Stealth-games, for and against having combat

Hello Unity Forum!

One day I was talking to my friend over lunch about a new stealth game I was making and the topic of combat came up. I've told him I had no plans to implement combat into the game, as I thought it would raise the stakes of remaining undetected. He gave a puzzled "you're not serious, are you?" look and he began to argue for having combat within a stealth game. The discussion was interesting but we had reached a sort of an impasse by the time our food arrived.

So what do you people think about this? Should stealth-games have a combat system?
Please give me your opinions! I am looking forward to reading about them and if you can, refer to the games that can be applied to your opinion (a specific level or a walkthrough would be great!)

Cheers!

 

If I was the player I would really like to have combat mechanics in the game too but just be sure to penalize me for messing up and getting caught or I will basically be playing another assasins creed game where the guards forget about you 10 seconds later.

 

In stealth games I like combat systems like Escape From Butchers Bay. There were guns and fighting and all, but it was water pistols versus machine guns.

Giving the player combat as a problem solving tool opens up a bunch of gameplay options. It also gives you some more room with level design. Just make sure it's as tightly controlled as the rest of the game.

Combat also allows you to vary the pace of the game. Did the player just survive a harrowing stealth section requiring hours of meticulous planning? Give them a few moments with a machine gun.

The last thing you want to do is give the player halo like combat abilities. Direct combat should be to be an occasional option in a stealth game, not the main course.

 

I think you should do what you think will work best for your game. I am tired of everyone insisting that one must have combat in games.

There is a market out there for a stealth game without combat, which could be very challenging. It might be a niche, but why not go for the niche? As an Indie gamer, you can take a chance that the AAA game companies won't do. It is so sad to me that even the indie market seems to just make small changes to the same old AAA games rather than be innovative.

 

There is two kind of stealth game, ghosting and predator, seems like he is a predator and you are a ghost. Level design is more important though, one problem is escaping detection and restarting. Batman had a cool solution with the gargoyle where you could retreat safely to a stealth position and resume from there.

 

Should a stealth game have combat? Probably. Should a stealth game emphasize combat? Probably not.

 

Why should it have combat? Not saying that combat is bad, but why is it required?

I could see a cool game about sneaking around trying to get away with stuff without having a gun. It would mean new ways of being smart. I have played games that had both, but it always seemed that you had to use the combat in the end, the stealth was never good enough. So..by not trying it without combat, then you can bet most players will just skip the stealth and go with the combat.

 

That's why I suggested tightly controlled combat. If you can ignore the stealth elements and go full scale Master Chief on the game, then you haven't created a stealth game. Its one of my general problems with Assassin's Creed or Shadow of Mordor. There are moments when its scripted stealth, if you get detected you fail a mission. But in most circumstances your character is good enough with a weapon that just fighting your way through works. Stealth is a convenient way to avoid tedious combat, but its not the main focus of most of the game.

In Escape From Butcher's Bay the combat is controlled in several ways.

• Most of the game the player has a seriously inferior weapon to the enemies. This means you often only get one attempt before you are detected and taken down.
• Most of the game you are outnumbered by enemy.
• Ammo is severely limited. There is seldom enough shots to simply kill every enemy in sight.
• Reload speed is very slow. This means a perfect shot from a hidden location is much more effective then simply running in guns blazing.
• During much of the game the player does not have a weapon, and is restricted to their fists. The enemies still use machine guns.

That's the type of combat that can enhance a stealth game. Not the Master Chief style shoot everything in sight. Nor the Assasian's Creed* style master swordsman.

* I mean really, no matter how good you are with a sword, nobody can hold out for hours surrounded by a dozen armed men. And a dozen armed men do not all politely attack you one at a time, patiently waiting for you to parry each one before the next one strikes. A single body rush and Ezio dies every single time.

 

Another way to balance combat and stealth is to force lethal melee combat vs range enemy. The player would have to move close to enemy to take them down quickly and silently, but being detected prevent you to go close as they can maintain you at a distance. That also mean the player must have extra agility to dodge attack and retreat while enemy would have reduce mobility.

Retreat must be in clear signaled zone where enemy can't reach the player. I would have a level design based around "battlefront line" ie you secure area by reaching the next safe area (moving the "battle front") and the challenge is crossing to the next front (next safe zone). It will give the action a nice elb and flow, if detected go back to safe zone without dying using agility. It will give the player nice metric to achieve progression (knowing how close to goal and how bad he is failing.

Couple that with terrain control gadget and tools, the player can have a back and forth where he increasingly try to dominate the field with helpers, which would soften detection (ie he is detected but as correctly open a shortcut which will help him move faster at the next iteration). One problem of stealth game is when detecting it became a bad action game with no clear rythm and progression (trying to clumsily hide in panic mode and going gun go without the appropriate tools). By making combat melee you make it clear how to play the game.

 

It's too easy to make a stealth game that ends up being thin without combat. Instead of being open ended puzzles, they end up being straightforward navigation puzzles. The only challenge becomes finding the correct path, plus figuring out where and when to use gizmo X, Y, or Z.

To break it down, the point of combat is to turn an active entity into an inactive one for some length of time. If you take that away, the only consideration then is the position of the entity. This means the only two things you have to work with are manipulating their position to no longer be disadvantageous, or modifying your ability to be spotted. Without going to wacky lengths, it's hard to get the dynamism the genre is about.

 

Yeah, that is the problem. The genre. There needs to be new genres rather than sticking to the old ones.

 

This isn't about sticking to genre though. Stealth has been around in some form for decades, but it's never been any good outside the genre. There are plenty of old games with stealth sections that didn't employ some kind of combat, and they were all terrible. The stealth was boolean. You failed the instant you were detected, without any hope of fighting your way out of the situation, and you weren't capable of changing, much less leveraging, the situation. They were one solution puzzles were you didn't have to think, just wait.

It's totally possible to change the metaphor of combat, but the function of combat isn't going anywhere. This is the inherent nature of spatial simulation. So long as the playspace is space, the most prominent form of play will be interacting with other things that are playing in that space, with the most prominent interaction being to turn something that is playing in that space to something that isn't.

 

No? Has anyone really tried? I am curious. I don't mean to argue with you and definitely respect your opinion.

I just think we get in ruts and refuse to break out of them. I actually wrote a blog post about it...how I get a lot of pressure to do our game the way everyone else does that genre. If I bring up something different, I get some really surprising reactions, from excited shouts of no, to being reminded that I want people to play our game, to shakes of the head. But not one person can tell me that new ideas will not attract players...and many of the gamers I know are always telling me they are tired of the old and want different. I never did publish that post.

I do not enjoy playing combat games. But I think I would love a stealth game. It seems in every tabletop game I play, there is always that chance to solve a problem by using one's brain rather than a weapon. In fact, the longer I play tabletop games, the more GM's are putting in less combat and more options to finish the goals without battles.

Doesn't seem that way in video games. Everyone is afraid to try something new because without combat, the game "isn't going anywhere."

 

Remind me of a Jim sterling recent video where he criticize the over reliance of games on combat.

Thing is how convenient combat and violence is to engagement:
- clear stake
- clear goal and understanding, you know what to do (here is an enemy, fight)
- clear system and feedback
- visceral and flashy but still require thoughts
- a lot of opportunity for variation
- spamable as a filler
- automatically slot in most setting and situation without too much exposition

Combat is only rivaled by navigation as a mechanics (platformer are entirely base on the idea of moving through space)

Only recently an old mechanics became mature enough to start overshadowing violence a little as a convenient high engagement spammable activities: "crafting", which is the polar opposite as it encourage creating rather than destroying. Though it's not generic enough to slot it in any setting and serve as a abstract story driver.

Combat really concern me, I want to be able to do generic game without having to reinvent the wheel by creating and explaining out of the box specific mechanics people will need to understand to get into the world. And generally they are much more complex for way less pay off and robustness than combat...

 

Stealth game without combat is hard to pull off because if there is nothing to hurt the player, why are they hiding. It either is boring or becomes frustrating. The sweet spot is very hard to maintain, without reasonable fail conditions the game ceases to be a game. How do you resolve "being spotted" in a stealth game without combat that is both logical and not frustrating to the player?

The best stealth games IMO are ones where stealth is a "viable" playstyle rather than holding the game up by itself.
Tenchu, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid are all excellent stealth games that require combat to work. They are fun to play because of the stealth, but require the combat to give the stealth meaning. If Metal Gear Solid did not have combat it would just be game about crawling around a map, optionally dodging the spotlights so the annoying alarm doesnt sound whilst hiding underneath a box

 

Perhaps we are differing on the definition of combat here?

