The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As linear as a roman road!
After talking to a few of my mates at college, I found that most of them preferred liner games over their more ‘open-ended’ counterparts. I was quite shocked at this, but I realised that the more freedom a game has, the more overwhelming it is. One of my mates told me he felt intimidated when playing epic’s such as Baldurs Gate et al, because of the shear possibilities and options that were open to him. He told me he’d spent hours just wandering around Candlekeep, investigating every nook and cranny, and checking, double checking (and triple checking) every room, just to ensure he’d not missed anything. After he’d left Candlekeep, he checked his map and looked at Baldurs Gate, just north of him. No problem he thought, it’ll only take a minute to get there. I then loaded my file into his BG directory, and then showed him my map. He was so shocked he leaned back and fell off his chair. If you haven’t played Baldurs Gate, you can’t comprehend the enormity of it. My friend obviously didn’t realise this as he looked warily at the numerous locations you have to go in order to finish the game. It’s not just a case of going straight to Baldurs Gate, there’s much more. It’s an ‘old skool’ RPG in every sense of the word. After this ‘incident’, he sold Baldurs Gate to some guy at college for a fiver! He told me he didn’t find these kind of games fun at all, and so, plugged back in his playstation, and started blasting away on Time Crisis. I went home.
Should we demand the right to follow a paper trail through our games, or do we want to break the mould? We all have different tastes, but as genres start to mix, which way will the balance tilt? Open ended, or set path? In the end its up to us, the gamer. Isn’t it?
After talking to a few of my mates at college, I found that most of them preferred liner games over their more ‘open-ended’ counterparts. I was quite shocked at this, but I realised that the more freedom a game has, the more overwhelming it is. One of my mates told me he felt intimidated when playing epic’s such as Baldurs Gate et al, because of the shear possibilities and options that were open to him. He told me he’d spent hours just wandering around Candlekeep, investigating every nook and cranny, and checking, double checking (and triple checking) every room, just to ensure he’d not missed anything. After he’d left Candlekeep, he checked his map and looked at Baldurs Gate, just north of him. No problem he thought, it’ll only take a minute to get there. I then loaded my file into his BG directory, and then showed him my map. He was so shocked he leaned back and fell off his chair. If you haven’t played Baldurs Gate, you can’t comprehend the enormity of it. My friend obviously didn’t realise this as he looked warily at the numerous locations you have to go in order to finish the game. It’s not just a case of going straight to Baldurs Gate, there’s much more. It’s an ‘old skool’ RPG in every sense of the word. After this ‘incident’, he sold Baldurs Gate to some guy at college for a fiver! He told me he didn’t find these kind of games fun at all, and so, plugged back in his playstation, and started blasting away on Time Crisis. I went home.
Should we demand the right to follow a paper trail through our games, or do we want to break the mould? We all have different tastes, but as genres start to mix, which way will the balance tilt? Open ended, or set path? In the end its up to us, the gamer. Isn’t it?
Page:
whoa dude, use paragraphs
It depends on the type of game your playing I'd suppose?
If your playing a 3D platformer you'll want to feel you have complete freedom... but you dont want to have a Huge gameworld, where your wondering around aimlessly for hours hunting for coins/rings/etc.. in all the wrong places...
If your playing a shootemup, you'll want to be able to fly around... but you dont want to end up accidently flying off into uninhabited space and gettinglost...
With RPGs, classically, your going to want all the freedom you can get... non-linear is the name of the game with this sort of title... You want to feel as if your a character in a universe... and that you can fulfill quests as you see fit and not in some pre-definied manner... but you still want to have a story to fulfill...
I think maybe the problem your friend had was that he felt he had to explore every nook and cranny of the gaming world as you would with a platformer, or graphic adventure... Rather than thinking of the adventure first and the game environment second?
If your playing a 3D platformer you'll want to feel you have complete freedom... but you dont want to have a Huge gameworld, where your wondering around aimlessly for hours hunting for coins/rings/etc.. in all the wrong places...
If your playing a shootemup, you'll want to be able to fly around... but you dont want to end up accidently flying off into uninhabited space and gettinglost...
With RPGs, classically, your going to want all the freedom you can get... non-linear is the name of the game with this sort of title... You want to feel as if your a character in a universe... and that you can fulfill quests as you see fit and not in some pre-definied manner... but you still want to have a story to fulfill...
I think maybe the problem your friend had was that he felt he had to explore every nook and cranny of the gaming world as you would with a platformer, or graphic adventure... Rather than thinking of the adventure first and the game environment second?
Some games are becoming too open-ended. Some games can get away with it and there is one main reason for this. That reason is realism!
If you have a game that is very realistic by having some if not all of the following:-
Realistic graphics
Realistic physics
Realistic tasks
Realistic health
This list could continue, but I think you get the idea. When it has a lot of these features and is very open-ended, it takes the point of a game away and becomes overwhelming.
What is the point of a game I here you say! Well if you could do all of the tricks and stunts in Tony Hawk's Skateboarding for real would you rather be playing it on the TV or doing it for real? The answer should be 'doing it for real'.
This is because the whole point in a game is to entertain and allow the player to be able to do things that they can’t normally do. Games are ‘escapist’; you play them to get away from reality not to be in it. If you wanted to be in reality you wouldn’t be playing the game.
This is why games such as Zelda can get away with being fairly open-ended. It isn't too realistic so it can get away with being open-ended a bit more. But even these games can become too open-ended, because you don’t want to find yourself wondering around doing nothing for hours. Where is the fun in that?
But then again games can also be too confined. Player’s don’t want the game played for them. They want to feel they are in control of the game and not the other way around. So the trick is finding a medium to these two extremes. Where this medium is depends on things such as how realistic the physics, graphics etc. are.
If you have a game that is very realistic by having some if not all of the following:-
Realistic graphics
Realistic physics
Realistic tasks
Realistic health
This list could continue, but I think you get the idea. When it has a lot of these features and is very open-ended, it takes the point of a game away and becomes overwhelming.
What is the point of a game I here you say! Well if you could do all of the tricks and stunts in Tony Hawk's Skateboarding for real would you rather be playing it on the TV or doing it for real? The answer should be 'doing it for real'.
This is because the whole point in a game is to entertain and allow the player to be able to do things that they can’t normally do. Games are ‘escapist’; you play them to get away from reality not to be in it. If you wanted to be in reality you wouldn’t be playing the game.
This is why games such as Zelda can get away with being fairly open-ended. It isn't too realistic so it can get away with being open-ended a bit more. But even these games can become too open-ended, because you don’t want to find yourself wondering around doing nothing for hours. Where is the fun in that?
But then again games can also be too confined. Player’s don’t want the game played for them. They want to feel they are in control of the game and not the other way around. So the trick is finding a medium to these two extremes. Where this medium is depends on things such as how realistic the physics, graphics etc. are.
for me the bigger and longer the game, the more i enjoy it.
I do complete games quickly so somtihng that is non linear and huge is right up my street.
I do complete games quickly so somtihng that is non linear and huge is right up my street.
Now corners he he!
=B0p
=B0p
uksgamer2002 wrote:
> SORRY, I meant to say, 'it wasn't aimed at the casual gamer'.
ahhh... ooops, sorry man! :)
> SORRY, I meant to say, 'it wasn't aimed at the casual gamer'.
ahhh... ooops, sorry man! :)
SORRY, I meant to say, 'it wasn't aimed at the casual gamer'.
uksgamer2002 wrote:
> Is anyone suprised Baldurs Gate sold so many? I am, sure it was a refreshing
> change and came out when there was a distinct lack of good RPGs but it was aimed
> at the casual gamer.
Mind you... It was the only RPG to be fully implement the AD&D 2nd Edition ruleset...???
> Is anyone suprised Baldurs Gate sold so many? I am, sure it was a refreshing
> change and came out when there was a distinct lack of good RPGs but it was aimed
> at the casual gamer.
Mind you... It was the only RPG to be fully implement the AD&D 2nd Edition ruleset...???
Is anyone suprised Baldurs Gate sold so many? I am, sure it was a refreshing change and came out when there was a distinct lack of good RPGs but it was aimed at the casual gamer.
Page: