Did I miss something? Why would all weapons have a non lethal setting?
Like, set phasers to stun?.....
Like, set phasers to stun?.....
Not necessarily stun, but they've confirmed on multiple occasions that every weapon in the game (Again, minus bazookas and such) will have a non-lethal option. I don't know what form it will take, only that it will exist.
Right. Sorry. I was aware that we were drifting away from your original point and getting caught up in the specifics, but I went ahead anyway.
As for the shooting range, my assumption (which is not backed by any sort of evidence) is that it will be limited, and only a way to train for the first few levels. I doubt you can go from 1-10 (I think 10 are the caps for all skills) just by shooting at targets. But maybe I'm wrong.
Last edited:
No need to be sorry. I don’t mind getting off rails (I just tried to imply that I don’t think stealth means no-shooting). And this time it raised another concern I hadn’t fully thought of yet.
Stealth doesn’t mean only close combat. Shooting skills are needed to some extent.
So how does a stealth character become a skilled sharpshooter, if he is not to engage combat beyond oneshotting the enemies from darkness (whereas for solo it takes a clip or two) with a learn-by-doing” system?
I mean, in reality the question isn’t that simple, nor is the answer as simple as ”[this] way”, but the essence of the problem should be clear enough.
Last edited:
lol! I'm sorry, but If we're talking about the Arkham games? Realistically a lot of those moves and weapons, especially the freakin' tank in Knight, would make the probability of the victims "walking away" highly unlikely.
I might again miss something here and apologies if I do so but I don't see a concern or problem here. All characters, no matter which way you skill them, have the ability to go to the shooting range and push their skills with certain weapons before firing a single bullet in a combat situation so it doesn't really matter if you play a stealth character or a guns blazing "storming through the front door" solo.
Good question, but my assumption would be that a stealth character wouldn't be able to oneshot from the darkness anymore than a combat character could one-shot from the light. I'm not aware of any "sneak damage bonuses" like you see in Skyrim.
I do wonder what the purpose of suppressors will be with bullet sponge gameplay, though. Aesthetics? (and yes, before Su lets me know, I know suppressors in real life do not actually make guns silent).
Well, yeah. Every character can use it. That's one of the reasons why it might become something of an exploit.
Stealth characters need to remain hidden, and they require tremendous amounts of accuracy if they are to remain hidden with guns, they aren't stealthy anymore if they start to spray and pray. While for combat characters, the accuracy increments come naturally through regular gameplay, for them the shooting range is just a stepping stone or an advantage. Stealth character might be getting it far more easily by just grinding the shooting range since their shooting skill isn't growing anywhere near as fast combat characters when played naturally inspite that they might need the accuracy just as much if not more so. It skews the progression and the balance therein.
Now, it's not an overcomeable problem, or something that ruins the game. It might not end up as a problem at all. But I see a genuine risk in it.
It's kind of a similiar issue as with deterministic skillchecks under a learn-by-doing progression system. How are you supposed to progress unless the game is heavily levelscaled, or if it is extremely linear? Neither is a good solution to... any game.
If they can't oneshot from darkness... what's the alternative? In using guns that is. Certainly not jumping out and doing regular combat. That's not stealth anymore.
In TES games you can shoot 100 arrows to an enemy from concealed vantage point and he barely blinks before suddenly dropping dead. I'd wager that's not desireable here.
Well, yeah. Every character can use it. That's one of the reasons why it might become something of an exploit.
Stealth characters need to remain hidden, and they require tremendous amounts of accuracy if they are to remain hidden with guns, they aren't stealthy anymore if they start to spray and pray. While for combat characters, the accuracy increments come naturally through regular gameplay, for them the shooting range is just a stepping stone or an advantage. Stealth character might be getting it far more easily by just grinding the shooting range since their shooting skill isn't growing anywhere near as fast combat characters when played naturally inspite that they might need the accuracy just as much if not more so. It skews the progression and the balance therein.
Now, it's not an overcomeable problem, or something that ruins the game. It might not end up as a problem at all. But I see a genuine risk in it.
It's kind of a similiar issue as with deterministic skillchecks under a learn-by-doing progression system. How are you supposed to progress unless the game is heavily levelscaled, or if it is extremely linear? Neither is a good solution to... any game.
If they can't oneshot from darkness... what's the alternative? In using guns that is. Certainly not jumping out and doing regular combat. That's not stealth anymore.
In TES games you can shoot 100 arrows to an enemy from concealed vantage point and he barely blinks before suddenly dropping dead. I'd wager that's not desireable here.
I'm not quite sure, to be honest. I suppose they could fire a shot, reposition so enemies don't know where they are, fire more shots, and so on.
You certainly don't want Skyrim-tier "take 100 hours and keep on truckin'," but we also know that enemies will take more than a few shots to kill in this game, and likely be bullet sponges to some degree (because CDPR is going with a leveled system).