To me combat involves the enemy firing and the player firing back. If only one side is shooting, I wouldn't call it combat. You can certainly have stealth games where only one side gets guns (Or the appropriate weapon for your setting).

So you can still imbue a game with danger without involving combat.

 

Pac man, lode runner, bomb jack
we have the design vocabulary for this

 

@ Neoshaman, I consider games like Pac man as "Combat avoidance" rather than "stealth". The enemies know where you are, you are just outrunning them. This can work for a stealth of course, however depending on setting it may not come across as logical. It is also combat, regardless if the layer can fight back or not. IDK , but a stealth game where the players only option to run away isn't a strong design choice, the player would just get frustrated at not having a more reliable way of resolving the situations., like with lethal force

@ BoredMormon, We are differing on the definition on Combat here. Just because the player cant fight back doesnt mean the the A.I and player are not in combat. It just mean the players only move is to run away

 

Its about the part about being spotted, and if you enforce the right setting (child for example) you won't have the dissonance as with toughy macho dude n453113, it can be logical, it's not combat if the stake is simply getting caught . The point is stealth game tend to be state base game, avoidance become the game once spotted, the important part is state switching, what if in pac man the super pills don't flip the table but revert the state to patrol? (mgs locker). The thing is you need to look at game abstractly, lode runner have you laying trap that immobilized the player, you can find an equivalent without being literal (what if you send ink on their eyes and they can't see for a while, basically immobilized while they clean their glass). What if the game is about children trying to infiltrate a dorm? using marble to slow down the watcher etc ...

Combat is just a failure of basic imagination.

 

Figured as much. By the OP's poll I assumed combat was two way. So perhaps we need more words to effectively describe this conversation. One sided violence, two sided violence maybe? It seems there are better words.

I would contend that if lethal force is your most reliable way of resolving the situations you are not playing a stealth game. In the best stealth games I've played direct force is inherently unreliable. Making stealth options much more viable.

 

@ Neo, we too seem to differ on the definition of combat, Combat does not necessarily mean lethal force or causing harm, it is the act of using an ability to stop an opponent of successfully beating you. Throwing marbles down for the watcher to lose his footing to me is combat, you are purposefully trying to impede an opponent from executing his goal.

side note: I can also say that the Tenchu series has quite imaginative combat as do many other games. Whilst i get your point and agree with you, "Combat is just a failure of basic imagination" is a fallacy at best.

@ BoredMormon, the difference is you have a choice, fighting everyone you meet is unreliable yes, but carefully constructed take downs that open up a hole in the patrol coverage is a staple of many stealth games. "Lethal Force" in stealth games is not unreliable, the ability to use it whenever you want is.

This is getting a bit semantic for my taste, i realise that is mainly my fault for not reading the OP better. My main point is that stealth games need some type "combat" whether that is lethal, non lethal or simply controlling the environment to remain engaging. A digital version of "Hide-and-go-Seek" is not going to be engaging for long.

 

Well that's stretching a definition in a way that muddy it, by that definition everything is combat, that's useless. A close door become combat, that's a fallacy ... It can't be a good way to look at design ...

And digital version of hide and seek has been popular for decade, pac man is still a good game

I'm out of this conversation, I can only scratch my mind in disbelief here.

 

I've recently been re-watching burn notice and viewing this topic through that particular lens is an interesting angle. The exploits of the team in Burn Notice really included Ghosting, Predator, and full combat to great effect, and I feel like the inclusion of all of them really rounded out the feel of the show nicely- The main character was highly trained and versatile, but he was never all-powerful. You got the sense that, as much as he could, he was really playing percentages.

(side note-One feature that I haven't seen used much in games is how they manipulate the authorities to indirectly remove or augment threats on the field. This allows the player character to remain weak himself, while temporarily exercising power over his opponent.)

The inclusion of combat in a stealth game does change the tone of the experience- the need for stealth at all suggests that the player is out-matched in a "fair" fight, and stealth is the way for him to even the odds or circumvent the obstacles between him and his goal. The player being weak in this way requires creativity and some lateral thinking.

Combat suggests that the player is evenly matched with his opponents or is powerful in some regard- stealth in this situation is a way of manipulating your obstacles in such a way that they are easy to overcome with your resources or areas of strength. MGS is a good example of this- Snake is more than a match for many situations he comes up against as long as he has an assault rifle and ammo to fill it- Boss segments rarely feature any stealth at all.

