destroying the myth ..... AW IS a linear game.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] may be i should have widened the paths a little then !!!!! i am not saying the game is closed, it may give you slightly more freedom than U2 .... but i saw some videos, you may enter a large area, let's say like a football field and yet the only thing you can do is walking in straight line till you pass it, you may find items on both sides but that's about it ...... this IS NOT a bad thing, all my games are linear btw. i do also have strong sources to buck me up..... and what's ur comment on the game lenght, 8-10 hrs ???!!!! the shortest open world game ever made !!!!!2mrw

Ninja-Hippo didn't say that the game was open world. He just said it runs on an open world engine.

Also, what would give you much more credibility than your sources is if you had actually played the game.

Your response is all over the place. And I didn't call anyone a troll.

All I am saying is that if you want to be the one to take on the task of debunking a myth on AW's design, it would both help your credibility and make you seem far more sincere if you had actually played the game.

Also, are you trying to say that because a game has a certain type of engine, it must be a certain type of game>

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Ninja-Hippo didn't say that the game was open world. He just said it runs on an open world engine.

Also, what would give you much more credibility than your sources is if you had actually played the game.

Your response is all over the place. And I didn't call anyone a troll.

All I am saying is that if you want to be the one to take on the task of debunking a myth on AW's design, it would both help your credibility and make you seem far more sincere if you had actually played the game.

Also, are you trying to say that because a game has a certain type of engine, it must be a certain type of game>

Linear doesn't have to mean small. It also doesn't have to prevent one from going off the path. It has mostly do with limitations of the players autonomy. Alan Wake features far more limits than a game that is less linear such as a GTA game, RDR, Oblivion, etc.

GreySeal9

Those are all sandbox games, not open world. Crysis is a good example of what an open world game is.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] "sigh" .... so you agree with me but you think i am a troll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2mrw

I only sort of agree with you and I don't think you're a troll at all (as trolls simply exist to get a rise out of people and you clearly don't do that). I just think that if you're going to congratulate yourself for shutting down fanboys, it shouldn't be so blatantly obvious that you'd only ever shut down the fanboys on the "opposing side".

What? If cows make ridiculous claims? They make ridiculous claims daily yet I never see you combating them much less making a thread about them.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Linear doesn't have to mean small. It also doesn't have to prevent one from going off the path. It has mostly do with limitations of the players autonomy. Alan Wake features far more limits than a game that is less linear such as a GTA game, RDR, Oblivion, etc.

opex07

Those are all sandbox games, not open world, there is a difference.

Can you explain the differences? What are some examples of open world games if those are not?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] LOOOOLLL, actually all trolls say i played the game and it sucked hard ..... and still you can call him a troll ............... what a newbie ??? when a game is AAA, it's an AAA wether u liked it or not ??? when the game dev. said calling the game open world is a mistake, when some big gaming sites state the linearity of the game and make themselves clear about it, then i can thorw these in the face of any troll . can u plzzz explain how does the game run on open world engine but it's not open world ?????2mrw

Your response is all over the place. And I didn't call anyone a troll.

All I am saying is that if you want to be the one to take on the task of debunking a myth on AW's design, it would both help your credibility and make you seem far more sincere if you had actually played the game.

Also, are you trying to say that because a game has a certain type of engine, it must be a certain type of game>

I am not the one to answer that question. I don't know enough about Alan Wake's engine.

Can you explain the differences? What are some examples of open world games if those are not?

GreySeal9

Crysis would be a good example of an open world game.

so this is basically about you cant runforever into the woods like in RDR so what? that type of open worldwould of sucked for alan wake

god of war 3 , metal gear solid 4 , uncharted 2, heavy rain, little big planet, rachet and clank and killzone 2 are linear , whats ur point?

god of war 3 , metal gear solid 4 , uncharted 2, heavy rain, little big planet, rachet and clank and killzone 2 are linear , whats ur point?

pc-ps360

[QUOTE="pc-ps360"]

god of war 3 , metal gear solid 4 , uncharted 2, heavy rain, little big planet, rachet and clank and killzone 2 are linear , whats ur point?

