Open Games v. "Hand Holding"

[WhiteEclipse]

Here are a couple of good articles that talk about the old days, such as Ultima, where games let you explore and make mistakes -- and new games such as Fable 2 that literally give you bread crumbs in the name of fun and accessibility.

Interestingly, I was discussing this in another forum and the consensus is that Stalker is more old school in this sense.

COLUMN: EA’s Randy Smith : Next Generation - Interactive Entertainment Today, Video Game and Industry News - Home of Edge Online

The Bread Crumb Trial: Why Fable 2 should be wary of half-baked design choices « Unified Ammo


The first article is written by Randy Smith, a former ION Storm designer.

[Rick_EE]

Interesting article. I have been playing a single MMOG for a few years now and this trend appears to have passed me by as I haven't bought a game in a while.

I do have to say that I have always enjoyed the sandbox type games siginificantly more than the linear story ones. I always found that "beating" a game to be a real letdown.

[mindx2]

This is EXACTLY what I've been saying in several other threads. Why is exploration, choices, and consequences now all of a sudden not considered fun?!!

Take Oblivion's "Quest Compass" and "Fast Travel" as prime examples of what I consider the dumbing down of cRPG games in particular. Fast travel totally took away the sense of exploring the land. Why explore when you can instantly jump to an area you've never been to before?! No need to explore or learn the layout of the land. No sir! We take you directly to the next fight. Done with that fight? No need to wait we'll take you to the next one instantly!! No need to even go find those new quests. No way that might be too hard so we'll just POP those new quests right up on the screen and tell you exactly where to go even if your in a sewer or in the middle of the forest with NO ONE around!

Why even have this big sandbox? Just string a bunch of fights and quests together and BAM you have a "NewAge cRPG". The Quest Compass does even more to take away the need to do ANY thinking for yourself. Why think in today's world kiddos... it's sooooo hard we don't want to strain your brain. We'll just point you directly to where we want you to go. No need to scatter clues throughout our game and give you that sense of accomplishment, no sirree!! No one likes to think, you just want that next shiny uber sword/shield/armor/potion/thingamajig/etc.

Why is thinking and exploring no longer considered fun?!!! Anyone remember Ultima IV/V/VI, Wizardry VII, Ultima Underworld, Might & Magic World of Zeen/VI, Daggerfall, Eye of the Beholder I/II, Fallout 1/2, Arcanum, System Shock, and even Baldur's Gate 1/2?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These games weren't FUN?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WhiteEclipse]

I like the fast travel after I have been to a spot, because I don't mind skipping the time it takes to run back and forth. But I agree, you need to explore first.

I really love all those old games where the world really was a mystery. That was the fun. But the problem is, these newer games are selling far more copies, so that will keep being made.

[Cogar]

I also like open games, which is one of the reasons I consider Morrowind to be the best RPG ever. You could go and do what you wanted when you wanted to do it. You could talk to people, but how you interpreted their instructions made you rely on your own skills to find various places and people to complete the many quests. Sometimes you would end up encountering something or someone way over your head that would bring the game to a quick end, and a few times I never could figure out what to do, but in my opinion that is how it should be. In Oblivion, you were almost ready to take on a dragon the minute you completed the tutorial, complete with a compass direction and an "X" on the map showing you where to find it. How realistic is that?

I recently started playing Two Worlds and had a nice surprise. Although the reviews have been mixed (mostly unfavorable), I suspect that a big factor was because Two Worlds does not hold your hand. Although many reviewers have compared it to Oblivion (which it does look like visually), it is actually more like Morrowind when it comes to game play. It is an open game with monsters and treasures that are not scaled at all. It has a 130 page manual and huge game world. It has combat, magic, and alchemy systems that require you to be trained to be able to use all their capabilities. There is a teleport system and horses, but the teleport system requires you visit the teleports and activate them before you use them. The horses work fine (if you have at least the 1.6 patch), but they behave like horses, not SUVs, so that will disappoint some. I don't know about the plot, though. After playing it for approximately 15 hours I have reached level 20 or so and I think I have covered perhaps 10% of the map and have only a general idea regarding where the plot is going--which is exactly the reason I like it.

