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

asylumni

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?

According to Digital Foundry though: "However, depending on when the game transitioned from open-world to a more linear experience, it's equally likely that in levels like this the faraway elements are generated especially for this scene alone - similar to the way the Uncharted 2 engine occasionally gives the illusion of rendering sandbox environments."

You don't know what induces fear so much as you've seen certain stimuli happen to be accompanied by a certain reaction in the subject 9 times out of 10. That, however, does not necessitate it was that specific stimuli which created the reaction. Correlation does not equal causation. Nor does it mean that your sample is representative of the entire populus. Nor does it mean that, even if it is representative, that I am not that 1/10 which reacts to different stimuli than yourself. You have no proof that I am not within that tiny minority. vandalvideo

Nine times out of ten?

Nine times out of ten?FrozenLiquid

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"]

[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"]

I blame theseeker

Zero_epyon

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]Yes, but sincere stresses the abscene of feigning or exaggeration, and a unscipted monster following me, sounds a lot less "fake" to me, at least from a gameplay perspective, than a monster jumping out at me because I crossed an invisble line in the level, then dissappearing a second later. The creatures in Stalker, for the most part, approach you in the way they were born to do, and not just because you crossed that line.Vandalvideo

You're right that the atmosphere could may also been effective if the game were linear, but I still believe the reason it works so well, is because the game drops you into it's world, and does NOT hold your hand, it creates the creatures of the world, and doesn't really control them either. Also, the reason I grade SS2's atmosphere on the same level as Stalkers, is because lots of old school fans still say the game is scarier than most out today, which I personally don't agree with. This brings me to a point I haven't expressed yet, but it is the main reason I believe most horror games of today are uneffective- it is because they over power the player.

The atmosphere is augmented to the stratosphere if the enemies that occupy that world can actually cause you harm. So many horror games today give the player the coolest weapons and powers to fight these enemies, and they don't even have a chance. The scare factor in Bioshock 2 was horrible for example, because you bascially were Iron Man, and you could shoot fire out of your ****ing hands. I think SS2 was a bit scary in the beginning, but then I gradually became powerful, and understand how to master the gameplay, and the enemies didn't have a chance either. With Stalker, I get the feeling these creatures can destroy me, and that if I'm not careful, they will. This is actually the biggest factor for me, in determining whether a game can scary me or not, and so many games get it wrong.

Well you're right in that SS2 does not hold your hand, I was mainly taking a jab at most modern horror games there. Also, wasn't Stalker's gunplay praised by this site's very own review on the game? Many pc gamers seem to hold the gunplay in very high regard around here. Besides, it's not just gunplay, but also the strength of the enemy, as well as their sheer intimidation. Also, I want to say that SS2 is incomparable to say, Frogger. SS2 is in fact, the most complex shooter I've ever played, in fact, I wish more shooters shared the same depth these days.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]Nine times out of ten?Vandalvideo

No no, you proposed that in a fear-inducing test, the results would be positive nine times out of ten. I want proof. Just like you, I want an analytical truth. Give me names, references, studies etc about this nine times out of ten result you've just given me.

-

Actually no, I'm not that dick. I can see what you're getting at. In philosophy, we call that a synthetical truth.

This is why lawyers don't run the world vandal. The smarter they try to be, the more dick they start looking. Just ask Tom Sneddon.

I don't mean "ask" though. That was a figure of speech. Hopefully you don't ned a footnote for that.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

Yes, but sincere stresses the abscene of feigning or exaggeration, and a unscipted monster following me, sounds a lot less "fake" to me, at least from a gameplay perspective, than a monster jumping out at me because I crossed an invisble line in the level, then dissappearing a second later. The creatures in Stalker, for the most part, approach you in the way they were born to do, and not just because you crossed that line.

You're right that the atmosphere could may also been effective if the game were linear, but I still believe the reason it works so well, is because the game drops you into it's world, and does NOT hold your hand, it creates the creatures of the world, and doesn't really control them either. Also, the reason I grade SS2's atmosphere on the same level as Stalkers, is because lots of old school fans still say the game is scarier than most out today, which I personally don't agree with. This brings me to a point I haven't expressed yet, but it is the main reason I believe most horror games of today are uneffective- it is because they over power the player.

