forum? Thread - Lynch mod for Doom III

What is this for? bigger better general comments? Hmm. Well I hope I can make it to 20 characters. Ahh, there we go.

It serves a multitude of grand purposes:

A, I get a blue 'forum' tab thing on the mod profile, this subsequently does my ego no end of good

B, Figured it'd be best to have somewhere for a 'dev' forum so other peeps whom lend a hand to the mod have somewhere to come and discuss the various, irrelevant aesthetics

C, Erm.... it's better than pro-boards

D, now I'm getting desperate

Hopefully though once there's some more media on display that's actually of interest people may wish to ask questions regarding the mod, and what better place to do it than on a mod site

Failing that idle banter is always good

i like the idea of a forum, actually. if anything, it's a good place to actually discuss the morality of the games we enjoy, such as manhunt.

What was immoral about Manhunt?

the fact that there are no women in it, except the reporter, but c'mon she was a carpet muncher if ever I saw one.

But no, there were no female gang members! I'm amazed womens rights groups weren't up in arms about that! But then again I suppose sexism is ok if it involves violence - Pay us the same, give us the same rights, but dont let us get hit!!

Note: In the event that someone void of humour reads this thread, please bare in mind that tongue is firmly embedded within cheek

In all seriousness though Dethtoll, that'd please me. Fans of manhunt who can actually appreciate the game beyond it's splat value are few and far between, and rarely express intelligence beyond the level of a toe nail, so if Lynch does manage to attract fans with a moral and artistic perspective on said games, I'd be over joyed for them to share opinions here.

Edited by: Koroshiya_Ichi

well damn. I just played it for the sheer enjoyment of the plastic bag weapon, and quit when that was no longer interesting.

Really though, what was Manhunt aside from just a poor man's Splinter Cell with some added Rockstar shock value. Shock value which was far more annoying than cool, since they beat it over your head (heh) so much from the opening cutscene and on through the rest of the game it just began to seem obligatory and silly.

comparatively it could equally be suggested that Splinter Cell, (Metal Gear would be more accurate in this given example but the principle remains) is just the modern day technological equivalent of PacMan. The principle of avoiding enemies until it is safe for the player to coordinate an attack pattern of their own (all in order to reach very straightforward objectives) may have been elaborated on with numerous variables, perspectives and contexts, but as a principle it remains the same.

This may seem irrelevant but for me, so is the argument of superior and innovative gameplay. Everything is a logical elaboration on basic gameplay principles that've been around for decades, some poorly implemented, some incredibly well implemented. While many a title may stand out as a benchmark in its own right, a little joining of the dots will reveal that originality, innovation and fresh gameplay ideas are defined by balance, and again, elaboration on tried and tested techniques. At the end of the day though while that's all well and good it depends entirely upon interpretation, what one man deems as 'cool and interesting' another may interpret as 'cack and gimmicky'. Just compare any 2 reviews of Prey for proof of this.

While in its stripped down gameplay form Manhunt was your bog standard stealth, 'run/hide/kill mentality' with a dosage of the trademark Rockstar signature, what I personally enjoyed were it's art values and design direction. I liked the fact that for once I was playing in a context I could emphasise with (well, to an extent). The environment, the weapons, the executions, even the enemies (spend 5 minutes in Stoke-on-Trent on Saturday night and you'll see what I mean!) weren't pulled from the same bag I've seen in a thousand others. I also liked the fact that while in games like Splinter Cell, Hitman or even Theif you can to some extrent get away with punching your way through, by comparison the manhunt protagonist was somewhat powerless. Yeah there were places where you had to just beat people into a pulp, but it was far harder to survive in group battles than in many other games I've played.

Though I do agree about it seeming obilgatory. I personally would've liked to see the player offered a little more choice, or atleast some illusion of choice, but perhaps this would detract from the rest of the experience. Dont know, don't really care because it's something I'd liek to work with in Lynch regardless.

This is one of those things you could discuss for hours without agreeing, and at the end of the day what it entirely comes down to is personal opinion, and what kind of games you love to play. Take Doom 3 for example: where many saw a glorified tech demo with a weak plot, sub-standard AI, shallow gameplay and dull narrative exposition, others saw an incredibly indepth, atmospheric, well crafted, immersive journey into horror. Whose to say either are wrong?

To quote a friends band 'Opinion is your perogative, do with it what you will', the only people I have no time for are these elitist nobrots who have absolutely no tolerance or comprehension of why other people may or may not like a game. Atleast with a semi-open mind you've the potential of experiencing something new that you otherwise may have gone without.