Lots of open world games allow the player to approach objectives with multiple routes, manipulating systems to make multiple strategies viable, and to allow flexibility to switch tactics on the fly. There are very few Far Cry situations that you will find yourself in where you cannot opt to shoot your way out at any point. Comparing this to Burn Notice, the situations in the show are about the main character starting from a place of partial or total weakness (where combat was not an option), and changing the balance of power through stealth until he can flip the tables on his opponent. Including combat skills as part of the main character allowed the show more flexibility in their pacing and tension curve.

 

Ahhhh, I disagree!

But, you have challenged me. I am going to create a story in our game that will encourage crafting as the main mechanic in a game and make it fun! Combat will be there, but it will be secondary, maybe even lower down on the totem pole.

Thanks so much for that quote! It is exactly what I have been reaching for but couldn't find.

 

Since I wrote this I found half a dozen of way in which I could use "crafting" to make a game enjoyable, most of them can be simplified to zelda wii U without "combat" lol.

Basically crafting as quest, solving problem, going through obstacle, create effect, changing navigation ... all nested (for example you need to get a certain item to craft something for someone; one of the element, to be collected, need you to build an improvised bridge to reach the area where it rest ...)

And it can have stealth elements (to stay on topic) with avoiding the bulls or dangerous animal and hunting prey to feed (if you want some sort of "combat" without breaking a "peaceful" theme) etc ...

Spoiler: Zelda wii u situations

 

After playing the Thief games, my take on combat mechanics is that they should be used to aid stealth, or as a last resort. Garrett simply isn't able to stand toe-to-toe with anyone who's armed, except on the easiest difficulty, and even then it's a bit of a risk. His main weapon is a bow that he can use to snipe guards, but only if you're allowed to kill anyone - otherwise, you'll be using it to put out torches, launch distractions, and cover surfaces with moss that muffles your footsteps. The other main weapons are a club (for knocking people out), and a sword which is turned into a dagger in Deadly Shadows.

I've done something similar with Spamocalypse. The player's SQLer (an air rifle that injects SQL into whatever it hits) simply isn't accurate enough to guarantee you can hit an enemy, so the use case there is for breaking glass that's lying around. The player's knife is probably too slow to be any use against an angry spammer, but it breaks glass silently.
I should really test the combat...so, there's my next Feedback Friday contribution!

 

You could probably make an interesting stealth game without combat. Your trying to rob company x while working there as a hacker (you can only hack it from the mainframe in the server room) you got to bribe person x, get person y-fired and replace him with one your crew etc

 

Yes I think you can make a stealth game without combat.

I must put in another mention to the Thief games. They are great I would almost say there is no combat involved, but I would be lying. but if you tried any of the combat you loose. or maybe I was just terrible at it. I could only beet any levels by doing it all stealth.

 

Look at this:

Like A Ninja- How To Make a Good Stealth Game

by Extra Credits

 

Look at Half Life, some times you could crawl through a vent and lob grenades at enemies where they couldn't even get at you, and sometimes you come up a lift and you're surrounded by bad guys and there's only one solution--take cover, aim well and get them before they get you. I find that when my armor is maxed out and I'm just passing by ammo powerups because all my ammo is full, I crave that combat--I want to get my hands dirty. But when I have 2 health and it feels like the game is trolling me with a lack of ammo drops, I want to sneak by and take enemies out undetected.

If you can do both, do both.

Edit: If at all possible, defer these hard decisions to the player. Do you wanna sneak or fight?

 

STEALTH game (but only if you want so we put a combat game there too because you did really want a stealth game where you don't stealth, I mean it's written stealth that's why you buy it right? to avoid stealth?)

 

Oh a stealth game?

Well that obviously means no combat.

You know... like Metal Gear Solid, Tenchu: Stealth Assassins, Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell, Hitman, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dishonored.

Good point.

 

You have to sneak in those game though, you don't have a choice, combat is just one of the many tools. Try going rambo in metal gear or even batman, see how it goes well But hey we are iterated a joke I made by that point!

