Maybe linearity isn't so bad...

Hey, this is the same guy as "siddhartha211"...i have a bunch of accounts, whatever

Anyways, I've started playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. recently, and aside from the fact that it looks like crap on my low-end system, it's not been exactly the experience I was hoping for. I only got into a couple combat sequences so far, most of my time has been spent talking with NPCs, gathering goods from bodies or stashes, or traversing the terrain to reach an objective. Maybe it's a bit too early to jump to conclusions, but the way the story is presented - through bits and pieces from NPCs, isn't particularly the most effective way of communicating the plot. I always used to scorn linearity in my forum posts, but I never really played an FPS as open as this one. Perhaps it's just the RPG elements that I'm not too enthused about...I don't really have a problem with an open map as long as I don't have to run long distances (which I do) so much as the fact I need to gather supplies, ransack corpses, find food, vodka, bandages, talk to NPCs and get quests to do - all these extra tasks that take me away from the battlefield where I'd rather be.

Yeah, so, here goes another topic on linearity vs. open-endedness...

Hey, this is the same guy as "siddhartha211"...i have a bunch of accounts, whatever

Anyways, I've started playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. recently, and aside from the fact that it looks like crap on my low-end system, it's not been exactly the experience I was hoping for. I only got into a couple combat sequences so far, most of my time has been spent talking with NPCs, gathering goods from bodies or stashes, or traversing the terrain to reach an objective. Maybe it's a bit too early to jump to conclusions, but the way the story is presented - through bits and pieces from NPCs, isn't particularly the most effective way of communicating the plot. I always used to scorn linearity in my forum posts, but I never really played an FPS as open as this one. Perhaps it's just the RPG elements that I'm not too enthused about...I don't really have a problem with an open map as long as I don't have to run long distances (which I do) so much as the fact I need to gather supplies, ransack corpses, find food, vodka, bandages, talk to NPCs and get quests to do - all these extra tasks that take me away from the battlefield where I'd rather be.

Yeah, so, here goes another topic on linearity vs. open-endedness...

xruntime

See? I told ya too much open-endedness is bad.....lol

How could you not like STALKER? I wasn't a big fan of the open-world concept before, but STALKER was downright fun. I agree, it was lacking a bit in the storytelling part but still, it was one of the main reasons i'm into this type of gameplay.

While linearity isn't as bad as some make it out to be, if not implemented properly, it can get on your nerves. My fav thing about linear gameplay is that it enhances the storytelling, making it seem somewhat like a movie. But yes, it starts to get boring the second time around.

I knew what I was getting into, it just turned out different than I expected. There's a lot more RPG in the game than I anticipated.

I have plenty of experience with open-ended. Played all of the GTAs...Crysis - a game that didn't have all these extra elements to it, most of it was primarily the combat.

Anyways, I still am really early in the game, just wanted to express my initial thoughts...

All I'm really saying is that I want more fighting instead of scavenging or interacting...

For me, it really depends how I feel. As said, some games do work better being open ended, and some games are better linear. For example Morrowind and Oblivion are probably the best example of open ended RPG's, and they did well. But an RPG like Jade Empire and fable are a bit more linear, but also did well. For me, again, it depends how I feel. there are times where I want to explore a whole new world and just look around, but there are times where I just want to play agame witha set and solid mission objective, one at a time linear fashion. But given that I'm not the type who would spend hundreds of hours on a given game, I think linear is more for me and there's nothing wrong with that.

Hey, this is the same guy as "siddhartha211"...i have a bunch of accounts, whatever

Anyways, I've started playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. recently, and aside from the fact that it looks like crap on my low-end system, it's not been exactly the experience I was hoping for. I only got into a couple combat sequences so far, most of my time has been spent talking with NPCs, gathering goods from bodies or stashes, or traversing the terrain to reach an objective. Maybe it's a bit too early to jump to conclusions, but the way the story is presented - through bits and pieces from NPCs, isn't particularly the most effective way of communicating the plot. I always used to scorn linearity in my forum posts, but I never really played an FPS as open as this one. Perhaps it's just the RPG elements that I'm not too enthused about...I don't really have a problem with an open map as long as I don't have to run long distances (which I do) so much as the fact I need to gather supplies, ransack corpses, find food, vodka, bandages, talk to NPCs and get quests to do - all these extra tasks that take me away from the battlefield where I'd rather be.

