Sign in to follow this  

Strategy vs Expected Strategy

This topic is 4104 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

1a. You stumble upon a sniper rifle in your favorite FPS, then notice NPC snipers in the tree tops and/or distant enemies with long range weapons in a village up ahead. There are trees to climb and places to hide. 1b. You stumble upon an enemy camp, realizing you have a sniper rifle on your back with a decent amount of ammo remaining. There are trees to climb and places to hide. 2a. You start a mission with some satchel charges. The mission objective is to destroy a convoy. 2b. You start a mission with normal weapons. The mission objective is to destroy a convoy. You have some leftover satchel charges from a previous mission. 3a. You start a stealth mission. You use stealth to win. 3b. You start a normal mission. You use stealth to win. 3b-alt. You start a stealth mission. You kill everyone with sub-machine guns and frag grenades. You still win. Am I the only one who prefers the B situations? I have a lot more fun when it's my idea. I don't like playing through 'scenarios'. I don't like having the game hold my hand. And I don't like experiencing a situation where the choices are so obvious that very few options actually exist. Considering my examples, I'll recommend comparing Medal of Honor (A-like) with Operation Flashpoint (B-like). Any opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that it's more fun to figure out your own way through missions. However, I am also afflicted with horders syndrome. If it is possible to take out the convoy without using my satchel charges, I will do so. Also, if I think it's possible to do so, I will keep on quickloading until I find a way to do so. Who knows, I might need them later. And I would be right to horde them. In 2b you give an advantage to the player who has horded the satchel charges you gave them in a previous mission. If you reward me for hording ammo, when will I ever use it? At the same time, you have to design your levels for people who didn't horde their satchel charges. Net result, a lot more work for me, the player, and a less fun game.

I never used nukes in Shadow Warrior, grenades in Fallout, or potions in Baldurs Gate. Why? Because I knew that the game had to be designed in such a way that it was possible to get through it without using them, because the designer had to know that I might not have them at any point in the game.

However, if I enter a situation where the game designer has made sure that I have satchel charges, and I can trust them to supply me with satchel charges in every situation that requires them, then I will use them.

Valve figured this out. In Halflife 2 there was a reason there was always an unlimmited supply of rockets nearby whenever you needed to use them to take out a helicopter.
Republic Commando always had rockets or grenades nearby when you were facing super battle droids.
Deus Ex was the master of emergent gameplay, but it made absolutely sure that they had provided you with the tools to accomplish the mission in a number of fun ways.

Obviously, different types of games require different approaches. Call of Duty was lauded for it's cinematic, scripted scenario battles, and Farcry was praised for being able to enter a fight however you wanted. But the more open a game is, the less you know what the player is doing, and the harder the game is to balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by CIJolly
I agree that it's more fun to figure out your own way through missions. However, I am also afflicted with horders syndrome. If it is possible to take out the convoy without using my satchel charges, I will do so.

I don't think you will if your challenge is dramatically reduced because of your choice to use them. If you still do, then that just sounds silly. That should be the reason you were hording them; to use them in a great situation.

Quote:
Also, if I think it's possible to do so, I will keep on quickloading until I find a way to do so. Who knows, I might need them later. And I would be right to horde them.

It is later. You do need them. By the way, Operation Flashpoint had no quickloading. It saves your progress if you get far enough, but usually, entire lengthy missions (20+ minutes) needed accomplished without a save. And this is a game where one bullet will end your life. Talk about sweating it out. That's fear of death. Trust me, in this type of situation, near the end and death around every corner, you will use the freaking satchel charges if it means increasing the odds of survival.

Quote:
In 2b you give an advantage to the player who has horded the satchel charges you gave them in a previous mission. If you reward me for hording ammo, when will I ever use it?

My point isn't very related to hording. The satchel charges could have been accessible through an enemy armory on that stage. But having the bombs come from a previous location makes the strategy even more your own and less of the designer's. Having the ability to take a certain amount of any equipment you choose with you on each mission (Hitman, Flashpoint) requires zero hording for this design to work. Hording would only make sense when the strategy uses something that is rarely given to you in the game. That's not at all what this is about. This is about the mission parameters being hard coded into the game.

