If you don't know what this is look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay
What do you think?
What do you think of a new Zelda game with a branching story line?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
i wouldnt object to not having a set order in which all the dungeons would have to be done. however, i'd prefer the angle to be one that encourages exploration rather than fruitlessly tries to tell more of a narrative driven story. i dont think "will link rescue the gorons in the fire temple or will he forsake them to rescue the princess from ganon's castle?" is the best way to go about the series although i admittedly have enjoyed some other games that made a similar design. i think the better way would be to give some general goal involving completing dungeons and then let the player loose.
the problem for nintendo is that they would have to rethink their dungeon and item design. the current linear path allows them to know what tools the player has and then design accordingly.
They would be forced back to block pushing for puzzles or if they gave you every weapon from the start; it would cannibalize the content revolved around collecting items and dilute the feeling of character growth. Sepewrath
because every puzzle not in a zelda game just involves pushing blocks and the zelda games with a set order of dungeons never used block puzzles.
and the power fantasy aspect of hording items is hardly what the series needs to hold onto.
They would be forced back to block pushing for puzzles or if they gave you every weapon from the start; it would cannibalize the content revolved around collecting items and dilute the feeling of character growth. SepewrathOr they could make they could keep the dungeon designs the same, with puzzles based around specific items, but let the order you obtain items be determined by the player. The dungeons the player can enter is dependent on which items they've found. It would take a lot of work to get the system to work, but it could be done.
because every puzzle not in a zelda game just involves pushing blocks and the zelda games with a set order of dungeons never used block puzzles.
and the power fantasy aspect of hording items is hardly what the series needs to hold onto.
And another thing about those puzzles is they are not item based like Zelda games, if your going to attempt to make a snide remark, at least have it make sense. [QUOTE="meetroid8"] Or they could make they could keep the dungeon designs the same, with puzzles based around specific items, but let the order you obtain items be determined by the player. The dungeons the player can enter is dependent on which items they've found. It would take a lot of work to get the system to work, but it could be done. Isn't that problem people have with the series, the whole get the item in the dungeon and have it be the answer to everything? That would only be worst, when a dungeon literally couldn't involved any other item. Its not just puzzles either, its also enemies. Hard to make an enemy where you need the Clawshot for be a mini boss, when they cant assure the player has a Clawshot. It even goes as far basic exploration, where its limited by not having a set order for acquiring items.And another thing about those puzzles is they are not item based like Zelda games, if your going to attempt to make a snide remark, at least have it make sense.Sepewrathitems were used in earlier zelda games primarily as keys to unlock new areas and supplement the exploration. this design where everything revolved around them only came later when nintendo wanted to make the series more approachable to a wider audience.
They have settled into the Link to the Past style progression and as I originally said, keeping the original in mind. The puzzles were rather simplistic, mostly non existent to be honest, to compensate for the fact that they couldn't be sure of what you had. Look at it like this, in the City in the Sky you got a second Clawshot, so that Link could do his best Spider-Man impression. They couldn't do that, unless they were sure you had the first Clawshot. I'm not saying that its impossible to do good puzzles without items, I'm saying its needlessly limiting.
Zelda has for a long time been about gameplay variety and the tools are a huge part of that. They cant be though, if there is no structure to how you collect them. They cant have a dungeon where you use the Hookshot, Bow and Arrow, Bombs and Iron Boots. So everything would become rather generic to support the minimal possible loadout. At any point you can show up with only a sword and shield, so everything from navigation, to puzzles to combat has to be designed with that in mind. So no Hookshotting up the Forest Temple, you have to just walk in. That would be a huge step back if you ask me, not everything has to try and be Fallout 3.
They have settled into the Link to the Past style progression and as I originally said, keeping the original in mind. The puzzles were rather simplistic, mostly non existent to be honest, to compensate for the fact that they couldn't be sure of what you had. Look at it like this, in the City in the Sky you got a second Clawshot, so that Link could do his best Spider-Man impression. They couldn't do that, unless they were sure you had the first Clawshot. I'm not saying that its impossible to do good puzzles without items, I'm saying its needlessly limiting.
