Reply
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 09/03/2006
Offline
11832 posts
 

Re: Linear versus Open ended.

Jul 1, 2010

To be blunt, I think it's a little silly to call a game "too open." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that you didn't like Infamous and Oblivion is because you got distracted with the side quests and didn't stay close to the main quest. That's the gamer's fault and not the game's. After all, unless you're playing absolutely horrible titles, they will always tell you where you need to go by either an arrow, blip on the radar, marker, or supplying some sort of hint.

 

I'm also curious as to why you have an issue with the hectic feel of the missions in Infamous. This hectic feel, for a game like this, isn't out of place. The world is full of thugs, Conduits sporting special abilities like Cole, and scared citizens fleeing from danger as cops try to keep everything under control. Heck, if the game wasn't hectic, it would feel awkward. And, yes, SP clearly encouraged exploration, but there's definitely a sense of direction. There's always a reason behind what you're doing, whether you're breaking up a protest to ensure a safe neighborhood, climbing through a junkyard to save your best friend, or collecting Blast Shards to increase your Power Nodes for more longevity when it comes to attacks.

 

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm jumping on your case and that I don't see where you're coming from, because I do. I used to say the exact same thing about Oblivion to my friends. However, I went back, started completely over, and actually had a pretty fun time and played the game a lot more than I previously had. I soon found out that the game wasn't "too open," I just didn't give it a fair chance and instead kind of shut down and got lazy with it. Everything was there and I knew where to go, I just didn't want to take the time.

 

Anyway, I'd say that the battle between linear and non-linear, for me, is straight down the middle. Sometimes I like to experience things in a more cinematic and quick fashion, which is why I'll turn toward a game like Killzone 2 or Modern Warfare 2. The action is very focused, with great set pieces and edge-of-your-seat action. This can be insanely fun, but when I want to slow down and do things my way, I'll pick up a game like Just Cause 2 or Red Dead Redemption. Everything may not be as cinematic, but I can kind of craft the experience to my liking, deciding which missions I want to tackle and when.

 

So, it all depends on my mood.

Message 11 of 16 (29 Views)
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 04/18/2007
Offline
11212 posts
 

Re: Linear versus Open ended.

Jul 2, 2010

 


Argetlam wrote:

To be blunt, I think it's a little silly to call a game "too open." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that you didn't like Infamous and Oblivion is because you got distracted with the side quests and didn't stay close to the main quest. That's the gamer's fault and not the game's. After all, unless you're playing absolutely horrible titles, they will always tell you where you need to go by either an arrow, blip on the radar, marker, or supplying some sort of hint.

 

I'm also curious as to why you have an issue with the hectic feel of the missions in Infamous. This hectic feel, for a game like this, isn't out of place. The world is full of thugs, Conduits sporting special abilities like Cole, and scared citizens fleeing from danger as cops try to keep everything under control. Heck, if the game wasn't hectic, it would feel awkward. And, yes, SP clearly encouraged exploration, but there's definitely a sense of direction.


 

I hate to correct you but I don't like inFamous because it feels like a very poorly setup game, not because of the side quests. From the way the main "missions" are set up, I thought they were side quests. As I did the missions, trying to figure out how to get to where I was going was a pain. It took a long time to figure out that there was a faint grey-blue triangle vaguely pointing me in the direction I needed to go. The good versus evil choices felt cheap. Kill people for food or start a riot. Kill everyone or save a few people with some oddball lightning "healing".

 

As for Oblivion I enjoyed the game, but the story was so loose that it was more enjoyable to set off on the side quests and explore than it was to play the story line through. Side quests weren't a distraction, but were actually more enjoyable than the main.

 

The 'hectic' feel to inFamous's missions made the game annoying to no end. Perhaps hectic isn't quite the right word. Fighting to get from one place to another I understand. Fighting to complete missions I understand. Trying to figure out where I was getting shot at from was a pain. Trying to figure out where I was going was a huge annoyance, even after I discovered the faint tip marker at the top of the mini-map display.

 

The whole of inFamous felt more geared towards the more immature gamer than to the serious gamer. Killing citizens to become hated (for Trophies no less),  blowing up the environment for "fun", nothing in inFamous told me to take it as anything other than a joke. Very little in the game felt like it had a real purpose to it. The openess of inFamous was done poorly in my opinion.

