• 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
Edited 9 months, 28 days ago

Poll: Stealth games: More or less fun to play when you can take out the guards? (109 votes)

More 81%
Less 18%

In the most recent Bombcast, Jeff describes the appeal of stealth games as being the "thrill of taking out a dude from behind". Which while true as far back as the original Thief and Metal Gear Solid, is not always the case.

And in the case of something like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I found it far too easy to just knock out the entire room with silent takedowns and tranquilizer darts and it's not even a challenge because it's really just all about "how can I isolate these guys and take them out". You were too good at taking dudes out in that game (and most recent Metal Gear Solid games).

On the other hand, there's a level in Alpha Protocol where you sneak into a CIA safehouse/listening station thing in Rome to plant a bug, and you get an extra bonus if you never even knock out a CIA agent, because then they have no reason to even suspect anyone was there to plant a bug. Getting in and out of that mission leaving zero trace was actually super satisfying, even if it just meant being really careful to dodge about 3-5 CIA guys. Hitman has had varying degrees of success with that idea, although more so in the earlier games.

So what are your thoughts? I liked stabbing dudes in Mark of the Ninja as much as the next guy, but oh man, finishing levels with the Path of Silence suit where you have no sword or lethal gadgets is wicked amounts of fun.

#1 Posted by Steadying (1478 posts) -

Way more fun when you can take them out. I mean, if you're smart enough to plan out a strategy to do so.....then why not? Doing a non-lethal run of Dishonored (mainly because the game fucking punishes you with a bad ending if you kill people and actually use your hard-earned abilities) was one of the least amounts of fun I've ever had with a video game. And yeah, I know knocking out dudes is still considered taking them out, but it's just not the same....

Anyway, I guess it kind of depends. I actually really enjoyed trying to sneak past everyone in MGS4. I just didn't like the constant loading screens whenever you got caught. :(

#2 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11406 posts) -

While I agree that some games are too easy, and you can just knock out everyone, but being too underpowered is worse. I think, at least.

One of my favorite things of more recent stealth games (at least I associate it with more recent games, I don't really have the data to back up my argument) is the ability to knock out a guard that's seen you before he actually raises the alert. When did that start? Was it MGS3? I'm just going to say MGS3 because I liked MGS3. So, yeah, like I said, recent stealth games like MGS3.

#3 Posted by Village_Guy (2665 posts) -

I kinda like it more when I don't touch a living soul.

Online
#4 Edited by Yummylee (22575 posts) -

Depends on the game. Hitman is the prime example where it's the most satisfying to get through a mission without even having to knock anyone out besides your target, whereas in series like MGS part of the fun is toying around with the guards. Plus, when you've got stealth kills as gnarly as the stuff you see in the Manhunt games, then--at the risk of sounding like a psychopath--playing all quiet like while still murdering everything in your path in the most brutal ways possible is the exact appeal.

#5 Posted by Jackentrote (43 posts) -

I have restraint in stealth games, so I make like a movie badass and only take out a couple guards throughout a whole level, the couple that were so in my way that it makes sense to take em out and pull them aside.

so "more!"

#6 Edited by Brodehouse (10131 posts) -

I always preferred the games that were about isolating or otherwise taking dudes out without setting off alarms, not about getting to the end of an area with no confrontation. I want to get into confrontations, I just want a game that gives me the opportunity/incentive to do it in a clever, and overwhelming way. I want to notice patterns and exploit weaknesses in my enemies. I want a gradient of pass/fails. I want my strategy to be as important as my twitch dexterity.

#7 Edited by xite (925 posts) -

Hitman: Blood Money is the perfect example of the "clean sheet" mission. You can knock out all the guards if you want but you can go through most of the game without laying a finger on anyone but the target, and there are some occasions where you can set it up to look like a natural occurrence (chandeliers falling on people, falling off a balcony, even getting someone else to accidentally kill your target). It really makes for the most rewarding and cinematic experience for that game.

It's a bit of a buzzword but I think the option of taking out guards gives some much needed "player agency" to stealth games, which can obviously lead to more fun.

