 1BW as using the switch-cover command you are more or less invulnerable as it is a scripted event. Of course you can mess everything up so also that but if this would not be possible then it would be also not a 1BW but a GM (God Move) which would be a lot worse.

Taking cover isn't a scripted event any more than crouching or firing your weapon is a scripted event, and I have yet to see a game where being in cover makes you invulnerable. At most, games like Gears of War encourage you to spend most of the game in cover by significantly lowering the amount of damage you take while in cover, but that's pretty far on the "less" side of "more or less invulnerable".

I definitely remember games where in cover you are fully invulnerable and the only time you can take damage is if you pop out to shoot (switching cover also doesn't give you damage). But I guess that depends on the kind of games one has seen or played so the mileage may vary.

Your made-up acronyms are getting a little silly btw. I guess it's a nice way to make it sound like you have some massive established body of design theory on your side, but if you're only using the term "God Move" once in your post, how about just doing it instead of defining an acronym that you never use again?

Oh come on, that's really not that difficult as they are not made up by me. 1-Button-Win is simply a scripted action which once triggered is an instant win. Hence you press 1 button to win hence the name. God-Moves on the other hand are game mechanics where you are invulnerable (what this means depends on the underlaying game structure) during a scripted sequence in a way that you can not loose often without a time penalty. Hence the name God-Move as doing this move you are like a God as you can not be defeated. Cover systems thus qualify as God-Moves as you get invulnerable while glued to the wall while seeing everything around you. Ducking behind obstacles is not a God-Move since in contrary to cover systems you are not invulnerable and you do not see what is going on around you. This lack of knowledge as well as not being safe is what creates the challenge which a God-Move system like a cover system in general is lacking. Grenades as mentioned is one way to add a bit of challenge but if you see a thrown grenade all the way it's hard to mess up. That's one of the reasons I'm not fond of cover systems except in round based strategy games. There the game flow is entirely different and being fully aware of your environment is required to stand a chance as well as being part of the mental challenge. In FPS games they are a fun-killer and artificial. Good thing you are not forced to use it in DX:HR from what I gathered. The worst are auto-glue cover systems.

[chris the cynic]

I kinda view it more as a sort of 'precipitative sonic boom' effect rather than actual gravitational lensing or whatever:

I don't really assume it to be gravitational either. I would assume an atmopsheric cause rather than gravitational one, but given that I can't come up with a reasonable atmospheric cause (are we really meant to assume he's punching at the speed of sound?) I didn't think it was worth getting into various possible causes.

Thing that gets me, though, is the NECKS. I can happily tolerate WHOMP distortion as being cool, but when someone's face goes from looking forward to basically looking over their own back in that short a time....yeah, they ain't getting up. Ever again.

It's not just that.

Even after the neck is snapped around apparently there's enough momentum to transfer it to the body and make the whole thing spin. And not just spin a little. It's not like they spin around until they hit the ground and go thump. After the thump-thump of the bodies hitting the floor they then roll away for a few feet. You have to remember that that force, enough to roll a limp human body across level ground, is not remotely the full force of the blow. The force of the blow was dissipated multiple times before it got to that point. First it had to snap the neck around, bearing in mind that the person was conscious at this point and their muscles were not going to just go along with it it. Then it had to transfer from the head to the body, which I'm pretty sure would be a fairly lossy tranfer, then -thump- the body hits the ground and energy will be lost there.

If the blow were merely powerful enough to snap the head around that fast we'd assume it to be deadly, but it's got a significant amount of energy left over afterwards.

If someone got up after that, even if it took years in a hospital to do so, you'd have several tv shows fighting each other to get her to to let them use her story (I Shouldn't Be Alive, The Indestructibles, that show that tells you how unlikely it was that someone tripped and fell in the exact way that would allow her toothbrush to end up inside of her without causing any damage, so on, so forth) and she'd be able to say to the guy who had an arrow lodged in is skull, "Big deal, I survived this:" cue video of the punch and aftermath.

I just figure that random implausible magnification is a sign that we're not meant to think about that.

Still, it does look cool. My favourite is still the bit where he grabs one person and uses them to block a punch from the other person. Sure it's all scripted, but my god is it funny.

I will say this for the HR team, they do appear to have a sense of humor. I don't necessarily agree with all the places they've chosen to employ it, but it is undeniably there.

[Jonas]

I definitely remember games where in cover you are fully invulnerable and the only time you can take damage is if you pop out to shoot (switching cover also doesn't give you damage). But I guess that depends on the kind of games one has seen or played so the mileage may vary.

Well I can't argue with these unnamed games that you remember playing where taking cover would render the player invulnerable. I expect if you do manage to remember what they were, they are probably easily dismissable as poor game design. If your point is "poorly implemented cover is bad" then I fully support your opinion.

Oh come on, that's really not that difficult as they are not made up by me.

I said silly, not difficult. You'll note those two words carry completely different meanings, and I don't much appreciate your condescension. Regardless, I'm still fairly skeptical that you didn't simply pull them out of your ass, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if only you'll get off the ass in question and do so.