The atmosphere is augmented to the stratosphere if the enemies that occupy that world can actually cause you harm. So many horror games today give the player the coolest weapons and powers to fight these enemies, and they don't even have a chance. The scare factor in Bioshock 2 was horrible for example, because you bascially were Iron Man, and you could shoot fire out of your ****ing hands. I think SS2 was a bit scary in the beginning, but then I gradually became powerful, and understand how to master the gameplay, and the enemies didn't have a chance either. With Stalker, I get the feeling these creatures can destroy me, and that if I'm not careful, they will. This is actually the biggest factor for me, in determining whether a game can scary me or not, and so many games get it wrong.

FrozenLiquid

Here's a tip, you don't 'win' with vandal :P

It's an exercise in futility. Not because he's right, but because he won't back down from what he said lol.

It took 15 pages of argumentation back in '07 for him to run out of ideas and simply state he didn't mean anything of what he previously said, he likes Halo as much as you do. Then you find out later that he hasn't played Halo in his life :P

So I'm wary he's actually played System Shock 2 or Stalker.

Lol, that is interesting to note.

Well you're right in that SS2 does not hold your hand, I was mainly taking a jab at most modern horror games there. Also, wasn't Stalker's gunplay praised by this site's very own review on the game? Many pc gamers seem to hold the gunplay in very high regard around here. Besides, it's not just gunplay, but also the strength of the enemy, as well as their sheer intimidation. Also, I want to say that SS2 is incomparable to say, Frogger. SS2 is in fact, the most complex shooter I've ever played, in fact, I wish more shooters shared the same depth these days.TheGrayEye

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]Well you're right in that SS2 does not hold your hand, I was mainly taking a jab at most modern horror games there. Also, wasn't Stalker's gunplay praised by this site's very own review on the game? Many pc gamers seem to hold the gunplay in very high regard around here. Besides, it's not just gunplay, but also the strength of the enemy, as well as their sheer intimidation. Also, I want to say that SS2 is incomparable to say, Frogger. SS2 is in fact, the most complex shooter I've ever played, in fact, I wish more shooters shared the same depth these days.Vandalvideo

Well, regarding the gunplay when versuing monsters, I just think it was made in the way the developer wanted it, and the result was effective (at least for me). Also, "Hermit Hivemind"? I guess it isn't possible that they each just happened to share a similar opinon on it :??

Well the game seem kind of opened for exploration but linear in its design.

Well the game seem kind of opened for exploration but linear in its design.

dark-warmachine

Indeed, linearity in story does mean it cant hve some huge open spaces, whih it does

My OPINION of linear is that it has the only thing to do in the game is explore mission enviroments, the the main missions and collecting stuff while i think open world is where there are side missions, characters an things to do (think infamous or GTA4 for open world) but as i havent played AW i cannot comment on weather its linear or not but if it has side missions and characters that dont advance the main story I wouldnt classify it as linear.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Alan Wakes' main plot line is linear, but the world is massive and open to provide an extra layer of exploration for collectible hunting (the thermos and manuscript pages)

AdobeArtist

Fram having actually played the game of course. The environments offer plenty of open ended free-roaming, off the main plot path.

I didnt know this was a myth. The game is pretty linear, in fact many games journalists have said as much.

there was no myth to destroy... i never read articles/reviews where it was confirmed that AW was an open world title...

But these AW related threads (thanks to theseekar) helped us discover sony once again lied.. PS3 cant do anything, there is one ESSENTIAL thing it cant do

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] The world is one and big, but I wouldn't necesssarily call it open. Open denotes that you can go to anywhere from anywhere at any time you want. If you can't, then it is closed. FrozenLiquid

My one and only point from the beginning was that Alan Wake takes place in one, very large place rather than via a series of linear levels, missions or corridors, and that the TC appears mistaken in his belief of exactly how linear the game is, if the drawing is anything to go by.

That was all. :)

Yeah I think you're stretching it. It is a linear game, despite being set in one giant box.

