PDA

View Full Version : 2 words:



ExoStatic
3rd August 2007, 13:33
Single Player.

Have you thought about it?

I think it may be hard work but would be amazing and .. great.

I played through FEAR which was supposed to be scary but only really got scared near the end.

I played 5 minutes of Hidden MP and was scared/tensified all the way through lol.

Imagine the single player.. :)

Ging
3rd August 2007, 14:48
We have - if we had the time, energy and money, we'd go for it.

Cheesey
3rd August 2007, 15:35
I have two words...

search button

there you might have found all the threads where this topic was discussed, just like this one (http://forum.hidden-source.com/showthread.php?t=7938&highlight=single+player).

Boat Builder
3rd August 2007, 18:41
I played 5 minutes of Hidden MP and was scared/tensified all the way through lol.

Imagine the single player.. :)

I think the best part (and the reason it can get pretty intense) is that the multiplayer can create an almost... singleplayer experience. (i've found insurgency to do this rather nifty-ly as well.)

Besides, there are plenty of other singleplayer horror games you could play when you feel like some nasty scare. (although i never played much of fear, so i can't tell if you're simply immune to things that would destroy me completely.)

Anyway, more stuff is always awesome, so of course i think a singleplayer thingie would be nifty. I just don't think it's worth sacrificing multiplayer updates for. :)

starstriker1
3rd August 2007, 19:37
The AI for a single player version would be a huge amount of work all by itself. Adding more depth to the game for a single player mode on TOP of that... insanity. The game is pretty streamlined for the multiplayer scenario, it'd take some work to extend it to a continuous storyline.

To say nothing of the necessary voice acting and content creation.

Alt
3rd August 2007, 20:05
Shi? I thought Ging, sir, you were going to be doing this anyway? Did the concept drop?

Ging
3rd August 2007, 20:24
Shi? I thought Ging, sir, you were going to be doing this anyway? Did the concept drop?

I've poked around with some stuff for slightly better bots, but nothing at all towards single player - as we've said here and elsewhere, we just don't have the time or the energy for it.

TheOtherDante
3rd August 2007, 21:09
I like the MP for it too much to play SP (even if u made one)

The only way i would play the SP is if it had a very complelling story for it.

Demented
3rd August 2007, 21:37
Compelling story?
How compelling is compelling?

-SM-SUCKER
4th August 2007, 00:39
I played through FEAR which was supposed to be scary but only really got scared near the end
If you liked FEAR, try Condemned. Same engine, but somehow more intense. Stalker is fine, too.
Problem with singleplayer is that bots or AI in general cannot be scared. Not the way humans can. Humans have emotions, something very important in Hidden multiplayer as it is a very personal game where the enmey has to come close (like in Condemned).
Hidden singleplayer would only make sense if you were to hunt Subject 617... but would become boring very fast.

QReaper
4th August 2007, 02:36
I'm going to drop my elitist bullshit (search function, etc.) and say this:

I would love to see singleplayer. However, the thing is, the maps currently don't have the ability to have full on SinglePlayer story line capacity to them. I mean, you could say "Kill everyone" and then swap to a notecard telling the story, but that's not what we want, now is it?

It's a good idea, but, it'd be hard on Boxy, Ging, and to the rest of the team. Particularly Boxy and Eddie, considering the massive amount of mapping that would need to be done.:eek:

Cheesey
4th August 2007, 08:32
I liked the atmosphere of FEAR, sometimes I really got scared. But the game is boring and its the whole game the same place and the same thing...

I've heard "Silent Hill" is one of the most scaring games...

QReaper
4th August 2007, 15:23
I've heard "Silent Hill" is one of the most scaring games...
I haven't played Silent Hill in four years, and that was Silent Hill 2. I rented it and didn't play it the whole rental period.:eek:

Of course, I was 12, but that was a feat back then of itself.

Cheesey
5th August 2007, 00:47
I dont know, I havnt played it yet, but a friend of mine told me, that it's one of the most frightening game he's played. I'll try it, but on a PS2, have to get the joystick-feeling ;)

khu
5th August 2007, 00:56
Sign up 10,000 players to pledge $20 for a SP product, and we'll have it done in a year :)

Ging
5th August 2007, 01:09
That might work for me...

crimeZ
6th August 2007, 01:48
I think the hardest part about a singleplayer version would be the bots. It would be VERY hard to make a bot that would act like humans would, and I guess bots dont really "see" like humans, so it would be VERY hard to program them to see you sometimes, but not always when you're in front of them.

With that said, I'd gladly pay for this game and I'd love to see a SP version.

Demented
6th August 2007, 02:12
The secret to good AI:
You don't have to make the bots act like humans do.
You just have to get them to look like they're acting like humans do.

starstriker1
6th August 2007, 04:59
And do it in a way that's easy on the CPU.

AND do it in a way that allows easy management of complexity.

AND coordinate your efforts with the animation, art, and audio crews to pull off your elaborate smoke-and-mirrors deception.

AND...

Demented
6th August 2007, 05:40
Now you're just talking about quality of implementation, though that last point could be pretty important to the AI, depending on what you're going for.

starstriker1
6th August 2007, 06:16
And implementation details are vital for "good AI".

If your algorithms are slow, your AI is useless. What good is an opponent that won't run on your computer? Taking the appropriate shortcuts is essential. If your design is unwieldy to update, improving and modifying behaviours becomes a nightmare task, resulting in AI that isn't nearly as interesting as it could be.

And as for the last point... you could have an AI smarter than deep blue, constructed using all the cutting edge techniques in the book, and it's all a moot point if the player can't tell how smart it is.

Demented
6th August 2007, 07:50
That players must be able to tell the AI is smart is exactly the point. That's what I was alluding to in my first post, about the 'secret' to making a 'good' AI (as opposed to a 'poor' AI). Acting human isn't enough... It has to look like it is.

You can make a fast AI, or an easily-managed AI, or a smoothly-integrated AI, or a crash-free AI, or a flexible/adaptive AI, or an AI that's not going to go rampant if you let it alone with the trash compactors for too long... But if it doesn't convince the player that it's anything more than a dalek with a complicated pathing routine, then all you've done is made what I'd call a 'poor' AI.

Hence, on the list of priorities, I'd consider all those "quality of implementation" aspects to be obvious priorities for making any AI... Not anything particularly special to making a 'good' AI.

Then again, if you are, in fact, coding the AI for daleks... (...or Deep Red, or multiplayer bots for Quake 5...)