Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
What’s with the “straightforward” trend?
And what I mean is a linearity when proceeding forward. Let me try to explain:
In a “simple” design, we have “a” group of locations, and we can only do our business here, and when we’re finished, we proceed to “b” group of locations and we can’t go back to “a” group nor we can access “c” group until we’re finished with “b”. Then, again, we can only travel inside the “c” group of locations until we’re done and proceed to “d”.
In a more “free” design, the gameworld is “open” and we can travel between “a”, “b”... group of locations at your disposal. It doesn’t have to be “completely” open, there could be some variety:
like so that the game is divided in two “worlds” and the second starts halfway through (Toonstruck here comes to mind, although you’re still able to go back to World 1 if I do remember).
Of course, nothing is written in stone and I’m sure there’re some great games that fall under the “simple” category with the first picture. But I think the balance is largely on the former option or some of its variants in last couple of years.
Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwright’s Tale
I think it’s pretty much because a lot of people like structured approach over “free form”. They like the idea that things happen in a certain order and goals that are clearly defined. Of course goals can be clear in more free form game as well, as can the structure, but from developers POV the linear is easier to do.
I think it’s pretty much because a lot of people like structured approach over “free form”. They like the idea that things happen in a certain order and goals that are clearly defined. Of course goals can be clear in more free form game as well, as can the structure, but from developers POV the linear is easier to do.
Yeap, Gabriel Knight had a great “work around” with that problem while in the “open” form: You could “check” if some locations are still worth visiting in order to advance in the game. That’s a great feature, because if you don’t want to use it, you can still enjoy the “open” aspect of the gameworld, and if you’re fed with it you can check the current global goals.
Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwright’s Tale
Good topic. If I may:
We as players aren’t trusted anymore so we are confined to small spaces where the story moves forward. To give us a huge world at the beginning like Riven did or the early Sierra games (QfG, KQ) is now unthinkable. This is the problem with thinking of adventure games as fiction stories like a book or movie. It makes the game very limited in what it can be.
It is possible to guide players without taking away their freedom to roam. Look at a game like Freddy Pharkas where you have access to almost the whole environment in the first part of the game. Yet it is a fully-fledged narrative-based game, and it is very well done.
Developers need to get over their egotistic obsession with controlling and orchestrating everything. Taking away the the freedom of exploration and discovery is taking away much of the joy of adventure games.
I think it’s pretty much because a lot of people like structured approach over “free form”. They like the idea that things happen in a certain order and goals that are clearly defined. Of course goals can be clear in more free form game as well, as can the structure, but from developers POV the linear is easier to do.
Yeap, Gabriel Knight had a great “work around” with that problem while in the “open” form: You could “check” if some locations are still worth visiting in order to advance in the game. That’s a great feature, because if you don’t want to use it, you can still enjoy the “open” aspect of the gameworld, and if you’re fed with it you can check the current global goals.
I think if Gabriel Knight was a better game then it would use old locations to advance the game. If I remember Monkey Island 2 in particular did this, making it worth going back to where you had been because of what you might find. Even a small joke or clue, then it’s worth it.
It’s probably also having to do with the changing demography of adventure gamers. The students who played the games that came out in the “golden age” of adventures now have jobs and families, but they still play. However, they have less time to play and don’t want to spend whole evenings going around the game world achieving nothing. So companies cater to their needs with ‘simpler’ adventures that have linear gameplay.
Having said all that, these games have always been around in droves, and of course people remember the best games they have played and forget the other ones (unless they were really bad of course).
However, they have less time to play and don’t want to spend whole evenings going around the game world achieving nothing.
Sounds like RPG to me 
But I have yet to see a completely linear, non-interactive RPG that could be finished in 3 hours. Or a successful RTS. Only shooters and adventure games have been constantly simplified since 2000’s. I don’t think the lack of time or change of interests have something to do with it. Looks more like a diversion… 
PC means personal computer
People in general (both developers and players) are becoming more and more lazy, spoiled brats that won’t put even trivial effort in thinking, let alone “tedious mooooving” a mouse for some (God forbidden) backtracking. That word is almost like a curse now.
It’s probably also having to do with the changing demography of adventure gamers. The students who played the games that came out in the “golden age” of adventures now have jobs and families, but they still play. However, they have less time to play and don’t want to spend whole evenings going around the game world achieving nothing. So companies cater to their needs with ‘simpler’ adventures that have linear gameplay.
Having said all that, these games have always been around in droves, and of course people remember the best games they have played and forget the other ones (unless they were really bad of course).
I agree with this.