Christ I hate re-reading my posts, I realise how boring they are! But still, 6 posts without down-right flaming is good in any context

Edited by: Koroshiya_Ichi

Hi there. I'm here just to say... um... hi.
So this is the new forum for the Lynch project?
Regards

by morality i meant how we justify to ourselves our enjoyment of such games. how we identify with, say, james earl cash. we can justify murdering the skinz because deep down, they're really horrible people. we can justify slaughtering, say, the smilies, because they're crazy and out to kill us.

but what about the police? that makes it a little harder to justify to yourself- because in the end, they're still cops- and surely, not all of them are corrupt.

in GTA it's easy to justify because GTA is a cartoon, at its heart. but manhunt is much more visceral and engaging.

To me most every game breaks down into similar formula all based around a central system of "overcome the challenges to get to the cutscenes (and then press every button you can to skip said cutscene)". I consider a game decent and fun when it masks that central system well. Take a game of any specific genre for instance. The only change from one new MMO to another is the "mask" it uses to cover up the grind present in every MMO game. I have been fooled by many fresh MMOs that were indeed fun for the first month or so, but after awhile that mask really begins to peel away. It is then that you see the same old, ugly and sinister wizard behind the curtain that lurks in nearly every other MMO. The same can mostly be said for all other game genres (although I don't think any have quite reached the innovative stagnancy of the MMO), which is a huge reason why I don't end up finishing most single players games (and why I believe games should be getting shorter and not ever longer, but that is a bit off topic).

However, just because games rarely innovate with brand new methods of play does not mean that the possibility for a new method is inexistent. I believe the lack of innovation in the industry has more to do with economics and politics than just that all possibilities have been explored (and we are all just playing new renditions of Pac-Man and Asteroids). I arrive at this conclusion because it seems peculiar to me that the industry was most innovative and pumped out the best titles when a large development was 10 people. Once the industry began to really make money then the teams got bloated and the costs went up, and the end result is an industry that fears change. The choices for the publisher are: 1) Strike it rich with a brand new idea that takes the world by storm, 2) Try the idea and fail miserably with it losing hundreds of millions of dollars and possibly your entire company, or 3) Remake Warcraft but with sexy new graphics and some irrelevent gimmicks that are sure to sell at least enough to make your money back plus some little profit afterwards.

As to the moral side of gaming, to me I can justify enjoying a good session of GTA because getting into any car you want in the world and then ignoring all traffic laws is super fun! I think perhaps some games (deeper games than GTA, like Ultima, Eldar Scrolls) put the player in positions where they are faced with moral decisions, but I don't think much thought is put into the decision when it is made. For example, by the end of Fable my character was super goody-twoshoes man. He wasn't that way because I had gone out of my way to meditate over "should I turn in the poor old beggar who had stolen some bread", but rather because I was trying to finish every challenge of the game as quick as possible and that meant that I just defaulted every moral dillemma the game threw at me to whatever seemed natural.

P.S. - I did turn in the poor old beggar.

Edited by: Handshakes

I arrive at this conclusion because it seems peculiar to me that the industry was most innovative and pumped out the best titles when a large development was 10 people

I couldn't possibly agree more. May its a case of too many cooks, but I'm not really into the whole 'massive workforce' thing. Personally I'd rather have 10 intellegent, concise and interesting individuals working on a project than 100 workerbee's, but I suppose this is just a bi-product of any big industry.I've always admired ID who despite being 'legends' of game development have always stuck with modest team sizes. Halo was also a far more enjoyable game before it's staff and budget size exploded.

On the moral thing again, agree with what you say about decisions and whatnot. I remember reading an interview with Valve and one of the most striking things they mentioned about feedback regarding half life 1 was that so many people reported feeling genuinely bad when they inadvertantly got a scientist or security guard killed. Something that was added to HL as a gimmick proved to touch a real chord with players which to me is a far more worthwhile direction to experiment with than trying desperately hard to innovate gameplay. For example the first time I played Black and White I just wanted my creature to be evil, so smacked the hell out of him every time he did something nice. But I felt sort of 'bad' about doing it, and so decided to just take a more natural approach to it. Eventually I had a creature that (metaphorically) had a good heart, but didn't take shit from anyone, which I was happier playing with.

Let's face it, the principles of a game can only go so far, and you can only dress them up in so many different ways. Maybe it's about time developers thought a litle more about the context of games, the narrative, and some of the more subjective aspects of a games universe. But hey, in a world where there are millions of braindead star wars fans who'll buy any only crap with the lucasarts label on it, can we truly see this happening any time soon?

And yes I too would like to see games made shorter. Prey was an enjoyable length for me. Perhaps not a length that really justified the dev time but as an actual length I though it did the job.

