View Single Post

Default 

October 5th, 2008, 12:12
Originally Posted by coyote View Post
I would like to use some prophetic power like everyone else seems to do, but for me, there is far too few information to make any judgement on the game yet.
It's not final judgment - just some opinions, in the same way you think player skill is a good thing. Right? Some of us are cynical because of history. When a game producer says "we understand why DX:IW failed", implying they will honour the original gameplay…and then lists a raft of changes to features we liked, what else would you expect?

That hits are determined purely by player skill instead of stats I actually like. How realistic is it when your aim is shaking over one third of the screen with an assault rifle while you are perfectly steady with a pistol? Assuming the avatar is some kind of soldier or agent, he or she should be expected to have a steady aim. Also, action game elements do not necessarily diminish the roleplaying value of a game for me.
I agree that action elements aren't inherently bad but I don't give two hoots about realism. Here's why it's a bad thing: it removes a roleplaying choice. Under the original system, you had to choose whether to put points into a weapon or elsewhere - sometimes you had to compromise. Maybe I had to choose to let hacking go because I wanted to put points into sniper rifles and stealth and just couldn't do it all. Under a player skill system, that choice is simplified because everyone automatically has a certain prowess in fighting.

It's also likely to change the balance and scenario design. DX had to assume you might approach scenarios in different ways - after all, you may not have developed weapons much at all. I'll bet DX3 plays more like a "standard" shooter, because they can assume your FPS skills are available in every situation. You know what other game did this? DX:IW.

Cover based stealth sounds like an improvement over shadow based, but I do not know enough about it. I assume that the level of light is still important under this system; ideally, both shadows and cover would be taken into account.
Well, none of use know exactly what the system is but the assumption everywhere has been a Gears of War (or Mass Effect) - like cover system. In other words - no real stealth, just hiding from direct fire. Time will tell but if shadows were still relevant, why would they even mention this? Wouldn't they say that stealth had been strengthened, or similar language? Pointing out it's "cover based" rather than "light based" seems to suggest shadows have been dropped. More information is definitely required.

We'll see.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#6

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,968