Quote:
At the same time, you have to design your levels for people who didn't horde their satchel charges.

The level was already designed to be played without using satchel charges. But by using them, you get a better result. A better score. Less chance of failure. An awesome accomplishment, instead of getting half of your team killed.

The point is that the player is choosing how to win. The designer doesn't even need to be concerned with it. Just build a likley situation, make sure the player has a few options that will reduce the average difficulty of the mission, then let the player do his thing. But don't design the entire mission around the choices. Constructing a mission around three possible ways to win is just going to make it laughable if the player actually did sneak in some super weapons. It will no longer feel like an advantage by using an original strategy in a likely situation. It will feel like breaking the game.

Quote:
Net result, a lot more work for me, the player, and a less fun game.

I don't really follow this conclusion.

Quote:
I never used nukes in Shadow Warrior, grenades in Fallout, or potions in Baldurs Gate. Why?

Quicksave?

Quote:
However, if I enter a situation where the game designer has made sure that I have satchel charges, and I can trust them to supply me with satchel charges in every situation that requires them, then I will use them.

Of course you will. But that pretty much nulls any strategy existing in the use of them. Unless you're a production line worker, I don't see how you could appreciate this type of gameplay. It's amusing to experience, but it's not a very fun design, in my opinion.

Quote:
Valve figured this out. In Halflife 2 there was a reason there was always an unlimmited supply of rockets nearby whenever you needed to use them to take out a helicopter.

That was a cheap way out. A very cheap way out, considering how much work was put into the graphics and physics of the game. You would think a little more time spent on gameplay would have been easy. HL2 is one of the most A-type games I've played. It actually implemented fail-safes to prevent player strategy.

Quote:
Deus Ex was the master of emergent gameplay, but it made absolutely sure that they had provided you with the tools to accomplish the mission in a number of fun ways.

Deus Ex's attempt to hide the fact that there were certain set choices failed. I don't consider the A,B or C door choices player strategy. That's still very much designer strategy. So that part of the game I still consider very A-type. But the gameplay itself was not at all A-type. You could do whatever you wanted within the rules of the game to win, where the rules of the game did not change from mission to mission. You carried with you the equipment from previous missions, and it was possible to leave behind equipment and be at a disadvantage. Those elements made the whole game very flexible and ready for anything.

Quote:
But the more open a game is, the less you know what the player is doing, and the harder the game is to balance.

Don't balance the battles. Balance your simulation. Let the player's choices balance the battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying emergent gameplay isn't fun. I'm just saying that you have to be very careful that the player will take advantage of the simulation you've set up for them. I might have been side tracked a bit by your "you have some left over satchel charges from a previous mission" comment. It sounded like you were leaving too much up to chance.
You can see how there are two dangerous scenarios that stem from that. One is that the player used their satchel charges. Now, through no fault of their own, they are in for a very tough time. You have to have satchel charges available to them, either by putting them in the armoury, letting them buy them before the game, or making them common in the level. This isn't taking away strategy from the player, it is just making sure they have what they need to carry out a valid strategy.
The other is that they are horders, and don't use their satchel charges if they know they can get away without using them. Hording does happen unless ammo is plentiful and well placed. You need some element of A level design to let the player trust you enough to use their equipment, knowing that the game wont become unwinnable (or at least very difficult) if they do.

Emergent gameplay is all well and good, but you have to make sure the player has the tools to do the job in front of them. Deus Ex ensured that you would have the equipment you needed to do the job through it's skill system. If you were expert at pistols, the player would have a strong incentive to carry a pistol. The developers gave the player ammo from bodies and boxes. If there was a bot, there was always a way to defeat it built into the game (LAWS, consoles, stealth) on top of any homebrew strategies the player could think up.

The B's are fun, but as a level designer it is your job to make sure the player has an A they can fall back on. That way they can feel smug and brag about their cleverness to their less cunning friends. That is what Deus Ex did. Supply the A's, but leave the door open for people to use B's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by CIJolly
The B's are fun, but as a level designer it is your job to make sure the player has an A they can fall back on. That way they can feel smug and brag about their cleverness to their less cunning friends. That is what Deus Ex did. Supply the A's, but leave the door open for people to use B's.

