BeastModeIron;n9905981 said:
I'm aware some games push players in certain directions but how the player chooses to play the game regardless of intended gameplay mechanics, my opinion remains the same. And lack of player self control is clear when a variety of options are available but they follow the path of least resistance because its there.
I am not saying that lack of self-control is not a factor. Building a character in Skyrim with artificially imposed restrictions can make for some really fun and challenging gameplay. Playing TW3 without "hoarding" makes for an incredibly smooth experience. (I needed to fight myself hard at times to just ignore the loot piles because I really didn't need anything.) But that doesn't negate the fact that many, many games are much more heavily focused on one style of play over another...namely, the Bethesda-like custom of claiming "so many pathways through the game" when what that actually means is "so many ways to kill the pre-determined enemies in order to progress".
It's why I really like the Bioware approach. I won't go back to Dragon Age or Mass Effect as much as I will to Beth titles because of Bioware's more linear approach -- once you've played them, you've basically seen them. But their upfront honesty (...you are Commander Shepard, Alliance Military...you are the Grand Inquisitor, Leader of the Inquisition's Forces...) as well as the clearly focused skill trees lets the player know exactly what these games are all about.
I don't see any reason a.) for all combat-centric RPGs not to "broadcast" themselves the same way to the player, and b.) for there not to be satisfying, non-combat solutions to most or all conflicts in upcoming RPGs.
BeastModeIron;n9905981 said:
Bethesda games stealth mechanics are far more dominant than simply backstabs. Fallout 4 damage multipliers are ridiculous... its very possible to do pure stealth combat as well...
This is almost perfectly indicative of my point.
Stealth has transformed into
Stealth Combat in the modern industry. Granted, the limited capabilities of the earliest software RPGs basically did this because they had to, and the habit has been around for a long time. But rather than getting off that track and back to the organic variety of "solutions" that PnP RPGs provided...most games have simply added more
combat options (and better graphics). When it comes to stealth -- the whole point is to reach a resolution
without combat. That's what stealth
is. Even an "ambush" is not really "combat". Combat only occurs if the ambush
fails. The opposing side is wiped out before they can react (which is why it's considered such a dirty and underhanded tactic).
I admit freely that most players are not going to be as interested in deep, diplomatic, dialogue options or planning out the intricacies of stealth missions as they will be in pulling a trigger and watching the blood spray. But many
would be. I certainly hope that the game does something that lets players play their chosen role...not just play their
combat role.
BeastModeIron;n9905981 said:
But I also think the stealth aspect should be generally harder then other gameplay options because its the pay off, and the challenge. Stealth should be a hardcore mechanic. No predictable NPC routes, or easy paths to take, or quick escape routes. Stealth should be a very challenging option rather then easy.
Could not agree more with this. I think the idea that a warrior, wizard, thief, and cleric should all be able to somehow go
toe-to-toe with a "big boss" is ridiculous. The warrior goes toe-to-toe. That's what a
warrior does. A mage does
not. The mage must carefully utilize the powers of magic to debilitate this much more powerful foe, then precisely expose that weakness to destroy them. A thief
won't fight. The whole reason they spend so much time learning how to sneak around is so that they don't have to fight. A cleric would likely find a way to befriend their enemy or at least halt the combat diplomatically, perhaps by pulling the thorn out of the giants toe...which was what was making it so grumpy to begin with.
And as you move further and further away from a "warrior"...the act of combat should become harder and harder. Characters who don't rely on brute force have to use their own, specialized skills instead, and that should definitely be
more challenging than "the direct approach". I'd like a game that offers a large a variety of solutions that do not involve my character becoming violent. And they don't have to be "easy" to achieve. I'd not mind pulling out a weapon and diving for cover, feeling a sense of
failure. I'd realize, at that moment, that I should have said
this during the dialogue, or that I inadvertently made a choice earlier in the game that led me here, and I should have seen it coming. As a
stealth specialist, I want to be thinking "
Damn it! S*it! Shi*!! S*it!!!" as the shots ring out...
...not, "I'm a level 23 Shadow-Rogue, so I need to start charging up my 'Dual-Wield Flourish' ability by taking out the weakest enemies first with fast-attack combos..."
Snowflakez;n9906331 said:
I actually disagree with you a bit about how the Elder Scrolls games handled stealth.
I think they really dropped the ball with Fallout 4, but both Oblivion and Skyrim -- IMO -- had very enjoyable stealth. It wasn't perfect or totally realistic, but it was good enough, and certainly a viable way to play the game...Also, it's worth noting that the Elder Scrolls games - while not on the level of GTA - have always had an element of sandboxy goofiness. Yes, you can steal the armor off an NPC's back, because it's amusing to do so and offers a gameplay advantage (no armor to deal with when backstabbing).
I think I've probably clarified my argument enough above. I would also like to clarify that I don't "hate" Bethesda's approach. (Kind of on the self-control track above -- just don't pickpocket guards' armor off of them from the front! It's so ridiculous to even consider doing that in real life, that if you're on the hunt for "total immersion"...simply don't do ridiculous things that are beyond consideration. Problem solved! Mostly...) I'd rather have the stealth mechanics that are there than have no stealth mechanics at all. But they are "disappointing".
I think it's that "level of goofiness",
exactly, that needs to be sorted. If a game is going to laugh at itself, the player, and everything around it (Divinity: Original Sin), then yes, "stealth" can be "transforming into a bush and walking right past an enemy in an open field". If a game is going to take itself seriously, however, the goofiness needs to be both managed and qualified. The issue with Beth titles is not that it's goofy on purpose...it's goofy because nobody spent any quality time implementing it in a meaningful way. Since
Morrowind was released.
Then, the classic touting of "the player can be whatever they imagine -- a true role-playing experience". As long as you follow the linear, main questline to its inevitable conclusion and ensure you build a combat-focused character. Stealth simply isn't a path to the endgame, it's yet another method of killing things and getting stuff.
Just to end on the right note, I love Bethesda's games! It's not that their approach to gameplay is
bad, it's simply that it stopped getting
better. Stagnation will kill anything after enough time. Progress. I crave
progress.