#8 Edited by ArbitraryWater (12123 posts) -

Splinter Cell Blacklist does the "ghost" thing pretty well. While you do have nonlethal methods of dispatching foes, chances are that you won't reach the score target if you just do that the entire mission... which is probably why I started moving towards "Panther" as my playstyle of preference for that game.

#9 Edited by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

A qualified "more fun." I always try to remain completely undetected, neutralizing as few guys as possible in stealth games, but those games are usually better when there's a little bit of flexibility there.

#10 Edited by Zeik (2766 posts) -

I think it can depend on how its handled, but I think it's always better when you have some means to influence the guards and aren't simply hiding. I don't necessarily have to take out a whole room full of enemies, but I do want to be able to distract them or something. The least fun stealth missions are the ones where you're forced to just hide until the guard passes and then running to the next hiding spot.

Basically, if I do go through a level without coming into contact with an enemy I want it to feel like it's because I'm a stealthy badass, not a powerless weakling that has no choice.

#11 Edited by BisonHero (7063 posts) -

@zeik: Yeah, Mark of the Ninja lets you take 2 distraction items even in the "no sword" suit, so you could take like a smoke bomb and a noisemaker, or something to that extent. I agree if you can't kill dudes, you do need to be given more options to distract/evade guards.

#12 Edited by Zeik (2766 posts) -

@bisonhero: I'm still kind of shocked that the MGS knock (or an equivalent) hasn't become a staple of stealth games. There are so many situations where having a simple way to lure guards to your position would be extremely handy, but so few games seem to have something like that.

#13 Edited by Pie (7112 posts) -

I want to get through games by the skin of my teeth. In Blacklist they just overwhelm you with options and items and ammo and arghh so much wait this game isn't actually that hard and the best option is still just to sneak around them and hit them in the head anyway. I want a stealth game where the odds are truly against you and success means getting through the level without dying rather than trying to get the most points by alerting the least number of guards. You shouldn't want to alert guards because they will alert more guards and make life way harder for you, not because you don't get as many points at the end of the stage.

In Blacklist you decide if you are playing through by ghosting it, panthering it or full assault. I guess you can decide to ghost it and then "oh no I got caught but I can still make it out" but you are so overpowered in it it almost feels like you are cheating by doing that.

I thought The Last Of Us actually got fairly close to what I want out of a modern stealth game. In that (on the harder difficulties) you want to thin the ranks through stealth because the combat can be challenging and you will use up your finite resources by going straight combat. Combat never felt like "cheating" in TLOU to me like it does in Blacklist, it always felt like I had fucked up but I never felt compelled to reload last checkpoint because that kind of gameplay fitted the story perfectly.

If I messed up the stealth in Blacklist I would normally play through the scenario using combat but it never felt satisfying to me. In terms of gameplay I just had so many weapons and gadgets and all that I just felt way too overpowered for someone that is meant to be stealthily sneaking around, that is not what Sam Fisher would do so I would always restart from checkpoint and try again. If I messed up stealth in TLOU I would actually start freaking out because oh no I only have 5 rifle shots left and 2 smoke bombs how am I going to get through it-5 minutes later I am throwing a brick into the face of some guy face and frantically running up to finish him off. The encounter ended in a satisfying manner that fit the story and tone of the game. If stealth games want to go in a more actiony direction then I think they should really be looking closer at how TLOU does things rather than what Blacklist does. Contextualising the stealth and combat in a story that makes sense and severely limiting resources that are actually helpful in the first place (all you really use in Blacklist is the shockbow, in TLOU I used just about everything provided to me).

Also all tranq guns and shockbows should be stripped out of stealth games. In MGS games they give you this massive selection of items but all you ever really use is the damn tranq gun, if they took that out I might actually consider using those flash grenades and magazines. I could limit myself artificially but I don't want to do that, what other game genres makes you do that? I don't not use the rocket launcher in FPS games because it makes the game too easy, I save them for when I really need them because they are a valuable finite resource.