Absolutely.

My point was that I prefer B's to A's. I had fun sniping the tree snipers in Medal of Honor. But I had a lot more fun using leftover rounds from that same sniper rifle later on in that mission. I'm someone who hates playing stealth missions. But I love being stealthy to accomplish normal missions. This seems to be true for me in all of the games I play. It's entertaining to follow the designer's path. But it's a complete blast to create my own path. Is it just me? Are there players (of ANY game) out there who don't like these types of situations? I'm only suggesting that designers realize that this exists, and to absolutely not stop it from happening. Ever. Balancing the game should come secondary to enjoying it. If it's more fun unbalanced, leave it alone. If adding more fun by adding more flexibility unbalances it slightly, then why not? It's surely worth it.

I propose that instead of creating a mission that can be won by using (A) stealth, (B) guns, or (C) bombs, we create a set of game world rules that allow the player to implement stealth tricks and bomb planting in any situation, where guns will always get you out of a tight spot if all else fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with the sentiment, and with pretty much all the expressed misgivings.

I, too, am a hoarder, and if my inventory isn't maxed out, I look for a way to fill it while using one pistol bullet per enemy. The only time I pull out all the stops is when I can see the end of the level coming up and I know I can't take it with me.

Like Kest said, if I've got to destroy a convoy and I've got some satchel charges, who's to say that there won't be a ship that needs blasted in the next level? What if there's a great easter egg that I can only get if I have all three satchel charges at the end of the last mission? I worry about these things, so if there's a way to use an environmental hazard or melee attack instead of expending a non-renewable resource, I'll do it. I played too much Resident Evil to take my bullets for granted.

You only have to be crouched in a corner with eight rounds left once to think, "I'll never waste another shotgun shell again".

Here's my advice: Make the player leave stuff behind all the time. In Halo, I'd use rockets on Grunts, because I knew I couldn't take the rocket launcher, the SMG and the sword into the building with me, and the rockets would be least useful. I'd throw grenades willy-nilly because I could see some more just down the hall, and I can only carry four at a time. If you make it impossible to carry a museum of every item you've ever owned along with you, players will be more inclined to use their gear instead of saving it for a rainy day that'll never come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with ICC; I'm a natural pack rat too, and I like it when there are mechanics that prevent hoarding. Actually, I don't like it, but I usually have a better time.

I think a carry-weight mechanic might help a lot. Does the player want to carry the satchel charges around to the next mission when instead he could be carrying 15 M-16 clips? If body armor makes a character move slower, might a player pass it up? Could the player cache his body armor and assault rifle behind some crates in an alley, perferring to sneak in the back door (silenced pistol in one hand, combat knife in the other) rather than storm into the main entrance with guns blazing and grenades blasting?

Also, you probably didn't use grenades in Fallout because the throwing skill sucked...at least it was a waste of experience to build it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a wacky idea: don't put any strategies into the game. AT ALL. Just give the player random stuff and let 'em loose in an area that's designed like something from reality. Say, for instance, you stick Times Square into...oh, I dunno, Half-Life and you need to slaughter everyone in the immediate area. You COULD just kill everyone with a gun or something and eventually win the day, or you could sneak into one of the many buildings, climb to the roof and lob grenades at the unknowing populace below from there. Or you could blow up the supports for a billboard with the Gauss and laugh maniacally while the massive thing crushes people upon landing.

GTA did this rather well. You could do things in that game that the designers probably never even THOUGHT of. Just make an area that you like, make everything not bolted down fully destructable, Worms style (the bolted down stuff is only PARTIALLY destructable), stick in a decent physics engine that includes people going squish if something heavy (such as the roof) lands on them, include a few laundry chutes that have people at the bottom (*coughgrenadecough*), permanant blood that doesn't magically dissapear and...yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I emphasized a little too much on keeping items from previous missions in my examples. That really doesn't have much at all to do with my point.

I see no reason to prevent item hoarding. It's a lack of strategic skill on the player's part to miss opportunities to use items in good places. If you never believe the use of nice items warrants their loss, I have a simple solution. Turn up the difficulty, or stop saving the game every 30 seconds.