Having said that, I prefer games that go along the lines of:
A -> ABCD -> EF -> G
(which is surprisingly close to what MI2 did, for instance)
The truth can’t hurt you, it’s just like the dark: it scares you witless but in time you see things clear and stark. - Elvis Costello
Maybe this time I can be strong, but since I know who I am, I’m probably wrong. Maybe this time I can go far, but thinking about where I’ve been ain’t helping me start. - Michael Kiwanuka
I think it’s easier to find bugs when the game is strictly linear. The more non-linearity, the more chance the developer won’t be able to predict the path a gamer might take, and the more chance for bugs like conversation topics appearing before or after they’re relevant, hotspots coming available too soon (or not at all because the gamer did something that was supposed to be done after interacting with the hotspot—so the game assumes the hotspot isn’t necessary any more), and other bugs that can happen with performing actions “out of order.” Ideally thorough beta testing would find any problems, but not all bugs get fixed due to lack of time before release.
Then there’s the issue about how closely the game is intended to follow the storyline. Some stories work with non-linearity better than others.
It’s probably also having to do with the changing demography of adventure gamers. The students who played the games that came out in the “golden age” of adventures now have jobs and families, but they still play. However, they have less time to play and don’t want to spend whole evenings going around the game world achieving nothing. So companies cater to their needs with ‘simpler’ adventures that have linear gameplay.
Having said all that, these games have always been around in droves, and of course people remember the best games they have played and forget the other ones (unless they were really bad of course).
I agree with this.
Having said that, I prefer games that go along the lines of:A -> ABCD -> EF -> G
(which is surprisingly close to what MI2 did, for instance)
We always agree on anything TimovieMan 
It depends on the story of course. If the protagonist has to travel the world to save it or someone/something you could end up with
A -> ABCD -> EF -> G
but if everything takes place in the same house or village you (hopefully) get
ABCDEF.
The worst linear adventure I’ve played was probably Hand of Fate, in which you travel from screen to screen through the story, and your complete inventory would be empty every time you found yourself on a new screen. Which of course meant that all the puzzles you had to solve could be solved with the things you found there. Eventually that becomes pretty boring.
This is the problem with thinking of adventure games as fiction stories like a book or movie. It makes the game very limited in what it can be.
True. Story is also an important part of AG, and the simple truth is that it is much easier to tell a story in a linear manner than in a non-linear way, not better, not the only possible way, not depends on the type of story, just easier. In my opinion writers that haven’t got the talent to tell a not-completely-linear story should stick to writing books and movie scripts, and leave games to those that does have the talent.
It of course doesn’t mean that all games have to be completely non-linear or open world games. The best story based games usually has a balance between linearity and non-linearity, where each chapter or location is more or less completely non-linear, but the overall progress of the story with different chapters or locations are still linear. Somewhat similar to the third picture in the OP.
I think it’s pretty much because a lot of people like structured approach over “free form”. They like the idea that things happen in a certain order and goals that are clearly defined.
In all fairness then I have to admit that this ^ is also part of the explanation. There seem to be a lot of players even on this forum, that prefers a more linear approach to their games and gets confused when they are dropped into large non-linear areas like the Floating Blackmail Market in Chaos on Deponia. So it isn’t just because the developers are all a bunch of talentless lazy hacks, there also seems to be a demand for it.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
I think it’s all about keeping the interest of the modern gamer. Back in the day you’d go to the store and shell out $50 for a new game, and no matter how hard or even boring it was, you’d keep playing and trying to figure it out.
Now when people are buying games for so much cheaper, and with so many more entertainment options out there that are just a click away, it’s important to keep people’s interest with a more tightly focused narrative.
A game like Full Throttle would totally still work nowadays, and could still be very successful. But something like Kings Quest 6 would only be able to find a niche audience. And even in that limited group, a large percentage of them would probably not end up finishing the game.
It’s kind of sad, but I believe that’s the truth. And I definitely think that’s why this trend exists.
Good topic. If I may:
We as players aren’t trusted anymore so we are confined to small spaces where the story moves forward. To give us a huge world at the beginning like Riven did or the early Sierra games (QfG, KQ) is now unthinkable. This is the problem with thinking of adventure games as fiction stories like a book or movie. It makes the game very limited in what it can be.
It is possible to guide players without taking away their freedom to roam. Look at a game like Freddy Pharkas where you have access to almost the whole environment in the first part of the game. Yet it is a fully-fledged narrative-based game, and it is very well done.
Developers need to get over their egotistic obsession with controlling and orchestrating everything. Taking away the the freedom of exploration and discovery is taking away much of the joy of adventure games.
I love this, and agree completely.
More mainstream potential, since an open ended approach generally makes the game more thinky and difficult. Additionally, it is easier to design an easy game. Telltale has made it clear that financial success could be had off this lazier/easier approach.
More mainstream potential, since an open ended approach generally makes the game more thinky and difficult. Additionally, it is easier to design an easy game. Telltale has made it clear that financial success could be had off this lazier/easier approach.
I wouldn’t call their working schedule “lazy”. Almost 20 different series and 100 episodes in the last 10 years - that’s impressive even for an AAA publisher. Of course, most of their games follow the same design scheme, utilize same engine and don’t exceed 3 hours limit, but still, one can tell a lot of work was put into [s]cloning[/s] production.
PC means personal computer
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
