Dumbing down for consoles... grrr...

fett on 28/10/2009 at 06:05

Quote Posted by Captain Spandex

And while I agree with the argument that Deadly Shadows has a briefing / mission / briefing / mission 'trudging' feel that detracts from the overall experience... the same could be said of The Dark Project, to an even greater extent. Most of those missions are painfully linear. Doesn't stop me from loving TDP, and doesn't hurt my enjoyment of DS, either.

what

Captain Spandex on 28/10/2009 at 07:16

Not sure how that's a ridiculous statement to make.

Bafford's Manor: More than one way to enter or exit the place, but the same could be said of The Castle at the beginning of Thief 3. Highly linear level, otherwise. Read any walkthrough of the level online, and it's likely identical to 100+ other walkthroughs of the same level.

The Sword: Same deal. Different entrances and exits, a few different pathways to take to obtain the Sword. All of which are cool. But, again, the same could be said of the Kurshok Citadel. Both missions are still extremely linear.

These are just off the top of my head.

Chade on 28/10/2009 at 21:41

Now here's an interesting question. Let's compare two missions. Mission A is a string of rooms connected in a line. Mission B has the exact same bunch of rooms connected in a grid (so, of course, the rooms must have four doorways instead of two, but otherwise are exactly the same). Each room has a piece of loot, and each mission requires the player to collect 100% of the loot.

On an inter-room basis, is mission B more nonlinear then mission A? After all, the player must sneak through every room in either mission. The only difference is the order in which he does so. Is this a meaningfull difference?

On an intra-room basis, mission B allows the player to choose one of four (three?) entrances he uses to enter the rooms. Mission A allows the player no choice. This is an increase in non-linearity. But by how much? Players who enter a room via separate doors initially have a different set of choices, but that difference degrades as they spend longer in the room. As soon as their paths overlap, the choices they face from then on become identical.

What exactly do we mean when we say that thief is non-linear, and does large scale non-linearity make a significant contribution to this?

Malleus on 28/10/2009 at 23:04

Quote Posted by Chade

On an inter-room basis, is mission B more nonlinear then mission A? After all, the player must sneak through every room in either mission. The only difference is the order in which he does so. Is this a meaningfull difference?

I'd say it's the difference between an obviously artificial and a believeable environment. Now imagine Lord Bafford's Manor filled with locked doors that force the player to a single path visiting every room once (or as few times as possible). Would that be meaningfully different that the current design? I hope to god nobody answers 'no' to that.

Captain Spandex on 28/10/2009 at 23:10

That would be Silent Hill.

*Rimshot*

I'll be here all night, folks. Two-drink minimum.

Chade on 28/10/2009 at 23:49

Quote Posted by Malleus

I'd say it's the difference between an obviously artificial and a believeable environment.

I think you're right. The importance of "large scale non-linearity" seems to be largely aesthetic.

The effects of large scale non-linearity seems to be localised to the boundaries between loosely coupled parts of the map (e.g., getting inside ramirez's manor: a small discrete number of options which are initially highly meaningfull, but quickly becomes meaningless within the tightly coupled interior).

However, while the actual gameplay consequences of that choice faded quickly, the fact that I was choosing between a small number of aethetically distinct options meant that the choice felt important. If I was to describe how I played that mission, I wouldn't talk about how I navigated the room next to the kitchen, but I would tell you what entrace I used to enter the mansion.

In fact, now that I think about it, I realise that I've actually argued against features that would add meaning to the player's "large scale path" around the level (like guards waking up after being knocked unconscious, for instance). The idea was that the player should be able to explore missions at his own leisure.

Anyway, what was my point again? Just that you have to be carefull when you argue about "non-linearity", I suppose ... The meaning of the term depends on what sort of choices you consider meaningfull. A single narrow tunnel in thief can considered highly non-linear, if you count all the different tools you have to get through it. An interconnected maze can be considered highly linear, if you don't consider spatial exploration to involve any meaningfull choice. In fact, I tend to agree with both these points of view. Some people don't consider a game to be non-linear if one playstyle is always optimal (or even just sufficient), no matter how many other playstyles may be available.

sNeaksieGarrett on 29/10/2009 at 01:31

It's a little hard to follow what you guys are saying...
But if I may, I'm going to try to put my own 2 cents into the jar.

