I do. Far Cry 2, while by no means perfect gave a great sense of freedom in precisely what way you wanted to kill your enemies. I'd like to see more of that freedom.
Do gamers really want games to evolve?
- Thread starter onelifecrisis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes. I want games to evolve. I want non-linearity, open-worlds and emergent gameplay. I have even theorized about "generative narrative" where a theme is repeatedly made to resurface by controlling the choices that the player feels are open to their protagonist avatar. So, rather than in GTA III where you can get bored and "run amuck" (as a lot of people do), the "Sandbox" will have interesting 'toys' in it which force certain constrained conduct on the player, not because the game is partly linear and closed-world, but because the player has a stake in the choices they have made in a certain 'mission/quest' and they would feel consequential loss in the time they have invested in the in-game synthetic relationships if they suddenly started to run everyone over.onelifecrisis said:
It is pretty complicated to explain, but suffice to say the game becomes more interesting and no less non-linear and open if the player commits to a course of action. The opportunities are then spread out temporally, relationally and dramatically rather than just spatially, or through gaining a new 'degree of freedom' (such as hijacking a tank, or a garbage van). For this to work, the game has to work out what your consistent player-psychology is and then 'seed' hooks into new story-lines around the environment, adjusting the roster of NPCs and their relationships to each other as much as their awareness and opinion of your avatar. Reputation is then much more than five-stars to rack-up, but has many aspects and is seen differently by different NPCs - who can "communicate" with each other in a (slow) 'grapevine'.
The reason games are becoming so restrictive and scripted is that the Next-Generation has been hijacked by HD. This has made the cost of doing the artwork/modeling/animation higher as people expect something much better than Dreamcast quality graphics. Environments have tended to physically shrink in scale. GTA IV is smaller than San Andreas, for example. Also GTA IV doesn't look all that great... this is the cost of Rockstar correctly choosing the gameplay potential of a large city over raw maximum graphical detail in a necessarily smaller locale. I think it is a pity that they didn't delay implementing HD until the next bunch of consoles, it hasn't hurt the sales of the Wii.
Anyone interested in where gaming is going wrong (i.e. interactive movies) need only look at the upcoming Heavy Rain.
*blink*Uncompetative said:
*blink*
Did I just see a trailer for an entire game comprised soley of quick time events!?
"Non-linear" was a fad that's finally starting to go away. Not that non-linear game play is inherently bad, but it's easy for it to degrade into pointless errands or linear games that try to pretend they're non-linear ie Fable. The ideal in my mind is a scripted story that changes based on player choice like the early Silent Hill games. The endings were determined by your actions while playing through the game. Class based single player games offer a good blend of script and choice as well. Fight your way through the epic battles with a unique character that can legitimately be called an avatar. KotoR and System Shock 2 are both good examples of this.
Yeah people dont get it, they want new things but when they get it and its not perfect then they complain and say they want it back the old way. Halo Wars is the perfect example, strategy game only for a console, never have I seen so many people against the game who havent even played it. That could be due to the fact it had the Halo name on it and its cool not to like Halo these days but yeah..
Considering the average jock is out playing xbawx these days a heap of crap titles get bought and developers dont really need to or even want to change their formula. You dont see coke changing its recipe every few years just because some people might be sick of it.
Long story short, don't critisise games that try something new or go in a new direction.
Considering the average jock is out playing xbawx these days a heap of crap titles get bought and developers dont really need to or even want to change their formula. You dont see coke changing its recipe every few years just because some people might be sick of it.
Long story short, don't critisise games that try something new or go in a new direction.
Speaking of quality I don't think the crap to good ratio has really changed that much and evolution of gaming was more a jump that a linear increase overtime the early 90's consoles all had pretty much the same games mortal combat/killer instinct/street fighter/ and almost everything was a basic 8-way scroller.