Yeah I think that the context or atmosphere of a game is important and oft overlooked. Manhunt took place in a snuff film which was especially neat because it made the world perverted and surreal, but not without leaving in that hint of reality which is that there really are snuff films which is a horrific realization that really gets the imagination going and makes the world seem more alive.

it's interesting that you bring up half-life. the ironic thing about that is, i had a tendency to get my NPCs to follow me, then at some point i'd dump them all off at some safe, defensible point and go on alone. in HL2, though, i was mildly annoyed. for pretty much the entirety of the game you were very much alone- it wasn't until the street war section when you're saddled with a bunch of rebels running around. the problem is, while the resistance fighters were realistic enough to make you feel bad when they got killed, they were ultimately expendable. (in contrast to this, the combine destiny mod where you play as a combine trooper lets you command a squad of fellow combine, and you really don't feel bad sending those assholes to their ignoble deaths as meatshields for zombies. the resistance fighters also retained much of their personality, even though you were fighting them, which made them seem even more human after you unloaded a shotgun into them. kind of a good psychological twist there.)

To be honest I felt rather let down by half life 2. Really enjoyable game, but like watch this video with the first ingame footage:

Gametrailers.com

How many of the coolest aspects from that did we actually see in the final game?? I certainley dont remember the combine utilising AI the same way as they do in that video where they kick the door down. And the bit with the traps, how many times did you actually come across such areas?? Ah but this is not the place for whinging about HL2!

I do see what you mean though, while the technology was certainley there to bring the characters to life more it wasnt really used very often, and when you did meet NPC's they were little more than cannon fodder. To be fair I cared far less about HL2's characters than I did HL1's... with the acception of Dog.

Regarding what handshakes said that's something I did like about manhunt. it was a very twisted view on an otherwise 'normal' context, which is made extra hard to swallow by it's believability.

Something I am concentrating on in Lynch is believable characters. While as far as the game is concerned they are basically there to cut you up, I want to avoid this whole mentality of character painting by numbers. By building it in smaller episodes im allowed a little more freedom with content, so for example, the enemies will have individual dialogue scripts. They won't all be incredibly deep, but they will reflect unique attitudes, mentalities and general personality when used. Some will be concentrated on a litle more, so in areas where you're creeping up on them you may just hear them boasting about how they're gonna cut your cock off when they find you, while another may be feeling somewhat melancholy at the fact that they're only really here to make some money. Thats just a really basic example but its a principle that if put to good use can really help bring characters beyond the box.

heh, how old is that video?

i agree that the combine AI never seems to be that innovative- but then again, when are we ever given a chance to try something like that? i can't see why they would make the AI dumber- more, it's a matter of what situations we're given. note that particular scene actually has combine... in ravenholm.

that first bit with the zombies reminds me of the dead sector series of mods, heh... but it probably will wind up in one of the later episodes. you can bet that a lot of what they cut will reappear later on- they've already admitted to doing that in HL2E1.

i like your character idea. manhunt did this too- the different gangs said different things, like the smileys and their unique brand of insanity, or the skinz with their religions-bent racist remarks.

i've been wanting a manhunt sequel; maybe this'll be what i'm looking for.

yeah man regarding half life 2 thats exactly what i mean. Technology, innovation, new graphical techniques are all well and good but I'm more interested in seeing situations that not only allow us to make use of them, but also to have a little interpretation on them. It would've been really cool if there were more sections in Half Life 2 where we were able to maybe barricade doors, use the environment to our advantage.

Such things though i am looking to incorporate into the AI. Nothing massively complicated, but a guy released a mod for Doom 3 a while ago which allowed the Hell Knights to pick up and throw imps at you. I can't see why it'd take much to adapt this so the AI would perform it on certain objects, which'd give the player more to think about in a situation. Simple answers in creative situations usually work out the best.

I too would like a manhunt sequel, and although manhunt did greatly inspire this I'm trying to think of the design/gameplay principles as more a blend of Fable, Deus Ex and Condemned. Believable human characters, a situation/environment that can be emphasised with, and a degree of choice that allows the player freedom according to their moral principles. It might blow up in my face, but it'll be an interesting journey lol

To clarify on that E3 footage, the AI didn't get "dumber" in the final release, it just actually never did kick down doors or anything like that. That whole thing was a scripted sequence that was supposed to take place somewhere in Ravenholm but was removed completely at some point down the line of development (Although you do go through that same house at one point).

I was super dissapointed by your squad mates in HL2. They pretty much did nothing but die. I'm the kind of player that likes to protect those that follow me and in games like Oblivion it is actually quite possible to do so (and you are rewarded for it most of the time), but in HL2 it was damn impossible. In the end about the only thing they ever did that effected the gameplay at all was block me and get me shot a couple times.

As for Combine Destiny I imagine having the same complaints even though my mates would now be the combines. Honestly though I always identified more with the combine than with the whiney annoying resistance fighters .

