Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Quote: Original post by lightblade Really! If you like linear games, you're really not getting your money worth of the game! Considering spending $50 on buying Prince of Persia: T2T, all you'll get is 10 hours of gameplay even in hard mode. Non-linear games can really extend that border, to give a game more than a month of gameplay. Just think about it. How many hours have you spent on playing a linear game, and compare it with the hours that you spent on playing a non-linear game. I spend more time playing linear games. Why? Because they're less of an investment. Starting a forty hour game is a large time investment. Starting a ten hour game is much less. And, my goodness, what about games back in the day that you could finish in one sitting? How many times have I beaten Sonic 3? You don't even want to know! Sure, a game may only be an hour long, but if I play it forty times... The only exception to this (for me) is probably Fallout 2.

Now you're making me feel sorry for those that make games, spending hundreds of hours making something that some people will never be seeing it

Also, if games become linear gameplay, there won't be much difference from watching a movie. Then why not watch a movie instead?

The reason that the video game industries are growing faster than Hollywood is because most games are going toward the non-linear and multi-linear path targeted to different kinds of audience("One size fits all"), and people like that! You never finished those games because you're not suppose to! The game is not designed specifically for you, but to all gamers.

To the author of the first thread, you're only one of the few that struggles wanting to be the best, even in a game. In a linear gameplay, you are always the best because you are competing with nobody. But, in a multi/non linear gameplay, you are constantly competing with yourself. You keep wanting to get better, but you can't! after a few tries you lost interest, and realized you can't be better anymore and so you quit. You are a very typical casual gamer, therefore making you not enjoying games that have the element of strategy, well, maybe not strategy, but competetive games.

The philosophy of Sid Meier that I adopted as my own: "Open ended gameplay." (e.g. Civilization, one of the greatest strategy game of all time)

Quote:

Original post by lightbladeAlso, if games become linear gameplay, there won't be much difference from watching a movie. Then why not watch a movie instead? The reason that the video game industries are growing faster than Hollywood is because most games are going toward the non-linear and multi-linear path targeted to different kinds of audience("One size fits all"), and people like that! You never finished those games because you're not suppose to! The game is not designed specifically for you, but to all gamers.

The differences between movies and linear games are much more than just that games can be nonlinear. Simply being interactive makes a huge difference. Movies, ultimately, are passive entertainment, even if you're mentally alert and analyzing the bajeezus out of them. Games, ultimately, are interactive entertainment, even if the interactivity consists of mashing the fire button.

Honestly I don't think you can plausibly claim that games are getting bigger because games are getting more nonlinear, unless you have a study backing you up. I propose an alternate hypothesis: games are getting bigger because they've moved out of the niche market. It's no longer lame or nerdy to play videogames; your average football jock is quite willing to sit down and play a few rounds of whatever game floats his boat. My hypothesis has no more evidence than yours does, but it is simpler.

Your use of the phrase "one size fits all" is interesting. "One size fits all" can be a pejorative, because it says that the designers were not willing to make decisions that could increase their product quality at the cost of some of their target market (e.g. you can make a shirt that fits everyone poorly, or a shirt that fits petite people very well and doesn't fit anyone else at all). "Tailored" games then would be of higher quality, but only appealing to certain markets. "One size fits all" games wouldn't really appeal to anybody, but they'd be playable by most people. I recognize that this is probably not what you meant, but it's just something that I felt is worth pointing out.

It's entirely possible that some designers are just dumping the kitchen sink into their games so that they can say to any gamer X, "Hey, X! Here's feature Y that I know you're crazy about! You'll love my game!" This, disregarding the fact that to enjoy feature Y, gamer X must wrestle with features A-W that were inserted to appeal to other gamers and which X has no interest in. In other words, it's entirely possible for features to interfere destructively with each other.

I've been seeing a lot of "well, why don't you just ignore that feature, then?" comments. People saying that we ignore possible choices in real life all the time, so why can't we do the same in games? Those people are missing a crucial point: games are not real life. Games are escapism and catharsis. We play them because they allow us to do things we cannot do in real life, and because they allow us to not do things that we must do in real life. I may dream of being a ninja in ancient Japan, but it sure as heck isn't going to happen to real-me. Similarly, I don't particularly enjoy weighing the benefits of buying a used car (practicality and economy) versus a new car (features and enjoyment), but it's something I have to do in real life (well, as soon as I give in and actually buy a car). Why should I have to make similar decisions in a game? Just because it's virtual doesn't mean that some of the pain of those choices doesn't echo through anyway.

I guess my point is just that there's room for both types of games. Nonlinearity is not inherently better than linearity; nor is the reverse (er...contrapositive?) true. A good game developer should recognize which type of game he is going to make, and then do the best job he can within that framework.

Quote:

Nonlinearity is not inherently better than linearity

No, but an ideal non-linear game engine can potentially support a linear game, whereas a linear game engine can't support a non-linear game. I *do* realize there's also the problem of semantics; Linearity and non-linearity can't be sharply defined as all games have both elements. I see it as the amount of variation allowed by the game engine. Half- Life 2 has very little, R-Type even less, Grand Theft Auto: San andreas and The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind have plenty on modern standards and hopefully TES: Oblivion will have even more.

What I'm aiming at is analogous to physics engines. In the early stages of physics engines in games, only a couple of objects were simulated. You could stack some crates or throw a grenade. Most objects were static and would not react. Since Mathengine, Havok etc. hit the market, the dynamic environment has grown to include most of the dynamic objects in the scenes. That still doesn't mean you have to roll every barrel, push every bottle off the table, or just generally throw all loose stuff around. But you can.

Expanding that thought to game engines, I still see no benefit in invisible walls. In my opinion they are there [mostly] because of technological limitations and should be removed whenever feasible.

Quote:

Original post by ruistola Quote: Nonlinearity is not inherently better than linearity No, but an ideal non-linear game engine can potentially support a linear game, whereas a linear game engine can't support a non-linear game.

That's as may be, but as the rest of my post pointed out, nonlinearity can in fact result in painful choices for the player, for all that the choices are virtual and have no effect on the real world. People oftentimes don't like having to make choices. Why should we, makers of games that are meant to entertain people, force them to endure pain? Any nonlinear game must require people to make choices, or else it is nonlinear. And for that portion of the gameplaying population that does not like making those choices, nonlinear games become less fun than linear games.

Ah, but you were talking about game engines, which is another matter entirely.

Quote:

Any nonlinear game must require people to make choices

Why? Because it allows choices, doesn't mean there can't be a default, resulting in a virtually identical experience to a strongly linear game, unless you make an active effort to search and find choices.

Quote:

Ah, but you were talking about game engines, which is another matter entirely.

Unfortunately, it's not entirely another matter, as game engines and contents are tightly coupled. If you look at the progress of video games in general, we have come a long way from invisible walls left and right (or top and bottom in case of R-Type ;)) to the virtually open-ended games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The only reason we didn't have GTA:SA before was because the game engines weren't advanced enough. There's still a main storyline, but the progress of technology has allowed for the engine-content- coupling loosen up; Nowadays you can have a capturing linear storyline embedded into a non-linear game.

Quote:

Original post by Kevinator @Wavinator, I could flip the question around on you. Why should I be able to majorly shaft the pirates in the storyline and then have them be neutral toward me after the story arc?

Because a properly compartmentalized storyline would make this okay. It would separate out mutable and immutable elements, and ascribe immutability to those things for which the story arc is dependent. Erasing the player's work is just plain lazy, and invalidates the feature (not a small criticism seeing as it took over 3 years for the well-heeled Digital Anvil to even come out with the game).

Halo 2 is a perfect example of this, by the way. Hero characters are invincible, but you can still sidekick characters that are on your side (accidentally or otherwise). This allows the story to have key characters at key times, and the fact that they're invincible really doesn't impact the story or the gameplay.

Quote:

Original post by Derakon People oftentimes don't like having to make choices. Why should we, makers of games that are meant to entertain people, force them to endure pain?

Pain??? Don't you think that's a bit over the top? (It's not like we're talking drug therapy or hospice treatments here)

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Derakon People oftentimes don't like having to make choices. Why should we, makers of games that are meant to entertain people, force them to endure pain? Pain??? Don't you think that's a bit over the top? (It's not like we're talking drug therapy or hospice treatments here)

Okay, poor choice of words. Certainly if they don't enjoy it, though, then they're not very likely to play it.

As for embedding linear games in nonlinear ones, certainly that could work. You can play GTA:SA strictly by going mission to mission (though I believe you have to take time out from time to time to build up your stats...mmm, powerlevelling). I think at that point it becomes a question of how much effort you can put into the game world. All that time that Rockstar Games spent adding all the little nonlinear doodads to the game comes at a cost to the quality of the linear game (if all you're interested in is the linear part). You can make a truly amazing nonlinear game, but can you then embed a truly amazing linear game within it? If so, I'd wager you have more development resources than the average game maker. At some point practicalities must be brought into the equation; making good nonlinear games is hard, simply because you have to code in all those player choices and their effects. Comparitively, the implementation half of a good linear game is downright trivial, so more time can be spent on polish and making the game world engrossing.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Flarelocke Non-linearity, though, seems to be an excuse for shallow and uninteresting stories. Even being an assassin in Morrowind is boring; you just read some text about some guy they want dead, and kill them. Did you read any of the scrolls and books in the game world? For me, they really made the game world come alive. They were particularly more compelling if you've played through Red Guard and the other, earlier Elder Scrolls games.

Every one I came across, of course. I share the defect of the other posters in that I try and achieve as much of the game experience as its environment allows.

Quote:

Quote: Then it takes you half an hour or more to get to your target (if you haven't discovered or memorized the land, sea, and teleportation routes), and then another half-hour to get back. I think if you don't like virtual terrain and the sight of a made up world, there's no helping this one. I didn't mind the travelling because I was roleplaying a scout, and so I worked to stay off the roads as much as possible. Even though the game world didn't reward or acknowledge me, the thought of what it would be like to pick the right terrain and use the right stealth equipment added something.

It's not that I don't enjoy the sight of a fictitious world, it's that it got old quick. It was like playing Arcanum without a world map. Same number of random encounters going place to place, lot of the same boring terrain. And unlike Arcanum, the rest of the game play wasn't any more interesting once you got where you're going.

Quote:

Not sure, but I think for you the game needed horses. Would it have been any more interesting if the terrain were more treacherous, or the wildlife much more numerous and deadly?

If the wildlife were much more numerous and deadly, it would have been first-person Diablo I or II. And Diablo II is the only game I've regretted buying so much that I feel that purchase was evidence of a pretty serious character flaw in myself. I don't know what you mean by more treacherous terrain, but the lack of cliffs was a pretty serious flaw in the visual effect.

I did end up cheating, by adding a room to one of the areas that had a bunch of impossibly powerful artifacts (like some boots that had the same effect as those scrolls you get off the wizard who falls to his death: Acrobatics +1000), which removed the problem of getting from one place to another, and I could search for those annoying hidden caves you have to find occasionally by hopping around like a crazy kangaroo on a pogo stick and watching the mini-map for the yellow squares. I could also then (with other artifacts) swim like a shark on both speed and crack, run like Speedy Gonzales, or fly like an SR-71 Blackbird, as the situation required. With the problem of getting around solved, it made the game tolerable enough to finish the main quest.

Quote:

Ouch, can't defend them there, except to say that open-ended dialog is a massive project.

All the but the last few quests of each of the guilds would have been served just as well by a formletter: "Receive $(Quest Token 0001A) from $(Actor 0002B) and redeem at $(Actor 0003C)". I'm sure most professional game developers don't read these message boards, but if they did, they'd find some interesting ways of partially solving these problems in the archives. There's no reason a player in a non-linear game should be tasked at all. In the case of Morrowind, there was no other choice because there was no other gameplay than collecting quest tokens and cashing them in for an ending.

Quote:

Okay, I'm forever curious about this: Part of the compelling aspect of Morrowind is versimilitude, not so much "reality" but the concrete likeness of a place made alive because it captures the right feel. Now, if you travel in the wilderness, there's a certain something to wilderness that makes it wilderness. Not just the graphics, but the types of encounters, the risks to them, and the intervals between them. So if it's filled with tons of people and interaction points, it's not really a wilderness, it's a city made of hills and trees.

How about making cities more city-like before making the wilderness more wilderness-like. Namely, in each city, there were the standard stores (sometimes even two or three of them), and then maybe 15 people with useful things to say, and about 30 more that all say the same thing, for a total population of about 50. Even Vivec couldn't have had more than about 200 people. If you're going to have useless and redundant terrain all over the place, at least you can make some bigger cities.

And there was no verisimilitude in the behavior of your character or any other character, for that matter. Your character only needs to sleep when she's ready to level up, and feels free to sleep in whatever bed is nearby (which is fine, since getting one of your own in a city is impossible).

The intrigue of the houses consists of vying to get you to sabotage the others, but they never do anything themselves. Could you imagine turning on CNN and every story for the next year being about the things you've done? Exploring is boring, since nothing is going on anywhere.

At least in a linear game, there's something happening in the world that's not your doing, even if you are limited in your options for fixing it.