The accompanying video that spawned this topic:
https://youtu.be/PUNJKwc11L0?t=193
Listen to what he says from that time, to 4:04.
Do you agree or disagree, and why or why not? My thoughts reserved for a later post.
I totally agree, and more or less, why is already explained in his words.
I also don't have a whole lot of time to reply, so I'll also reserve any further thoughts for later.
depends a lot on the context. This game works because it is supposed to be a simulation game. But other games that have a set focus (i.e a real story) will be harmed with the sheer amount of sidequests.
it's a case by case basis.
Here are my thoughts on this subject.
I agree with him for the most part; this kind of game design is the way to go for games that attempt to tout exploration as one of their selling points. Why? Exploration requires free will. If you remove the free will factor from exploration, what you get is a theme park tour. "First, we're going to check out the Fire Area, then we'll see the Ice Area, and finally, we'll wrap things up with the Space Area." Such handholding cannot be classified as exploration, as the player isn't willingly examining areas on their own accord, but is being forced to.
In the case of games that wish to tell a deep and ongoing narrative, a more linear approach is fine as long as they don't attempt to use exploration as a selling point, because that wouldn't actually be true. Only when the world is actually open, and the player has a choice on what areas they want to check out and when, does that become a viable selling point. If they can't get the player to meet the cutscenes under this direction, then they should have the cutscenes meet the player. If X event is supposed to happen after player completed Y amount of areas, then have them happen after keeping a tally of how many areas they've actually completed, and program the cutscenes to play out right after they finish that area.
This concept boils down to branching paths and converging points. If we were to use a well known game as an example, A Link to the Past could've done this well, by approaching the key points as converging points. In the beginning, Link is tasked with collecting 3 pendants. While the world is certainly very open and the player can see much at once on their own accord, the goals are still accomplished in a linear fashion when they did not have to be. Let us observe the key plot points.
-Get 3 pendants.
-Get the Master Sword and free Hyrule Castle.
-Get 7 crystals.
-Defeat Ganon.
With these plotpoints in mind, the world and dungeons could be designed with the idea that the player eventually has to converge at these points. So the world could've been designed as follows:
-All the dungeons containing the 3 pendants are accessible right away.
-Directly after the final pendant is obtained, a converging point is reached: Play a cutscene to alert the player that the Master Sword must be obtained, and Hyrule Castle is in danger.
-All the dungeons containing the 7 crystals are accessible right away.
-Directly after the final crystal is obtained, a converging point is reached: Play a cutscene to alert the player that, with the 7 crystals in hand, they can now open Ganon's Tower and defeat him.
It's much easier to tailor a game, that intends to tout exploration as a selling point, to actually adhere to free will than many believe. The developers just have to make note of the points of convergence, and design the game accordingly so the cutscenes and such play out at the proper times, in the correct areas. Bonus points if the cutscenes are literally brought to the player, where the same events can occur in multiple locations, depending on where the player is at when they reach the point of convergence.
Yep, you pretty much nailed it.
No point for me to say much else.
Even in linear gameplay, this kind of stuff is indeed possible, it's all about the proper planning. And it definitely makes the game more enjoyable than when you have to wait on x to do y. One of the common things that makes me quit playing games is because there's only one real option in order to progress. There's no choosing your path, or how to achieve your goal, or even what to just not do. I actually quit in a lot of RPGs because the way it is laid-out is simply "you WILL beat this area, NOW, or get nowhere" Then when I have to grind and grind and grind to beat it, and even then, do not succeed, I quit.
(03-30-2016, 03:54 PM)Gors Wrote: [ -> ]depends a lot on the context. This game works because it is supposed to be a simulation game. But other games that have a set focus (i.e a real story) will be harmed with the sheer amount of sidequests.
it's a case by case basis.
Haven't even watched the video but pretty much this. Like just about every other aspect of game design, it depends on the game and intent of the developer. As a lot of indie games that are thinking outside of the box are showing us, there are no hard and fast rules to game design and doing things unconventionally or in a way that may initially seem "wrong" is not necessarily bad.
Just look at Little Inferno. It's about setting fire to a range of things and is little more than a physics/fire simulator, yet (almost) the entire game is set within a single fireplace. And it has a story.
(03-30-2016, 04:29 PM)DarkGrievous7145 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, you pretty much nailed it.
No point for me to say much else.
Even in linear gameplay, this kind of stuff is indeed possible, it's all about the proper planning. And it definitely makes the game more enjoyable than when you have to wait on x to do y. One of the common things that makes me quit playing games is because there's only one real option in order to progress. There's no choosing your path, or how to achieve your goal, or even what to just not do. I actually quit in a lot of RPGs because the way it is laid-out is simply "you WILL beat this area, NOW, or get nowhere" Then when I have to grind and grind and grind to beat it, and even then, do not succeed, I quit.
In regards to difficulty balance with the converging point solution, it actually isn't made that much harder really. You can balance the enemies in such a way that the enemies themselves are the level markers. As in, while there's no actual Level-1, the enemies in the areas are setup so that newcomers can get the idea of what is Level-1 just by seeing how slightly stronger the next area's enemies are. But skilled players are free to tackle them in any order, despite the stronger enemies, until they reach the converging point.
The converging points will know exactly what to expect the player to have in their arsenal, and for RPGs, should know their average level by the time they reach that point, and so things can be balanced with that data in mind. Then when the path branches out again, the same approach is taken; the enemies are balanced with a hinted order, but there's no real order to actually do the separate paths, until the next converging point is reached, at which point the enemies are balanced without a shadow of a doubt relative to the expected player statistics. This is shown in the first Zelda. You can access all the levels right away. And while you have to get the Raft from Level 3 to get to Level 4, need the ladder from Level 4 to actually finish Level 5, need the Recorder from level 5 to unlock Level 7 and any candle for Level 8, you can do those at any point. The enemies, however, give you an idea how much later in the game that dungeon is hinted at being tackled. but that doesn't stop players from going straight to Level 6 to grab the Wand early either.
A little lost, now...
I don't recall saying that it makes it harder???
Oh, I was speaking in general. The game can use the enemies to hint at a direction the player should travel in, but not require them to do so. So first time players follow a certain path of progression, while experienced players know how to get the best of sequence breaking.
This can be obnoxious when done wrong, like Final Fantasy 2. Firion and gang, if you have them cross the bridge just west of the starting town, which any reasonable person might do when looking around, they'll encounter monsters that are so much outrageously stronger than they are, that it's instantly a game over. This is really only a problem in turn-based RPGs like that, since in those cases, the monsters will always go first, and your party will eat the dirt in a matter of seconds. In realtime games, however, there's a bit more leniency.
Ah, yes, that makes sense