Someone else described Alan Wake perfectly in another thread, but I can't remember who said it or what thread it was (yeah, im useless) But anyway, the jist of it was that Alan Wake is a linear game, but despite that it manages to create a sense of freedom and openess. You don't feel trapped while wandering through forests or along paths.

Anjunaddict

Pretty much this. The environments are quite large and encourage exploration.

With all these people calling it linear you'd think it was Gears of War or something.

[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"]

Someone else described Alan Wake perfectly in another thread, but I can't remember who said it or what thread it was (yeah, im useless) But anyway, the jist of it was that Alan Wake is a linear game, but despite that it manages to create a sense of freedom and openess. You don't feel trapped while wandering through forests or along paths.

SpinoRaptor24

Pretty much this. The environments are quite large and encourage exploration.

With all these people calling it linear you'd think it was Gears of War or something.

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"]

Someone else described Alan Wake perfectly in another thread, but I can't remember who said it or what thread it was (yeah, im useless) But anyway, the jist of it was that Alan Wake is a linear game, but despite that it manages to create a sense of freedom and openess. You don't feel trapped while wandering through forests or along paths.

Ninja-Hippo

Pretty much this. The environments are quite large and encourage exploration.

With all these people calling it linear you'd think it was Gears of War or something.

That's what most people who evidently haven't played Alan Wake make it out to be.

It is linear, but from a technical perspective you can speak about it as if it was open world because the tech was certainly designed around that. The draw distances are insanely high, the overall gameworld has been detailed to an almost unbelievable extent, and in general, the game has all the technical features of an open world game. The only difference is that Remedy made a design choice to move away from Open World in an effort to preserve the narrative. It isn't so much that it couldn't have been an open world game, because it most certainly could have(infact just about everything about it suggests that it was, and still could be if they were to simply remove the barriers), but that they made a conscious decision to limit the player in an effort to control the narrative flow(IMO the right decision).

THAT is something you keep forgetting. And it is something cows conveniently ignore/deny.

I don't see why lineratiy is a problem, I love Alan Wake! Favourite game of the year so far, even more so than RDR.

It is linear, but from a technical perspective you can speak about it as if it was open world because the tech was certainly designed around that. The draw distances are insanely high, the overall gameworld has been detailed to an almost unbelievable extent, and in general, the game has all the technical features of an open world game. The only difference is that Remedy made a design choice to move away from Open World in an effort to preserve the narrative. It isn't so much that it couldn't have been an open world game, because it most certainly could have(infact just about everything about it suggests that it was, and still could be if they were to simply remove the barriers), but that they made a conscious decision to limit the player in an effort to control the narrative flow(IMO the right decision).

THAT is something you keep forgetting. And it is something cows conveniently ignore/deny.

KingsMessenger

So how can it have "all the features of an open world game" without having the most fundamental feature of an open world game - being open world? Just because it could've been, doesn't mean it is. Halo could've been an RTS, but it isn't. Arguing for the merits of what a game could've been is beyond ridiculous.

Most of the features you state Alan Wake has could also be said for Uncharted 2.

Huge draw distances? - check

Highly detailed world? - check

The only difference is Alan Wake takes place in a single location and the levels run next to and around each other. That doesn't make it an open world game and it doesn't mean it should be treated as such.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

It is linear, but from a technical perspective you can speak about it as if it was open world because the tech was certainly designed around that. The draw distances are insanely high, the overall gameworld has been detailed to an almost unbelievable extent, and in general, the game has all the technical features of an open world game. The only difference is that Remedy made a design choice to move away from Open World in an effort to preserve the narrative. It isn't so much that it couldn't have been an open world game, because it most certainly could have(infact just about everything about it suggests that it was, and still could be if they were to simply remove the barriers), but that they made a conscious decision to limit the player in an effort to control the narrative flow(IMO the right decision).

THAT is something you keep forgetting. And it is something cows conveniently ignore/deny.

asylumni

So how can it have "all the features of an open world game" without having the most fundamental feature of an open world game - being open world? Just because it could've been, doesn't mean it is. Halo could've been an RTS, but it isn't. Arguing for the merits of what a game could've been is beyond ridiculous.

Most of the features you state Alan Wake has could also be said for Uncharted 2.