Yeah, so, here goes another topic on linearity vs. open-endedness...

xruntime

STALKER's main attraction is the atmosphere. The game isn't really that open-ended but it does a great job of making a player feel "in the game". The non-linear style of play helps along with the atmosphere and also has the major bonus of giving the game lots of replayability.

Linearity allows for more set pieces, scripted moments and a much tighter story. STALKER in particular is at odds with these, particularly the latter as you have pointed out. The story had potential but to try and present it in 2007 against the likes of Bioshock and EP2 without any voice acting is suicide really - a really lazy design decision. I was a bit bewildered by it myself.

I think there is far too much walking around in the game as well - another problem with these open world titles. It becomes downright boring at times and it isn't fun.

Linearity allows for more set pieces, scripted moments and a much tighter story. STALKER in particular is at odds with these, particularly the latter as you have pointed out. The story had potential but to try and present it in 2007 against the likes of Bioshock and EP2 without any voice acting is suicide really - a really lazy design decision. I was a bit bewildered by it myself.

I think there is far too much walking around in the game as well - another problem with these open world titles. It becomes downright boring at times and it isn't fun.

biggest_loser

GSC wasn't lazy.

Stalker was redeveloped God knows how many times, over the timespan of over 8 years. The dev team and budget wasn't big, so you might have to cut them some slack for not being able to properly polish such an ambitious project.

Besides, STALKER isn't about the story, it's about the atmosphere. And it definitely deserves the award of Best Atmosphere 2007 that Gamespot gave it. So it wasn't really "presented" against the likes of Bioshock and Episode 2 - it's trying to be it's own game.

And it suceeded. STALKER is a unique and it somehow manages not to feel like any other FPS/RPG hybrid. It's also got some nifty gameplay to make the overall product even better. I definitely enjoyed the game more than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and Portal in that department.

GSC wasn't lazy.

Stalker was redeveloped God knows how many times, over the timespan of over 8 years. The dev team and budget wasn't big, so you might have to cut them some slack for not being able to properly polish such an ambitious project.

aliblabla2007

Being indevelopment for that long it needed to be more polished than it was. They were overly ambitious in some of the things they wanted to implement and perhaps working ahead of their technology. Like trying to have a seamless world with no load times and supposedly photo realistic visuals as well. It is in their development diaries.

Besides, STALKER isn't about the story, it's about the atmosphere. And it definitely deserves the award of Best Atmosphere 2007 that Gamespot gave it. So it wasn't really "presented" against the likes of Bioshock and Episode 2 - it's trying to be it's own game.

aliblabla2007

There is plenty of backstory in STALKER - it just isn't presented very well at all. Being a FPS released last year it is difficult to not compare it to other games like those mentioned and the way they present their stories and the effort placed into the characters and voice acting.

Granted yes, the atmosphere is very good. You wont get an argument there. One of the scariest games on PC.

And it suceeded. STALKER is a unique and it somehow manages not to feel like any other FPS/RPG hybrid. It's also got some nifty gameplay to make the overall product even better. I definitely enjoyed the game more than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and Portal in that department.

aliblabla2007

It is a unique game in someways, particularly the setting, although I still think the gameplay with many fetch tasks isn't as ellaborate as they might have liked. I found it to be sometimes a fun but often frustrating experience. That is just my opinion. Though it is good you think outside the square and that you liked it. Kudos to you sir.

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

GSC wasn't lazy.

Stalker was redeveloped God knows how many times, over the timespan of over 8 years. The dev team and budget wasn't big, so you might have to cut them some slack for not being able to properly polish such an ambitious project.

biggest_loser

Being indevelopment for that long it needed to be more polished than it was. They were overly ambitious in some of the things they wanted to implement and perhaps working ahead of their technology. Like trying to have a seamless world with no load times and supposedly photo realistic visuals as well. It is in their development diaries.

For all the bugs, you can blame THQ for forcing GSC to release too early. GSC would have patched up the whole game if they got more time.