I stocked plasma grenades in Halo too. But I had a reason for it. I liked crowning Elites with them. So if I saw an Elite and wasn't too far away, out come the plasma grenades. I could pistol snipe them instead, needler them to death, or blast them with green plasma charges. So no worries if I run out of grenades.

In this respect, Halo is setting up rules and letting us go at it. From what I can remember, some of those rules..

Elites-Best: Plasma grenades
Elites-Good: Big plasma bursts, needlers, Warthog hit & run
Elites-Okay: Pistol sniping, fast plasma bursts, frag grenades
Elites-Bad: SMG, punching

TinyDudes-Best: Pistol sniping
TinyDudes-Good: Fast plasma bursts, punching
TinyDudes-Okay: SMG, grenades, big plasma bursts
TinyDudes-Bad: Needlers

GreenDudes-Best: Big plasma burst
GreenDudes-Good: Punching, pistol sniping, grenades
GreenDudes-Bad: SMG, Needlers

Hunter-Best: Pistol sniping (one shot on the yellow triangle on their back)
Hunter-Good: Warthog hit & run, rocket launcher, boxing
Hunter-Bad: Everything else

Hmm, I guess I remember more than I thought. Of course I wouldn't even know these things if I didn't play on Legendary mode. On normal, it doesn't really matter what you use. Everything works. I need to play that on Legendary again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Of course you will. But that pretty much nulls any strategy existing in the use of them. Unless you're a production line worker, I don't see how you could appreciate this type of gameplay. It's amusing to experience, but it's not a very fun design, in my opinion.

Ever thought about playing other games? ;) I think your issues aren't as much about bad design, but about difference in taste. You found Half-Life 2 to be cheaply designed, at least some aspects, I greatly enjoyed it. You prefer more open games, I quickly feel lost in them. That doesn't mean any one of those games are poorly designed, they're just designed with different publics in mind.

I understand your issue, and in some games I have the same feeling, the idea you're being pushed through a certain predefined tunnel, so to say. That's probably poor design. However, I've played various games that are essentially equally linear, yet still give the player the feeling they're doing it themselves. There's nothing that feels like an unnatural choice, so the feeling isn't broken - for most people, of course, as you can never please everyone.
Which makes me believe it isn't directly about the presence of multiple choices, but the presentation of them in the first place. Yes, giving multiple choices can really make things more interesting and it's something I would keep in mind when designing a level. On the other hand, masking a single choice as if it was an open choice can be effective just as well.

Quote:
I see no reason to prevent item hoarding. It's a lack of strategic skill on the player's part to miss opportunities to use items in good places. If you never believe the use of nice items warrants their loss, I have a simple solution. Turn up the difficulty, or stop saving the game every 30 seconds.

Aren't you the one now who's forcing people to play the way you like? ;) Some players don't play for the strategy, others see it as a skill to beat situations with as little resource waste as possible. I remember playing Tomb Raider, only using the pistols. I saved a lot, too. Still, I enjoyed the game a lot. That was my way to play it back then, it was my 'solution' and I had fun with it, and isn't that what you're trying to emphasize?

On the other hand however, I think preventing ammo hoarding can be quite effective. The original gameplay can be fun, but by preventing hoarding, the designers can enforce players to rethink their strategies because the ammo they trust on may not always be sufficient. Some players play (too) carefull and while they may enjoy a game that way, forcing them to finally make those decisions can unlock a new level of gameplay, one which they never would've gotten to by themselves.

I think it comes down to finding out what your public really likes, not just what they'll always try to do, and building gameplay mechanisms that bring out that best in them. Triggering your players to play the way they enjoy most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Captain P
You prefer more open games, I quickly feel lost in them. That doesn't mean any one of those games are poorly designed, they're just designed with different publics in mind.

That sounds a little ridiculous. Do you really feel lost by gaining the flexibility to implement your own strategy? Allowing this flexibility does not change anything other than the possibilities. If you like having the answer thrown in your lap, you can still have that, as it would work right along with the flexibility. But if you want to ride-the-rail, aka Virtual Cop or Myst, then yes, this type of design would ruin it.

