How do you feel about these kinds of games? Obvious examples of this type of game are the first two Zelda games, the first Metroid, the first Final Fantasy, etc.
I definitely prefer this method actually. The story can still be present without it roadblocking you into single areas. And also, this lets you travel all over, find out where you can and can't go at the moment, and use your MIND. Because you have to THINK about which route you need to take to move on. Any game that railroads you the entire game doesn't require thinking about this, because they tell you exactly where to go, or lock you in that general direction where the other paths are blocked off by something ridiculous, like a sleeping old man. Why not just go around the old bastard?
I'm not a fan of games that are this open, especially not right from the start. I prefer direction and opening up the world, so that by the end when I'm more familiar with the terrain, it's more explorable.
(09-09-2012, 01:02 PM)Kriven Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a fan of games that are this open, especially not right from the start. I prefer direction and opening up the world, so that by the end when I'm more familiar with the terrain, it's more explorable.
That doesn't make any sense...if you've already done a once-over through the area because the game railroaded you through it, there's no exploration to be done, because you've already been through there. It's like the way it seems to happen in Pokemon now...you have to go through some route, find out there's a little puddle of water in your way on it, so you decide to come back later with Surf, and all you get is a damn Rare Candy. What the heck is that, especially if you're at Lv 100? Then there are the times you find a legendary, which are the best kinds, but it's usually in some cave that's not even really a place to explore because it's usually just a small little path to the Legendary.
This is a game factor that I rarely think about actually. To be honest I don't mind it either way, most games I play do it well either way. If they guide me every step of the way, it's normally needed and gives you a feel for the game that's required to enjoy it. Psychonauts does this, and while it tells you exactly what to do almost all the time (especially if you use the bacon), just accomplishing the tasks is what makes the game fun.
On the other hand, games where you start off clueless have clever ways of easing you into the gameplay. Even if you have to figure out everything yourself, it rarely overwhelms you too much to make you ragequit. Braid did this well, each world had an introductory level where you could discover and experiment with the new mechanic without any real guidance. Jonathan Blow's next game, The Witness, looks like it will be similar (you're on an island and have no idea why). I'm looking forward to it because I'm sure it'll also allow you to find out things yourself and really discover the game, but not make you trip and fall while doing so.
So yeah, as I said I don't really look at this factor much. Whatever the case, most games manage to make it work. And if they don't, I usually get over it and enjoy the rest of the game anyway.
As long as the game gives me a good map I don't mind. (Metroid 1 without a map... man did I use some paper...)
Unless it's a game like Journey, then it's fine without a map.
(09-09-2012, 02:20 PM)Koh Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't make any sense...if you've already done a once-over through the area because the game railroaded you through it, there's no exploration to be done, because you've already been through there. It's like the way it seems to happen in Pokemon now...you have to go through some route, find out there's a little puddle of water in your way on it, so you decide to come back later with Surf, and all you get is a damn Rare Candy. What the heck is that, especially if you're at Lv 100? Then there are the times you find a legendary, which are the best kinds, but it's usually in some cave that's not even really a place to explore because it's usually just a small little path to the Legendary.
If the game designers aren't idiots, there should be all sorts of side-paths and collectables to explore and find. Additionally, the only fun I get out of open worlds is "screwing around", which isn't really how I like to play.
There's also replaying an old area because it's fun, and experimenting with new equipment. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask were pretty good at making old areas new by including locations only accessible with certain items. Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie also did this.
Besides, if the areas I'm told to explore first are open enough to allow for exploration, I don't have a problem with not being able to access another part of the map until later. I don't want to be on a rail path like recent Sonic titles, but I do like some pretty distinct direction, and having to move Snorlax out of the way is a puzzle and a boss. Puzzles are fun. Bosses are fun.
It's funny how you say I don't make any sense because I disagree with you. Why did you start a
discussion if all you wanted was a pat on the ass?
Adding my opinion on this:
Open-ended games were never my favorite. I get its premise, but if you don't even have a north to go, it kills the reason of the game to exist. It is important to note, though, that this is a design choice and depends really on the type of the game and how it is implemented.
For example, I dislike the NES Metroid because of that. "Welcome to this huge maze with similarly designed rooms without hinting where to go, with some points of "now guess what's the next place you have to go, sucker"". That was ground-breaking for the time, but really, it is a huge turn off for me. Call me a baby player if you want, but Super Metroid and the subsequent titles were better because of the distinction of each place and a built-in map. All this, without hurting the open-endedness of the game. Zelda games are an another example, I enjoyed playing OoT because it gives you a path AND the possibility of doing what you want.
Figuring out on your own can be rewarding, but if you don't have any guide, it'll just make things unecessarily hard and non-enjoyable.
Also if the game guides you through the game, chances are you really need it (sure, there are exceptions and introduction levels should be used instead of written tutorials for this task) so I don't really mind, really.