2mrw

i put those good games because tey are top rated. actually for me IMO if a game is not linear i dont like it. i HATE getting stuck trying to figure outwhere to go. linear games are the best.

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="pc-ps360"]

god of war 3 , metal gear solid 4 , uncharted 2, heavy rain, little big planet, rachet and clank and killzone 2 are linear , whats ur point?

i put those good games because tey are top rated. actually for me IMO if a game is not linear i dont like it. i HATE getting stuck trying to figure outwhere to go. linear games are the best.

it may give you slightly more freedom than U2 .... but i saw some videos2mrw

I am not the one to answer that question. I don't know enough about Alan Wake's engine.

GreySeal9

It has an open-world engine much like games like Red Dead Redemption or GTAIV do; that is, engines designed to handle large spaces and vast draw distances. It does all the same things that Red Dead Redemption does, however unlike games like RDR and GTAIV the game does not allow you to travel around that world without limits however way you please. Alan Wake, because of its heavy story-based gameplay, forces you to travel within certain areas at a time in that large world as opposed to letting you run wild within it.

The GAMEPLAY and storyline are thus linear, however the world of Bright Falls is not. It is one, very large, fully-rendered space as opposed to a series of levels like entirely linear games. Hopefully that clears some confusion up.

Its a linear game like Silent Hill and Resident Evil. Still it runs on an open world engine.

PAL360

Resident Evil wasn't linear.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Linear doesn't have to mean small. It also doesn't have to prevent one from going off the path. It has mostly do with limitations of the players autonomy. Alan Wake features far more limits than a game that is less linear such as a GTA game, RDR, Oblivion, etc.

opex07

Those are all sandbox games, not open world. Crysis is a good example of what an open world game is.

Whats the difference between sandbox and open-world games?

Serious question.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I am not the one to answer that question. I don't know enough about Alan Wake's engine.

Ninja-Hippo

It has an open-world engine much like games like Red Dead Redemption or GTAIV do; that is, engines designed to handle large spaces and vast draw distances. It does all the same things that Red Dead Redemption does, however unlike games like RDR and GTAIV the game does not allow you to travel around that world without limits however way you please. Alan Wake, because of its heavy story-based gameplay, forces you to travel within certain areas at a time in that large world as opposed to letting you run wild within it.

The GAMEPLAY and storyline are thus linear, however the world of Bright Falls is not. It is one, very large, fully-rendered space as opposed to a series of levels like entirely linear games. Hopefully that clears some confusion up.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

Its a linear game like Silent Hill and Resident Evil. Still it runs on an open world engine.

hakanakumono

Resident Evil wasn't linear.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

Its a linear game like Silent Hill and Resident Evil. Still it runs on an open world engine.

Anjunaddict

Resident Evil wasn't linear.

I guess?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I am not the one to answer that question. I don't know enough about Alan Wake's engine.

Ninja-Hippo

It has an open-world engine much like games like Red Dead Redemption or GTAIV do; that is, engines designed to handle large spaces and vast draw distances. It does all the same things that Red Dead Redemption does, however unlike games like RDR and GTAIV the game does not allow you to travel around that world without limits however way you please. Alan Wake, because of its heavy story-based gameplay, forces you to travel within certain areas at a time in that large world as opposed to letting you run wild within it.

The GAMEPLAY and storyline are thus linear, however the world of Bright Falls is not. It is one, very large, fully-rendered space as opposed to a series of levels like entirely linear games. Hopefully that clears some confusion up.

So... the tc is still right? It doesn't matter if the game is fully-rendered or not, if I can't go to those beautiful mountains in the distance, then it is just a background. Alan Wake has a more of an evolved Half-life 2, linear structure, in that there is a path, but there are also tons of little areas to go off and explore, usually for ammo or a coffee thing.

Crysis is more open than Alan, though there is nothing wrong with this, but still, I wonder how the game would have been if it was open-world, as originally planned...

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I am not the one to answer that question. I don't know enough about Alan Wake's engine.