Message 12 of 16 (29 Views)
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 09/03/2006
Offline
11832 posts
 

Re: Linear versus Open ended.

Jul 2, 2010

PapaWarlock wrote:

 


Argetlam wrote:

To be blunt, I think it's a little silly to call a game "too open." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that you didn't like Infamous and Oblivion is because you got distracted with the side quests and didn't stay close to the main quest. That's the gamer's fault and not the game's. After all, unless you're playing absolutely horrible titles, they will always tell you where you need to go by either an arrow, blip on the radar, marker, or supplying some sort of hint.

 

I'm also curious as to why you have an issue with the hectic feel of the missions in Infamous. This hectic feel, for a game like this, isn't out of place. The world is full of thugs, Conduits sporting special abilities like Cole, and scared citizens fleeing from danger as cops try to keep everything under control. Heck, if the game wasn't hectic, it would feel awkward. And, yes, SP clearly encouraged exploration, but there's definitely a sense of direction.


 

I hate to correct you but I don't like inFamous because it feels like a very poorly setup game, not because of the side quests. From the way the main "missions" are set up, I thought they were side quests. As I did the missions, trying to figure out how to get to where I was going was a pain. It took a long time to figure out that there was a faint grey-blue triangle vaguely pointing me in the direction I needed to go. The good versus evil choices felt cheap. Kill people for food or start a riot. Kill everyone or save a few people with some oddball lightning "healing".

 

As for Oblivion I enjoyed the game, but the story was so loose that it was more enjoyable to set off on the side quests and explore than it was to play the story line through. Side quests weren't a distraction, but were actually more enjoyable than the main.

 

The 'hectic' feel to inFamous's missions made the game annoying to no end. Perhaps hectic isn't quite the right word. Fighting to get from one place to another I understand. Fighting to complete missions I understand. Trying to figure out where I was getting shot at from was a pain. Trying to figure out where I was going was a huge annoyance, even after I discovered the faint tip marker at the top of the mini-map display.

 

The whole of inFamous felt more geared towards the more immature gamer than to the serious gamer. Killing citizens to become hated (for Trophies no less),  blowing up the environment for "fun", nothing in inFamous told me to take it as anything other than a joke. Very little in the game felt like it had a real purpose to it. The openess of inFamous was done poorly in my opinion.


Hmm. I just don't know how the game could have been more clear. The only alternative I can think of to an arrow/marker would be the street being highlighted on the minimap, which would obviously deter people from exploring by hopping over buildings and such. And, again, with being shot, I don't know how the game could be more clear. After all, blood splatters on the screen pertaining to where you're getting shot at (red pops up on the bottom of the screen if you're being attacked from behind, for example).

 

Plus, the side missions, in my opinion, are extremely easy to decipher between the main quest. After all, doing things like ridding buildings of security cameras and letting a fan take a picture of you are clearly not main missions. Also, deciding to kill citizens isn't completely dependent upon earning a Trophy. Sometimes it's just fun to play an evil character, and often times, evil people kill innocent people.

 

However, I agree, the choices felt much too black and white. SP is looking to change this with the sequel, though. They said that decisions won't necessarily be good or bad, and will require some more thought.

 

In any case, I apologize for getting this thread off track.

Message 13 of 16 (29 Views)
0 Likes
Last Guardian
Registered: 09/11/2004
Offline
13339 posts
 

Re: Linear versus Open ended.

Jul 3, 2010

I prefer linear storylines with a completely open world. I'm currently playing Final Fantasy 13 and I like how it's linear in the beginning but it feels too closed in. There should be more exploration with the beginning and it got very tiring to play the first 20 hours. The way the game world should be set up should be less confusing for the storyline but more open for exploration in between quests and missions. 

 

The way you describe Oblivion is very true, the world was too open and you could easily lose track of the main storyline. What really held the game together was the quest screen and it was easy to keep track of whatever you had to do in the game. You just choose the quest and it even gives you a marker of where to go in the game world. I didn't think Oblivion was too confusing in that regard but I see what you mean about the game being too open. You could easy get lost exploring in the woods.