Zelda has for a long time been about gameplay variety and the tools are a huge part of that. They cant be though, if there is no structure to how you collect them. They cant have a dungeon where you use the Hookshot, Bow and Arrow, Bombs and Iron Boots. So everything would become rather generic to support the minimal possible loadout. At any point you can show up with only a sword and shield, so everything from navigation, to puzzles to combat has to be designed with that in mind. So no Hookshotting up the Forest Temple, you have to just walk in. That would be a huge step back if you ask me, not everything has to try and be Fallout 3.
Sepewrath
i think its the opposite. controlling the order of the dungeons in which the player goes to is needlessly limiting. dont take this as me being dissatisfied with the series. the N64 entries are among my favorite games of all time and wind waker isnt far behind. however, my favorite parts arent the masterfully conducted dungeons. instead, they tend to be moments when the goal is very general and im left to my own devices.
wind waker had a truly great exploration system once the sea opened up. i love seeing silhouettes of islands in the distance and not knowing whether ill find a meager cluster of jelly enemies or wander into a mini-dungeon. its why im one of the few people who actually really enjoyed the triforce hunt at the end of the game. however, the entrance into a full dungeon never had quite the same impact because the game kindly guides the player into them and gives them full warning that they are entering into a big dungeon.
perhaps my favorite moment in gaming is in OoT when link first leaves the kokiri forest and the owl flies away to reveal that hyrule field has just opened up (it's a moment very similar to the post-tutorial sections in oblivion and fallout 3, if perhaps different in tone than the latter). sure, the game does mention that you should probably head to hyrule castle. or is it kakariko village? i can never remember. i never go there first. a whole world has just opened up to me.
I don't really care if it has a branching storyline or not, I just want a little more exploration. I don't want full blown Skyrim or anything, I just want a little more adventure in my adventure game.
That has little to do with the dungeon structure though. You mentioned that moment specifically with OoT, well OoT had a very a specific order to the dungeons. There is nothing stopping them from opening up the bulk of the world right from the start, like being able to head straight to the castle, Lon Lon Ranch or Lake Hylia. They lose nothing by doing that, they just don't have to make dungeons like that. Because they do lose something in that situation. Sepewrath
yes, the order of dungeons in OoT is relatively set (it actually has the most wiggle room of any of the 3D zeldas because the dungeons tend to focus on developing a few contained mechanics alongside your general arsenal), but just because there are glimpses of the freedom im talking about in OoT doesnt mean they couldnt be heightened with different design decisions. as much as i like the prospect of stumbling onto a fishing oasis right as hyrule field opens up or the ice cave as soon as link grows up, it's not the same as having the game built around uncovering entire dungeons because the game encourages it (as opposed to actively funneling the player).
all you really lose in that situation is the growing sense that every dungeon has to showcase not only its own central theme but also the central theme of all the dungeons that came before it.
[QUOTE="Sepewrath"] OoT had a very a specific order to the dungeons. wiifan001
You can beat the Fire/Water/Forest Temples in any order you wanted without ever entering another. The game suggests to visit Forest Temple first but you can certainly beat those out of order.
Going into a dungeon, getting the weapon, leaving and doing another does not count as doing it in any order. The only ones you can go in and complete and it doesn't matter which is first, is the Fire Temple vs the Water Temple. You need the Bow in the Water Temple.
^And like I said, you lose a lot more than that with the dungeons having no set order, I gave an example of that already. I think Wind Waker had the perfect balance, an adventure doesn't mean your flying totally blind. You had a set goal, dungeon/island etc. But you could turn the wind and just head in any random direction. That is all the series needs to do, lets say you set out on Epona, your suppose to go to Kakariko, but instead you head to the Gerudo village and get into a mini game where you get into a series of horse races.
