I have a gripe with games that combine stealth and action.

[yatssdaa]

It has its fair share of action, and I'd say it was blended really well if the stealth wasn't a bit too difficult sometimes.

 

[Elijin]

GRAW Future Soldier didnt do a bad job at it.

Sometimes it was scripted events which instafailed if you got caught (Ugggggggggggggggh)

But then they had a lot more fluid moments which let you approach the situation as you pleased, using co-ordinated team stealth. Sure, you could just gung ho it, but then it became generic shooter game. But when you ran stealth? Man, that was satisfying. Synchronized silenced shots to drop a group then dropping the straggler before he could radio in an alarm was just magic.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I see what you're getting at, but I feel with each generation games are getting better at it.

I think the purpose of stealth/action is not the merging of the two, but having the option of one or the other. Sometimes it's fun to muscle through an area and sometimes it's fun to sneak through. And if a game gives you the oppertunity to do both it adds more variety.

The down side is that every stealth mechanic exposes the limits of A.I., but that's a small price to pay.

 

[loa]

You start with about 10 shots for your pistol and 10 shots for the crossbow in dishonored.
If you go in guns blazing, you will be out of ammo before the first mission is over and it only becomes more and more scarce later on while the enemies become more and more numerous.
You will also burn through health potions super fast when taking on 3-6 guards head on constantly.
How the hell is dishonored an "action game" and what IS a "good stealth game" anyway?

 

[IronMit]

OP, You seem to want a stealth game to be solely stealth and action to be solely action..some games are trying to add realism; in real life you're not a bullet sponge FPS man and if 2 people see you when you're trying to infiltrate you can quickly kill them before they alert anyone. What's wrong with that?

However .. I agree on some level. I think the reason stealth and action in the same game is such a problem is because the repercussions and role play elements that should come with action-stealth games are severely limited to points, trophies/achievements and good vs bad ending.

I love Deus ex:HR.... stealth is the main way to play that game and you also die incredibly quickly in gun fights, you really need to have the right set of augments and approach to gun fights to succeed, such as grenades and turning invisible and it can still be tricky...

BUT what's with the radar?...it's on by default. you can't turn it off..most of the time enemies pop up on it before you see them even though the description says you need to visually acquire them before they pop up on there. Ruining a lot of the tension and pacing. I guess if your character hears them in real life he would be able to accurately locate the source of that sound...but then the radar will track them through a closed door and the direction they are looking??!

And if for example in Tai yong Medical you kill everyone the next checkpoint doesn't really care. There is no incentive to stealth properly except ammo conservation..

If you silently knock out everyone ..no 1 ever realises. There should be a system in place if you knock out/kill/ and disappear a certain number of enemies the next checkpoint will take this into account and enemies will be expecting you. Or after a certain time it is reasonable to assume someone will wonder where the 3 missing guards are? Even if the programmers can't have intelligent AI patrol routes to look for hidden bodies they can still have some sort of system like I mentioned. It's simple...if over 2 people go missing..people are more alert after the next checkpoint..if 2 are found dead or 5 missing...extra guards are added...5+ deaths- they have an entire team called in to stay indefinitely.
But the game is limited to: if you are spotted or a body is spotted...you can just hide and after a while the Enemy will just go back to normal mode.

I think this combats your problem of just picking stealth or action route depending on what is easier. It could become so much more...you can sneak past everyone or you can kill people for ammo, keycards to armouries but at the increased risk of difficulty in the next scene.

Hitman Absolution is worse..the checkpoints/levels are much smaller making everything more obvious. Slaughter everyone in a court house...(extra back up gets called-you kill them-then when no1 reports in everyone assumes everything is fine?) ..pass a loading screen go to the cells and all the scripted conversations start with everyone oblivious to terminator 1 style massacre upstairs. Want to know what's in the next room...check out your radar that you can't turn off that tells you everything.


These stealth games try to implement features to add to stealth ...the main one being an 'alarm point'..enemies run up to it and hit a buzzer.. but there are no repercussions after the combat except points or different endgame cutscene. Even on harder difficulty.

So far Metal Gear solid is the closest to stealth action for me; you can kill everyone...but if they radio in...you have to deal with a Team of guys that will hunt for you. The environment you are in, in MGS3-4, means its reasonable to assume they will actually give up and replace the dead guards if any. If you take out a guard, no one actually realises they are missing but you are traversing over large portions of land and they kind of know you are there already and/or they have other things to worry about so this behaviour actually makes sense in MGS3/4. There is no radar with direction pointers in these 2 games either.