As for AI for Lynch, I think you could pull off real cool things with what Doom3 gives you. ID rarely does much to AI, but they leave it highly modifiable. I myself am working on something of an AI mod for Quake where the monsters will be able to stalk the player no matter where he gets himself into by teleporting ahead and out of sight of him when the player can't be reached. I'm trying to find a way to keep people on their toes like in System Shock 2 where while playing you always have the feeling that nowhere is safe.

one thing that HL2E1 has going for it, is that alyx is nowhere near as bad as the rebels were in HL2. she's not only helpful, but she can handle herself rather well- you don't really need to babysit her. in fact, i played through the game about 3-4 times and she only died once, and that was when you were trying to defend an indefensible position (the elevator in the parking garage. to be fair, that was before i'd figured out a successful way of managing the zombie rampage while keeping the zombines and their grenades away.)

Yeah although I personally have very little knowledge when it comes to AI and coding from what I gather it's not actually over complicated to modify. Like you say ID don't really do that much with Ai but they do make it very accessible to people who may wish to.

It's interesting what you both say about the team members who you actually care for the most, it generally seems the case that as gamers we're mroe inclined to help/look out for characters with balls. The Combine and Alyx characters are capable of standing up for themselves without getting in your way 24/7. To be this hightens the sense of realism/immersion because then the characters really are reacting to the world they're in.

Yeah you could very well argue that the average Joe would react to the situation in HL2 like many of the citizens did : crying., but it doesnt really convince the player that they're capable of really existing in their universe.

Regarding Ravenholm it doesnt at all surprise me that it was scripted. I remember when Valve announced the leak there were messages flooding forums from the supposed theif basically stating how all of Trap Town was a big scripted sequence despiet what Valve originally said. Isn't that just really annoying though?? The only AI I've been impressed with for a good while is F.E.A.R.s, if only due to the fact that the characters actually seem to understand the environment and can adapt to it. I think thats what's missing with a lot of action games.

Handshakes keep us updated on that mod! Sound's very interesting i'd really like to see it in action at some point

F.E.A.R had some very interesting AI. It would be nice to see some scary AI in Lynch. I think that one way of doing this is to give them knowledge they couldn't know about, which gives them the edge.

yeah thats a big part of it. I want to go for the approach that makes the player feel a little more powerless, like the odds really are stacked against them and that their enemies have the edge, thus encouraging a more thoughtful approach to situations.

the combine NPCs in combine destiny essentially work the same way as the rebels do- it's the same AI. the difference is that the combine AI can aim a little better- which, again, is a holdover from regular HL2.

ravenholm turned out to not be nearly as scripted as what we saw of traptown was, but in the end, half-life is pretty much one big scripted sequence. that doesn't make it BAD, mind you- but it does make it relatively predictable. the addition of realistic physics makes it a little more uncertain, but in the end it's no different from call of duty in that you're purpousely funnelled down the path the game wants you to go. this is gabe newell's fault, who doesn't seem to understand that the more intelligent gamers among us LIKE to explore a little.

i think, in the end, the half-life series is both linear, yet intelligent. by intelligent i mean a game that has a sort of emotional and mental impact upon the player- something that makes you think about what you just played- something you're willing to get into frank discussions with others over the 'literary' value of a given game. some examples of games like this:

system shock
thief
manhunt
silent hill
metal gear
fallout
deus ex

more...? yes, even a lot of japanese RPGs count, though gameplay wise i find them lacking.

Edited by: junegloom

I always thought HL and HL2 were over rated for what they were - bit too long, super linear, mostly scripted, sidescroller romps where the shooting elements feel sub par and unexciting. Of course that is taking story right out of the equation, but that's how I roll anyway.

yeah, it's a matter of personal opinion. personally i love 'em. HL2E1 is probably the best- all the best parts of HL2 crammed into about 4-5 hours of gameplay.

i believe they're overrated (HL2 definately) but i do really really enjoy them. Personally I prefer Half Life 1. If you released HL1 and HL2 at the same time, same technology and everything I think despite the time it was made HL1 would still stand up as the better of the 2. As for HL2EP1 I really was dissapointed with the first hour or so of gameplay, but the last 3 quarters were some of my favourite in the series. Especially shooting the gunship down through the roof and the very final scene with the strider. Valve do tend to handle set gameplay sequences and scripted events very well indeed, and I'd be happier playing shorter games every few months than having to wait years for overlong titles.

Although I like it ive never really considered the story particularly special. It's very straight forward and generic but it's extremely well told and thoroughly detailed, thats what makes it great. I think there's probably too much emphasis on 'plot' in games and not enough placed on the narrative, the way it is told and unfolds.

Again though, personal opinion