They also have a archery challenge, but you have no Bow, so you have come back for that. You can climb Death Mountain, find some collectables, meet some NPC's etc, but the frozen side is blocked by big wall, that is destroyed with a weapon you get or a character you help eventually. Hanging out in the field and coming across a cave and in homage to the original Zelda, you find some weird guy inside selling upgraded weapons, some secret fishing hole or something. I find that far more appealing than getting the exact same thing, but also losing the value of item progression.
the difference here is that i value the discovery of the dungeon and how that can affect the overworld more than the specifics of the dungeon itself (and really, the extra control nintendo gets by setting the order of the dungeon isnt taken full advantage of for a lot of the dungeons in terms of theme. its just used to make the obstacle course aspect of it bigger).
i just see how ordering the dungeons less sacrifices anything but a crutch. a lot of really great puzzles in zelda games have used either no items, items link can pick up at a shop, or only the dungeon item. for example, one of my favorites is in the deku tree in OoT
[spoiler] to get through the webbing that blocks the bottom floors, link must climb to the top of the tree and jump onto the webbing with enough force to break it. it's ingenious because it is in the first dungeon of the first 3D zelda game. it requires a vertical level design that wasn't possible in 2D. it also makes the player look at the dungeon as a 3D space, which is obviously a high priority in OoT. it connects the majority of the dungeon in a tangible way. it also doesnt require any items (although the dungeon item does help). [/spoiler]That is a great non item puzzle and there are many more great examples, that use dungeon tools i.e. the cannons in Snow Peak Ruins or flipping Stone Tower. But then there are a ton of examples of great item based puzzles, like working the wind so that you can reach a far ledge with the Deku Leaf. And you call having an order a crutch, well the same can be said about being totally open. Because the game no longer requires meticulous design, when it can just fall back on the crutch of it being open. Sepewrath
and that meticulousness isnt always used to full effect. it makes the dungeons bigger, but it doesnt necessarily make them better. for instance, most dungeons have some sort of use for the bomb bag even if that isnt the dungeon item. it doesnt add anything to the theme of the dungeon. OoT's spirit temple is about the duality of the two time periods and any mechanic that doesn't work towards that them (using the mirror shield to create reflections is one that does) is really fluff. they are there because gamers expect zelda games to be a certain length.
also, making an open game isnt easy either. bethesda certainly knows the difficulty of making open worlds. square enix has also said that they have been making more linear games because it takes so much coordination on current hardware to open them up.
[QUOTE="meetroid8"] Or they could make they could keep the dungeon designs the same, with puzzles based around specific items, but let the order you obtain items be determined by the player. The dungeons the player can enter is dependent on which items they've found. It would take a lot of work to get the system to work, but it could be done.SepewrathIsn't that problem people have with the series, the whole get the item in the dungeon and have it be the answer to everything? That would only be worst, when a dungeon literally couldn't involved any other item. Its not just puzzles either, its also enemies. Hard to make an enemy where you need the Clawshot for be a mini boss, when they cant assure the player has a Clawshot. It even goes as far basic exploration, where its limited by not having a set order for acquiring items.
Dungeons could require a certain combination of items in order to be entered. Take all of the items out of the dungeons and put them in the overworld, let the player discover them at any order or rate they want, and have the items you've obtained determine which dungeons you can complete. Then we have the "open" Zelda game everyone seems to want.
and that meticulousness isnt always used to full effect. it makes the dungeons bigger, but it doesnt necessarily make them better. for instance, most dungeons have some sort of use for the bomb bag even if that isnt the dungeon item. it doesnt add anything to the theme of the dungeon. OoT's spirit temple is about the duality of the two time periods and any mechanic that doesn't work towards that them (using the mirror shield to create reflections is one that does) is really fluff. they are there because gamers expect zelda games to be a certain length.
also, making an open game isnt easy either. bethesda certainly knows the difficulty of making open worlds. square enix has also said that they have been making more linear games because it takes so much coordination on current hardware to open them up.