 

It may not go well, but it is fun as hell. And it's your choice to go in guns blazing or to play it safe. Sometimes depends on your skill level, sometimes not. But look at speedrunners... these guys laugh at stealth portions and typical "play it safe" points of gameplay, ignoring context and breaking the fourth wall they just exploit the games. I first experienced this in GoldenEye 007 when trying to get the invincibility cheat, you had to beat the infamous Facility in this unrealistically low amount of time... only possible by literally running through battlefields full of enemies while making no effort to engage them. Which was ironic because the Facility is one of the most intricate stages in the game. Then again I saw this in Resident Evil 2 when trying to get the infinite rocket launcher... running past zombies is more effective than killing zombies.

So yes, a game can (and will!) have multiple ways of passing it, no matter what you as a designer "intend". Might as well make it fun for everyone, accept that people will just say "F*** stealth" sometimes and make your character capable of combat as well. It's a balancing act to be sure, but I think in 2016/2017 we're far beyond "pure stealth" being able to carry an entire game.

Of course that's just my opinion.

 

Yes but consider this, you have two system to balance instead of one, and you don't have the latitude to solve the design problem of stealth without combat. The first one is a matter of focus, stealth game don't have to be for everyone, just like you might not play dress game; the second is an opportunity missed, to stretch your analytic design thinking, by using a constrain. All game don't have to be turned into a blob of similar design everything genre ...

 

A genre is not a rule book. It's an arbitrary thing that people try to fit a work of art into. You will consistently see that good art, successful art transcends (or defies) genre. Your job as a game designer is not to check off boxes in a "genre" (such as stealth, shooter, action, etc.) in order to win points and be a good little boy or girl. That's kid stuff. Your job is to organically craft a new experience from a wealth of inspiration and make something people want to play and that people enjoy playing.

There's no rules. So focusing on learning the rules and being didactic about them is getting you exactly squat no place. Go look at the games out there that people like and love, and look at how many of them have role playing elements with action and adventure, plus puzzles, plus shooting, plus melee combat, plus quick-time events. I don't know what games you are looking at as sterling examples of perfection but they aren't in the AAA market place, they aren't in the III marketplace, they aren't on Steam, they aren't any place... every game (worth its salt) blurs the lines and makes you take a second look at it.

Otherwise it'd just be a boring game.

 

That's exactly that, therefore stealth don't need "combat shoehorning" just because every other games you cited has it!

 

It's just that any other systems you use to replace combat will be far more shoehorned and clunky. Part of the problem with saying to not follow genre conventions just because they are conventions is that it entirely ignores why those conventions have evolved to be what they are.

Genre in games isn't like genre is other art forms. The technical basis that games are built on means that there is a significant degree of problem solving to the craft. The fundamental questions have been answered enough times that even advanced problems in any genre have been solved in the same fashion enough times that it became convention. Just think about why an instant kill melee button is standard in FPS.

 

At the same time if you don't take the chance to try something new, it won't evolve out of the clunkyness, it's an egg and chicken situation. And the reason combat evolve into stealth game was to appeal to mainstream audience, not some sort of clunkyness, demonstrate that you need new mechanics to begin with, I don't think you need combat.

But remember how survival horror where falling out of favor in mainstream as a solved and rot genre, with king franchise moving to action game? Well the revival with amnesia, slender man, outlast and FNAF completely destroyed the know how by completely removing combat, horror game being effectively stealth games with atmosphere. SO yes it's totally possible and it is already successful

 

It's more complicated than that. It wasn't that the horror game market collapsed, but that budgets were going up while sales weren't. It was the same with adventure games. In order to stand out, they cranked budgets up to appeal to a niche market that wasn't expanding. The decline of horror had nothing to do with the genre stagnating. It's always been a genre reliant on content.

lolwat? Modern stealth games came from taking a combat system, lowering the time to kill, and expanding on it's detection systems to organically create a need for stealth. It's the organic part that's the most important. If when and how to apply stealth isn't a dynamic to the game, all you have is a navigation puzzle.

 

I don't have an up front preference for a stealth-oriented game including traditional combat options or not. To me, the question is essentially meaningless outside the context of the design of a specific game.

I've played every game in the Splinter Cell series and as those games evolved, turning to combat to attempt salvaging a mission after you screwed something up became more and more of a viable option. It was fun.

That doesn't mean every game should be Splinter Cell.

I recently finished Alien: Isolation, which is the closest thing to a "pure" stealth game that I've played. The player is extremely weak and is pretty much sneaking past the alien all the time. There's no way to kill it. It's a unique and memorable game, but I don't know how well it sold.

