fett on 15/5/2009 at 17:26
I was playing Splinter Cell again last night (sorry...) and I was struck again with how important it is to build a game world and simply let the kids play in it. I was standing on a rooftop and needed to get down. There were all kinds of balconies, rails, light posts, trees, and trellises but Sam wouldn't interact with any of them; He couldn't interact with any of them. Then I found it: The Magical Stove Pipe. Apparently the single object on the roof that Sam Fischer, spy/navy seal/badass extraordinaire recognized as a legitimate way to climb down from the roof. What's my point?
If I'd been playing Garrett, I would have leaped for the balcony across the way because in Garrett's world, if I can see it, I can interact with it. The other point is that while in Sam's world, he had to stand in a particular place to climb down; in Garrett's world, I'd better be careful about walking on the edge of the roof because one misstep and I'm going to slip off that bitch and fall to my death. Just like in real life, where's there's no pop up window asking if I'd like to rappel. In SC, every time I find the SINGLE window that will slide open on the building, I'm reminded that someone designed it, and Sam becomes just as dead as if he'd been sniped. I'm rudely ejected from the game world, and I hate it.
I've been gaming for almost 20 years and I've never (NEVER) experienced a greater thrill in a game than the first time I climbed out of the game world in TDP. In fact, some people were so excited by the ability to do that, entire playing styles and websites were created around it - and LGS probably smacked their foreheads and lamented the lack of polish. But they built a world where the player could climb wherever they wanted. If it was made from wood, a rope arrow would stick into it. Sure, there were places where wood beams were put there on purpose, but sometimes it was random, and we got to climb just for the sheer hell of it. I've seen the City from hundreds of unintended angles and looked out over the edge into the void of DromEd and thought, "now THIS is a game."
It's counter-intuitive to the mindset of today's developers. Games are polished to a shine, and every possible path that a player might take is anticipated, scripted, textured, and plotted to be meaningful. Problem is, it's only meaningful to the developers. I tell you now, there is no greater sense of accomplishment than trying to jump to a forgotten ledge in the Bonehoard for 20 minutes only to find it leads to...a dead end. It's like real life. It's unscripted, and the developer never intended anyone to go there, but I did, so ha. And now that spot belongs to me - it's what I make it and the experience is mine, not the developers.
This is what was so painfully cringe inducing about the climbing gloves in TDS. They could only be used where the developer had specifically intended, to accomplish a predetermined goal, at a pre-determined time. I never got to accidentally fall out of the Old Quarter into space, and I'm the poorer for it. It's the difference between discovering something the developer intended, and discovering something on my own. That's the secret of Thief's longevity, and the myriad websites that teach us how to rocket jump to our death in the courtyard of the Cathedral. It's the inspiration behind Lytha style, and Thumpers "strange and unusual" adventures. It's why I spend hours stacking boxes to get to the top of angelwatch, and why I spent days trying to find a spot where I could jump down to the street without failing the mission. It makes for realism and replayability.
So please EM, above all else, don't give us stove pipes and a single window to climb through. Build a world that breathes and let us play in it. We want to fall off roofs, get stuck behind trash bins, and not quite be able to reach that ledge that there's absolutely nothing behind, but we've got to get there just in case. That's the secret.
jtr7 on 15/5/2009 at 17:34
\o/ \o/ \o/ \o/
BRAVO!
Mastery!:D
The Magpie on 15/5/2009 at 17:39
Cue Queen - I want to break free.
--
L.
addone on 15/5/2009 at 17:45
While I agree with pretty much everything you said. I don't think a game should be incredibly open all the way through... I don't find games fun when there aren't any linear moments. To call linearity crap is extremely ignorant (I'm not saying you, fett were saying that, if you've been gaming 20 years...I'd imagine you know when to appreciate linearity.) I just thought I'd point out.