 

The perfect games with a linear storyline and an open world for me, is Jak 2 and 3. It's easy to follow the missions you have to complete and there are a TON of extras to find within the open world of both the Wasteland and Haven City. Granted, there were a few levels you couldn't go back to once you completed some of the missions, but the overall game is so huge, it doesn't even matter. 

 

Great topic, Warlock.

Message 14 of 16 (29 Views)
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 04/18/2007
Offline
11212 posts
 

Re: Linear versus Open ended.

Jul 3, 2010

 


Argetlam wrote:

PapaWarlock wrote:

 


Argetlam wrote:

To be blunt, I think it's a little silly to call a game "too open." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that you didn't like Infamous and Oblivion is because you got distracted with the side quests and didn't stay close to the main quest. That's the gamer's fault and not the game's. After all, unless you're playing absolutely horrible titles, they will always tell you where you need to go by either an arrow, blip on the radar, marker, or supplying some sort of hint.

 

I'm also curious as to why you have an issue with the hectic feel of the missions in Infamous. This hectic feel, for a game like this, isn't out of place. The world is full of thugs, Conduits sporting special abilities like Cole, and scared citizens fleeing from danger as cops try to keep everything under control. Heck, if the game wasn't hectic, it would feel awkward. And, yes, SP clearly encouraged exploration, but there's definitely a sense of direction.


 

I hate to correct you but I don't like inFamous because it feels like a very poorly setup game, not because of the side quests. From the way the main "missions" are set up, I thought they were side quests. As I did the missions, trying to figure out how to get to where I was going was a pain. It took a long time to figure out that there was a faint grey-blue triangle vaguely pointing me in the direction I needed to go. The good versus evil choices felt cheap. Kill people for food or start a riot. Kill everyone or save a few people with some oddball lightning "healing".

 

As for Oblivion I enjoyed the game, but the story was so loose that it was more enjoyable to set off on the side quests and explore than it was to play the story line through. Side quests weren't a distraction, but were actually more enjoyable than the main.

 

The 'hectic' feel to inFamous's missions made the game annoying to no end. Perhaps hectic isn't quite the right word. Fighting to get from one place to another I understand. Fighting to complete missions I understand. Trying to figure out where I was getting shot at from was a pain. Trying to figure out where I was going was a huge annoyance, even after I discovered the faint tip marker at the top of the mini-map display.

 

The whole of inFamous felt more geared towards the more immature gamer than to the serious gamer. Killing citizens to become hated (for Trophies no less),  blowing up the environment for "fun", nothing in inFamous told me to take it as anything other than a joke. Very little in the game felt like it had a real purpose to it. The openess of inFamous was done poorly in my opinion.


Hmm. I just don't know how the game could have been more clear. The only alternative I can think of to an arrow/marker would be the street being highlighted on the minimap, which would obviously deter people from exploring by hopping over buildings and such. And, again, with being shot, I don't know how the game could be more clear. After all, blood splatters on the screen pertaining to where you're getting shot at (red pops up on the bottom of the screen if you're being attacked from behind, for example).

 

Plus, the side missions, in my opinion, are extremely easy to decipher between the main quest. After all, doing things like ridding buildings of security cameras and letting a fan take a picture of you are clearly not main missions. Also, deciding to kill citizens isn't completely dependent upon earning a Trophy. Sometimes it's just fun to play an evil character, and often times, evil people kill innocent people.

 

However, I agree, the choices felt much too black and white. SP is looking to change this with the sequel, though. They said that decisions won't necessarily be good or bad, and will require some more thought.

 

In any case, I apologize for getting this thread off track.


 

The direction might've been clear to many people, but for me it wasn't very clear. The missions and quests were marked by yellow or blue question marks. The blue ones I discovered were the main quests for the story and the yellow were karma or side quests. It took me a while to figure that out and the mission I was on at the time was very frustrating before I figured out how to determine where I was going and what was happening. It's not a style of game I'm used to. Blood splatters at the bottom of the screen might tell most you're getting attacked from above, but I kept looking down as I was usually on a building. Often I had trouble making out bad guys on a rooftop. Again this was just my experience with the game. I'm more used to games where it's a lot more direct on where I'm going. Most RPGs tend to have a clearer cut direction laid out. At least for me it holds that way. It's also quite possible I missed information in the book that laid things out a bit better.

