Quote:Original post by MortusMaximus
I realize that some of these things are just examples, but in a combat situation, why would you use a fake grenade or a fake bomb, as opposed to a real one?

It is just a random example, and I actually laughed to myself when I first brought it up, but I can think of a few answers to your question:

- Avoids injuring nearby hostages.
- No environmental damage.
- No danger to you if close proximity.
- No danger to you if tossing accuracy is tough in that situation.
- Can use a non-lethal weapon after they break cover to escape the grenade.
- Can scavenge their supplies, since they aren't blown to bits.

Quote:To me, this is basically like charging someone that has a real sword when you have a fake sword, in the hopes that he won't call your bluff, and just run away. Uhhh....

That seems rather different, since you're willingly throwing yourself into a fatal situation. A fake grenade would have no negative consequences. Worst case scenario, they ignore it. In any other case, they expose themselves for targeting.

Quote:Original post by MortusMaximus
I realize that some of these things are just examples, but in a combat situation, why would you use a fake grenade or a fake bomb, as opposed to a real one?

Perhaps the game rewards a more ethical, thoughtful approach?

Hypothetical gameplay situation: you're not fighting anybody you specifically want dead, you're trying to get past a group of guards to reach a goal later in the level. Needing to get from one safe spot to another, you can clear them out of the area by throwing a fake grenade. This scares them off and you're free to run through to the next spot undetected. Of course they're still alerted to your presence, but nobody's been harmed and they still don't know where you are.

Another example would be to knock your enemies from behind as to not raise alarm and avoid lengthy combat. Shortening combat by getting your enemies off guard can be really satisfying, especially if the player receives instant positive feedback.

The player could easily run through the level blowing up these innocent guards left and right, but that doesn't necessarily always make the player appear to be a good samaritan. So, reward the player for being clever and more balanced.

The Hitman series was interesting because anybody could play it, but to play it well the player had to think - balance these two sides of the game out well and the end result is a hybrid puzzle/action game which could satisfy two large groups of gamers.

Quote:Original post by Captain P
As for enemies not falling for a trick anymore, some feedback would be useful there. "It's a fake! He's doing it again! Let's get him!". Yeah, you've been overusing your little trick there.

That's a great idea. For many situations, I think some feedback like this would remove some of the letdown of the trick failing, and probably even make the player laugh.

"Yeah, like we're going to fall for that trick again!"
"Sorry, we're not as dumb as the last idiots you nailed with this."
"Ah, the infamous net trap. No way are we falling for that."
"Look, it's the fake grenade gag. What a joke!" *BOOM*

Quote:Original post by wodinoneeye
The problem with a game is that there is the world is a simplified/generisized representation where every trick has to be choreographed in its execution leaving little 'innovation' on the players part

That's not necessarily true. It would be more of a challenge to implement some tricks in a way that employs the player's manually executed actions, but it's definitely possible.

For example, you could run at an opponent while holding out an attack, then pull down your weapon and roll by them to go through a door behind them unscathed. Each opponent could have their own timing and reactions, and the player's attack and roll would be normal game actions. The longer the player waits to roll, the better the trick is sold to the AI, but the more difficult it is to get by them.

All the game designer needs to do is give the player some abilities (attack charge, attack charge cancel) and make their AI react realistically enough to make it possible. The AI should try to block or counter the attack, then because of that block or counter, not be able to quickly turn around to pursue the player. Using all of the same AI reactions, it might also be possible to quickly maneuver behind this opponent and attack them in the back.

Quote:as well as a poor interface to allow easy activation of more than a handful of 'tricks' and a poor visual representation that the player can see ahead of time the specific situation where the 'trick' is appropriate

Avoiding that sort of factory-default gameplay is what this thread is all about. There are a great many tricks that should be possible to execute anywhere at any time.

This is why it would be important for most AI to learn of your past strategies. Often, the only reason to not use a specific trick somewhere would be because you want to use it later in a more vital situation, and don't want the AI to catch on to it. If the AI doesn't expect a certain trick, it should almost always work.

I think the grenade idea is actually a great example.

Imagine an FPS, you're running around dispatching pockets of bad guys left and right, a juicy cluster of them rounds the next corner... and you only have 1 grenade left. But, you've also picked up this 3-pack of tennis balls which you keep in your pocket. The enemies see you, and you take out a 'grenade', pretend to pull the pin out and throw it...

It was much easier to acquire the tennis balls than a grenade, and it conserved your ammunition to use the tennis ball. This is potentially all the advantage that the fake needs - it conserves your resources.

Another example I remember is from Red Alert, playing as the allies there were a whole series of fake buildings you could construct. They were cheap and went up in no time, however, a few tank blasts would easily destroy them.

Kest, your idea of having the bad guys learn from your tendency to fake is great.

One thing I would add is that the more bad guys there are around, the harder it should be to fake them out. Like, in a room of 10 guys one of them is bound to yell, "It's just a fake!"

I think at some point in this thread I mentioned that any fake attack had to be at least as effective as a normal attack or the player would ignore it. A tennis ball grenade is a great example. Throwing it is fast, and so I lose almost no time for normal attacks, yet it produces a desirable effect at low cost. A desirable effect at low resource cost isn't enough though if the opportunity cost (the normal attack I could have done) is high. In this situation though I would still only use fake grenades when I want the enemy to run and disperse but I feel a normal grenade is a waste.