The Half-Life series...a GREAT series, but very linear. It is an example of how linearity was done well, where the player was drawn to doing things, a lot of playing on your subconscious happened throughout that game. If you listen to the developer commentary you'll learn of the amount of effort gone into trying to get the player to just go that way without even thinking about it, and not be reluctant to go the intended direction.
I remember reading somewhere (about developing a game well), if you can give the option of three doors, two of the doors you're not supposed to enter, one being the right door. And you can lead the player to go through that right door (while still giving the option to go through the wrong door) without even thinking about it, then you've done it (linearity/openness) well...especially if you can do it subtly. Using lighting, sound and so on to lead you into the right door. Obviously the context makes a difference as well.
Thief has managed to do a perfect blend of linearity and openness. Thief, while being very open, you are drawn the right way. Splinter Cell on the other hand does linearity very badly, like you were saying.
All this being said, unless the game asks for it (for example, in Half-Life), then obviously, linearity throughout a whole game isn't gonna be good either :P) It was frustrating with Deadly Shadows, because there were so many moments where I just wanted to get to a certain place, but it simply didn't let me.
But yeah, I agree with everything you said, Fett.
Twist on 15/5/2009 at 17:48
I love everything in the post, but I don't like the title. :p
I think developers tend to consider "open world" to mean sandbox games like Oblivion and Grand Theft Auto. And I don't want to accidentally give the impression to anyone at Eidos Montreal that we want Thief: The Elder Scrolls Age.
Thief is unique in that it provides freedom and opportunity for creativity...
within a series of structured environments. Each mission provides a tremendous amount of freedom, but you still complete specific objectives and move the story along a linear structure through a briefing movie and a move to a new mission.
Sandbox games are completely open and thus suffer a little too much redundancy (as the worlds are inevitably constructed with too much copy & paste) and a lack of motivation or purpose.
Yahtzee does a nice job discussing this difference in his video review of Oblivion (in which he mentions Thief in contrast to Oblivion):
(
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/75-Oblivion)
Garrettwannabe on 15/5/2009 at 18:05
Great post & I think that may be an advantage
(but have to admit I'm worried about others) of them using the same engine as the Tomb Raider engine. I'm guessing since they chose it for DX3 - they will for T4 and thus, the levels
should be large and open to exploration
(only thing I really like about TR games) and hopefully we can see large cities from the start points and then go explore them. :thumb:
Quote:
Eidos Montreal's recently announced Deus Ex 3 will use a modified version of the engine created by Eidos-owned sister studio Crystal Dynamics for Tomb Raider: Legend (PC, PS2, X360).
"We chose the Crystal engine because we plan to help develop this engine more and then share it back with the rest of the company," Eidos Montreal manager Stephane D'Astous told Develop. "Having that technology from the start gives us a great advantage and foundation for our coders--there are no doubts about the approach, and we have few uncertainties."
(
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50146) ShackNews Story Link
Game Engine Website:
(
http://www.crystald.com/)
Tannar on 15/5/2009 at 18:06
Thank you fett! Fantastic!
You read my mind. Very nicely said! :thumb:
nickie on 15/5/2009 at 18:09
Very eloquent and perfectly explains how I feel too. Thank you. :)
Dia on 15/5/2009 at 18:33
Agreed! Very well said, fett! :thumb:
infinity on 15/5/2009 at 19:05
Morrwind is Sandbox by how I define it. I've reached level 45 and never touched a single faction quest: that's pretty wide open. But that I said, totally agree with Fett! Thief is not Half-Life where you spawn on one side of bad guys, and have to get through the other, going from one hallway to the next vent, to the next tunnel. It's not Morrowind (or Daggerfall for that matter) where there is an entire world in front of you.
No, Thief is in it's own perfect little medium where you are plopped down in front of a mansion, or ruins, or a church, or whatever (or in Assassin's case, for example, near a mansion) and told 'get rich'. You can do whatever you want with the mansion sitting in front of you. It's open and clear, and a bit overdone (I spent too much time wandering the city in 'Assassins' saying to myself, the Devs did not need to do this...) without making the character lost.
I agree with Fett.
