Printable View
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.