And here's another thing. Why are nearly 3/4 of the abilities you get in dishonoured to do with combat? That game had the same problem as Blacklist for me. Combat is so quick and easy it just felt like cheating and not a valid option for playing through.

This post makes no sense

#14 Edited by BisonHero (7063 posts) -

@pie said:

Also all tranq guns and shockbows should be stripped out of stealth games. In MGS games they give you this massive selection of items but all you ever really use is the damn tranq gun, if they took that out I might actually consider using those flash grenades and magazines. I could limit myself artificially but I don't want to do that, what other game genres makes you do that? I don't not use the rocket launcher in FPS games because it makes the game too easy, I save them for when I really need them because they are a valuable finite resource.

And here's another thing. Why are nearly 3/4 of the abilities you get in dishonoured to do with combat? That game had the same problem as Blacklist for me. Combat is so quick and easy it just felt like cheating and not a valid option for playing through.

This post makes no sense

You're right, tranq guns and shockbows and stunguns do make modern stealth games way too easy. They're almost always silent, so there's basically no risk to using them on guards. In MGS1, if you wanted to take a dude out, you either had to pop him 3 times with a silenced SOCOM (no free-aim for headshots, so you had to be pretty close to him and on his elevation), or you had to get directly behind him and choke him out. And I think one or more of those options was loud enough that nearby guards would come and investigate. The only reason MGS-level-of-intelligence-guards were an obstacle was because you couldn't free-aim in MGS1. Most stealth games still have completely retarded guards, who are just very easy to headshot from like 50 feet away when they aren't even looking at you. And higher difficulty doesn't make them smarter, it just gives you less healing items or makes you take more damage, or something equally irrelevant. At least MGS would add more guards to some rooms on higher difficulty.

And yeah, it's kind of a bummer that Dishonored's combat looks so slick and most of its skill tree is centered around combat, when the game actively discourages you from killing since you get the shittier ending that way. I guess the DLC fixes that to some extent, because I thought I heard the DLC ending isn't influenced by the chaos levels or whatever? So in the DLC you can just kill whatever, I think?

#15 Posted by Zevvion (2382 posts) -

I absolutely hate stealth games that revolve around waiting around and learning patrol patterns. It's late here, so I'm not saying this with my full wits, but it's bad game design. Stealth in games is usually crouching and moving really slow, watching for patterns, then moving around them slowly. True stealth is just: no one knows you were there/did what you did. It doesn't have to move slow at all. Running at top speeds across a rooftop is stealth as long as no one knows where you were going or saw you for instance.

If I can't take out guards on the fly, it means it will turn into trial and error. I don't like that stuff in stealth games. It's the worst. I think Hitman has interesting stealth. Ever since the first game it did. Hiding in plain sight. It's a much more fun concept than the 'slow shadow crawl'. I also think the newest couple of Splinter Cell games have been great. They offer so many options that I can just move and don't have to stop moving ever. I also thought Dishonored was a pretty good one. It did have some issues though, but I really enjoyed it regardless.

#16 Posted by Lego_My_Eggo (1066 posts) -

Taking out guys is more fun, but its not as satisfying as sneaking past everyone and completing an objective without anyone noticing, so i guess i vote "more" because it is technically the more fun way for me. But given the option i will try and stealth it without take-downs, unless there are obvious benefits like in Human Revolution where you gain more XP for doing take-downs rather then just slip past.

#17 Posted by believer258 (12207 posts) -

I want to kill EVERYBODY.

Psychotic intros aside, I like the idea of stealthing into and out of an area, but it almost always devolves into me staring at guard patterns and waiting for the moment I can get through. That's extremely tedious and boring. If you could make it more interesting, I'd probably like stealth games more. Compare that to Dishonored, where I can possess one guy and make him shoot his buddy and just do a whole bunch of fucked up things to scare the shit out of and then remove anyone in my way. Yeah, I got the bad ending in Dishonored, and there's no way in hell I'm ever going to get the good one.