Half-Life 2 had plenty of extremely fun situations. But they also had plenty of cheap tricks to keep the player on the rails. And many of those tricks actually subtracted from the gameplay. It has a superior physics engine, right? I mean you can bounce baby dolls on see-saws and use weight scales to get ammo. But did you ever try something useful like barricading a door from the bad guys? Valve doesn't allow that type of thing. That would require a ruleset AI instead of scripted AI.

Quote:
I understand your issue, and in some games I have the same feeling, the idea you're being pushed through a certain predefined tunnel, so to say. That's probably poor design. However, I've played various games that are essentially equally linear, yet still give the player the feeling they're doing it themselves.

I'm guessing my point is still unclear. Deus Ex was very linear, yet still did not suffer from the problem I'm bringing to attention. As I said before, their A,B, or C choices don't really trick anyone into thinking the choice came from the player. But that was just the plot development. Their gameplay was very flexible. Ruleset AI. The player could do whatever they wanted to win a mission. They weren't forced onto a rail. If they wanted to kill everyone, cool. If they wanted to sneak around, that's okay too. Bombs? Yep. They never handed any sort of recommendation for achieving victory to the player. They simply presented a situation and let the player do his thing. There were hackable computer consoles that could be ignored, tweakable mechs that could be ignored, ammo that wasn't needed, and all sorts of other unnecessary possibilities. It's not that the designers are trying to pretend they are not handing the player choices, it's that they really are not handing them choices. They are associating choices with game world elements, and those elements are put in places where they make sense. The choices are not an illusion.

Quote:
On the other hand, masking a single choice as if it was an open choice can be effective just as well.

I don't agree. Maybe with the plot. Not with gameplay.

Quote:
Quote:
I see no reason to prevent item hoarding. It's a lack of strategic skill on the player's part to miss opportunities to use items in good places. If you never believe the use of nice items warrants their loss, I have a simple solution. Turn up the difficulty, or stop saving the game every 30 seconds.

Aren't you the one now who's forcing people to play the way you like? ;) Some players don't play for the strategy, others see it as a skill to beat situations with as little resource waste as possible. I remember playing Tomb Raider, only using the pistols. I saved a lot, too. Still, I enjoyed the game a lot. That was my way to play it back then, it was my 'solution' and I had fun with it, and isn't that what you're trying to emphasize?

What does any of this have to do with preventing or not preventing item hoarding? If players don't want to use my game world items in the places where those items are the most effective, then I leave that choice with them. I'm certainly not going to restrict the choices for other players because of it. You're suggesting that I'm forcing people to play the way 'I like' by not implimenting item hoarding restrictions?

Quote:
On the other hand however, I think preventing ammo hoarding can be quite effective. The original gameplay can be fun, but by preventing hoarding, the designers can enforce players to rethink their strategies because the ammo they trust on may not always be sufficient. Some players play (too) carefull and while they may enjoy a game that way, forcing them to finally make those decisions can unlock a new level of gameplay, one which they never would've gotten to by themselves.

By preventing ammo hoarding, are you not forcing players to play the way you like? I could certainly strap a lot of ammo onto myself in most situations. I would have to question the game for preventing me from doing this. That's like puting a bandaid over a poorly balanced ammo supply. If you want to limit the ammo, then just limit the amount of it available. There's no need to limit the player to a carrying capacity of 30 shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want everything to be obvious, but once there are two paths, two choices, the game should let me know I've got a choice. Otherwise I start to think I might be heading the wrong way and I'll go check out the other route. I prefer story-telling games that either have a more-or-less linear path, or clearly let me know when there are alternate paths. Think of Call of Duty 2 for example: at some levels there were multiple objectives, but it was very clear you could do them in any order, just as long as you dealt with all of them.
I think we just differ in that, and so will many others differ from us.

Half-Life 2 uses a combination of ruled and scripted AI. Enemy appearance is mostly scripted, their behaviour is mostly rule-defined. It's not about moving away from scripts, but about defining a much-more-complex ruleset and . Deus Ex sounds like a game I wouldn't want to play - too loose, too free-form for me. I understand there are people who like this sort of gameplay, but not me. I didn't like Hitman for example, because what it did was presenting some items, a situation, and it basically said: go ahead, do whatever you think will work. That's not what I enjoy in such games. In a RTS, yes, but those games are designed to offer strategy - or to what extend micromanagement can be called strategy. ;)

Quote:
What does any of this have to do with preventing or not preventing item hoarding? If players don't want to use my game world items in the places where those items are the most effective, then I leave that choice with them. I'm certainly not going to restrict the choices for other players because of it. You're suggesting that I'm forcing people to play the way 'I like' by not implimenting item hoarding restrictions?


That's not what I'm saying. What I mean is: you want to 'enforce' free-form gameplay as you like it, while players like me may not want that degree of freedom. Item hoarding was just the example used: some people hate it, others are stimulated to play more strategic that way.

Quote:
By preventing ammo hoarding, are you not forcing players to play the way you like? I could certainly strap a lot of ammo onto myself in most situations. I would have to question the game for preventing me from doing this. That's like puting a bandaid over a poorly balanced ammo supply. If you want to limit the ammo, then just limit the amount of it available. There's no need to limit the player to a carrying capacity of 30 shots.


Yes, you are forcing players into a certain way to play the game, and I don't think it's automatically a wrong thing to do. I believe some games definitely benefit from it. In Half-Life, I always used the shotgun on close-quarters because I always had the ammo. In Half-Life 2, I had to be more carefull with my weapon choices, which made switch tactics now and then. It didn't felt forced to me, I actually liked the variety it caused. Then again, this doesn't work the same for everyone.

But what this all comes down to, between you and me, is our different taste in games. To me, you come over as 'thinking outside the box', at least my box. ;) I would like to encourage that, even though I probably wouldn't like to play the things you come up with. My point is just, keep in mind that your own taste isn't representative for everyones taste. Free-form gameplay works for some gamers, not for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a small list of games I've thrown together quickly.

Games that have mostly strict linear gameplay:
- Medal of Honor
- Splinter Cell
- Tomb Raider: Legends

Games that have mostly free-form gameplay:
- Doom
- Half-Life
- Hitman
- Resident Evil

Games that have nearly completely free-form gameplay:
- Deus Ex
- Operation Flashpoint
- Grand Theft Auto
- Fallout
- Oblivion / Morrowind
- Ninja Gaiden (old-school versions)
- Super Mario (all versions)

Note that while games like Super Mario had limited complexity, the games are still completely free-form. The designers gave you abilities, then they gave you goals, then they set you lose. The enemies, the mushrooms, the turtles, they were all built to handle all of Mario's abilities. Not just the abilities he was allowed to use for a given stage.

The reason there were infinite rockets in those crates in Half-Life 2 was not because you might need them, but because Valve was too lazy to add a second method of taking it out if you failed to shoot it down. Not only did they force the method that must be used to win, they twisted the game's rules in order to do so. The same is true in all of those stealth missions where the bad guys seem more dumb than usual just so you can sneak by them.

Quote:
Original post by Captain P
That's not what I'm saying. What I mean is: you want to 'enforce' free-form gameplay as you like it, while players like me may not want that degree of freedom. Item hoarding was just the example used: some people hate it, others are stimulated to play more strategic that way.

I can't understand why anyone would hate not being restricted to carrying a limited supply of items. Does choice bother you that much? To the point where you can't dump some stuff off because the game doesn't force it upon you?

Quote:
But what this all comes down to, between you and me, is our different taste in games. To me, you come over as 'thinking outside the box', at least my box. ;) I would like to encourage that, even though I probably wouldn't like to play the things you come up with. My point is just, keep in mind that your own taste isn't representative for everyones taste. Free-form gameplay works for some gamers, not for others.

I always have this in mind. For every design decision, there is always an alternative that someone somewhere will enjoy more. I like to use my own preferences. My goal in creating this thread was not to rule out the existence of players like you, but to make sure there were others like me.

It seems it is more common for Gamedev users who disagree with an idea to reply more often. Perhaps I should have pretended I was rooting for the linear side [smile]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, the whole 'get the rocket launcher moments before the boss fight' is a little predictable. Same goes for grenades moments before entrenched enemies, sniper rifle moments before needing to snipe, satchel charges moments before needing to blow up something, etc.