A lot of old open-world games haven't really aged well, like the first couple of Zeldas and the first Metroid. Even then, there's still a defined order in which you have to do things in both games - you always need to get the Candle before you open the path to Level 5, you need to get the Flute from Level 4 to open Level 6 (it's been ages since I've played Zelda, I've forgotten which Level goes where), you always need to pick up the Morph Ball and High Jump before you can reach Kraid (actually, I think you get the High Jump by beating Kraid... which you need to reach Ridley. Again, haven't played in ages.). So when you ask,
Quote:Why not just go around the old bastard?
Surely you know that eventually, you're going to have to (it's that monster with the hunk of meat in the first Zelda game in that one dungeon), and you're going to have to do it the way the game designers want you to unless you purposefully break the game, so you're not really "free," just "allowed to do things slightly out of order." I don't consider breaking the game through glitches to really be an exercise of that "freedom."
Now of course, the game I'm contractually obligated to mention in open-world/Metroidvania games, Metroid Prime, lets you turn off the hint system it uses to tell you where to go, so you can basically turn it into the original Metroid, just in 3D and with much better gameplay. But you still have a defined order in which you do a lot of things, especially since Retro Studios don't seem to care for sequence breaking. But at least your only sense of direction is what doors you haven't opened yet.
(09-09-2012, 02:45 PM)Kriven Wrote: [ -> ]If the game designers aren't idiots, there should be all sorts of side-paths and collectables to explore and find. Additionally, the only fun I get out of open worlds is "screwing around", which isn't really how I like to play.
There's also replaying an old area because it's fun, and experimenting with new equipment. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask were pretty good at making old areas new by including locations only accessible with certain items. Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie also did this.
Besides, if the areas I'm told to explore first are open enough to allow for exploration, I don't have a problem with not being able to access another part of the map until later. I don't want to be on a rail path like recent Sonic titles, but I do like some pretty distinct direction, and having to move Snorlax out of the way is a puzzle and a boss. Puzzles are fun. Bosses are fun.
It's funny how you say I don't make any sense because I disagree with you. Why did you start a discussion if all you wanted was a pat on the ass?
It was the wording you had, not because I wanted you to agree with me. You said "so that by the end when I'm more familiar with the terrain, it's more explorable." This doesn't make sense. Once you go through the area, you have already "explored it." There's no more exploration to be had, other than to look behind the rock you couldn't get to before, for example.
(09-09-2012, 05:06 PM)Koh Wrote: [ -> ]It was the wording you had, not because I wanted you to agree with me. You said "so that by the end when I'm more familiar with the terrain, it's more explorable." This doesn't make sense. Once you go through the area, you have already "explored it." There's no more exploration to be had, other than to look behind the rock you couldn't get to before, for example.
This strongly depends on the game. Most games I know of that guide you through only do so when necessary, they rarely make you do everything possible in that area. Hell, they rarely guide you through every area.
Not having a good amount of extras or surprises for the player to discover is just bad game design. And often "that rock you couldn't get to before" can be something like "that hole in the ground you couldn't get to before which leads to a whole now area you can explore".
Although I prefer open-ended, and would like to be able to non-glitch non-cheat sequence break as long as I have the needed skills and know how to pull off a sequence break, I feel that its not so much a matter of open-world vs linear... but a matter of a "lost factor."
With the exception of in game maze areas, I think you should be able to pick up any game after not play for a while and within a few minutes either be able to work towards another objective, or figure out what you were doing. In other words, even if you forgot what you were doing, you're only a few minute away from having an idea what to do or where to go next.
I really dislike it when I pick up an old game after not playing for a while and having NO IDEA what I'm supposed to do next. Wandering in circles not remembering where I explored last time is no fun at all.
(New places to explore are hints on where to go next as far as I'm concerned)
Open world exploration is great, as long as you're always have an obvious direction back to the main path. Objective journals, Maps, easy to find towns with NPCs that direct you to places to go, and as annoying as she was, Navi, are all great methods of giving the player a direction to go. Doesn't even have to be a direct route to the main plot either, round about ways work as well, as long as you're not asking what next for too long.
do dark souls and demon souls count
after pretty brief introductory sequences to teach you the mechanics in a controlled environment, you're very much allowed to go wherever you want (or get owned at anor londo)
That's pretty much what I disliked about Dark Souls and liked more on Demon Souls. You can get screwed on both games since it doesn't tell you where to go, but it's much easier to know when an area is out of reach for you in Demon Souls, because they're sorted "level-like". I found Dark Souls open world to be too confusing ): (Probably me being dumb, but I liked the system in the first one better anyway)
I (think so anyway(no really i really really do(its great)) think Dark Souls level design has something going for it. It gives you very little direction, but unlike a majority of games in the action/adventure genre that give you an "open" world to explore, Dark Souls areas have this really wonderful, natural feel to them.
They give you just the right amount of freedom that it doesn't detract from what you "can't" do in the game world, and every area has a purpose to it.
(09-09-2012, 10:22 PM)total burning heart kojjiro Wrote: [ -> ]do dark souls and demon souls count
after pretty brief introductory sequences to teach you the mechanics in a controlled environment, you're very much allowed to go wherever you want (or get owned at anor londo)
I think that's just the case of a shit tutorial/poor game design. (And before "omg you just don't get Demon Souls" I went through it twice (as the first time is apparently not meant to be that great) and thought it was crap).