The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
In near enough every game I have seen you start at some point (Which we will call A) and end at some point (which we will call B).
Certain events happen throughout the game but you always begin and end at the same points. Why?
Well probably because it makes sense, but there are other ways to go about this idea, other ways which I think could improve what kind of games we seen in the future.
Take resident evil as an example, because it is a good game and also can help back up my ideas here pretty easily.
In resident evil you go around looking for objects, keys etc. You meet other characters and a whole host of zombies and monsters. You must interact with certain people, find all the required objects, keys etc to progress and complete the game.
Now to get through most locked doors you have to find the key. Although the rocket launcher in your hand would make short work of the door and allow you to proceed. But with that you would be going from A to B without doing all you should.
Red Faction introduced the new Geo Mod system which let you destroy parts of the environment, see the door? Blast through it or through the wall surrounding it.
Imagine something like this in resident evil. No more looking for keys, unless they were super reinforced security doors.
Just a nice little touch which makes sense logically if you think about it.
Anyway I am getting a bit side tracked from the main point here.
In every game you go from A to B. Why can't we make it possible to go from A to either B,C,D,E....etc Or go from A through certain actions and end up at B, play again preform the same actions at different stages in the game and end up at C.
So you start the game, then throughout the game are faced with certain decisions, maybe help a girl, chose which path to take, fight it out etc and from there decide what will happen to you.
So if you stay and fight you get the game that takes you to ending B but if you run away you would get to play through different parts that allow you to end up at C.
This would require intelligent software, something not really available yet. But we can kind of mimick this idea, so when something happens you still follow a single route through the game and not this multi route idea where you start and then make the decisions to decide where you will end up.
Hopefully you get what I mean, I'll try explain it with an example.
Right so in a resident evil game you start in a zombie infested city. Usually always you save the day and escape.
Why can't there be multiple paths throughout the game which decide your fate.
So for example if you make a decision to stay around to try save a friend when there are loads of zombies and you have little ammo it could be that you become a zombie and your roles goes from trying to escape to one of trying to kill a certain person in the town etc.
Or if you fail to save someone then certain rooms are unavailable to you to go into and in turn certain weapons are missed and parts of the story unavailable.
Reading through this it might be hard for you to grasp exactly what I mean.
Somewhere in the waffle there may well be an idea with potential to make good games great. Games are too linear. Even the likes of GTA3, you may be able to roam the city and do what you want when you want but you still have to follow missions in a certain order. But in gta3 if you fail a mission you have to re-do it, why can't it be taken as a failure and from there change the way the game would have been played if you had passed it. For example by failing it creates a new enemy who you must compete against and kill at the first given chance whereas completing it would have given you a new friend who by helping out in return will help you out.
I just like the idea of being given more of a choice which from the choices you make they decide your fate instead of always knowing that once you have done it all you may have missed a few parts but the main points like the start and finish are always going to be the same.
Views?
Certain events happen throughout the game but you always begin and end at the same points. Why?
Well probably because it makes sense, but there are other ways to go about this idea, other ways which I think could improve what kind of games we seen in the future.
Take resident evil as an example, because it is a good game and also can help back up my ideas here pretty easily.
In resident evil you go around looking for objects, keys etc. You meet other characters and a whole host of zombies and monsters. You must interact with certain people, find all the required objects, keys etc to progress and complete the game.
Now to get through most locked doors you have to find the key. Although the rocket launcher in your hand would make short work of the door and allow you to proceed. But with that you would be going from A to B without doing all you should.
Red Faction introduced the new Geo Mod system which let you destroy parts of the environment, see the door? Blast through it or through the wall surrounding it.
Imagine something like this in resident evil. No more looking for keys, unless they were super reinforced security doors.
Just a nice little touch which makes sense logically if you think about it.
Anyway I am getting a bit side tracked from the main point here.
In every game you go from A to B. Why can't we make it possible to go from A to either B,C,D,E....etc Or go from A through certain actions and end up at B, play again preform the same actions at different stages in the game and end up at C.
So you start the game, then throughout the game are faced with certain decisions, maybe help a girl, chose which path to take, fight it out etc and from there decide what will happen to you.
So if you stay and fight you get the game that takes you to ending B but if you run away you would get to play through different parts that allow you to end up at C.