It was fluff? Couldn't you make that same claim about any puzzle at all? Or about a game being open? Is there any reason to put 2 miles between A and B vs just putting 10ft? That would be considered fluff too, just to make the game longer. Yeah open world games aren't easy, but Bethesda's games shows the scars of open world. First off, their generally broken out the box, but I'll give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt on that front. But you see how it suffers on other fronts, the gameplay is pretty lackluster, the characterization is weak, the level design is weak and there is no gameplay variety. And you cant use the excuse of it being an RPG, because there is no rule that says an RPG has to suffer from those issues. But open world games, those kind of things are a constant, including the original Zelda. That's not what I want from a Zelda game.
Could work if done right, but I don't like the idea initially. There are many other things I would like to seem them do to Zelda, rather than something unecessary like this.
and that meticulousness isnt always used to full effect. it makes the dungeons bigger, but it doesnt necessarily make them better. for instance, most dungeons have some sort of use for the bomb bag even if that isnt the dungeon item. it doesnt add anything to the theme of the dungeon. OoT's spirit temple is about the duality of the two time periods and any mechanic that doesn't work towards that them (using the mirror shield to create reflections is one that does) is really fluff. they are there because gamers expect zelda games to be a certain length.
also, making an open game isnt easy either. bethesda certainly knows the difficulty of making open worlds. square enix has also said that they have been making more linear games because it takes so much coordination on current hardware to open them up.
It was fluff? Couldn't you make that same claim about any puzzle at all? Or about a game being open? Is there any reason to put 2 miles between A and B vs just putting 10ft? That would be considered fluff too, just to make the game longer. Yeah open world games aren't easy, but Bethesda's games shows the scars of open world. First off, their generally broken out the box, but I'll give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt on that front. But you see how it suffers on other fronts, the gameplay is pretty lackluster, the characterization is weak, the level design is weak and there is no gameplay variety. And you cant use the excuse of it being an RPG, because there is no rule that says an RPG has to suffer from those issues. But open world games, those kind of things are a constant, including the original Zelda. That's not what I want from a Zelda game.nope, there are lots of puzzles which are important to the themes of the games they are in rather than only scale or play time. braid is built around each area being a gameplay form of the journal entries that precede them (primarily some facet of time). in zelda, the more focused puzzles have also been about time. i think OoT was most on point (shiek's quick speeches were the backbone) but as i said earlier it also has fluff.
im glad we agree that making a good open world game is no easy task. however, i believe nintendo houses some of the best developers in the world and they could surely make another fine open world game. characterization has nothing to do with being open or linear. level design is of the utmost importance due to the importance of the game world. most of all, open world games encourage exploration which is obviously important in a zelda game.
Or they could keep Zelda to its roots and make a new adventure-genre IP, with an open-world and branching story lines :|.
And like I keep telling you, the game doesn't have to be Skyrim to encourage exploration. People always talk up the exploration aspect of the early Metroid games, but those had very set paths. If you went someplace you weren't suppose to be, you just hit a brick wall and had to turn back. There is no reason the next Zelda cant do the same, without having to expose itself to the unavoidable weaknesses of an open world title. It doesn't matter how good you are, the downsides of open world games are a by product of the structure; there is no way to dance around it.
Characterization definitely depends on open vs linear, you think Uncharted could do the character work that it does, if Drake could be anywhere at anytime? Of course they couldn't? Here's an example, take TP, when you finally caught up with Ilia; lets say the game totally open and you didn't go there until after you did the last dungeon, how could they have had any of that character arc with her? They couldn't. Open world games are populated with throw away characters, telling mini stories that are at best, thinly related to the main plot.
But I think its safe to say this is going nowhere, we have two totally different views on what makes an adventure. A real world example would be say me and my friends were going to Tokyo to go to TGS. On the way, we decide to veer off and head to Kyoto and Okinawa first and then afterward he head to China. We can have a set goal and then just do over stuff; we don't have to be randomly roaming, burning bushes, until we find a place we want to visit. The former is much of an adventure as the latter. It would still be one, even if we planned all those stops in advance.