Or, compare that to the party level in Dishonored, which I actually did complete without killing anyone. Or large parts of Deus Ex HR, though in that game I usually rack up a body count by the end too. I really just don't like being still and quiet, I need to keep moving and doing stuff.

#18 Posted by Pie (7112 posts) -

And yeah, it's kind of a bummer that Dishonored's combat looks so slick and most of its skill tree is centered around combat, when the game actively discourages you from killing since you get the shittier ending that way. I guess the DLC fixes that to some extent, because I thought I heard the DLC ending isn't influenced by the chaos levels or whatever? So in the DLC you can just kill whatever, I think?

That game has lots of crazy stuff like that. All of the pre release coverage (and even reviews) talked constantly about how much choice they are giving to you but you get the game and are told in a damn splash tutorial screen "hey dude if you kill dudes you are playing the game wrong and will get a shitty ending". So you start playing it with pure stealth and realize that nearly all the upgrades in the game are to do with enhancing your combat ability. What? Then if you do play through it primarily with combat the game is about half as long as it should be with stealth. Just make a good stealth game or something like TLOU

#19 Edited by crithon (3456 posts) -

sometimes taking out bads in stealth games is trying to fallow along the silly rule sets.

I prefer Stealth Bastard's design where it's more exploiting it to trap them or drop a massive rock atop of them which rarely happens but you feel like your breaking the game.

#20 Posted by EternalVigil (306 posts) -

Having played a lot of stealth games, I always found it better when you can take the guards out, though I do found it extremely satisfying to make it through an area without knocking out anybody and getting out unseen.

While in some cases it can make the much easier, I've found in most good stealth games, there is an element of risk in taking somebody out. In Deus Ex HR and Dishonored, taking somebody usually meant having to get right behind them which leaves you vulnerable to being seen. In dishonored you need to choke him out which takes an uncomfortable amount of time. You also have to hide the body in most cases as most guard routes overlap at some point.

The problem I've with the idea of navigating an area where the guards can't be taken out is they usually require you to memorise the entire area's route patterns and make a perfect run, or play it incredibly slow-paced and constantly reload saves if you mess up, whereas if I can see that only one guard is going to be a problem, I can get him out of the way and slip through without much difficulty which is a lot more fun. I recently played through Beyond Good & Evil, and while you can take guards out in that game, there are some sections where you can't and you have to perfectly slip through without anyone detecting you with failure resulting in immediate death and having to start the entire section over, which is not fun to do.

I think the abundance of no-kill weapons in these games has got a little silly nowadays, as for the last few days I've been playing MGS: Peace Walker, and that game probably has one of the largest variety of weapons in that series, but I'm still mainly using the MK.22 because it's the best weapon for taking out guards quietly. Dishonored did it a little better as while you could get sleep darts, you'd only realistically only have a handful per mission, so you had to mainly rely on the choke out, which is very dangerous.

I've done a no-kill run of Dishonored (didn't count for some reason, I think I may have killed somebody in the prologue or something) and that game encourages you to be stealth and not kill guys for the better ending, but it never gives all that much in terms of skills to achieve that goal. I think the only powers I used was blink and the area vision one, maybe the freeze time power once or twice while all the others are built for combat. It makes the game significantly harder which depending on you view is a good or bad thing.

#21 Posted by yinstarrunner (1243 posts) -

Yes, the option needs to be there for most stealth games, as the genre is all about presenting the player with an abundance of options and leaving it to them to puzzle it out.

But, as a stealth game buff, going through a level is all the more satisfying if you leave the body count as low as possible.

#22 Posted by wemibelec90 (1838 posts) -

My enjoyment of stealth games now seems to stem from whether or not there is a mechanic in place to see through walls and observe guard patrol patterns. Without this, I feel I too often stumble into a guard I wasn't expecting and am immediately frustrated.

To actually answer the question, however, I think I prefer being able to knock guys out. It's one less guard I have to worry about in case things go wrong and I hurriedly dart back the way I came.