Though I'm not really certain how else you're supposed to do it. It might break the game to have rocket launcher ammo strewn everywhere, and you do have to make sure that the player can get the appropriate ammo if that's the only thing that's going to work.

Difficult situation here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing I like alot in many RPGs [including Nethack and ToME] are shops.

Shops can potentially give you anything you anything you want [I really hate it that shops are often sequentially arranged to sell the lowest-level armor and stuff at the start of the game and the best near the end... If I can raise the money I should be able to buy whatever I want in big city store, darnit]

Anyway, I think adding shops, or some other system for exchanging game items could help allow for different stratagy.

For example, in a game like Halo, have a moment where the player could meet up with one of the marines and exchange inventory. Pick up some more ammo and weapons or unload excess grenades. Though in this situation it wouldn't be 'trading' it could give a chance to prepare with whatever weapons you think you may need or unload stuff you don't. Plus, the marines might need some weapons back at the base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are some really good ideas, TSN. In case anyone doesn't know, Halo 2 actually did let you strip weapons from fellow marines. And it added a lot to the flexiblity of the gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really refreshing to see that I'm not the only one disappointed with the linearity of Half-Life 2. There was always exactly one path you could take from the beginning to the end -- literally. If you took a wrong turn, you wound up at a dead end. Between that, the long and frequent load times, and the jumping puzzles(!), I gave up about halfway through.

Deus Ex is as close to perfection as I've seen in a FPS. I've played through it about three times. What separates good games from great games is the illusion that you're part of a believable world, making the world seem huge even though you can never explore most of it. I tend to hate story-based games, because the writing tends to be painfully banal or dripped out in long cutscenes. Deus Ex kept my attention because it was almost always interactive. There were sidequests that never felt like sidequests, because you were just interacting with the world and the characters.

I'm also a confessed hoarder/quicksave-abuser. It's hard to break those habits, which is why I really like games like Goldeneye, Hitman, Project IGI, and Operation Flashpoint, where you can't quicksave all the time in the middle of a mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by drakostar
It's really refreshing to see that I'm not the only one disappointed with the linearity of Half-Life 2. There was always exactly one path you could take from the beginning to the end -- literally. If you took a wrong turn, you wound up at a dead end.

This sounds like you're referring to the plot. I was referring to the gameplay. So where the plot gives you only one door that you can go through, the gameplay only gives you one way to reach it. Most of HL2's gameplay was non-linear, except for situations like the helicopter fights, where only rockets could be used to damage them. You couldn't run away, trick it into wrecking, or snipe the pilot. You absolutely had to fire rockets at it to proceed with the game.

So while I don't think the gameplay was normally very linear, the plot, as you say, was pretty much completely linear. And the linearity of it was pretty extreme if you consider the fact that the plots of games like Flashpoint are also linear. I guess you could say that HL2 had many small connecting hallways, and only one door to exit in each. Flashpoint would be more like one huge room, also having only one exit. So even though both are linear in the fact that only one conclusion can win the mission, HL2 guides you to the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kest
So even though both are linear in the fact that only one conclusion can win the mission, HL2 guides you to the end.


Yes, exactly. I wouldn't call it 'plot' so much as 'level design'. It very often felt like I was playing a rail shooter (remember Rebel Assault?).

Could you elaborate on what part of the gameplay you considered nonlinear? And no, I don't consider "well, you can kill this group of enemies before that other one" to be nonlinear. HL2 didn't hold your hand, but there was always exactly one solution to any given problem. That's linearity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by drakostar
Could you elaborate on what part of the gameplay you considered nonlinear?

Actually, I'm having trouble remembering any. Trying to think of situations reminded me of snipers and vehicles. The snipers really irked me in that game, because I could never seem to snipe them back. From what I could tell, lobbing grenades into the windows was the only way to kill them. The fact that you have no choice but to drive each vehicle is also pretty lame. You can't leave them behind, even though it should be totally feasible to do so.

Oh well, I give up. It's too much work trying to remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 4104 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this