20th September 2004, 2:01 PM
Quote:ABF, after rereading a few things, I think you have the impression that I played Grim and MI4 with the keyboard. I used a Sidewinder, and it worked well enough, but as I said I just didn't like controlling it that way. I believe I've mentioned I have a Sidewinder controller before.
No, I said that those games would be not nearly as fun with a keyboard, not that you played them with one.
Quote:No I meant that the environments are simply too small for six people on your side. And then you'd have to have twice the number of baddies. And I never had problems with people being left behind.
It mostly happens in towns when you're running around bending paths and stuff. And unlike a isometric game you can't tell that they have gotten lost.
Hmm, size-wise... perhaps. But that is a solvable problem. Obviously if it was six-person parties some areas would be larger to accomodate them (I mean like buildings; the outdoor areas are mostly okay). Not a major issue here.
Quote:I never played enough of Fallout to see how it's story was, but I do not like the way stories are told in PC RPGs. It's all through endless talking with NPCs, reading scrolls, blahbityblah. That's not good storytelling, even if there is a great story scattered around.
Quote:If you pay attention to what I've said then you'll see that I am not contradicting myself. Linear games are best-suited for stories (right now), and non-linear games are not. I prefer non-linear RPGs because of their open-ended gameplay and can forgive the fact that the story isn't told well. You can still tell a story in a non-linear game but developers haven't figured out a method of doing it well.
How does this not contradict your position? I mean, on the one hand non-linearity is good in game design, but on the other hand non-linear elements in storytelling is bad? That just doesn't make much sense... I know we discussed that with Metroid Prime, but BG or Fallout are no Metroid Primes. This isn't a totally disconnected story like that! The games just make you work for your story. I like it better that way, overall. It's more realistic to make how you act and what kind of person you are affect how much you learn! And I mean this in terms of both concious gameplay decisions (in how you react to people in conversations -- do you ask everything you can, end it as soon as possible, aim for a fight with people who will, etc... -- and in terms of how your character stats should affect what people say to you (and they most definitely should. This is one of KotOR's best achievements.). Linear stories are fine, but it makes it more interesting when the player has input on the story in some fashion. And I mean either input in changing the ending or input in choosing if you want to go after the story or not... but typically you get more rewarded in these games for going after the story because you will get more quests, more experience, etc. for doing that than you will for ignoring people. It's your choice, but on that front I'd say that there is a clear better path... it's the actual choices you make in those discussions (other than 'you are stupid and I'm leaving that is...) that has no clear answer. :)
Oh yeah, and Fallout is as linear or non-linear as you want it to be. Like Freelancer with a time limit really. You can stay on the story or you can ignore it... you'll have to do some of it (or at least, if you know what you're doing, the aspects that will remove the time limit), unfortunately, but it's a big time limit and most people shouldn't have problems with running out of time or something. But it can be very non-linear (to the point of ignoring the story) if you wish... and even within that story there are multiple paths (based on how good or evil you want to act). Fallout 2 has no time limit and is even more non-linear. But I haven't played that one so I can't really say much else.
Oh, and of course talking with NPCs is how most of the story develops! How else could it work in games as dense and full of stuff as these? And I find it very rarely boring. This aspect of these games is a lot like an adventure game in many ways... in a good way. :)
Quote:Haha, perhaps you are correct. I could be more tactful.
Normally when someone mentions this you say 'it's how I am and it's not a problem to insult people' or something along those lines... or at least you used to.
Quote:Yes, I'm fully aware of that.
Um, but in this thread haven't you been saying that indirect controls are bad controls? ... either you're contradicting yourself of you haven't thought this through. :)
Quote:Now you're contradicting yourself! The controls in Freelancer are great and do their job very well and very few people complained about them, yet you despise them because they are not immersive and claim that they suck. Ever consider the thought that since others found the controls good then perhaps it's a just a problem with you? Asking yourself that will bring you closer to understanding the points that I am trying to get across to you, even if you think that I'm contradicting myself (I'm not).
'Despise' them? I don't think I said that. I said that I definitely prefer normal controls for games like this and that I think they work better, but I wouldn't say despise... that would mean that I hated the game and I did enjoy the demo. It just didn't feel much like a space sim as I know them. And for someone who likes that genre, that's not such a good thing. (and as I said, the simplicity factor is a HUGE part of that!)
If you hate complex control schemes and game systems (well, combat flight systems; Freelancer obviously has a complex economic and open-ended game model) then Freelancer would be great. But if you like having to manage the details of your space fighter, then it's not. I like that aspect of space sims (though not to the extent where I enjoy land-based flight sims... :)).
When you frame it in terms of space sims I can kind of see your point... but then again I said from the start that it had some impact. Just not much of one. But for me I guess you're right that for that genre it's more than that... but as I said a big part of that is simply because the genre works so much better with a joystick-based control system. Part of it is immersion, but probably the greater part gameplay realities...
But anyway, there is also another aspect here. This has a specialized control system -- a joystick. That is different, I'd say, than the difference between clicking with a mouse and holding buttons on a mouse -- it's a totally different system. Like racing wheels for driving sims, they're both for immersion and improved control...
But I will definitely say that in the context of an isometric or third-person title the difference isn't big immersion-wise. And which way that difference swings, as I said, depends on the game... and in the case of PC games that swing is most often to the side of indirect control by virtue of its significantly greater control opertunities. For something like an RPG, direct controls are limiting... DJ had a really great point when she said that the point of the game isn't about the walking, it's what you do at points of interst, as compared to a Zelda or Mario where the walking is a big part of the point. I wouldn't want to see Zelda have indirect controls for combat either, or see Mario auto-jump over pits... but different kinds of games are different. And I do not see anywhere near as big an importance in physically moving your character in these games as you do.