And like I keep telling you, the game doesn't have to be Skyrim to encourage exploration. People always talk up the exploration aspect of the early Metroid games, but those had very set paths. If you went someplace you weren't suppose to be, you just hit a brick wall and had to turn back. There is no reason the next Zelda cant do the same, without having to expose itself to the unavoidable weaknesses of an open world title. It doesn't matter how good you are, the downsides of open world games are a by product of the structure; there is no way to dance around it.
Characterization definitely depends on open vs linear, you think Uncharted could do the character work that it does, if Drake could be anywhere at anytime? Of course they couldn't? Here's an example, take TP, when you finally caught up with Ilia; lets say the game totally open and you didn't go there until after you did the last dungeon, how could they have had any of that character arc with her? They couldn't. Open world games are populated with throw away characters, telling mini stories that are at best, thinly related to the main plot.
But I think its safe to say this is going nowhere, we have two totally different views on what makes an adventure. A real world example would be say me and my friends were going to Tokyo to go to TGS. On the way, we decide to veer off and head to Kyoto and Okinawa first and then afterward he head to China. We can have a set goal and then just do over stuff; we don't have to be randomly roaming, burning bushes, until we find a place we want to visit. The former is much of an adventure as the latter. It would still be one, even if we planned all those stops in advance.
Sepewrath
Best post I have ever seen from you ;). 100% agreed.
People act like I want Skyrim when I say exploration. But the fact of the matter is, I DO NOT want Zelda to be skyrim. I want it to have the exploration of Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, and Wind Waker, but on a grander scale. And by grander I don't necessarily mean larger world (though a bit larger would be cool), I mean more. There is quite a bit of unlockables and hidden goodies in those games, but putting even more in and building upon it would be great. With that said, I don't want the main quest line to be open and all the characters drab and generic to fit the open storyline. Zelda and Metroid strike the perfect balance for me, not say there is no point in games like Skyrim or Uncharted.
That sounds pretty sweet actually... would play.
And like I keep telling you, the game doesn't have to be Skyrim to encourage exploration. People always talk up the exploration aspect of the early Metroid games, but those had very set paths. If you went someplace you weren't suppose to be, you just hit a brick wall and had to turn back. There is no reason the next Zelda cant do the same, without having to expose itself to the unavoidable weaknesses of an open world title. It doesn't matter how good you are, the downsides of open world games are a by product of the structure; there is no way to dance around it.
Characterization definitely depends on open vs linear, you think Uncharted could do the character work that it does, if Drake could be anywhere at anytime? Of course they couldn't? Here's an example, take TP, when you finally caught up with Ilia; lets say the game totally open and you didn't go there until after you did the last dungeon, how could they have had any of that character arc with her? They couldn't. Open world games are populated with throw away characters, telling mini stories that are at best, thinly related to the main plot.
But I think its safe to say this is going nowhere, we have two totally different views on what makes an adventure. A real world example would be say me and my friends were going to Tokyo to go to TGS. On the way, we decide to veer off and head to Kyoto and Okinawa first and then afterward he head to China. We can have a set goal and then just do over stuff; we don't have to be randomly roaming, burning bushes, until we find a place we want to visit. The former is much of an adventure as the latter. It would still be one, even if we planned all those stops in advance.
Sepewrath
The thing is... Skyward Sword had those weak worthless throwaway characters too and its extremely linear.. You mention uncharted, but are you honestly going to say that the two accomplish anywhere near the same thing? Skyward Sword is full of throw-away characters, fluff, and meaningless side-quests, and yet its more narrow than games that accomplish more in a more diverse progression layout.
[QUOTE="Sepewrath"]
And like I keep telling you, the game doesn't have to be Skyrim to encourage exploration. People always talk up the exploration aspect of the early Metroid games, but those had very set paths. If you went someplace you weren't suppose to be, you just hit a brick wall and had to turn back. There is no reason the next Zelda cant do the same, without having to expose itself to the unavoidable weaknesses of an open world title. It doesn't matter how good you are, the downsides of open world games are a by product of the structure; there is no way to dance around it.