Full 3D was the next step giving us the 3D 3rd person platformer like spyro the dragon on PS1 or Banjo Kazooie or in other words the first evolution of gaming for about 10 years
Full 3D was the next step giving us the 3D 3rd person platformer like spyro the dragon on PS1 or Banjo Kazooie or in other words the first evolution of gaming for about 10 years
Developers are lazy. Gamers need games that involve consequences. Far Cry 2 is an excellent example of a game where aside from scripting your net effect on the countryside was nil. If I kill thousands of the enemy then either they should make me a priority or run out of men.
i love both linear and open ended games fall out 3 i fell in love with the game as soon as i started playing it. linear i start when i 7-8 on a sega playing sonic and an nintendo with duck hunt and mario. and now to the big beasts they have now. I think they need to slow down on the graphics jus a lil bit and focus a lil more into gameplay dont get me wrong i love a pretty game and all but some of them are going all graphics and no beef in the gaming. i want it to evolve into more openess but if they stress over graphics all the time then it takes too much time to stress and worry about player freedom and what they can do. Personally Fallout 3 and Final Fantasy have to be the too closest to getting there so far final fantasy in depth games side quest can have u play one game for 100 plus hours trying to get all the goodies out of it and they never get old.
you can't look at gamers as a whole.
do "gamers" not want to evolve?
yes, they do, but in different directions.
Non-Linearity isn't an evolutionary step-up from Linearity.
Linearity isn't a gate-way drug.
It's a lot harder to make a non-linear game, especially a good one, and often, they turn into sandbox games with a linear story attached, but right now there are a fair number of sandbox games available. Sure, a few are a year old, but some of them are so good at being non-linear that they can be replayed to death.
do "gamers" not want to evolve?
yes, they do, but in different directions.
Non-Linearity isn't an evolutionary step-up from Linearity.
Linearity isn't a gate-way drug.
It's a lot harder to make a non-linear game, especially a good one, and often, they turn into sandbox games with a linear story attached, but right now there are a fair number of sandbox games available. Sure, a few are a year old, but some of them are so good at being non-linear that they can be replayed to death.
It's a bit of a myth that non-linear games are more expensive to make. More so because it seems so obvious to someone who is locked into a AAA linear game mindset.Altorin said:
With a non-linear game you can make a fun system to play in with a few talented people then add enough art and sound resources to make it attractive later. The same art and sound resources will probably be reused so many times that you can make as much or as little to suit your budget with no major effect on the game.
With a linear game you have to create a massive amount of art and voice acting content as this will be the main focus of the game. You *have* to have more than your competitors to make the grade. It's harder to iterate on gameplay because it has to fit around the content as content is captain king. The only way that non-linear games can be fundamentally more expensive than this model is if you make a non-linear game while keeping the mindset that content and spectacle are the most important things.
I didn't mean to imply that it was more expensive.. I didn't say that.. I said difficult to make.. from a design standpoint.. To make a good non-linear game, you have to come up with a great concept, that will work in a non-linear fashion, and will be entertaining for the longhaul.More Fun To Compute said:
For a Linear game, you have to come up with a good story, and tie it to good, proven gameplay.
If you've ever played D&D and been a dungeon master, you might understand.. D&D is a largely non-linear game.. If a DM could make the game linear, it might be a lot easier for him.. might not be as fun for his players to lose the essence of freedom fundamental to the game, but to the designer, the DM, it would be a lot easier.
Most Video Games don't have the weight of having Open-Ended freedom being fundamental.. As gamers we just know that largely, someone has had to plan for our contingencies.. a DM can work on the fly.. a video game designer can't.
You've entirely missed the point of my post though, which was that Non-Linear and Linear aren't a more and less advanced versions of the same thing. They can both work fine, and people who like Linear games aren't destroying the gaming industry by enjoying games that they love. There are games being made all the time for the person who likes open ended gameplay.
That being said, I HATE when a game TOUTS open-endedness, and ends up being a linear game, like Fable 2. My biggest issue was that Peter promised that it would be very open ended, and it just wasn't.
It's more time consuming to make it good and time is money, but hey, it's not like the game industry is pouring a lot of money into other areas of game production. I do believe that there are very intelligent people in the games industry who would love a design challenge like this if given the resources. I know that there are some really smart people who have been driven out of the industry because of the focus of the business away from smart game design.Altorin said:
Companies can either give up in despair knowing that they can never re-create something like a live DM or they can create something like the AI director in Left4Dead or create richer games that don't need a DM like The Sims or Mario 64.
I think that companies that iterate more and focus more on game design are better at delivering good games. I don't see a need to say that more Linear games with weaker gameplay are just as good at being games. They can live or die on their own strengths as CGI experiences or whatever. Maybe the industry has outgrown being about "games" and needs a good old fashioned corporate re-branding.
I think the innovation that people want in a game is decided by what kind of game it is. Honestly, what works in a driving game doesn't work in a shooter. I think there are big questions people need to ask about their games and decide for themselves what they want.
Do you want arcade interaction or realistic?
Do you want to find missions, or do you want them listed out?
Do you want story, or do you want pure action?
Do you want purely online, or do you want a solitary experience?
You have to ask these questions for every genre of game you play. For instance, I don't understand why open worlds are in driving games. Burnout Paradise, Midnight Club: LA... why do I have to drive to the races? I'm just wasting time enjoying the scenery and not actually playing the game. They've never added enough bonus content to make it worthwhile. However for Action/Adventure/RP games an open sandbox world works.
I personally like having good story with my action, but some folks don't care. The problem I see with developers is that they try and cater to as many groups of gamers as possible, and it just waters down the experience and causes them to lose most fans. They spend a lot of money on games, so they want as many sales as possible; adding as many different experiences they can might cater more fans to it in theory, but in the end you're tossing a bone to fans with no meat on it. They end up disappointing several groups instead of giving one group EXACTLY what they want.
Now we call games that cater to a specific gamer group 'niche games', which I find sad. It's such a blatant insult to the way games were made for decades. Cater to a fanbase, make your game do one thing well, and make it FUN. Technology should allow graphics, AI, physics, and gameplay all to improve from last generation; if they don't, the developer has failed. Making a game fun and telling a good story are entirely up to the developers though, not the technology it's designed for. Technology will cause games to evolve, but it's worthless if the games aren't enjoyable.
Do you want arcade interaction or realistic?
Do you want to find missions, or do you want them listed out?
Do you want story, or do you want pure action?
Do you want purely online, or do you want a solitary experience?
You have to ask these questions for every genre of game you play. For instance, I don't understand why open worlds are in driving games. Burnout Paradise, Midnight Club: LA... why do I have to drive to the races? I'm just wasting time enjoying the scenery and not actually playing the game. They've never added enough bonus content to make it worthwhile. However for Action/Adventure/RP games an open sandbox world works.
I personally like having good story with my action, but some folks don't care. The problem I see with developers is that they try and cater to as many groups of gamers as possible, and it just waters down the experience and causes them to lose most fans. They spend a lot of money on games, so they want as many sales as possible; adding as many different experiences they can might cater more fans to it in theory, but in the end you're tossing a bone to fans with no meat on it. They end up disappointing several groups instead of giving one group EXACTLY what they want.
Now we call games that cater to a specific gamer group 'niche games', which I find sad. It's such a blatant insult to the way games were made for decades. Cater to a fanbase, make your game do one thing well, and make it FUN. Technology should allow graphics, AI, physics, and gameplay all to improve from last generation; if they don't, the developer has failed. Making a game fun and telling a good story are entirely up to the developers though, not the technology it's designed for. Technology will cause games to evolve, but it's worthless if the games aren't enjoyable.
I love games at this point. The controller, the FPS and the, well frankly, everything. If nothing changed ever, I would be perfectly ok. I know games will soon change, but I honestly couldnt give a shit if we were still playing on 360's in 2040.