Hitman 2-4 was good..if a body is found ..'guards are looking for suspicious person'..for the rest of the level..guards are more cautious. Put the difficulty higher...there is no map tracking. There is never radar. You can still kill everyone but that's a 2001-2006 acceptable limitation I expect to have been evolved on by now like Metal gear solid moving on from the mainstream radar.

I'm not sure if this can be blamed on main-streaming games. Adding a harder difficulty setting where alert phases are overhauled can't be that difficult. Guards staying suspicious can't be that difficult to balance? I guess that's more work that only niche audiences care about

As you guessed I'm a MGS fan, the team seems to prioritise more realistic AI and HUD to immerse you

I liked the Deus ex:HR missing link dlc...there's this part where the bad guy taunts you over the intercom..discussing weather you killed or snuck round or knocked out certain guards. That's a step in the right direction for stealth-action games.

Far Cry 3 is an action rpg with stealth thrown in.....so it's limited stealth is acceptable..It's there for you to approach outposts levels in your own way whilst Deus Ex,hitman, mgs are supposed to have stealth that is arguably more important then Far cry 3.
There is nothing wrong with stealth in lets say Uncharted, mafia 2, skyrim either. It's added for better AI.take out some enemies..have a shoot out with the remaining...or you could walk into a room and everyone immediately knows you are there even if you are hiding behind a box in the dark and they have their backs to you and you made no noise coming in...that kind of sucks- That would ruin most games for me.

 

[IronMit]

I see what you're getting at, but I feel with each generation games are getting better at it.

I think the purpose of stealth/action is not the merging of the two, but having the option of one or the other. Sometimes it's fun to muscle through an area and sometimes it's fun to sneak through. And if a game gives you the oppertunity to do both it adds more variety.

The down side is that every stealth mechanic exposes the limits of A.I., but that's a small price to pay.

My mess of a TL;DR can be summarised by this post. lol

I don't think AI is a generation thing (if you are talking about the power of each system).
Simple AI reactions cannot take up that many resources.
Having a script written into a game where enemies in the next area are already alert if you massacre everyone in the previous wouldn't even take up 1 byte. It will cost though because each scenario will have to be tested for bugs.

When Crysis 3 spends so much time refining each blade of grass but some people still complain about the limited AI, it tells you something about what the gaming industry prioritise...and how limited the scope of dev's idea of stealth is

 

[Zhukov]

You start with about 10 shots for your pistol and 10 shots for the crossbow in dishonored.
If you go in guns blazing, you will be out of ammo before the first mission is over and it only becomes more and more scarce later on while the enemies become more and more numerous.
You will also burn through health potions super fast when taking on 3-6 guards head on constantly.

You can upgrade those capacities to 30 bullets and 30 bolts. That's enough to kill most of the enemies in any level, if not all of them.

Oh, and in case you've forgotten, you also have a sword. A sword that can one-hit almost any enemy with the counterattack.

Not to mention grenades, spring traps, sleep darts, incendiary darts, explosive bullets and magic abilities.

Health isn't a problem. That game practically drowns you in a fountain of health potions.

 

[Luap26]

Why act like its a new thing? Tenchu: Wrath of Heaven was a stealth action game. Its not some new things that's going to fade away in a few years. ITS a type of game. Not some new fad. lets do some more examples, Oblivion, Morrowind and Skyrim have both stealth and action so they would fit under your definition.

 

[DoPo]

You can upgrade those capacities to 30 bullets and 30 bolts. That's enough to kill most of the enemies in any level, if not all of them.

Oh, and in case you've forgotten, you also have a sword. A sword that can one-hit almost any enemy with the counterattack.

Not to mention grenades, spring traps, sleep darts, incendiary darts, explosive bullets and magic abilities.

Health isn't a problem. That game practically drowns you in a fountain of health potions.

You write too much, you know. Let me show you

You start with about 10 shots for your pistol and 10 shots for the crossbow in dishonored.
If you go in guns blazing, you will be out of ammo before the first mission is over and it only becomes more and more scarce later on while the enemies become more and more numerous.
You will also burn through health potions super fast when taking on 3-6 guards head on constantly.
How the hell is dishonored an "action game" and what IS a "good stealth game" anyway?

Dude...all that "difficulty" you speak of - irrelevant. Blink is OP and you get it for free. That's before even counting the other magic you can get. Fighting is piss easy, stealth also. That's it.