Characterization definitely depends on open vs linear, you think Uncharted could do the character work that it does, if Drake could be anywhere at anytime? Of course they couldn't? Here's an example, take TP, when you finally caught up with Ilia; lets say the game totally open and you didn't go there until after you did the last dungeon, how could they have had any of that character arc with her? They couldn't. Open world games are populated with throw away characters, telling mini stories that are at best, thinly related to the main plot.
But I think its safe to say this is going nowhere, we have two totally different views on what makes an adventure. A real world example would be say me and my friends were going to Tokyo to go to TGS. On the way, we decide to veer off and head to Kyoto and Okinawa first and then afterward he head to China. We can have a set goal and then just do over stuff; we don't have to be randomly roaming, burning bushes, until we find a place we want to visit. The former is much of an adventure as the latter. It would still be one, even if we planned all those stops in advance.
WreckEm711
The thing is... Skyward Sword had those weak worthless throwaway characters too and its extremely linear.. You mention uncharted, but are you honestly going to say that the two accomplish anywhere near the same thing? Skyward Sword is full of throw-away characters, fluff, and meaningless side-quests, and yet its more narrow than games that accomplish more in a more diverse progression layout.
I take it you are not a fan of SS? :P
While it is a good game, it was a definite dissapointment. With that said, I cannot think of a completely open ended game with a non-preset questline that is as good as the best pre-set quest lines. Most of the games like this suffer when it comes to characters, story, and pacing. I just want them to go back to OoT and MM (and even WW) but make it all that much grander and special :).
And like I keep telling you, the game doesn't have to be Skyrim to encourage exploration. People always talk up the exploration aspect of the early Metroid games, but those had very set paths. If you went someplace you weren't suppose to be, you just hit a brick wall and had to turn back. There is no reason the next Zelda cant do the same, without having to expose itself to the unavoidable weaknesses of an open world title. It doesn't matter how good you are, the downsides of open world games are a by product of the structure; there is no way to dance around it.
Characterization definitely depends on open vs linear, you think Uncharted could do the character work that it does, if Drake could be anywhere at anytime? Of course they couldn't? Here's an example, take TP, when you finally caught up with Ilia; lets say the game totally open and you didn't go there until after you did the last dungeon, how could they have had any of that character arc with her? They couldn't. Open world games are populated with throw away characters, telling mini stories that are at best, thinly related to the main plot.
But I think its safe to say this is going nowhere, we have two totally different views on what makes an adventure. A real world example would be say me and my friends were going to Tokyo to go to TGS. On the way, we decide to veer off and head to Kyoto and Okinawa first and then afterward he head to China. We can have a set goal and then just do over stuff; we don't have to be randomly roaming, burning bushes, until we find a place we want to visit. The former is much of an adventure as the latter. It would still be one, even if we planned all those stops in advance.
Sepewrath
and this is where i didnt want the conversation to go. when people talk about great characters, they always bring up some empty icon with tons of dialogue and cutscenes. you can put cutscenes in nearly any design. god knows rockstar loves to try. you can also mess it up in nearly any design (like ND making nathan drake a smooth talking mass murderer, only the player doesnt do any of the talking). however, cutscenes dont make a good video game character.
there are different ways to go about making an adventure. and actually, i think it would be pretty neat if there was a zelda where i could plan out all my stops in advance (although usually in the better worlds, even good plans see some improvisation). however, there's a difference between that and having somebody else plan out my stops for me. nintendo has been a great tour guide over the years, but i wouldnt mind being able to get off the bus more.
but youre right that this probably isnt going anywhere. its been fun either way.
[QUOTE="Sepewrath"]And like I keep telling you, the game doesn't have to be Skyrim to encourage exploration. People always talk up the exploration aspect of the early Metroid games, but those had very set paths. If you went someplace you weren't suppose to be, you just hit a brick wall and had to turn back. There is no reason the next Zelda cant do the same, without having to expose itself to the unavoidable weaknesses of an open world title. It doesn't matter how good you are, the downsides of open world games are a by product of the structure; there is no way to dance around it.
