My problem is that games are trying to emulate different art forms, such as movies. Video games is one of the forms of narrative that are perfect for a non-linear plot line, yet many people within the industry want to be regarding as an actual artistic medium, but they're going about it the wrong way and trying to copy how movies do everything. Movies don't have any audience input, and you're pretty much there to watch exactly what the makers of the movie intended you to see. In video games, every player progresses in the game in different ways, even if they're slight variations. They might miss some extra bit of lore they could find in the environment, they might due quest B before doing quest A, and they might find bugs or things the developers simply didn't intend for there to be in the first place. For games to become respected as their own legitimate form of media, they can't just copy already established media and expect people to take them seriously.
If you want a good explanation that pretty much explains what I'm trying to get across, as well as touching base on some of the Mass Effect issues
here's a well-thought out video that explains a lot of things pretty well.
Bah, but every game is toting OPEN WORLD OPEN WORLD right now. It's like a friggin' buzzword for the next-generation console games. The question is when they're going to get good at doing that. Personally I'd rather play a well-done corridor than a poorly-done open world, but I fully admit that people need practice sandboxing before they get good at it.
When I go off about the linearity of a game and why it's a bad thing, that doesn't necessarily imply that people want open-world games. Linear games need to be done in a way that isn't handholding and forcing you along a certain path. It's perfectly fine for the plot to be Point A>Point B>Point C, but it shouldn't be similar to strapping yourself into a roller-coaster ride.
Author
Topic: [MILK] There were 12 eggs here what did you do with them? (Happy thread?!) (Read 15762776 times)