222 réponses à ce sujet

[Varenus Luckmann]

slimgrin wrote...

tetracycloide wrote...

Hizoka003 wrote...

people that compare any Bethesda game to anything linear are the personification of "gamer noob"

Oblivion. Morrowind. Fallout 3. All linear. To certain extents. Morrowind least of all. Plot advances likewise regardless. Player controls when, rate, if events occur. Not how. Hows predetermined. At best chosen between handful of options. Story is written. Player turns pages. Skips to appendix. Perhaps even chapters. Cannot change what pages contain.

People not personifiable. Already people. Contradiction in terms.

Please tell me you don't cuddle with a plush Mordin doll at night.

C'mon. You WISH you had a plush Mordin. :3

[tetracycloide]

thegreateski wrote...
All MMOs

Negative.  Some have objectives.  Narrative.  Levels.  Linearity.

[h_pepon]

thegreateski wrote...

tetracycloide wrote...

h_pepon wrote...
Every single game has a starting, middle, and ending point.... but there is not such thing as a non-linear game.

Second life.

All MMOs

I didn't take into consideration those games, I guess both of you are right.

[AtreiyaN7]

Yes, of course they're more linear because they're not sandbox games. The priority is given to telling a good story, not making gigantic, largely empty playgrounds (not that I didn't enjoy Fallout 3 or Oblivion, but I didn't play them for their stories).

[thegreateski]

tetracycloide wrote...

thegreateski wrote...
All MMOs

Negative.  Some have objectives.  Narrative.  Levels.  Linearity.

They do not end.

Modifié par thegreateski, 21 février 2010 - 09:35 .

[tetracycloide]

thegreateski wrote...
They do not end.

They will.  They have.  They do.  Books 'do not end.'  Pages always addable.  Sequels.  Prequels.  Still linear.  Will end eventually.

Even so.  Infinite line still a line.

Modifié par tetracycloide, 21 février 2010 - 09:38 .

[Frotality]

the devs shot all that to hell with this railraoded shooter level design they went with; i loved when they could make a  linear set of paths feel big and open; no such exploratory based design this time, and thats a big disappointment for me.

[thegreateski]

tetracycloide wrote...

thegreateski wrote...
They do not end.

They will.  They have.  They do.  Books 'do not end.'  Pages always
addable.  Sequels.  Prequels.  Still linear.  Will end eventually.

Even so.  Infinite line still a line.

Agreed.

Modifié par thegreateski, 21 février 2010 - 09:39 .

[h_pepon]

thegreateski wrote...

tetracycloide wrote...

thegreateski wrote...
They do not end.

They will.  They have.  They do.  Books 'do not end.'  Pages always
addable.  Sequels.  Prequels.  Still linear.  Will end eventually.

Even so.  Infinite line still a line.

Agreed.

I also agree with the guy who writes like Mordin.

[Frozenmojo]

Slidell505 wrote...

I'd like to see some larger hub worlds to wonder in,but bioware games are story driven and linearity makes it easier to tell a story. I'd also like to see NPC that actually walk,just send an email to Todd Howard BW he'll show you.

You should give him pointers on how to tell a story while you're at it too. Not to mention how to make 3rd person animations.

[Dualcode]

Theres a huge difference to games now than was years ago. I actually even remember playing Baldur's Gate! And yes that makes me feel very old. But even then there was a linear build-up. Granted you could do whatever you wish between point A and point B. But it also had direction which you had to move along. ME2 doesnt have that, even in Sidemissions you are somewhat forced down a certain Path from point A to point B. Although you can still do Missions in any Order you like, for example you can get Jack before Mordin, but you still have to get Mordin anyway.



Its the same with all games, even Fallout and Deus Ex, you will have to do certain things regardless of Order. What ME2 lacks in that regard however is simply that you can not even really chose how to fulfill a Mission. You are always forced to fight, except in one small bit at the End, since it has more of a "Stealth" feel to it. So yeah, to advance the Mainstory you will always have to do certain Missions and they will always be rather linear. Even Sandbox games like Saints Row and GTA had that.

[Nautica773]

h_pepon wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

tetracycloide wrote...

thegreateski wrote...
They do not end.

They will.  They have.  They do.  Books 'do not end.'  Pages always
addable.  Sequels.  Prequels.  Still linear.  Will end eventually.

Even so.  Infinite line still a line.

Agreed.

I also agree with the guy who writes like Mordin.

I agree with Mordin as well.  Non-linear is a catchphrase used in video game marketing but has no real value in a discussion about the merits/demerits of a narrative.

[rwilli80]

All games are inherently linear... I have yet to run into the game that never ends.

[Endurance_117]

rwilli80 wrote...

All games are inherently linear... I have yet to run into the game that never ends.

Second Life

[thegreateski]

Endurance_117 wrote...

rwilli80 wrote...

All games are inherently linear... I have yet to run into the game that never ends.

