Nothing wrong with a good story.
Good point Ket
I think that non-story games probably have more potential for replay value, but that doesn''t have to be so. I used to play a text adventure game called Zyll just about every day of my life for about a year or something. It was not exactly non-linear in the sense that many things changed each time, but it did allow for the player to explore things in whatever order you wanted.
I think most story-based games (especially the more recent ones) don''t offer a lot of replay value, but that doesn''t mean that it has to be that way.
"'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree
I think that non-story games probably have more potential for replay value, but that doesn''t have to be so. I used to play a text adventure game called Zyll just about every day of my life for about a year or something. It was not exactly non-linear in the sense that many things changed each time, but it did allow for the player to explore things in whatever order you wanted.
I think most story-based games (especially the more recent ones) don''t offer a lot of replay value, but that doesn''t mean that it has to be that way.
"'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree
Thoughts on Final Fantasy 7 read as a (Comic) book.
As good as Final Fantasy 7 is to "read" (I enjoyed it as a Comic Book where you could read the story for 1-2 hours a night if you did the game bits right.)
I think that it FF7 too long so it is mildly less exciting to replay ie. several hours until you get to the exciting bit you want to Read
NOTE 1. How about having a chapter system where you get passwords to skip to the start of a chapter ? Like flicking through a book. A save system wouldn't work as well, because people would lose their save games and then not want to play through the game to get to their favourite bit.
Gameplay. Whilst the first time you play a FF7 type game with that sort of battle system I think it is fun, because the combatants make you improve your strategy to defeat them. (Okay I don't like games that have powerful creatures that kill you, but in this context it was fun to reshuffle the materia (spells) between the characters), but on replaying it you will be able to kick the creatures ***** because you know the best strategy. Which makes it easier to "read" the story, but less fun to fight.
Edited by - Ketchaval on September 30, 2000 8:05:18 AM
As good as Final Fantasy 7 is to "read" (I enjoyed it as a Comic Book where you could read the story for 1-2 hours a night if you did the game bits right.)
I think that it FF7 too long so it is mildly less exciting to replay ie. several hours until you get to the exciting bit you want to Read
NOTE 1. How about having a chapter system where you get passwords to skip to the start of a chapter ? Like flicking through a book. A save system wouldn't work as well, because people would lose their save games and then not want to play through the game to get to their favourite bit.
Gameplay. Whilst the first time you play a FF7 type game with that sort of battle system I think it is fun, because the combatants make you improve your strategy to defeat them. (Okay I don't like games that have powerful creatures that kill you, but in this context it was fun to reshuffle the materia (spells) between the characters), but on replaying it you will be able to kick the creatures ***** because you know the best strategy. Which makes it easier to "read" the story, but less fun to fight.
Edited by - Ketchaval on September 30, 2000 8:05:18 AM
Author
Good point Ket, but I think that if games were as well constructed as a good book, they''d be just as easy to pick up a while after you finish them and play through again.
The big problem with story based games as I see it is that their gameplay is generally not capable of standing on its own without the story, and thus becomes very tedious the second time around (if not the first). I wait for the day we see a game that has both a gripping story and finely tuned and very enjoyable gameplay so that the one compliments, not detracts from, the other.
The big problem with story based games as I see it is that their gameplay is generally not capable of standing on its own without the story, and thus becomes very tedious the second time around (if not the first). I wait for the day we see a game that has both a gripping story and finely tuned and very enjoyable gameplay so that the one compliments, not detracts from, the other.
Shinkage,
If you think about it Final Fantasy 7 etc, and other epic "storybook" games are as long as a Charles Dicken''s epic book, but the content that they actually deliver is more like a very slowly read comic book (Ie. V for Vendetta / Sandman).
If you think about it Final Fantasy 7 etc, and other epic "storybook" games are as long as a Charles Dicken''s epic book, but the content that they actually deliver is more like a very slowly read comic book (Ie. V for Vendetta / Sandman).
I''d just like to point out that although the linear and non-linear parts of games are at different levels, all the games you have mentioned have both linear and non-linear aspects.
Even Quake (which I see is being championed as non-linear, non-story based) has linear elements. Can you get to one level without beating the last? Can you somehow avoid getting the key or flipping the switch or whatever you have to do to go farther? Are there any alternative methods to open doors, raise bridges, etc? Although you can do anything you want between opening the door, etc, eventually you have to open it before going farther.
Is this not linearity rearing its ugly head?
Where is your freedom to make a difference? Do your actions in one level even effect the next level? Or once you beat a level all your meaningful, important decisions are erased?
Even in CRPG''s you can decide what you will do between plot points. It is just that eventually you have to go rescue the princess or whatever.
The fact is, a game can only have so much interactivity given the current state of the industry: AI, writing, memory storage, etc.
I do realise however, that in most cases, designers could do better and give players more choices, but they cannot as yet offer complete freedom.
Even Quake (which I see is being championed as non-linear, non-story based) has linear elements. Can you get to one level without beating the last? Can you somehow avoid getting the key or flipping the switch or whatever you have to do to go farther? Are there any alternative methods to open doors, raise bridges, etc? Although you can do anything you want between opening the door, etc, eventually you have to open it before going farther.
Is this not linearity rearing its ugly head?
Where is your freedom to make a difference? Do your actions in one level even effect the next level? Or once you beat a level all your meaningful, important decisions are erased?
Even in CRPG''s you can decide what you will do between plot points. It is just that eventually you have to go rescue the princess or whatever.