Ninja-Hippo

It has an open-world engine much like games like Red Dead Redemption or GTAIV do; that is, engines designed to handle large spaces and vast draw distances. It does all the same things that Red Dead Redemption does, however unlike games like RDR and GTAIV the game does not allow you to travel around that world without limits however way you please. Alan Wake, because of its heavy story-based gameplay, forces you to travel within certain areas at a time in that large world as opposed to letting you run wild within it.

The GAMEPLAY and storyline are thus linear, however the world of Bright Falls is not. It is one, very large, fully-rendered space as opposed to a series of levels like entirely linear games. Hopefully that clears some confusion up.

So how is this different from, say, Uncharted 2 like when you're at the top of the hotel with the huge city all around you?

(BTW - map of Bright Falls)

[QUOTE="opex07"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Linear doesn't have to mean small. It also doesn't have to prevent one from going off the path. It has mostly do with limitations of the players autonomy. Alan Wake features far more limits than a game that is less linear such as a GTA game, RDR, Oblivion, etc.

stvee101

Those are all sandbox games, not open world. Crysis is a good example of what an open world game is.

Whats the difference between sandbox and open-world games?

Serious question.

[QUOTE="stvee101"]

[QUOTE="opex07"]

Those are all sandbox games, not open world. Crysis is a good example of what an open world game is.

DerekLoffin

Whats the difference between sandbox and open-world games?

Serious question.

Personally, I think of sandbox games as something like Garry's mod for Half-life 2, as that matches the reality of a sandbox in real life, in that you generally have nothing, but you're free to make something out of it. Just Cause 2 is an open-world game, it's already been designed and built, the world is completely open to you, but you still have objectives and missions, as opposed to Gmod, where there is no objective at all.

So... the tc is still right? It doesn't matter if the game is fully-rendered or not, if I can't go to those beautiful mountains in the distance, then it is just a background. Alan Wake has a more of an evolved Half-life 2, linear structure, in that there is a path, but there are also tons of little areas to go off and explore, usually for ammo or a coffee thing.

Crysis is more open than Alan, though there is nothing wrong with this, but still, I wonder how the game would have been if it was open-world, as originally planned...

TheGrayEye

So how is this different from, say, Uncharted 2 like when you're at the top of the hotel with the huge city all around you?

(BTW - map of Bright Falls)

asylumni

Personally, I think of sandbox games as something like Garry's mod for Half-life 2, as that matches the reality of a sandbox in real life, in that you generally have nothing, but you're free to make something out of it. Just Cause 2 is an open-world game, it's already been designed and built, the world is completely open to you, but you still have objectives and missions, as opposed to Gmod, where there is no objective at all.

TheGrayEye

EDIT; sorry for so many posts... :P

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

So... the tc is still right? It doesn't matter if the game is fully-rendered or not, if I can't go to those beautiful mountains in the distance, then it is just a background. Alan Wake has a more of an evolved Half-life 2, linear structure, in that there is a path, but there are also tons of little areas to go off and explore, usually for ammo or a coffee thing.

Crysis is more open than Alan, though there is nothing wrong with this, but still, I wonder how the game would have been if it was open-world, as originally planned...

Ninja-Hippo

I would say it is. Some of the levels are more open than both Killzone, and Uncharted, but it is still heavily structured, and there is generally one path- though there are many little side areas to go off and check out, I still don't consider that open-world, because games like Half-life 2 have a very similar thing.

The game is an explorable linear game, maybe like Metroid Prime in some aspects, and it's definately not as restricted as CoD, but those fully rendered cities and mountains in the surroundings are just background, if you can't really go to it or interact with it at your own will.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

Personally, I think of sandbox games as something like Garry's mod for Half-life 2, as that matches the reality of a sandbox in real life, in that you generally have nothing, but you're free to make something out of it. Just Cause 2 is an open-world game, it's already been designed and built, the world is completely open to you, but you still have objectives and missions, as opposed to Gmod, where there is no objective at all.

Ninja-Hippo

EDIT; sorry for so many posts... :P

But to me, a sandbox in real life is just that, a box of sand. A kid might bring some kind of cutout plastic thing, those are his tools, and with that, he can shape buildings or castles or something. This is what Gmod is to me, because it's nothing at the start, but the game gives you tools, you build what you want out of it.

In Halo and Just Cause, the world is already built, you're not given the same kind of sandbox tools like a real sandbox, or gmod would have. The actual gameplay is still that of an ordinary shooter in Halo, it just might be a little bit more open for approach, hence open-world. You're control over the world is actually limited, unlike a sandbox, in which I could destroy it in seconds.

EDIT: Games like Halo and Just Cause 2 are still scripted, enemy sees you, enemy shoots you. You run out of health, you die and game reloads. In gmod, all these things can be altered, or are just not a factor at all.

Open world thriller = no no. Vandalvideo

It could work. System Shock 2, arguably the greatest horror/thriller of all time, was gunning for that very idea. Never say never.

I wish people like the TC would quit commenting on games they have never played ... 2mrw does this far too much

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Open world thriller = no no. FrozenLiquid

It could work. System Shock 2, arguably the greatest horror/thriller of all time, was gunning for that very idea. Never say never.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Open world thriller = no no. Vandalvideo

It could work. System Shock 2, arguably the greatest horror/thriller of all time, was gunning for that very idea. Never say never.

It worked fine in Stalker, actually more than fine, considering Stalker is the only game I've played in years that was successful at scaring me. With open-world game, you can have it so the AI is always on the move, thus making your encounters with them, unpredictable. Also, the atmosphere in Stalker, is some of the best in the industry.

I've played it and it is linear, for the most part. There are open-world segments, like say Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. Where there's more room to do a few things in, like collectibles. Other than that, it's pretty linear with about as much branching paths as Final Fantasy XIII. Which isn't bad and don't see an issue with.

If people could replicate the same style of suspense that came from System Shock 2 in modern, more open environments that you see in the modern open world game I would be extremely impressed. Even System Shock 2 had closed corridors going for it allowing for funneling the player to specific set piece moments. But once you start setting people loose in a sprawling city or the wilderness it becomes a lot harder to control the atmosphere and environment. With current technology I just don't see that happening. This discussion is pointless anyway; the horror genre is practically rolling in its grave right now. Vandalvideo

Well, the closest we've ever been to a open world horror is the STALKER series, and if that's anything to go by, we're in for a real treat. Trotting off to an abandoned settlement just to hear the growls of a Bloodsucker are up there with the mutants of SS2 and crazy things in Silent Hill 3.

I wouldn't be so fast to say the horror genre is rolling in its grave, even less to call it a genre as there really is none. Metro 2033 was sublime, Darkness Within 2 looks like a freakin' amazing game that finally matches up a fantastic story with fantastic gameplay, and with Amnesia: The Dark Descent coming up soon, people who take their thrills seriously will be in for a treat.

I'm also going to include Dead Rising 2 in this. No, it doesn't scare you witless, but if it was a movie, it'd be considered a horror in the vein of Sam Raimi or some Italian giallo.

It worked fine in Stalker, actually more than fine, considering Stalker is the only game I've played in years that was successful at scaring me. With open-world game, you can have it so the AI is always on the move, thus making your encounters with them, unpredictable. Also, the atmosphere in Stalker, is some of the best in the industry.TheGrayEye

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]If people could replicate the same style of suspense that came from System Shock 2 in modern, more open environments that you see in the modern open world game I would be extremely impressed. Even System Shock 2 had closed corridors going for it allowing for funneling the player to specific set piece moments. But once you start setting people loose in a sprawling city or the wilderness it becomes a lot harder to control the atmosphere and environment. With current technology I just don't see that happening. This discussion is pointless anyway; the horror genre is practically rolling in its grave right now. FrozenLiquid

Well, the closest we've ever been to a open world horror is the STALKER series, and if that's anything to go by, we're in for a real treat. Trotting off to an abandoned settlement just to hear the growls of a Bloodsucker are up there with the mutants of SS2 and crazy things in Silent Hill 3.

I wouldn't be so fast to say the horror genre is rolling in its grave, even less to call it a genre as there really is none. Metro 2033 was sublime, Darkness Within 2 looks like a freakin' amazing game that finally matches up a fantastic story with fantastic gameplay, and with Amnesia: The Dark Descent coming up soon, people who take their thrills seriously will be in for a treat.

I'm also going to include Dead Rising 2 in this. No, it doesn't scare you witless, but if it was a movie, it'd be considered a horror in the vein of Sam Raimi or some Italian giallo.

Here is Alan wakes map

Its pretty linear but its not as linear as most games

For comparison heres Fable's map

Both games are split into lots of small paths but in Alan wake their are much more linking paths unlike in fable where its mostly just a straight line

Just cause 2 has no paths or invisible walls.

Alan wake is linear but is still pretty open compared to other linear games

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

So how is this different from, say, Uncharted 2 like when you're at the top of the hotel with the huge city all around you?

(BTW - map of Bright Falls)

Ninja-Hippo

This is to what I was referring. It seems to be rendering a pretty good distance to me, and you do visit parts of the city.

Are you saying that Alan Wake being in a single location for the whole game is what makes it open, even though there's no point in the game where you can just pick any place and go there? Or are you claiming that everything is always fully rendered?

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]It worked fine in Stalker, actually more than fine, considering Stalker is the only game I've played in years that was successful at scaring me. With open-world game, you can have it so the AI is always on the move, thus making your encounters with them, unpredictable. Also, the atmosphere in Stalker, is some of the best in the industry.Vandalvideo

Just about the entire atmosphere in the game of Stalker got to me, and the segments with the underground labs, those were damn scary. You mentioned in a post above, you were scared in games like System Shock 2, which personally, never scared me. SS2 also had randomly generating badguys as well.

The thing about Stalker is, is that it's an entire world. There is contrast, there are places where it is sunny and you only fight humans, and then there are places where you go down into a creepy underground tunnel, after having spent much time in a less scary environment, and it does help a lot in terms of scare factor. I would go as far as to say, that open-world horror games, have the potential (after looking at Stalker) to be the very best kind of horror game, because a large unpredictable world, has much more potential than some theme park type ride, that a lot of horror games end up feeling like.

Just about the entire atmosphere in the game of Stalker got to me, and the segments with the underground labs, those were damn scary. You mentioned in a post above, you were scared in games like System Shock 2, which personally, never scared me. SS2 also had randomly generating badguys as well.TheGrayEye

The thing about Stalker is, is that it's an entire world. There is contrast, there are places where it is sunny and you only fight humans, and then there are places where you go down into a creepy underground tunnel, after having spent much time in a less scary environment, and it does help a lot in terms of scare factor. I would go as far as to say, that open-world horror games, have the potential (after looking at Stalker) to be the very best kind of horror game, because a large unpredictable world, has much more potential than some theme park type ride, that a lot of horror games end up feeling like.

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

So how is this different from, say, Uncharted 2 like when you're at the top of the hotel with the huge city all around you?

(BTW - map of Bright Falls)

The game's designed with an open-world engine in mind and they wanted it to be open world game initially but they decided to make it a linear experience so players don't be distracted from the main point of the game.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

So how is this different from, say, Uncharted 2 like when you're at the top of the hotel with the huge city all around you?

(BTW - map of Bright Falls)

2mrw

Fact of the matter is. AW is less linear then UC2, by some margin.

If you've played both you will agree, if you haven't don't bother responding.

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAM_gx5qH8g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOBN04saU4I&feature=related

/thread

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Because Uncharted 2 uses 'fake' backdrops. That is, they're a background there to look nice, not an actual fully-rendered area. In Alan Wake it's all real, fully detailed and while you cant explore the town at will whenever you want you do traverse the whole area throughout the course of the game, whereas in Uncharted you must stick to the games pre-determined path and that huge city all around you which you refer to is never visited or explored but just exists as a backdrop.

Fact of the matter is. AW is less linear then UC2, by some margin.

If you've played both you will agree, if you haven't don't bother responding.

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAM_gx5qH8g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOBN04saU4I&feature=related

/thread

theseekar

Might help if you state what, exactly, that's supposed to prove.