#23 Edited by SilentPredator (146 posts) -

Stealth is just a means to more easily murder fools.

#24 Edited by Klei (1768 posts) -

I like my stealth games where I can be extremely mobile and not punished for killing foes. I mean, backstabbing dude with a variety of methods and animations is always fun to watch and it makes you feel empowered. Dishonored should have been the perfect stealth game, but the fact that I was severely punished for using my blade and half of my powers forced my playthrough into a choke-hold marathon, which ended up being unsatisfying. I don't mind leaving guards alive and unaware, but I have to be rewarded for it. Splinter Cell: Blacklist did this, and it was very fun.

#25 Posted by ViciousBearMauling (1253 posts) -

Hard to say! I feel like MGS is more fun when I ghost through an area, but I feel like a god when I blink around and cut everyone's throat before they can react in Dishonored.

#26 Edited by benspyda (2051 posts) -

I'm not a huge fan of stealth games but I got a lot of enjoyment playing as an assassin in Skyrim, just stealth killing everybody. I don't really enjoy games where the primary goal is just to avoid being detected. If given the option I will always choose to clear a room of guards.

I feel wiping a entire area of guards without anyone ever noticing is more satisfying than just avoiding everyone. I played through the last third of The Last of Us just avoiding as much combat as possible by sneaking around because I was so sick of the combat, but didn't find it that satisfying.

#27 Posted by TowerSixteen (544 posts) -

Give me both options. Let me kill people, don't make me kill people. I don't see who loses there.

#28 Posted by Aetheldod (3735 posts) -

Takedowns .... the more lethal the better , I dont play videogames to be Ghandi.

#29 Posted by Pie (7112 posts) -

@eternalvigil: stopped playing peace walker because of that stuff. I was playing through it all stealthily so I could unlock items I would never use anyway. Game don't make no sense

#30 Posted by EternalVigil (306 posts) -

@pie said:

@eternalvigil: stopped playing peace walker because of that stuff. I was playing through it all stealthily so I could unlock items I would never use anyway. Game don't make no sense

Some of that stuff is really useful in the AI/Vehicle battles, and some of the extra ops missions require you to use regular weapons, but for the majority of the sneaking ones they are a little pointless, which was a bit disappointing.

#31 Posted by TobbRobb (4848 posts) -

Depends on the game. Where takedowns are fast, varied and thematically aproppiate, such asin games like Metal Gear, Mark of the Ninja or Splinter Cell, I will totally have a blast just cutting fools down stealthily! That is most likely where I get most of my stealth game enjoyment, even though it usually involves a lot of self-inflicted limitations "no guns, no weird gadgets, etc." since stealth games are generally too easy.

Though I greatly enjoyed the older thief games for their complete non-violence and stealthy pilfering. I wanted to feel like the master thief that would leave no trace and no witnesses. And that's a blast too! I just think the game generally only truly works for that sort of gameplay when it's designed around it though.

#32 Posted by Zevvion (2382 posts) -

@pie said:

@bisonhero said:

And yeah, it's kind of a bummer that Dishonored's combat looks so slick and most of its skill tree is centered around combat, when the game actively discourages you from killing since you get the shittier ending that way. I guess the DLC fixes that to some extent, because I thought I heard the DLC ending isn't influenced by the chaos levels or whatever? So in the DLC you can just kill whatever, I think?

That game has lots of crazy stuff like that. All of the pre release coverage (and even reviews) talked constantly about how much choice they are giving to you but you get the game and are told in a damn splash tutorial screen "hey dude if you kill dudes you are playing the game wrong and will get a shitty ending". So you start playing it with pure stealth and realize that nearly all the upgrades in the game are to do with enhancing your combat ability. What? Then if you do play through it primarily with combat the game is about half as long as it should be with stealth. Just make a good stealth game or something like TLOU

I disagree. I really like The Last of Us, but Dishonored had more fun stealth mechanics. Also, a lot of Dishonored's upgrades have to do with stealth and getting the 'best' ending. Upgrading the crossbow, enhancing sleep darts, upgrading your mask; all benefits being better at stealth and having more options. You can actually kill quite a few people in every mission to still get the 'best' ending. I play that game without reloading. If I get caught and there are too many guys, I just kill them sometimes. I've killed upwards of 10 people in missions before, and still got a 'Low' chaos rating. If you want the shitty ending, you really have to kill like 80% of the guards (I'm making that statistic up, figure of speech).