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

Besides, STALKER isn't about the story, it's about the atmosphere. And it definitely deserves the award of Best Atmosphere 2007 that Gamespot gave it. So it wasn't really "presented" against the likes of Bioshock and Episode 2 - it's trying to be it's own game.

biggest_loser

There is plenty of backstory in STALKER - it just isn't presented very well at all. Being a FPS released last year it is difficult to not compare it to other games like those mentioned and the way they present their stories and the effort placed into the characters and voice acting.

Granted yes, the atmosphere is very good. You wont get an argument there. One of the scariest games on PC.

I don't detect much backstory in STALKER, but to be honest I cannot care for a good story in an FPS. To me, it's a plus if you have it, but not a minus if you don't. Because above-average FPS stories are one in a full moon anyway.

I agree that STALKER's storytelling is horrendous, particularly to audiofreaks. I enjoy reading, so I had no problem with all the textual conversations in the game bar the terrible translations.

Besides, text isn't that bad for telling a story - Planescape Torment and it's 800, 000 words of text say hi.

[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

And it suceeded. STALKER is a unique and it somehow manages not to feel like any other FPS/RPG hybrid. It's also got some nifty gameplay to make the overall product even better. I definitely enjoyed the game more than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and Portal in that department.

biggest_loser

It is a unique game in someways, particularly the setting, although I still think the gameplay with many fetch tasks isn't as ellaborate as they might have liked. I found it to be sometimes a fun but often frustrating experience. That is just my opinion. Though it is good you think outside the square and that you liked it. Kudos to you sir.

It sort of went downhill once I got too powerful.

The battles are only real fun when you're so weak that every fight is a fight for your life. Once you turn into a walking tank with the G36 and Exosuit, then firefights start becoming boring.

Same goes for the money and goods. Once you successfully horde that stuff, then the "salvaging resources from all over the map" aspect flies out the window.

For all the bugs, you can blame THQ for forcing GSC to release too early. GSC would have patched up the whole game if they got more time.

aliblabla2007

Could have, would have, should have.

I don't detect much backstory in STALKER, but to be honest I cannot care for a good story in an FPS. To me, it's a plus if you have it, but not a minus if you don't. Because above-average FPS stories are one in a full moon anyway.

aliblabla2007

I agree that STALKER's storytelling is horrendous, particularly to audiofreaks. I enjoy reading, so I had no problem with all the textual conversations in the game bar the terrible translations.

Besides, text isn't that bad for telling a story - Planescape Torment and it's 800, 000 words of text say hi.

aliblabla2007

I think people would have accepted that back then in 1999 but given how much more involving the games are becoming in their stories with better facial animations and certainly more emotion with great voice acting it really isn't as interesting and engaging.

It sort of went downhill once I got too powerful.

The battles are only real fun when you're so weak that every fight is a fight for your life. Once you turn into a walking tank with the G36 and Exosuit, then firefights start becoming boring.

aliblabla2007

Oh I agree completely. I think that final portion of the game with the portals and the wish granter is diabolical and much more akeen to something from FEAR.

i agree, tc - linearity isn't so bad. in fact, it's a very good thing, and, as things are now, with open area a.i. not being all that stellar (i mean, crysis and stalker had good open area a.i., but it wasn't as impressive as those featured in more linear games like nolf or f.e.a.r. or even half-life), i find corridor shooters to be more exciting to play. that may change in the future, with a.i. getting better and better, but as it is, i'd rather have scripted sequences and even cutscenes driving the experience than to encounter some truly weird (read: stupid) a.i. every now and then in games like crysis or stalker.

but then again, i love both crysis and stalker, so i'm willing to argue for either case.

Depends on the game. Some games it's great to have linearity (Half-Life series), some is good to have open-endedness (RPGs). Judza

How exactly is Half Life's linearity great? It's not like it has a particularly amazing story. The game is pretty much all about going from point A to point B, killing enemies and solving puzzles along the way. There are large portions of the game where there's little to no progress in story. If it was a game that was focused on telling a linear but engrossing storyline where you constantly encounter important events that keep the plot going forward, linearity could be somewhat necessary. But in the HL series, with its horribly slow pacing, the game can only benefit from having more open-endedness and non linearity in handling its boring "go from point A to point B" tasks.

There is another fellow on this forum that often uses this argument in regards to Crysis. Well I think its becoming a bit of a limp excuse to be honest. More and more games are getting more involved in their storytelling, like HL2 + Episodes, Bioshock, Thief & Mass Effect and they are all raising the standards. As technology gets better so will the stories. There really is no excuse anymore and if a game doesn't it will look dated. Simple really.

biggest_loser

Rehashing the storyline of a game that came out about 8 years before it = raising the standards.

What was so great about the story line anyway? The overall setting and atmosphere was pretty good (at least until the end) but the plot itself wasn't anything noteworthy.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]There is another fellow on this forum that often uses this argument in regards to Crysis. Well I think its becoming a bit of a limp excuse to be honest. More and more games are getting more involved in their storytelling, like HL2 + Episodes, Bioshock, Thief & Mass Effect and they are all raising the standards. As technology gets better so will the stories. There really is no excuse anymore and if a game doesn't it will look dated. Simple really.

_Memento_

Rehashing the storyline of a game that came out about 8 years before it = raising the standards.

What was so great about the story line anyway? The overall setting and atmosphere was pretty good (at least until the end) but the plot itself wasn't anything noteworthy.

On HL2:

Being from the perspective of Freeman entirely through the game, you are only seeing what he is seeing. Therefore, the story works around the player, in regards to not moving at all as you said .

Granted it is presented and executed in a more interesting manner than i summarised through scripted sequences that probably wouldn't be possible in a open world game, as well as characters like Alyx Vance in particular who rank as some of gamings best. Episode 2 - the ending specifically - has really driven the emotional level of the FPS.

The introduction of the character Magnusson has demonstrated - at least to me - that Valve is getting even better with their characterisation of NPC's in creating unique personalities.

As for Bioshock: I have played through SS2 and I was so immersed into the fiction of Bioshock that I did not realise the apparent similarities that you seem to note.

What is great about the story? It is the characterisation of the voice actors, the little hints along the way that you can collect, the way you can see how all these problems unfolded for this man who wanted to create a better world. But what many don't realise about the story is the way that it works in conjuction with the level design. I am speaking about the twist:

**** Spoilers *******

The way in which - you are put under that spell - is reflected in the level design - it is linear intentionally i think to reflect how under control you are. There is a single path to your objectives. Had you been able to go all over the city, the notion of being brain washed would not have been as effective or plausible. That is the genius of the game really.

I really enjoy open-ended games much more, the only linear games that are good are platformers and old school shooters (Doom, Quake, Serious Sam etc.) Open-ended games are much more appealing to me because I don't like being babysitted and held by hand since I'm not 12 anymore. I want to figure out what to do and where to go myself, that's why I love WRPGs so much. If I ever get a feeling in a game that "oh, this is what developers want me to do and there are no alternative solutions", I feel dissappointed. Except with certains genres as I said, like platformers or old school FPS.

Oh and I don't care about storyline in games, a good storyline is always a plus but a bad or decent storyline is not a minus for me. If the game is atmospheric enough, it will be immersive which means that it will be good. I really, really don't want games to be like movies, we are heading towards the "interactive" movie period #2 these days... For example Metal Gear Solid 4 that has 75% cutscenes and 25% linear gameplay is a good example of a game that I really despise. I don't necessarily mean that a movie-like game is always bad, for example look at Deus Ex (the FIRST Deus Ex, IW is horrible)... it feels like an epic movie, but it has a better plot than 99% of the movies I've seen AND it's non-linear. But linear + wannabe-movie = fail.

There is another fellow on this forum that often uses this argument in regards to Crysis.biggest_loser

From my experience with these games, I think that the best game is the kind that's a combination of open play and FPS gaming. These FPS/RPG hybrids that require you to interact with NPCs and gather gear and artifacts - I'm not into them.

Games that hold your hand as for the missions you do, but not how you acheive them. Personally, clicking on pre-made dialogue and an interface for gathering supplies ruins a lot of the immersion - combat should be the priority.