[Dragon]

I definitely remember games where in cover you are fully invulnerable and the only time you can take damage is if you pop out to shoot (switching cover also doesn't give you damage). But I guess that depends on the kind of games one has seen or played so the mileage may vary.

Well I can't argue with these unnamed games that you remember playing where taking cover would render the player invulnerable. I expect if you do manage to remember what they were, they are probably easily dismissable as poor game design. If your point is "poorly implemented cover is bad" then I fully support your opinion.

Sorry to say this but your answers have a tendency to be placative and just trying to wave arguments away like a fly instead of tackling them. I'm bored of going into detail because of your posting attitude. I'll drop you a link as a bone and let you venture from there as honestly reasoning anyway else right now with you is futile. A discussion with smack-down posts is simply not a worthy discussion and right now you seem to dig those. Sorry but that's a waste of time. Cover System (with an over-glorified final quote which I would seriously object against as it focuses on graphics not game mechanics).

[VectorM]

I definitely remember games where in cover you are fully invulnerable and the only time you can take damage is if you pop out to shoot (switching cover also doesn't give you damage).

Well it makes sense that you wont take damage if the bullets are simply not hitting you. And you do take damage from grenades thrown behind your cover, when you are flanked, etc.

[Jonas]

Sorry to say this but your answers have a tendency to be placative and just trying to wave arguments away like a fly instead of tackling them. I'm bored of going into detail because of your posting attitude.

Dragon, your argument in this case was "I remember playing some games where the cover system made you invulnerable". That barely even qualifies as an argument, it's not even anecdotal. If you expect me to apologise for pointing out that your arguments have no weight, you're going to be disappointed

I'll drop you a link as a bone and let you venture from there as honestly reasoning anyway else right now with you is futile. A discussion with smack-down posts is simply not a worthy discussion and right now you seem to dig those. Sorry but that's a waste of time. Cover System (with an over-glorified final quote which I would seriously object against as it focuses on graphics not game mechanics).

Once again you prove yourself to be remarkably fond of condescension. If your idea of futility is arguing with somebody who doesn't simply roll over in surrender, then I suppose it is indeed best to just back out of this one.

As for your Wikipedia quote, a quick skim of the text reveals no further arguments that taking cover is generally the equivalent of turning on god mode, so if you feel that there is any actual support for your postulates therein, you will have to point out where and how.

Good day to you, sir

[Jaedar]

Once again you prove yourself to be remarkably fond of condescension.

To be honest, you both do. Carry on.

[Jonas]

I guess that's true.

Carrying on at once.

[VectorM]

I would also like to point out, that the entire concept of knocking people out in games is pretty much wrong.

In DX and many other games, it's treated as some sort of easy way to get rid of enemies, without actually killing/harming them. You just hit a dude on the back of the head with a baton and he goes to sleep, presumably to wake up 2 hours later, wondering WTF just happened. "Hooray, I am a pacifist, i harmed no one in my last DX playthrough".

Truth is, however, that knocking people out is anything but safe.

First off, being knocked unconscious by a baton, like in the first game, means that you have only a couple of minutes to wake the guy up, before the brain damage becomes too sever and he dies. So all those people that you knocked out in your none-lethal playthorouhg? All dead.

Then there's darts. Well, unless we accept that all of those guards really are clones of each other and they are all the same weight and height, then most of them will not be affected much at all, or will be dead. The thing about sedatives is, that you need a very precise amount, depending on the size of the person you are going to try to knock out. Too little sedative and you will just annoy him. Too much sedative and he will die. And even if you do manage to knock him out, you need to keep an eye on him, since all that sedative in his blood needs to be monitored and controlled. Otherwise, he dies.

So, basically, being "none-lethal" in DX1 isn't really that much more realistic than it is in DX:HR. You just don't have the flashy moves, really.

[Dragon]

That's true. At last they tried to come up with something which suggests the agent cares about the life of his opponents and is not a killer something which majority of games would not even consider to begin with. Ghosting would be definitely the most pacifistic correct approach... or using tear gas. I'm now not sure about that one but didn't NPCs die in DX1 if you used tear gas on them while unconscious?

[nerdenstein]

Sorry, Moving back on topic for a moment: Just a short article, worth a read. http://eidosmontreal.tumblr.com/post/87 ... evelopment

[Jonas]

I'm now not sure about that one but didn't NPCs die in DX1 if you used tear gas on them while unconscious?

Nah I think that was a bug in TNM, we fixed that in a patch. You basically couldn't kill an unconscious person in Deus Ex, except by destroying their corpse completely.

[bobby 55]

Sorry, Moving back on topic for a moment: Just a short article, worth a read. http://eidosmontreal.tumblr.com/post/87 ... evelopment

T minus 13 days, 140 minutes and counting.

[Hassat Hunter]

You basically couldn't kill an unconscious person in Deus Ex, except by destroying their corpse completely.

Weren't they still considered unconscious in that case???