This would require intelligent software, something not really available yet. But we can kind of mimick this idea, so when something happens you still follow a single route through the game and not this multi route idea where you start and then make the decisions to decide where you will end up.
Hopefully you get what I mean, I'll try explain it with an example.
Right so in a resident evil game you start in a zombie infested city. Usually always you save the day and escape.
Why can't there be multiple paths throughout the game which decide your fate.
So for example if you make a decision to stay around to try save a friend when there are loads of zombies and you have little ammo it could be that you become a zombie and your roles goes from trying to escape to one of trying to kill a certain person in the town etc.
Or if you fail to save someone then certain rooms are unavailable to you to go into and in turn certain weapons are missed and parts of the story unavailable.
Reading through this it might be hard for you to grasp exactly what I mean.
Somewhere in the waffle there may well be an idea with potential to make good games great. Games are too linear. Even the likes of GTA3, you may be able to roam the city and do what you want when you want but you still have to follow missions in a certain order. But in gta3 if you fail a mission you have to re-do it, why can't it be taken as a failure and from there change the way the game would have been played if you had passed it. For example by failing it creates a new enemy who you must compete against and kill at the first given chance whereas completing it would have given you a new friend who by helping out in return will help you out.
I just like the idea of being given more of a choice which from the choices you make they decide your fate instead of always knowing that once you have done it all you may have missed a few parts but the main points like the start and finish are always going to be the same.
Views?
In near enough every game I have seen you start at some point (Which we will call A) and end at some point (which we will call B).
Certain events happen throughout the game but you always begin and end at the same points. Why?
Well probably because it makes sense, but there are other ways to go about this idea, other ways which I think could improve what kind of games we seen in the future.
Take resident evil as an example, because it is a good game and also can help back up my ideas here pretty easily.
In resident evil you go around looking for objects, keys etc. You meet other characters and a whole host of zombies and monsters. You must interact with certain people, find all the required objects, keys etc to progress and complete the game.
Now to get through most locked doors you have to find the key. Although the rocket launcher in your hand would make short work of the door and allow you to proceed. But with that you would be going from A to B without doing all you should.
Red Faction introduced the new Geo Mod system which let you destroy parts of the environment, see the door? Blast through it or through the wall surrounding it.
Imagine something like this in resident evil. No more looking for keys, unless they were super reinforced security doors.
Just a nice little touch which makes sense logically if you think about it.
Anyway I am getting a bit side tracked from the main point here.
In every game you go from A to B. Why can't we make it possible to go from A to either B,C,D,E....etc Or go from A through certain actions and end up at B, play again preform the same actions at different stages in the game and end up at C.
So you start the game, then throughout the game are faced with certain decisions, maybe help a girl, chose which path to take, fight it out etc and from there decide what will happen to you.
So if you stay and fight you get the game that takes you to ending B but if you run away you would get to play through different parts that allow you to end up at C.
This would require intelligent software, something not really available yet. But we can kind of mimick this idea, so when something happens you still follow a single route through the game and not this multi route idea where you start and then make the decisions to decide where you will end up.
Hopefully you get what I mean, I'll try explain it with an example.
Right so in a resident evil game you start in a zombie infested city. Usually always you save the day and escape.
Why can't there be multiple paths throughout the game which decide your fate.
So for example if you make a decision to stay around to try save a friend when there are loads of zombies and you have little ammo it could be that you become a zombie and your roles goes from trying to escape to one of trying to kill a certain person in the town etc.
Or if you fail to save someone then certain rooms are unavailable to you to go into and in turn certain weapons are missed and parts of the story unavailable.
Reading through this it might be hard for you to grasp exactly what I mean.
Somewhere in the waffle there may well be an idea with potential to make good games great. Games are too linear. Even the likes of GTA3, you may be able to roam the city and do what you want when you want but you still have to follow missions in a certain order. But in gta3 if you fail a mission you have to re-do it, why can't it be taken as a failure and from there change the way the game would have been played if you had passed it. For example by failing it creates a new enemy who you must compete against and kill at the first given chance whereas completing it would have given you a new friend who by helping out in return will help you out.
I just like the idea of being given more of a choice which from the choices you make they decide your fate instead of always knowing that once you have done it all you may have missed a few parts but the main points like the start and finish are always going to be the same.
Views?
Certain events happen throughout the game but you always begin and end at the same points. Why?