I like The Last of Us better overall, but Dishonored has much better and more satisfying combat if you do get spotted, not to mention you can just Blink away to reset instead of having to reload. The Last of Us' stealth is fun, but the combat is absolute shit.

#33 Posted by Devil240Z (3440 posts) -

Taking someones life without them even knowing is quite a thrill trust me.

#34 Posted by Campion (33 posts) -

I'm quite fine with both to be honest. I typically learn toward the ghost purist side of play on my first playthrough, often going out of my way to leave no trace or recollection that I was there, while getting my objective done. The rush of moving through an area unseen while tip toeing by multiple unsuspecting guards going about their daily business is why I play stealth games. You can't say anything like "I get shit done right under their nose without them even knowing I'm doing it" with other genres. At the same time, killing off unsuspecting victims one at a time is also immensely satisfying, but in different ways that don't compare to feeling like a man they would die to see, but never will unless they look.

#35 Posted by Fredchuckdave (6158 posts) -

Depends on the game; most good stealth games are completely reliant on the player's ability to act offensively and if you expand the argument to Resident Evil/Survival Horror those games are much more fun when you feel like you can take on the enemy. Tenchu, MGS, and The Last of Us all fall into this category. There are also games that have stealth as an additional component, and usually the reason to use stealth is to kill stuff easier; Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dark Messiah, Dishonored, and Assassin's Creed all fall into this category. So you have the last bastard step-child portion of the group; the games that don't let you do anything except avoid repetitive guard loops, the dreaded "you're seen and you fail" checkpoints, this is what people don't like about stealth games and most of the bad parts of AC or MGS are like that. Thief and Splinter Cell fall into this category.

#36 Edited by Chaser324 (6744 posts) -

It varies somewhat depending on the focus of the game, but I generally prefer having the option to eliminate guards in a stealthful manner. That being said, it still needs to be something that requires a certain amount of skill/patience/timing to execute. Your offensive capabilities shouldn't be so powerful that it's a get out of jail free card for you to run in and take on the crowd head on (ala Assassin's Creed).

Moderator
#37 Posted by hermes (1610 posts) -

From a story perspective, I can see the appeal of having missions that force you not to knock out anyone. After all, there are differences between going in and out without being noticed, and without being seen, and most stories treat it as if it was the first when people would be suspicious if you leave a pile of knocked out guards in your wake...

However, from a gameplay perspective, I find it frustrating when a) you can't remove guards out of the way, b) being spotted by a guard is an automatic fail (even when he is immediately rendered unable to alert anyone else) and c) there is no way to recover from being seen (being able to hide away or lose the guards)

#38 Edited by hermes (1610 posts) -

Depends on the game; most good stealth games are completely reliant on the player's ability to act offensively and if you expand the argument to Resident Evil/Survival Horror those games are much more fun when you feel like you can take on the enemy. Tenchu, MGS, and The Last of Us all fall into this category. There are also games that have stealth as an additional component, and usually the reason to use stealth is to kill stuff easier; Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dark Messiah, Dishonored, and Assassin's Creed all fall into this category. So you have the last bastard step-child portion of the group; the games that don't let you do anything except avoid repetitive guard loops, the dreaded "you're seen and you fail" checkpoints, this is what people don't like about stealth games and most of the bad parts of AC or MGS are like that. Thief and Splinter Cell fall into this category.

To be fair, what you describe as the "bastard step-child portion" are what old school stealth games used to be about. Games like Thief, Tenchu and Commandos where the kind of game where, if you where spotted for more than one person at the time, it was pretty much game over. Games like Batman or Deus Ex HR, where you can easily lose the enemies and restart the stealth with little penalty are actually the bastard sons of the stealth and action genre.

Not that many people complain though, since, for the most part, it was a dated and frustrating design choice.

#39 Edited by Veektarius (5024 posts) -

Taking guys out is more fun. However, games where you can fail at stealth and make the sequence totally trivial by then defeating all the guards in direct combat (see: AC, Dishonored) often leave a bad taste in my mouth.

#40 Posted by ThatFrood (3396 posts) -

It's good to have, but it needs to have consequence and to be hard.

#41 Posted by Fredchuckdave (6158 posts) -

@hermes: You can fight out of situations (actually you have to fight sometimes) in Tenchu. But yes the oldest form stealth is also the most flawed. I don't think stealth had to start out as badly designed to get to the point of being playable. Thanks for reminding me about Batman, that is far and away the best stealth gameplay ever conceived.

#42 Posted by Shadow (4988 posts) -

Something I've realized about myself: I don't DO stealth. Even in stealth games, if there's an option for me to just run around and kill everyone I can as fast as I can, that's how I do it. About 20% through Last of Us, I remembered this about myself and just ran through the rest of the game taking all comers head on with no (or very little) care for whether I was spotted. In the rare cases where stealth is required, I can do it. In fact, I'm pretty damn good at it. I just find it tedious and boring and I avoid it whenever possible. That's also why I love Ninja Gaiden so much. All the badass fun of being a ninja without all the hiding-from-people bullshit

#43 Posted by Fredchuckdave (6158 posts) -

@shadow: Which has nothing to do with being a ninja.

#44 Posted by falserelic (5407 posts) -

Yeah, I enjoy stabbing a knife into somebody,instead of just putting them asleep. Its more satisfaction making someone suffer.

#45 Posted by Shadow (4988 posts) -

@fredchuckdave: Sure it is. There's very little stealth involved in anything detailed in Naruto and as we all know, that's a historically accurate animated documentary of the events of the Sengoku period of Japan, where Ninjas were most prevalent in history and everyone had flashy elemental powers that they yelled out the names of while attacking.

#46 Posted by Cybertification (206 posts) -

One thing I hate about most stealth games is the whole "You don't have to kill them!" thing. In Thief, the point was that killing guards was just a bad idea and it would get you killed.

In level 3 of Thief 2 you are not allowed to knock anyone out, making it one of the most tense experiences in gaming. This has nothing to do with nostalgia by the way, I played Thief 2 for the first time this year. Dishonoreds biggest problem is that there is never even a hint of tension, since nothing will happen if you get caught. Mobility is another interesting issue, in Thief you are slow and clunky, the only advantage you have over the enemies is intelligence, in Dishonored, nothing is in your way, since you are so great at fighting. At this point I'm just saying what Campster said in the latest Errant signal.

Sorry that I'm barely speaking coherently, this is something I feel VERY strongly about this for some reason.

#47 Posted by Nights (619 posts) -

My enjoyment of stealth games now seems to stem from whether or not there is a mechanic in place to see through walls and observe guard patrol patterns. Without this, I feel I too often stumble into a guard I wasn't expecting and am immediately frustrated.

This is why I hate most modern stealth games.

#48 Edited by YOU_DIED (703 posts) -

@nights said:

@wemibelec90 said:

My enjoyment of stealth games now seems to stem from whether or not there is a mechanic in place to see through walls and observe guard patrol patterns. Without this, I feel I too often stumble into a guard I wasn't expecting and am immediately frustrated.

This is why I hate most modern stealth games.

Level up your situational awareness, son. I'm doing a "Mostly Flesh and Steel" run of Dishonored and I'm having no such problems. There's a good reason why most stealth games give you a way to peek around corners and under doors.

#49 Posted by Fredchuckdave (6158 posts) -
#50 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2412 posts) -

Mark of the Ninja, I feel did things as pretty much perfect from what I want in a stealth game. I had the choice to either take out the guards or puzzle my way through the room to make sure I don't get caught.

Online