You end up with a LOT of tools at your disposal by the end and you do end up with a pistol and shotgun among them. They're of limited value, as firing them will often just make noise that attracts the alien and you're dead. You can use the shotgun to take out androids, but you can't rely on just that. You can use the pistol to take out humans, but it's not always the best approach. Since the game is 20+ hours, those things are in there just for a bit of variety I think.

I'd suggest starting with a stealth-only approach and getting the mechanics solid. You can always mix non-stealthy elements in as the game design evolves if and when it feels right.

 

To avoid boredom. Stealth only or combat only grants you boredom in time.

 

That is your opinion. lol Not all of us are bored without combat.

One thing I think the game industry and indie games have missed is that games do not need combat to be fun. Stealth can be done without being boring...but it takes imagination and the willingness to try new things. Sadly, not enough people want that. Combat is easy.

 

I wouldn't be bored without combat either but a game needs diversity. Stealth all along? Boring. Combat all along? Boring. Bits of both intruduces diversity and breaks the monotonous rythm.

 

It's only a navigation puzzle if you are bad at it, so it's an interpretation you are making not an analysis. I can also say that with the introduction of cover mechanics in shooter and the call for seemingly better AI (ie not pinned down omniscient ai) action game start coopting stealth game and making them redundant, making the predator style rise instead of the ghosting/escape, that coupled with the emergence bro culture on xbox.

The instant kill is perfectly the example of this perspective on stealth, an instant brutal cinematic that reward the player to outsmart is enemy. Notice how deemphasis was place on tools like distraction (tapping wall in mgs) or surveillance, and a constant stream of poor imitation where it was just waiting for line of sight to be out. Modern stealth game aren't stealth game, they are action game with stealth element.

On horror game you just describe a collapse, I don't know what to say more, and all those horror game where just action adventure game with contrived control and bloody graphics anyway.

Whatever indie horror games sold AAA rivaling number by going back to pure survival horror, reinventing the genre into pure stealth, avoiding the trap of rot navigation puzzles with a dynamic hide and seek gameplay. They solved the part that action stealth didn't solve, what do you do when you are detected without making that phase an utter mess. And they don't rely as much on content because they don't have the budget! I have cited example so it's not a theory, it's done right now and it works.

 

What about stealth with horror or with puzzles or a game about a child playing a game? I have many ideas about how you can do this.

Boredom is personal. I am bored when playing a game like WoW where repetition is a huge part of the experience. I am bored in a single player game if the AI isn't interesting. I have played entire games without combat, and my enjoyment came from interaction, puzzle solving, a great story, etc.

No where did anyone say that stealth would be the entire game. The question is whether you can have stealth without combat. I think you can. However...one has to break through this concept that combat is the basis of all games.

If that is all one plays, then yeah.

 

Something about this seems like self-fulfilling prophesy.

How important stealth is isn't actually that important to determine if something is a stealth game. The aesthetics of stealth games makes them their own beast. Is there any degree of lateral thinking? Is there any need for planning and carefully timed execution? Can you solve a problem in different manners?

Pulling out of a market is not a collapse. Nothing about the demand for horror games changed.

And they were replaced with jumpscare ridden spookfests.

 

Most of these game does not stealth as a core, that's why they are not stealth game, it's simply that, no delineation. And it's not less a self fulfuilling prophecy than the reading you are trying to pull on me Except I explicitly mention that your conclusion could be an artefact of an interpretation and raise a new interpretation, so if this has turned a contest I win Thanks for proving my point

It's a collapse when you have no more title because it's not sustainable. So yes it is

Your comment on horror tells me you don't play and don't understand them. If you are thinking about Fnaf, then you clearly hasn't study why it works and why other failed (hint it's not the jump scare). Anyway it's not about horror but how horror game achieved stealth without combat and be enjoyable for it.

 

I think it really depends on what type of stealth game you are making. I can easily see having combat mechanics in a military-style stealth game where you have to either sneak past or take out the enemy. On the other hand, you can have a stealth game where there the character you play is completely powerless against its pursuers, so it has to sneak by to proceed.

Placing a combat system into a stealth game gives the player the option of completing a level without relying on staying hidden. The question is: do you want the player to have this choice?

 

This like a CS/Point Blank??
Can you share a link??
_________________________
Kaos Murah Kaos Distro Desain Kaos