Second Life

Observation: That is not a game. It is a monstrosity.

[the_one_54321]

rwilli80 wrote...
All games are inherently linear... I have yet to run into the game that never ends.

For all single player games this is true. However, try out NWN in a PlayerWorld. Actual free form play.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 21 février 2010 - 10:24 .

[ValendianKnight]

I don't get where you guys get that ME1 was less linear than ME2. It's not. Sure, there was a lot more empty space, corridors and rooms, but mostly there was no freedom. You get to choose the order in which to do 3 main missions and it's back to being linear again, with some side quests thrown in if you're so inclined. That's not much more or less than what ME2 did. BioWare removed the fat from ME1, they did not make any thing less complex or non-linear. Hell, look at all the planets you can land on and the side quests you do. Sure, they aren't overly complex, but they are miles ahead of anything you had to do inside bunkers and in barren texture maps. All this simply makes ME2 a more fun game to play over all, and allows me to spend more time actually shooting and playing and less time comparing armor with 2% difference in stats for EVERY character, and driving around a retarded vehicle in barren planets with nothing but a small bunker for "exploration".



Anyways, it's pretty obvious, if a game wants to tell an exceptionally good story, it will need to make sacrifices in regards to freedom. ME(and most BioWare games actually) series still does a very good job at letting you make your experience unique to you, and still delivering a great plot. Also, for whoever mentioned JRPGs. Yeah, WRPGs have linear aspects to them sure, but you are delusional if you really think if it's anywhere near as bad as MOST JRPGs. Seriously look at games like FF13. You get ZERO freedom. I'll take SOME freedom over that any day. If at LEAST they could deliver a strong, well written story like BioWare can, I'd excuse the linearity. But they can't, so JRPGs just tend to fail as games period.

[shep82]

slimgrin wrote...

Why not strike more of a balance between exploration and a story driven plot, like ME1 did?

Too much effort for some gamers?

The hubs and levels look great; I know that takes up memory. But the end level in ME1 is as artistically inspired as anything in ME2.

They kept that same ballance just shortened the levels a bit and actually made exploration fun unlike most of the side quest in ME 1. I love ME 1 but they outdid themselves with ME 2. The graphics are better the gameplay is better and as awesome as the story was in ME they even outdid themselves there too!

[Schneidend]

Hizoka003 wrote...

ok here is the line explained for you, seeing how you cannot fathom it on your own. Shepard is rebuilt and told of the big bad, that is point A. Due to the Big Bad you must make a team, so you go recruiting, that is point B. Now that you have your team you go after big bad to victory, that is point C in a stright line. Simply becasue you can get Tali before Jack does not change the fact that it is still just a point in the overall line, its a choice not a sandbox.

That's an oversimplification that simply isn't accurate. Point B would have to be either of the two mandatory missions in between the game's beginning and end. Moreover, you can only do so many quests before you must arrive at Point B. If you spend time not recruiting and doing Loyalty and N7 missions Illusive Man will contact you and force you to go to B. The fact that you can potentially not get some squadmates until after B makes it non-linear.

Modifié par Schneidend, 21 février 2010 - 11:09 .

[the_one_54321]

Hizoka003 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Hizoka003 wrote...
Also people crap on Wow, yes its a horribly flawed game, but with 11 million people paying 15 bucks a month to play it, they must do something right. WoW brings in 164 million dollars a month, that more money then ME2 will make in its lifetime

We have this saying about large numbers of stupid people, and the amount of power they have...

you can continue to dump on them but Bilzzard will keep laughing at you all the way to the bank

its funny how single people think they are the ones who are enlightend when, yet they ignore what real. Personaly i do not like wow anymore they changed the game too much, but that does not change the fact that its the most played game in the world right now. You dump on the Wii, but yet more people own Wiis then PS3 and Xbos combined, and its not becasue of "stupid" people as you say, it becasue they want GAMEPLAY, not CoD4 clones every 3 months.

Gameplay needs to be the focus of a game, not story, not charater development, but GAMEPLAY. The other things are fantastic in games, but they can never trup how the game plays, no matter how great the story is if the game is a turd to play its a turd game.

Oh, I don't think Blizzard is stupid. Blizzard got a cash cow, so they shoudl be thrilled.

The people that play this for hours and hours and hours and hours and don't really get anywhere..... That's a different story. $15 may not be much money but to pay $15 a month to not advance a story at all, is quite literally an exercise in futility.

Also, I never said anything about the Wii.

Also, I never said anything about gameplay.

But I do disagree with you about gameplay being the end-all-be-all of games. It's necessary, the same way story is necessary. Sometimes having quality in one can make up for a lack in the other, and it works both ways. And sometimes lacking one just means the game is horrible.

[ImperialOperative]

rwilli80 wrote...

All games are inherently linear... I have yet to run into the game that never ends.

What does longetivity have to do with linearity?

An infinite line is still a line.