Characterization definitely depends on open vs linear, you think Uncharted could do the character work that it does, if Drake could be anywhere at anytime? Of course they couldn't? Here's an example, take TP, when you finally caught up with Ilia; lets say the game totally open and you didn't go there until after you did the last dungeon, how could they have had any of that character arc with her? They couldn't. Open world games are populated with throw away characters, telling mini stories that are at best, thinly related to the main plot.
But I think its safe to say this is going nowhere, we have two totally different views on what makes an adventure. A real world example would be say me and my friends were going to Tokyo to go to TGS. On the way, we decide to veer off and head to Kyoto and Okinawa first and then afterward he head to China. We can have a set goal and then just do over stuff; we don't have to be randomly roaming, burning bushes, until we find a place we want to visit. The former is much of an adventure as the latter. It would still be one, even if we planned all those stops in advance.
LoG-Sacrament
and this is where i didnt want the conversation to go. when people talk about great characters, they always bring up some empty icon with tons of dialogue and cutscenes. you can put cutscenes in nearly any design. god knows rockstar loves to try. you can also mess it up in nearly any design (like ND making nathan drake a smooth talking mass murderer, only the player doesnt do any of the talking). however, cutscenes dont make a good video game character.
there are different ways to go about making an adventure. and actually, i think it would be pretty neat if there was a zelda where i could plan out all my stops in advance (although usually in the better worlds, even good plans see some improvisation). however, there's a difference between that and having somebody else plan out my stops for me. nintendo has been a great tour guide over the years, but i wouldnt mind being able to get off the bus more.
but youre right that this probably isnt going anywhere. its been fun either way.
Meh, I think you are wrong. Good characters don't come from gameplay or cutscenes. They come from good design and good writing. Scenes are just a way to give you a more in depth and believeable moment of that (or those) characters, contributing to the way you view them.
I don't know why people insist on hating cutscenes. I love them. Baal from Diablo II is one of the best characters ever because of them :P. What is wrong with Nathan Drake? I have yet to find an open ended character that I love as much as scripted ones. Often times when you are given choice, it dilutes the possobilities and sometimes makes your character contradict themselves and act strangely.
[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="Sepewrath"]
And like I keep telling you, the game doesn't have to be Skyrim to encourage exploration. People always talk up the exploration aspect of the early Metroid games, but those had very set paths. If you went someplace you weren't suppose to be, you just hit a brick wall and had to turn back. There is no reason the next Zelda cant do the same, without having to expose itself to the unavoidable weaknesses of an open world title. It doesn't matter how good you are, the downsides of open world games are a by product of the structure; there is no way to dance around it.
Characterization definitely depends on open vs linear, you think Uncharted could do the character work that it does, if Drake could be anywhere at anytime? Of course they couldn't? Here's an example, take TP, when you finally caught up with Ilia; lets say the game totally open and you didn't go there until after you did the last dungeon, how could they have had any of that character arc with her? They couldn't. Open world games are populated with throw away characters, telling mini stories that are at best, thinly related to the main plot.
But I think its safe to say this is going nowhere, we have two totally different views on what makes an adventure. A real world example would be say me and my friends were going to Tokyo to go to TGS. On the way, we decide to veer off and head to Kyoto and Okinawa first and then afterward he head to China. We can have a set goal and then just do over stuff; we don't have to be randomly roaming, burning bushes, until we find a place we want to visit. The former is much of an adventure as the latter. It would still be one, even if we planned all those stops in advance.