Linearity vs non-linearity
(Disclaimer: My interpretation)

Linearity:

This is when the level design forces the player into a certain path. Take for example Left 4 Dead. Each campaign is highly linear. The player moves from Point A to Point B. This is what comes to mind when I think of linear level design - you go from point A to point b, and that's it.

Non-linearity:

This is a little harder to define, as what I'm about to explain can still be considered linear level design. (i.e. Point A to Point D, but Point B and C are two alternate paths that lead to Point D.)
So I'll take thief as the example since that's what the topic is.

In Thief 2 for example, the level called Ambush! (isn't it called that? it's the city map) has you start out in one part of a large map, but the player has the choice of going at least two different pathways. Eventually, the player gets to his or her goal, but the player isn't forced to go one particular way to get to said goal.

Quote Posted by Chade

A single narrow tunnel in thief can considered highly non-linear, if you count all the different tools you have to get through it. An interconnected maze can be considered highly linear, if you don't consider spatial exploration to involve any meaningfull choice.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you are saying matches to my above explanation.

jtr7 on 29/10/2009 at 02:30

Thief is story-driven and not a choose-your-own-adventure, therefore, the starting points and end points are dictated by the linearity of the story. The Ambush/Trace the Courier map shows a great deal of freedom between start and end, with only the objectives as the restricting dots to connect with straight, wavy, or scribbled lines. Thief also strongly encourages vertical paths, for full three-dimensional non-linear pathways. Caverns and subterranean missions will naturally be more linear. An expanded City in Thief 4 mission maps would create exponentially more user variation between the dots of objectives.

Chade on 30/10/2009 at 02:25

Quote Posted by sNeaksieGarrett

This is a little harder to define, as what I'm about to explain can still be considered linear level design. (i.e. Point A to Point D, but Point B and C are two alternate paths that lead to Point D.) ... Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you are saying matches to my above explanation.

Not really.

In the conversation above, before I started to post, you had a bunch of posts talking about non-linearity, but using entirely different definitions for the term.

The most common way in which people talk about non-linearity is large scale spatial choice. Going in via the side-door vs going in via the roof. Taking tunnel A rather then tunnel B. I believe this is the way you are using the term, but perhaps you are using a more generic definition of "path".

So I'm saying two things:

Firstly, non-linearity is a measure of how much choice the player has. The term is defined by the type of choice you are interested in. Spatial choice is not the only type of choice that thief offers, and is not necesarily what you are referring to when you say that thief is non-linear.

Secondly, large scale spatial non-linearity plays a relatively minor role in thief's stealth gameplay. The player is encouraged to sneak through most parts of the map. The order in which he does so is largely immaterial: most of thief's choices have local consequences only. Of the few global consequences (an alarm going off maybe), most are punishments for failure, rather then an intentional part of the player's strategy.

Large scale non-linearity was a central part of thief 1 and 2's aesthetic, however (remember that thread asking members to describe thief in three words? Iirc exploration was mentioned at least as much as stealth, and immersion/atmosphere were mentioned more then either exploration or stealth).

Captain Spandex on 30/10/2009 at 03:30

I agree that large-scale non-linearity was a part of Thief 1 and 2's aesthetic... but here's where the anti-Thief: Deadly Shadows crowd always loses me: How did DS not have the same sort of level design?

In the Overlook Manse: Front door, hidden passage above the front entrance, hidden passageway through the floor connected to the tunnels... those were all ways to enter and leave the Overlook Manse. And it wasn't alone. The Hammerite Factory, the Castle, even the Inn in Stonemarket that you could repeatedly rob had at least three points of entry and exit.

Seems to me to be the same philosophy. The actual areas themselves were considerably smaller due to the Xbox's (and to be fair, to a smaller degree, PCs of the day's) RAM strictures, but the actual non-linear level design philosophy seems identical to me.