Printable View
Remember that gap that you SHOULD have been able jump past? Or that slope you SHOULD have been able to traverse? Or that area which you never could get in but wondered what was there? Well, you can these days.
Should this be standard in games today or should the effort be put elsewhere? Personally when I find a game that allows me do some of what I said above, it added a great deal of interest with the game world for me and as a result I enjoyed the game a lot more.
Big yay. Alot of games we're great just because of that, breaking and shooting down walls, being able to go just about anywhere really, really rocks. DoA 3 kicked ass, and while I dont think the environments were all that interactive, they we're really awesome in Metroid Prime as well.
Big yay, for most genres, it can add a lot of fun and realism to the game.
How would destroying an enviroment allow you to jump a gap?
Magic.
I've never been a fan of non-linear gameplay, so I'd have to say they should put the effort elsewhere.
Big nay for me.
linearity = design
realism = boring
It all really depends. But if done well its adds a lot to the enjoyment, especially if you like just goofing around in a game. Lots of times however games say completly interactive, but that usally ends up meaning you can break tables and windows. The upcoming game "Mercenaries" looks pretty sweet and is promising "Completly interactive environments" as well as being able to use any vehicle seen. From the screens I have seen it showed a few walls being blown out, but I hope they really go the distance and let you go all over, even if its useless to go there.
I never really thought about this subject until I saw the greatest game of- err, I mean Half-Life 2. While listening to a scientist, the player looks around his desk and finds a computer monitor, bumps into it and pushes it over. Mid-Sentence the AI reacts.
"Please do try to be more careful!"
BIG yay for interactive environments. You can still be linear but still have the illusion of total freedom. Half-Life 2 makes this possible.
Every game doesn't have to be Morrowind, but it would be nice to have more than one way of doing something. So still a sense of direction, but with options so you don't feel as if the game might as well be playing yourself. Ninja Gaiden was nice in the way it used enviroments over while keeping them new (and keeping the story linear), though I thought it could have been a little more interactive.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by negitoro
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.
Even Wheel of Fortune?Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schlep
Of course. Whaddya gonna do when you win?
As for te topic at hand, I give it a big fat depends.
No, wheel of fortune, should have it's wheel turned on it's side and run on lumberjack style until the person falls off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schlep
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.
I think I would prefer the time spent to balance such issues be spent in perfecting a streamlined design, so no. I have yet to see any of these "limitless" games be any fun for me...GTA and Morrowind head the list (do a ton of things, but no one thing is near the top of its category among all games). The interactivity in DN3D is fine, though. Doesn't take much for that.
But those types of games wouldn't be any fun if you could just walk right by the obstacle. Game design means you have to block certain places off at certain times. It's what gives a game "flow" and keeps you interested. I have no problem suspending reality and just accepting that Link can't cross a body of water 1 tile wide if it means the game design will be better for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Again, my interest is in fun games, not mimicing reality.
If the game is pure fun and has an interactive environment, fine.
If the game is pure fun and has total wallpaper backgrounds or baffling "you can't go there because you just can't" areas all over the place, fine.
But I'd never sacrifice a fun game design just to make an environment more interactive, and I'd never expect an interactive environment to be in a game that wouldn't benefit from it.
Having to backtrack through half a level to get the odd object that functions as a key for a wooden door that has only now appeared, when I should very easily be able to kick said door down, is not my idea of fun. It's my idea of tedium that developers inject into games to make them longer. And it sucks.
They can at least try to make the obstacles somewhat realistic. I gave up on Splinter Cell for the simple reason of it CONSTANTLY using magically jammed doors that I couldn't open (even though I could pick locks), but would open when the proper scripted sequence was kicked off. I might as well be playing Resident Evil. At least RE isn't even trying to be realistic.