NaveedLife
and this is where i didnt want the conversation to go. when people talk about great characters, they always bring up some empty icon with tons of dialogue and cutscenes. you can put cutscenes in nearly any design. god knows rockstar loves to try. you can also mess it up in nearly any design (like ND making nathan drake a smooth talking mass murderer, only the player doesnt do any of the talking). however, cutscenes dont make a good video game character.
there are different ways to go about making an adventure. and actually, i think it would be pretty neat if there was a zelda where i could plan out all my stops in advance (although usually in the better worlds, even good plans see some improvisation). however, there's a difference between that and having somebody else plan out my stops for me. nintendo has been a great tour guide over the years, but i wouldnt mind being able to get off the bus more.
but youre right that this probably isnt going anywhere. its been fun either way.
Meh, I think you are wrong. Good characters don't come from gameplay or cutscenes. They come from good design and good writing. Scenes are just a way to give you a more in depth and believeable moment of that (or those) characters, contributing to the way you view them.
I don't know why people insist on hating cutscenes. I love them. Baal from Diablo II is one of the best characters ever because of them :P. What is wrong with Nathan Drake? I have yet to find an open ended character that I love as much as scripted ones. Often times when you are given choice, it dilutes the possobilities and sometimes makes your character contradict themselves and act strangely.
*dons balaclava* well, it seems this thread will be highjacked now :P
cutscenes are dangerous line to walk in video games. sometimes they can set the stage for the gameplay in a succinct manner, but the problem is that developers generally dont use them for brevity. they use them to sloppily give exposition or show some action scene they couldnt be bothered to work into the game (and likely has no place in the game to begin with other than to look "awesome"). the use also gives the temptation to load too much of the storytelling into the cutscene and you get characters that are completely different in gameplay.
basically, it comes down to video games needing to tell their stories like video games because theyll never tell them like films and be any good. films have the benefit of pacing that even the most linear game will never have. they have the control to match music to the visuals in a way games will never have. they control editing for a potentially hypnotic effect. i love films and thats why i think cutscenes should be downplayed in games.
Well you do know that for games to tell their stories, strictly in game, they would have to be incredibly linear. Because those are just set pieces and set pieces are harder to do than cinematics and there are no do overs if the players misses it. So that tour bus is going to have chains on the seats and some kind of dungeon master, to keep you from getting off lol. There is not a log of wiggle room in the world of set pieces. However with cinematics, they activate when you cross an invisible line, they warn you when their starting and control most everything, so they know you see it. Because of that, they can lighten up on the control in actual gameplay. Its either that or you go the Metroid Prime style, but that wouldn't work for most games. I think it could work for a Zelda game though and I think the Wii U tablet would make for a great parchment. Sepewrathi love me some metroid prime. dark souls also has a great delivery device where the player learns about the world around them by inspecting objects they pick up. demon's souls had these really evocative environments (and metroid prime for that matter, which brilliantly visualize the relationship the space pirates have between technology and nature) with one of my favorites being the mine level. the idea is that the inhabitants have gone mad and seek only more riches. as a result, the grunt enemies ignore the player character and just claw mindlessly at the rock walls with their fingers for more ore. theyre pretty crappy enemies, but i feel so bad stabbing them in the back (but always do it anyway :P ).
Well you do know that for games to tell their stories, strictly in game, they would have to be incredibly linear. Because those are just set pieces and set pieces are harder to do than cinematics and there are no do overs if the players misses it. So that tour bus is going to have chains on the seats and some kind of dungeon master, to keep you from getting off lol. There is not a log of wiggle room in the world of set pieces. However with cinematics, they activate when you cross an invisible line, they warn you when their starting and control most everything, so they know you see it. Because of that, they can lighten up on the control in actual gameplay. Its either that or you go the Metroid Prime style, but that wouldn't work for most games. I think it could work for a Zelda game though and I think the Wii U tablet would make for a great parchment. Sepewrath
lmao nice. Yeah, scenes are a sure fire way of getting something across. In game can be very complicated. Zelda has always had scenes, just not as many as some games. It doesn't mean you follow a tunnel through the whole game, it just means there are scenes when apporoaching iconic new areas and such. I love the way they do it in most Zelda games.
PS - FFX opening scene is frikkin awesome :P. As are Diablo II cutscenes.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment