Completely interactive environments, yay or nay?

Rather than emphasizing how interactive an environment is, I think it's far more important to provide us consistency. By consistency, I mean that not to mislead our expectations in the course of the game. All gamers, regardless, acknowledge the existence of limitations within our game worlds... the most frustrating things are when there ARE gaps we can jump through and then gaps which we mystifyingly cannot. Environments that can be destroyed and others that cannot, without reason.

As long as there's consistency, the level of interaction, even if it is limited can be acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by negitoro

Rather than emphasizing how interactive an environment is, I think it's far more important to provide us consistency. By consistency, I mean that not to mislead our expectations in the course of the game. All gamers, regardless, acknowledge the existence of limitations within our game worlds... the most frustrating things are when there ARE gaps we can jump through and then gaps which we mystifyingly cannot. Environments that can be destroyed and others that cannot, without reason.

As long as there's consistency, the level of interaction, even if it is limited can be acceptable.

---

Yeah, that kind of stuff is very noticable. I played Mark of Kri right after Gothic 2, and damn, the difference is EXTREMELY noticeable.

I'm not really sure. But I do have one thing to comment on. There are a lot of games out there that need a damn jump button. I remember being pissed on release day for the first PSO that there was no jump.

All games should have jump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

All games should have jump.

---

Even Wheel of Fortune?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schlep

Even Wheel of Fortune?

---

Of course. Whaddya gonna do when you win?

As for te topic at hand, I give it a big fat depends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schlep

Even Wheel of Fortune?

---

No, wheel of fortune, should have it's wheel turned on it's side and run on lumberjack style until the person falls off.

I would have to say Yes, I like to use Half Life 2 as an example as well. Even though the game is not out yet you can see in a 25 minute demo that there are plenty of things that an interactive enviroment can present. At the same time a game of such magnitude will take more dev time and testing. I mean it would be shitty for a player to blow up a bridge he was supposed to walk accross first and since he doesn't know that he would think that the game is fucked up. It's a very fine line between immersion and frustration. Only a few companies can do it well, the rest should stick to pumping out linear games... I like those ones too.

D

I'm happiest just gunning down mindless drones that wander onto the screen in a pre-set "Z" pattern while the wallpaper background scrolls by unnoticed, so it really doesn't matter to me. It could be fun in some cases, but I have no desire to see video game worlds mimic real worlds.

Well, imo, it is stupid to have a character that could destroy a small city with his pure magic might, only to have to spend 2 hours finding another way to get inside the castle because a half a foot tall rock is in the way.

Kill dragons with your fingers? Yes.
Able to jump over small rocks? No.

Oh, and don't even get me started on how no one can fucking swim. If someone wanted to rule the world, all they would have to do is put their base in the middle of a river, becuase God knows Heros can't swim for shit.

Since I was a kid my biggest complaint about video games is that the environments weren't interactive enough. So yay is definitely my vote. Obviously, this isn't necessary or good for every type of game though.