Well probably because it makes sense, but there are other ways to go about this idea, other ways which I think could improve what kind of games we seen in the future.
Take resident evil as an example, because it is a good game and also can help back up my ideas here pretty easily.
In resident evil you go around looking for objects, keys etc. You meet other characters and a whole host of zombies and monsters. You must interact with certain people, find all the required objects, keys etc to progress and complete the game.
Now to get through most locked doors you have to find the key. Although the rocket launcher in your hand would make short work of the door and allow you to proceed. But with that you would be going from A to B without doing all you should.
Red Faction introduced the new Geo Mod system which let you destroy parts of the environment, see the door? Blast through it or through the wall surrounding it.
Imagine something like this in resident evil. No more looking for keys, unless they were super reinforced security doors.
Just a nice little touch which makes sense logically if you think about it.
Anyway I am getting a bit side tracked from the main point here.
In every game you go from A to B. Why can't we make it possible to go from A to either B,C,D,E....etc Or go from A through certain actions and end up at B, play again preform the same actions at different stages in the game and end up at C.
So you start the game, then throughout the game are faced with certain decisions, maybe help a girl, chose which path to take, fight it out etc and from there decide what will happen to you.
So if you stay and fight you get the game that takes you to ending B but if you run away you would get to play through different parts that allow you to end up at C.
This would require intelligent software, something not really available yet. But we can kind of mimick this idea, so when something happens you still follow a single route through the game and not this multi route idea where you start and then make the decisions to decide where you will end up.
Hopefully you get what I mean, I'll try explain it with an example.
Right so in a resident evil game you start in a zombie infested city. Usually always you save the day and escape.
Why can't there be multiple paths throughout the game which decide your fate.
So for example if you make a decision to stay around to try save a friend when there are loads of zombies and you have little ammo it could be that you become a zombie and your roles goes from trying to escape to one of trying to kill a certain person in the town etc.
Or if you fail to save someone then certain rooms are unavailable to you to go into and in turn certain weapons are missed and parts of the story unavailable.
Reading through this it might be hard for you to grasp exactly what I mean.
Somewhere in the waffle there may well be an idea with potential to make good games great. Games are too linear. Even the likes of GTA3, you may be able to roam the city and do what you want when you want but you still have to follow missions in a certain order. But in gta3 if you fail a mission you have to re-do it, why can't it be taken as a failure and from there change the way the game would have been played if you had passed it. For example by failing it creates a new enemy who you must compete against and kill at the first given chance whereas completing it would have given you a new friend who by helping out in return will help you out.
I just like the idea of being given more of a choice which from the choices you make they decide your fate instead of always knowing that once you have done it all you may have missed a few parts but the main points like the start and finish are always going to be the same.
Views?
Some games do, my earlier post on Elite showed that games can be open-ended and this can be of benefit to them. The problem is partly due to the space on the media and the time taken to branch a story enough to make it seem that you have a freedom to choose your destiny. Elite worked because your actions could cause the other ships to react in different ways (and this was a long time ago in gaming terms, remember). It's a pity that other games don't do this now.
Again, it would make the game seem bigger and give it more replay value, but it also makes it so much harder to program and testing would be a nightmare.
Still, we hold out hope that more games will take this path.
Again, it would make the game seem bigger and give it more replay value, but it also makes it so much harder to program and testing would be a nightmare.
Still, we hold out hope that more games will take this path.
Chrono Trigger, wasn't this like that? There were 18 different endings, depending on whether you fought certain people, when you decidedto fight the final boss, how you decided to get there, etc. All different ways to do it etc. So, am I on the right tracks or not?
Some of you may never have played this game, but Onimusha 2 has multiple routes that encourages you to play the game entirely again, to see what you may have missed. But the gameplay doesn't fit this, I don't feel, and it's the same issue with most games nowadays. Like pb said, it does make the game seem bigger, but for some games it doesn't guarantee a totally different experience, which is what we really want.
Yes. Intelligent software. Of course. Actually, there is a type of game called "Non-linear". It means you don't have to follow a specific route. Resident Evil is possibly the most boring game in the entire world. There are hardly any "side routes"! Possibly, the most open ended games are Sport games. Take JSR for a second. Do you have to get from A->B? No. All you have to do is collect spray paint a spray. There is no order. Non-linear. More fun. No inteliigent software required.