 

Killing random citizens wasn't Trophy related, directly. However some of the Karma moments like early in the game where food is dropped into the city and you have the choice of letting people get food or killing them. Two different Trophies tie into some of those decisions. From my own view in life, that's appalling. Getting a trophy for completing the game as a bad guy is one thing, getting them for killing innocent people is more of a problem for me. I don't mind killing bad guys. I don't mind killing soldiers sent to stop me. I don't mind playing a "renegade" but I don't like the concept of kiling innocent people to get a Trophy. Again, it's simply the way I look at things. Some people like that, I don't.

 

I wouldn't say the thread was off track to be honest. It's a discussion of linear versus open and discussing various aspects of games that are one or the other would be on track, in my opinion.

 

Overall, I would have to say, I think it's the open sandbox concept that bothers me more so than just being an open-ended story. Stories where your actions can impact the way the game's story ends up are great. The games whose stories really don't play out any other way but the one way, but still let you be "evil" are troublesome at best. The freedom to kill non playable characters that aren't part of the story line (i.e. soldiers, thugs, goblins) is bothersome to me. I like games with moral choices, but not when it involves something like that.

Message 15 of 16 (29 Views)
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 09/03/2006
Offline
11832 posts
 

Re: Linear versus Open ended.

Jul 3, 2010

 


PapaWarlock wrote:

 

The direction might've been clear to many people, but for me it wasn't very clear. The missions and quests were marked by yellow or blue question marks. The blue ones I discovered were the main quests for the story and the yellow were karma or side quests. It took me a while to figure that out and the mission I was on at the time was very frustrating before I figured out how to determine where I was going and what was happening. It's not a style of game I'm used to. Blood splatters at the bottom of the screen might tell most you're getting attacked from above, but I kept looking down as I was usually on a building. Often I had trouble making out bad guys on a rooftop. Again this was just my experience with the game. I'm more used to games where it's a lot more direct on where I'm going. Most RPGs tend to have a clearer cut direction laid out. At least for me it holds that way. It's also quite possible I missed information in the book that laid things out a bit better.

 

Killing random citizens wasn't Trophy related, directly. However some of the Karma moments like early in the game where food is dropped into the city and you have the choice of letting people get food or killing them. Two different Trophies tie into some of those decisions. From my own view in life, that's appalling. Getting a trophy for completing the game as a bad guy is one thing, getting them for killing innocent people is more of a problem for me. I don't mind killing bad guys. I don't mind killing soldiers sent to stop me. I don't mind playing a "renegade" but I don't like the concept of kiling innocent people to get a Trophy. Again, it's simply the way I look at things. Some people like that, I don't.

 

I wouldn't say the thread was off track to be honest. It's a discussion of linear versus open and discussing various aspects of games that are one or the other would be on track, in my opinion.

 

Overall, I would have to say, I think it's the open sandbox concept that bothers me more so than just being an open-ended story. Stories where your actions can impact the way the game's story ends up are great. The games whose stories really don't play out any other way but the one way, but still let you be "evil" are troublesome at best. The freedom to kill non playable characters that aren't part of the story line (i.e. soldiers, thugs, goblins) is bothersome to me. I like games with moral choices, but not when it involves something like that.


It sounds like your partiality to RPGs has made your love for this great PS3 game somewhat crippled. Curse you.

 

 

I feel like you're somewhat targeting the Trophy with your above example, because even if you aren't being rewarded with a fictitious Trophy, you're still killing innocent people. The idea of being a murderer is still there, no matter what you may or may not unlock. In any case, I see where you're coming from. While I may not give as much thought to the level and its violence, you do and I respect that. When it comes down to it, at least it's happening in the game and not in real life, right?

 

Actually, this mission reminds me of Red Dead Redemption. I'd highly recommend this game, seeing as it's a great sandbox adventure and one of the best titles I've ever played, but it gives you the opportunity to do horrible deeds. However, you obviously don't have to choose to do them just to get a Trophy, which is why I feel like you should give it a try. From what I can remember, there is absolutely no killing of innocent people.

Message 16 of 16 (29 Views)
0 Likes