But what Zhukov said is also true. If you have difficulty you haven't taken either the "action" route or the "stealth" route (what a laugh those terms are) but you're just doing something not smart.

I understand if you feel that way and we that is completely up to you, but some of us like the flexibility.

Options are good, I like options what's wrong with not being limited?

Erm, there is no "flexibility" or "options" - those would imply your choice of tactic matters, in most cases it doesn't (haven't played all the games listed or every game mixing stealth and action, so don't know about all of them). But unless you count achievements, they don't - you have two "I win" buttons with slightly different shape. Both stealth and action tend to be broken and/or overpowered and swapping between them can be done on a moment's notice, so it doesn't even matter what you decide to do.

 

[rob_simple]

My only issue with a stealth option is when it's poorly implemented then forced upon you.

There was one mission in Skyrim I remember where you had to use stealth to get around, but the stealth fucking sucked because you could never tell where the enemies were unless you were looking at them and you usually only found out when they could see you by that stupid opening eye mechanic which was utterly useless because a warning isn't much use after the fact.

Maybe it would have been easier if I'd levelled up the stealth aspect, but since I didn't like the mechanic I never invested points into it, which is a bit balls when you then come up against a story mission designed around it.

OT: I loved Deus Ex for it's stealth option, I played through the entire game that way and had an absolute blast. I tried doing gunplay a couple of times and just sucked at it, so I'm glad to have had the option because otherwise I'd have missed out on a great game.

 

[Phuctifyno]

I'm of the opinion that stealth is best when not forced. I think Ramboing should be an option because it makes the choice not to do that all the more rewarding. What it ultimately comes down to, for me, is implementation, incentive, and quality of level design. I think the most perfect stealth game I've played is Hitman: Blood Money, because it allowed you to ignore the stealth aspect entirely, but provided everything you needed to get the full stealth experience if you wanted. The scoring system was also the best it has ever been, and not only motivated you play as perfectly as possible, but also rewarded you for experimentation with some oddball results (what I'm saying is, they really fucked that up in Absolution by stripping it down instead of expanding on it).

Thief is a good example of a great pure stealth game, but one I'm not as crazy about because your options are so limited. Skyrim's stealth could have been much better, and I was really disappointed that they didn't have costume disguises, considering the incredible number of outfits in the game. I've tried Splinter Cell, but the whole thing felt too scripted. No real complaints about Deus Ex's stealth, which I would say is second only to the better Hitmans.

 

[Pulse]

I agree with the OP, except for the batman games. They got them SPOT ON.

They are essentially the only games I've come across that gets it right. Actually, ghost recon future soldier does it fairly well too.

Essentially the game developer really needs to decide if a section will be stealth/action and tailor enemy strength etc for it. Because it's almost impossible to balance it any other way. Basically, the bottom line is to make sure the easier option doesn't feel like a cop out at any given time. Ie if you have to stealth it, and are discovered, then a fight is a desperate affair you might just scrape through against the last few enemies.

Also, it can't work in games where you have a lot of control over your skill tree, in order to keep the balance all players need to have roughly equatable skills/abilities at that level. That's why I avoid making my character stealthy in any game that doesn't force you to. It becomes a cakewalk, you're sneaking up on isolated enemies which have also need to be weak enough for others to take on in a straight up fight.

 

[DTWing]

I'd prefer if they focused on one method unless they work really hard to make both viable. I hate stealth or action "sections" since great design should ostensibly give you the option to employ whatever method you are most comfortable with. "Thief", for example, focused on stealth and the result was a well-developed character with limitations that the player understood. Ditto with Solid Snake. Certain characters simply don't need stealth and shoe-horning those sections into a game forces the player to use a skillset that isn't always consistent with the character or setting.

 

[Woodsey]

This is hardly a new trend, or even really a 'trend'. Hitman goes way back, so does Far Cry, whilst DX:HR and Dishonored are both descendants of the original DX.

Shoe-horned stealth sections and actions are problematic, allowing people to decide which to employ is great. The trouble with stuff like Conviction is that despite the developer's protests, the game does strong-arm you into action.

 

[shrekfan246]

I've finally started playing Riddick escape from butcher bay, and for that, stealth is pretty important. I mean, it's a stealth game. It likes to take away your guns, or quite simply out-gun you. It has its fair share of action, and I'd say it was blended really well if the stealth wasn't a bit too difficult sometimes. (I'm new to stealth but man it can be frustrating.)

Yes, I'm talking about a game from 2004 since it was attatched to the other riddick game, which is also old.

I'm cheap, what can I say?

I was actually going to bring that up, since almost nobody else did.

The Chronicles of Riddick does have shooting, but while it's not the most graceful at contriving plot-convenient reasons why, it smartly limits the availability of weapons to the player. Granted, it still alternates between "stealth section" and "shooter section" pretty obviously, since it almost outright refuses to let you sneak through action sequences, but it still focuses more heavily on the stealth aspects and does a pretty good job of making you feel like even with all of the power you've got as Riddick, you're still just a man susceptible to being put down by bullets.

I notice Metal Gear Solid wasn't brought up in the OP, and I wonder if that's just because 2008 wasn't "recent" enough? I feel like that series does a rather good job of blending stealth and action together, if only because the actual action elements of it are pretty weak to begin with. Unless you're playing on an easy difficulty setting, you'll need to hide because it's dangerous to get caught and without an active radar in the top corner at all times, you need to smartly examine the battlefield and decipher the little readings from the Solid Eye before you blindly run out into the open.

 

[Trollhoffer]

Man, on the second page and there's been no discussion of how the core Metal Gear Solid games handle this (hint: awesomely). Edit: I have since been ninja'd by shrekfan.

MGS thrives on the manipulation of win states for each section of the game. There's no incentive for killing enemies apart from bosses, and direct combat is costly in terms of your limited resources. Ammo, health, healing items, that kind of thing. Most enemies in most of the games don't even drop ammo most of the time, so any kind of combat engagement represents a loss of resources. Unless you take the risk of sneaking up behind them and dispatching them with a hand-to-hand move, which in itself may cost you HP as a resource if you mess up.

Combat is generally balanced in such a way that direct combat against whatever opposition you're facing is generally not an option for game progression. It is, however, an option for making a tactical retreat; you can fight enemies to create an opening through which to escape. So the balance of the game makes combat engagements workable when necessary, but otherwise best avoided. It also helps that many sections have respawning enemies, meaning that even if you do manage to slaughter everyone, that victory is only temporarily meaningful. It'll buy you a moment before reinforcements arrive, then you're back where you were. With less resources.

The camo system introduced in MGS3 also added a really interesting element. Rather than relying on cover and moving from A to B while enemies were otherwise occupied or unaware, you could hide in plain sight as long as your movements didn't draw attention. This gave rise to some really tense, "cinematic" moments where an enemy may almost walk directly into you, but not notice you. But make one wrong move...

Mind you, the MGS series has plenty of flaws, too. But they handle stealth in a really interesting way. Honourable mention goes to the Rebellion Aliens vs. Predator games, where Aliens can break environmental light sources and hide from human AI (and other human players!) in the resultant darkness. Again, this breaks the standard "A to B" thing where A and B are hiding spots. It's a bit more emergent since, like with the MGS camo system, you essentially decide what a hiding spot is or isn't. Combined with the unique mobility mechanics for the Aliens, this creates room for some very interesting and creative player strategies. And I may as well mention the original Assassin's Creed, as repetitive as it was. In the original game, you weren't some kind of invincible combat god as you are later on, so you actually had to rely on stealth and mobility to get your job done and make a quick exit. Mechanics that allowed you to blend into the population of a city really helped aid this style of gameplay, since you needed a game-approved hiding spot, but some of those hiding spots could move.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Hitman: Absolution is a disaster as a stealth game. I feel like they wanted me to go all guns blazing. Why do I feel that way you might ask. Because shooting was fun and guns felt spectacular. On the other hand sneaking around the cover, using that stupid blend thing was frustrating.

I love DE:HR and Batman's approach to stealth.

Assassin's Creed only has an illusion of stealth. Blending in the crowd and following people around isn't really stealth. Blend with the crowd is an interesting feature that I always liked in AC, though.

CoD 4 LOL!

Splinter Cell: Conviction...better not open old wounds.

In Crysis it's completely optional until you decide to play on the highest difficulty. Then it's not really mandatory, but it's strategically encouraged.

Far Cry 3 was boring as a stealth game. Shooting rushing enemies with the bow is a lot more fun than being stealthy about it. But I guess stealth worked.

There is nothing bad with having options in the game. I think it's a great idea to be able to play the game how you like it. Some people enjoyed playing Far Cry 3 completely stealthy. I wanted to enjoy it as well because I usually prefer stealth approach, but shooting mechanics were far too good for that. I felt like I'm missing out on a lot of fun every time I tried to be stealthy.