Neb on 31/8/2016 at 02:48
I played Dishonored with all of the waypoint markers, etc, turned off. There was only one objective (in the DLC actually) which had me stumped. You had to go back and summon your assassin buddies, and I spent close to an hour visiting everywhere in the level looking for them before turning the UI helpers back on to discover that it was just an invisible trigger that was impossible to know about without the interface.
Besides that, I never had a problem.
Renzatic on 31/8/2016 at 02:54
There were about 2 or 3 times I got stumped on something in the game. Though in its favor, it wasn't nearly as bad as what I detailed above.
I can contrast it pretty well, because it used to never happen to me in games like Thief and the original DX, which actually went out of its way to detail things for you. If I ever did get lost in those games, it felt like a natural consequence of the sprawling levels, rather than due to a dearth of information.
Starker on 31/8/2016 at 05:19
I remember getting lost in Morrowind quite a few times, but I didn't really mind. Felt more like an adventure that way. It's not like people in real life give perfect directions every time either.
demagogue on 31/8/2016 at 08:15
Incidentally, I think HalfLife 2 in particular was really the line here. What was that, 2004?
I remember the first time I played it and thinking, this is the future of gaming right here, and for a long time it felt like every FPS coming after it had its DNA. You could see a direct line from things it was doing to what so many other games took up. And the central element was basically what this video talked about, design geared around handing the player an experience, area by area. You consume the gameplay whatsit of that area, and then it shuttles you off to the next one. That and screen bling to validate your experience-consumption.
Stalker was the big exception among major FPSs (and I guess ArmA), which made me think the eastern European devs just never got the memo and made what they thought worked.
Starker on 31/8/2016 at 09:15
I think it's more the mass market than anything else. I'd wager that it's the main reason why so many AAA games evolved into the equivalent of Hollywood summer blockbusters. Of course, things like focus groups, metric-driven design and chasing current trends probably didn't help either.
Pyrian on 31/8/2016 at 14:33
Quote Posted by demagogue
Incidentally, I think HalfLife 2 in particular was really the line here. What was that, 2004? ... Stalker was the big exception among major FPSs...
Yeah, HL2 came out in 2004. One reason why it may not have influenced STALKER all that much is that STALKER's original release date was supposed to be 2003! It eventually stumbled out in 2007...
Yakoob on 31/8/2016 at 19:49
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Developers have become way too complacent with allowing automaps to become a crutch for them recently.
...or the players.
When I was developing Karaski I did not want to have an automap or anything like that. But over and over my testers kept getting lost and asking me for a quest arrow or map.
There were maps on the walls. There were signs at each door. You didn't even have to click on them, you could walk a little closer and read them. Almost no one did. It's a wonder these people can get around in real life. But then again, most of us stare down at our GPS-ed up smart phone these days.
Ironically, I have been demoing my latest game where you start off staring at an office desk with a few sticky notes explaining what to do. Not a single of the 3 people testing read the sticky notes.
I think it's definitely a bit of a reciprocal feedback loop - devs started making things easier, so gamers got complacent, so devs started relying on the crutches more and more, and the cycle repeated enough time to a point where people don't even read a sign obviously put in front of them.
... but I also abused the shit out of the "my next objective" waypoint in Bioshock Infinite. It fell on my "long day, just want to turn brain off and shoot shit" nights and didn't want to be intellectually stimulated
All kinds of games have their place.
Renzatic on 31/8/2016 at 20:05
This is true. As much as I gripe about it, I have become somewhat accustomed to it all the same. I realized this after firing up a Dark Mod missing mission (goddamn autocorrect) a couple weeks back, and starting out by feeling utterly rudderless without any real map or guide points to go by.
Though on that same note, I wonder why it is some games can be dinged for not holding your hand enough, while you have games like Dark Souls that have built their reputation on, and are surprisingly popular due to the fact that you're pretty much thrown into the deep end of the pool without water wings. Maybe it has something to do with people's expectations going in.
Nameless Voice on 31/8/2016 at 21:02
Dark Souls is a strange example, because while I love the freedom of those games, I also considered them to be somewhat unplayable without a guide.
True, that's not usually because of the level design as such, more the fact that they don't really explain enough of their system or choices, and also because they are so high-risk that you are somewhat discouraged from exploring (especially in DS1, with fully respawning enemies.)
I don't know. I still think that if you design your levels to be interesting enough, you shouldn't need an automap, or quest markers. If people are unable to find their way around, if they can't be bothered to read the notes right in front of them, then it's probably the wrong kind of game for them anyway.
A lot of people are talking about the System Shock series recently.
I played SS2 first, and only played the original many years later. However, even then, with its really awkward controls and super-dated graphics, I loved the openness of it, the way that you were free to explore the area, that you had to find your own way around, and especially that you had to work out exactly what to do next by yourself.
The game had a map, sure, but it didn't have much else. It certainly wasn't a case that the game was unplayable because it lacked modern wisdom such as quest markers - instead, it was awesome because of it.
Yes, sometimes everyone likes to just sit down and play something not too taxing, but games have so much potential for making you have to think, to actually engage your brain as well as your reflexes.
In fact, isn't that's an area where games really ought to excel compared to other media? Films are primarily passive and tell the story as directed, while games are active - so why do they constantly try to encourage us to be passive while playing them, rather than working on the strengths of their medium?
froghawk on 1/9/2016 at 00:23
Thing is, are system shock and thief really that taxing to play? I don't think so - the only time i recall getting hopelessly lost was the thieves guild, just because it was so big.