[polonyc2]

Originally Posted by Cogar

I recently started playing Two Worlds and had a nice surprise. Although the reviews have been mixed (mostly unfavorable)

the game is 3rd person correct?...I hear that you can only use 1st person when you don't have any weapons equipped...that to me is a big deal-breaker...I also looked at some reviews of the game and most do seem to give it lower scores although as you stated the many patches released might have solved a lot of these issues

I'm waiting for The Witcher Enhanced Edition to be released in September along with Fallout 3 in the Fall for my RPG fix

in regards to the original topic of open games...I believe that more games are watered down because a lot of gamers are 'casual' gamers and don't want to explore and spend countless hours in a state of confusion...they want to be told what to do and where to go to finish the game as quickly as possible and then move on to the next game...that's also a reason why games are becoming shorter and shorter and you don't find the really long games like in the past

I don't feel S.T.A.L.K.E.R is 'old school' at all...the game guides you along with your PDA and mini-map and tells you exactly where to go to find your next mission/quest etc...yes you have to talk to the right NPC to find these side quests but the fact that most of the quests add nothing of value to the game takes away from that aspect...the choices you make in the game really have little effect on the outcome as well (that C-Consciousness ending vs the other ending does not count either)...that's another reason why I'm really looking forward to playing The Witcher as I hear that the choices you make throughout the game have a significant impact on the storyline

[mindx2]

Originally Posted by Cogar

I recently started playing Two Worlds and had a nice surprise.

I stayed away from this game because it WAS compared to Oblivion. However, you've intrigued me enough that I will try it out .

Polonyc2: You state that it is 3rd person, which is a deal breaker for you, yet you are looking forward to The Witcher Enhanced? That game is nothing but 3rd person. Also, the more I read about Fallout 3 the more it IS Oblivion with Guns and that is exactly what I had feared ! As Hudson would say "You can can me out, man!!"

[Cogar]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

the game is 3rd person correct?...I hear that you can only use 1st person when you don't have any weapons equipped...that to me is a big deal-breaker...I also looked at some reviews of the game and most do seem to give it lower scores although as you stated the many patches released might have solved a lot of these issues

I'm waiting for The Witcher Enhanced Edition to be released in September along with Fallout 3 in the Fall for my RPG fix

Hi polonyc2, yes you can only use first person when you do not have weapons equipped. Incidentally, you rarely (if ever) have some hostile pop out of nowhere--even in a cave--so you do not need to keep a weapon readied in Two Worlds. Although I normally prefer first person, I grew to prefer the third person perspective in fantasy RPGs like Morrowind and Oblivion, and it is the same with Two Worlds. I find myself playing the game completely in third person. Incidentally, you can download the demo of the game (they limit you geographically and give you a reduced set of skills, but the game seems to work normally otherwise) to get an idea regarding how well the perspective works. Personally, I think it is nearly perfect.

Patches do seem to have fixed the problems. I have read some complaints about the horse control, for example, and that seems to be fixed. Based on my experience, the horses seem to work as well as the ones in Oblivion and you can fight from them as well--although fighting from a horse is really only a diversion to add a change of pace.

I also noticed that most of the reviews were for the Xbox 360 version and they kept complaining about inventory controls and graphics quality. I did not notice those problems on the PC at all. I strongly suspect that these are 360-only issues. If you check out the PC reviews, they tend to be higher--sometimes a lot higher.

[ATINUT]

Originally Posted by Cogar

I also like open games, which is one of the reasons I consider Morrowind to be the best RPG ever. You could go and do what you wanted when you wanted to do it. You could talk to people, but how you interpreted their instructions made you rely on your own skills to find various places and people to complete the many quests. Sometimes you would end up encountering something or someone way over your head that would bring the game to a quick end, and a few times I never could figure out what to do, but in my opinion that is how it should be. In Oblivion, you were almost ready to take on a dragon the minute you completed the tutorial, complete with a compass direction and an "X" on the map showing you where to find it. How realistic is that?

I recently started playing Two Worlds and had a nice surprise. Although the reviews have been mixed (mostly unfavorable), I suspect that a big factor was because Two Worlds does not hold your hand. Although many reviewers have compared it to Oblivion (which it does look like visually), it is actually more like Morrowind when it comes to game play. It is an open game with monsters and treasures that are not scaled at all. It has a 130 page manual and huge game world. It has combat, magic, and alchemy systems that require you to be trained to be able to use all their capabilities. There is a teleport system and horses, but the teleport system requires you visit the teleports and activate them before you use them. The horses work fine (if you have at least the 1.6 patch), but they behave like horses, not SUVs, so that will disappoint some. I don't know about the plot, though. After playing it for approximately 15 hours I have reached level 20 or so and I think I have covered perhaps 10% of the map and have only a general idea regarding where the plot is going--which is exactly the reason I like it.

I finished this game like 2 or 3 times already. I wait for Two Worlds: The Temptation this fall, which is the next Two Worlds game.

[polonyc2]

Originally Posted by mindx2

Polonyc2: You state that it is 3rd person, which is a deal breaker for you, yet you are looking forward to The Witcher Enhanced? That game is nothing but 3rd person

I generally prefer 1st person...but there are exceptions to the rule...if a game really sounds exceptional then I'm willing to give it a try...The Witcher sounds like one of those games...I also recently played Assassin's Creed (PC) which was also a 3rd person game and thought it was a decent game (if it wasn't so repetitive it could have been a lot better)...also played Gears of War (PC), another 3rd person POV...a game really has to get excellent word of mouth and/or reviews in order for me to buy a 3rd person game

[mindx2]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

I generally prefer 1st person...but there are exceptions to the rule...if a game really sounds exceptional then I'm willing to give it a try...The Witcher sounds like one of those games...I also recently played Assassin's Creed (PC) which was also a 3rd person game and thought it was a decent game (if it wasn't so repetitive it could have been a lot better)...also played Gears of War (PC), another 3rd person POV...a game really has to get excellent word of mouth and/or reviews in order for me to buy a 3rd person game

Well let me add to the word of mouth for The Witcher... it's a really good game!! I am looking forward to this new edition. The game really focused on choices and consequences that isn't Paladin Good vs Kill Everything Evil type choices. There are many shades of grey where the "right" choice might end up with an unexpected consequence later in the game. That is good RPGing in my book!

[Cogar]

Originally Posted by ATINUT

I finished this game like 2 or 3 times already. I wait for Two Worlds: The Temptation this fall, which is the next Two Worlds game.

Do you know if this is this going to be single player (like Two Worlds) or multiplayer? I read different things and (believe it or not) I cannot tell which it is supposed to be.

[ATINUT]

From what I've seen Two Worlds: The Temptation is single player, the reason it's taking so long, is that they're also putting out an XBOX 360 and Playstation 3 version at roughly the same time.

[Cogar]

Originally Posted by ATINUT

From what I've seen Two Worlds: The Temptation is single player, the reason it's taking so long, is that they're also putting out an XBOX 360 and Playstation 3 version at roughly the same time.

Ah, good. Thank you. If the rest of the game stays as good as the first 15 hours have been, I am a candidate for the sequel.

[WhiteEclipse]

I liked Two Worlds also. I think technical problems on the x360, as well as some translation problems (in English) did it in. But there is certainly a lot of exploring and openness. From what I have read, they are really trying to improve its shortcomings in Temptation.

The Witcher was great. I think it would have done even better if there was not so much sex (which is entirely optional). The opportunities were so numerous and over the top, it just seemed too much. I think this made people feel the game was "adolescent," but it really is an adult game. Then again, if you are a rock star or Derek Jeter, maybe women do throw themselves at you every ten feet.