The fact is, a game can only have so much interactivity given the current state of the industry: AI, writing, memory storage, etc.
I do realise however, that in most cases, designers could do better and give players more choices, but they cannot as yet offer complete freedom.
quote:Original post by Forneiq
I''d just like to point out that although the linear and non-linear parts of games are at different levels, all the games you have mentioned have both linear and non-linear aspects.
Even Quake (which I see is being championed as non-linear, non-story based) has linear elements. Can you get to one level without beating the last? Can you somehow avoid getting the key or flipping the switch or whatever you have to do to go farther? Are there any alternative methods to open doors, raise bridges, etc? Although you can do anything you want between opening the door, etc, eventually you have to open it before going farther.
Is this not linearity rearing its ugly head?
I''ll give you that Quake is not entirely non-linear in this respect. But I think this is a matter of degree. Once you get past that bridge or door, the enemy encounters will be anything but linear, especially if you vary your actions. Heck, in games like System Shock the enemies might not even be in the expected place!
quote:
Where is your freedom to make a difference? Do your actions in one level even effect the next level? Or once you beat a level all your meaningful, important decisions are erased?
Not entirely. Play through without once saving and you''ll see what I mean. Your health varies, your ammo varies, and because of this how you interact with the enemies and environment varies. It''s quite a different game to face a boss monster with 10% health and a handful of bullets than it is armed to the teeth.
Now it is true that you *always* have to face the boss monster. So if you want a better example on non-linearity, I offer: A botmatch in Unreal, or a game of Civilization.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
quote:Original post by Shinkage
Civilization II. That game I would play again and again for hours on end. Crazy replay value. The nice thing about that game was that the setup would be entirely different every time you played it (random maps and placement) so two different games could unfold drastically differently. As hard as I think though, I can''t recall another replayable game that I actually enjoyed the 10th or 20th time around.
Hahaha! Okay, now I''m thoroughly confused.
If you loved Civ, one of the most story-less, replayable, non-linear games in existence, then I''m at a loss for understanding how we differ. This game just *drips* with player choice. Can you imagine what the game would be like if it were linear? In fact, if you want to see an example, look at the somewhat disappointing Age of Wonders.
quote:
Personally, I''d rather go through a game just once and really have an experience with it.
I posted a thread awhile back about finishers vs. escapists. Some people just want to finish a game and move on to the next, and others want to replay the game through and through. (Nothing wrong with either one, just an observation)
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Author
quote:Not entirely. Play through without once saving and you'll see what I mean. Your health varies, your ammo varies, and because of this how you interact with the enemies and environment varies. It's quite a different game to face a boss monster with 10% health and a handful of bullets than it is armed to the teeth.
You see, to me this sort of "variety" is completely meaningless. I dare you to cite ONE SINGLE GAME that does not provide at least as much non-linearity as having to deal with character's health.
quote:If you loved Civ, one of the most story-less, replayable, non-linear games in existence, then I'm at a loss for understanding how we differ. This game just *drips* with player choice. Can you imagine what the game would be like if it were linear? In fact, if you want to see an example, look at the somewhat disappointing Age of Wonders.
Your point? A single example of a game that is good and entirely non-linear does not make for solid proof that non-linearity is superior. In fact, Civ seems to demonstrate more than anything that what makes a game good is how well the game is designed. How tightly it's made. Age of Wonders wasn't bad because they added linearity, it was bad because it just wasn't a terribly good game. It didn't have that special something that was present in Civ.
quote:I posted a thread awhile back about finishers vs. escapists. Some people just want to finish a game and move on to the next, and others want to replay the game through and through. (Nothing wrong with either one, just an observation)
I'd say that, again, this depends entirely on the game. Nobody wants to play a crappy game over and over again, but some of the most hardcore "escapists"--the ones who play games through and through--can be found playing Final Fantasy, a decidedly linear game. Again, it has nothing to do with whether the game has a plot or not, it has to do with how well constructed the game is and, if it does have a plot, how well it is written and delivered.
Edited by - Shinkage on October 1, 2000 12:37:24 PM
I think that Final Fantasy 7 is good fun to make your way through again. This may be because it uses the available techniques to make it "if not immersive - ie. You don't believe that you are there , but believable - but it gives the feeling of a window into another world, watching another character"
It has great graphics (resolution aside), and good music which combine to make give a good impression of the world that they are simulating. Who can forget places (scenes) like Cosmo Canyon and the campfire discussion (even if you don't remember the text dialog) ?
I certainly wouldn't cite Quake as non-linear, if anything Fallout 2 is relatively non-linear. And you don't even have to complete the main objective, until you get bored with the rest of the world. It neatly ties in the player freedom to a controllable ending which also incorporates some of the important things that the player has done, and the ability to provide Closure (an ending?) to the story.
Edited by - Ketchaval on October 1, 2000 5:40:57 PM
It has great graphics (resolution aside), and good music which combine to make give a good impression of the world that they are simulating. Who can forget places (scenes) like Cosmo Canyon and the campfire discussion (even if you don't remember the text dialog) ?
I certainly wouldn't cite Quake as non-linear, if anything Fallout 2 is relatively non-linear. And you don't even have to complete the main objective, until you get bored with the rest of the world. It neatly ties in the player freedom to a controllable ending which also incorporates some of the important things that the player has done, and the ability to provide Closure (an ending?) to the story.
Edited by - Ketchaval on October 1, 2000 5:40:57 PM
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