If a stealth character could one-shot enemies with, say, a rifle, why couldn't a combat character do the same? That's kinda what I was getting at, since we both seem to understand that combat characters will need to fire more than one shot to kill.
Unless, of course, by "one-shot" you mean hitting vital organs, or headshots. We do know a CDPR dev asked a couple years ago that very question ("you hit an enemy 10 levels higher than you -- headshot. What happens?"), so presumably, it's something they've considered. Maybe it does critical damage and can insta-kill, and maybe it's something combat characters could take advantage of, but would be less likely to do because of all the chaos.
Sorry for the ramble here. Hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying.
Isn't that kinda exactly what leads to a TES like situation? You put a bullet to someones gut and reposition. They come investigating and say "Hmm, maybe I was just hearing things" with that bullet inside them.
That's not exactly unheard of in games, but I would say that if there's really no more sophisticated way to do it in a game like this, it's... kinda dubious. But then again... there're the bossfights too, so everything's possible I suppose.
I'd be on the understanding that they absolutely could. No problem. It wouldn't make any sense if they couldn't. But the difference is that a combat character is moving rapidly and firing rapidly and the enemy is moving rapidly and firing back, so it's not that easy to put a focused nail in someones temple in a situation like that.
A stealth character has the advantage of being still and waiting for the enemy to be still.
Yes. That's what I mean.
------
Well, I guess we'll see eventually.
Indeed. I think we will find out at Pax, undoubtedly, whether or not there are still bullet sponges, and whether or not headshots are going to be lethal or at least extremely risky.
Well see something certainly.
I just hope we'll get new info too and not just a rehash of the E3.
And that is for a very good reason. Any simulation that has any semblance of reality when put against real combat would, by necessity, have to concede that "stealth based combat" (i.e.: Snipers from a distance and surprise attacks.) are VASTLY more effective than a lone individual "running and gunning" out in the open ( Unless the individual is piloting a bomber/is a tank/ assault chopper/ battleship crewman and that is a whole other thing.). It brings to mind one of my major pet peeves with most "FPS's as a veteran, but I digress. Long story short. a small team v.s a larger force... The smaller team had better be using "stealth" and asymmetrical warfare or they will probably end up dead...Plain and simple.
Almost certainly, really.
Although tech can make up a lot of difference. Cybergrunts go!
And "stealth" is hard to do IRL. Darkness, distraction, etc are generally needed.
But yeah, as I said earlier, I find the kill-everything idea even more problematic than the "you don't need to kill -anything-" issue.
It's good for them to affirm that a pacifist (or pacifist of sorts) route is possible but, even if it were not in the final game, I still wouldn't follow it the whole way. If I run into Caleb Menge-like type of unredeemable assholes in CP2077 I'd have a hard time finding reasons to let them live
Last edited:
Agreed. A solo is supposed to be based off of real world combat professionals. No professional will go in "all guns blazing" unless it is absolutely necessary. As an old friend of mine once said: "The bad thing about shooting at someone is...It tends to get their attention."
Yep. The main reason bad guys are reluctant to go to guns isn't cops ( isn't just cops), it's because as soon as you do, you could -die-.
Once the shooting/stabbing starts, no one is safe. Try to put that off if you can.
Did someone say cops?
But I really do reckon Nigh City is like a pool of piranhas, not even remotely comparable to today, because as you said, it's not just cops, it's a wide array of other armed or dangerous actors who can go after you the lethal way if you annoy them. It could be your local gang with maybe limited but effective resources on a local level up to the government or international megacorps.
Depending on who you piss off, some cops on the street could be the least of your worries.
I'm mostly happy you get a non-lethal alternative. Some games or situations I really disliked due to the complete absence of non-lethal takedowns or neutralizations of enemies. In games where even taking someone out with your fists or a shock baton counts as "death".
But I really do reckon Nigh City is like a pool of piranhas, not even remotely comparable to today, because as you said, it's not just cops, it's a wide array of other armed or dangerous actors who can go after you the lethal way if you annoy them. It could be your local gang with maybe limited but effective resources on a local level up to the government or international megacorps.
Depending on who you piss off, some cops on the street could be the least of your worries.
I'm mostly happy you get a non-lethal alternative. Some games or situations I really disliked due to the complete absence of non-lethal takedowns or neutralizations of enemies. In games where even taking someone out with your fists or a shock baton counts as "death".
Again... Dishonored forces you to play stealthy by story reasons, not by gameplay. I don't wnat bad ending because I like to diverse the gameplay. I know that I can use not fatal weapons, but it's ridiculous.
Also, if talk about stealth in general, you said that stealth is more effective. Fatal stealth might be, but with not fatal enemy always can wake up and use the alarm and you'll fight anyway.
Last edited:
Dishonored is and always has been a stealth game. There are some combat options if you want to toy with that route, but it's clearly not where the most dev resources went, and that's fine. Not every game must perfectly cater to every playstyle.