Huge draw distances? - check

Highly detailed world? - check

The only difference is Alan Wake takes place in a single location and the levels run next to and around each other. That doesn't make it an open world game and it doesn't mean it should be treated as such.

UC2 has highly detailed skyboxes, not massive draw distances. Don't get the two confused. And the world that was actually created is really detailed, but it doesn't extend beyond the limitations of where you can actually reach(whereas, Alan Wake has areas that you can never get to completely modeled)

Also, I was speaking about the technology.

The TECHNOLOGY behind the game is designed for open world gameplay. I believe the numerous tech demos PROVE this. Way to COMPLETELY miss my point... Alan Wake, as it is, could be transitioned into an open world game by simply removing the barriers that they put up. The only reason they even put up the barriers was for narrative reason.

Yet again, cows prove that they can deny things that are plainly in front of them.

Alan Wake IS linear, but it has nothing to do with the TECHNICAL capabilities of the engine, because it could just as easily have been open world on its current tech as it could have been a linear game...

The main problem i think we're all having is that some consider an open world to just be one, big environment and others think it cannot be an open world unless you are free to travel around that environment any way you like at any time, as opposed to having your hand held as you travel around it as you are in Alan Wake. Alan Wake is not an 'open world' game in that most who read that would think it's therefore a game like GTA or Oblivion where you can wander around any way you please, throughout the whole world. It isn't like that. But it DOES feature the same one, large, fully-rendered and detailed environment that games like GTAIV and Oblivion do, it just wont let you run around it at your own discretion. They put up barriers restricting when and where you can go for the sake of the narrative.Ninja-Hippo

Actually that is completely wrong.

THings are broken down to episodic content.

Non of the enviornments are connectted at all.

Actually no, I'm not that dick. I can see what you're getting at. In philosophy, we call that a synthetical truth.FrozenLiquid

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]The main problem i think we're all having is that some consider an open world to just be one, big environment and others think it cannot be an open world unless you are free to travel around that environment any way you like at any time, as opposed to having your hand held as you travel around it as you are in Alan Wake. Alan Wake is not an 'open world' game in that most who read that would think it's therefore a game like GTA or Oblivion where you can wander around any way you please, throughout the whole world. It isn't like that. But it DOES feature the same one, large, fully-rendered and detailed environment that games like GTAIV and Oblivion do, it just wont let you run around it at your own discretion. They put up barriers restricting when and where you can go for the sake of the narrative.Animal-Mother

Actually that is completely wrong.

THings are broken down to episodic content.

Non of the enviornments are connectted at all.

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

It is linear, but from a technical perspective you can speak about it as if it was open world because the tech was certainly designed around that. The draw distances are insanely high, the overall gameworld has been detailed to an almost unbelievable extent, and in general, the game has all the technical features of an open world game. The only difference is that Remedy made a design choice to move away from Open World in an effort to preserve the narrative. It isn't so much that it couldn't have been an open world game, because it most certainly could have(infact just about everything about it suggests that it was, and still could be if they were to simply remove the barriers), but that they made a conscious decision to limit the player in an effort to control the narrative flow(IMO the right decision).

THAT is something you keep forgetting. And it is something cows conveniently ignore/deny.

KingsMessenger

So how can it have "all the features of an open world game" without having the most fundamental feature of an open world game - being open world? Just because it could've been, doesn't mean it is. Halo could've been an RTS, but it isn't. Arguing for the merits of what a game could've been is beyond ridiculous.

Most of the features you state Alan Wake has could also be said for Uncharted 2.

Huge draw distances? - check

Highly detailed world? - check

The only difference is Alan Wake takes place in a single location and the levels run next to and around each other. That doesn't make it an open world game and it doesn't mean it should be treated as such.

UC2 has highly detailed skyboxes, not massive draw distances. Don't get the two confused. And the world that was actually created is really detailed, but it doesn't extend beyond the limitations of where you can actually reach(whereas, Alan Wake has areas that you can never get to completely modeled)

Also, I was speaking about the technology.

The TECHNOLOGY behind the game is designed for open world gameplay. I believe the numerous tech demos PROVE this. Way to COMPLETELY miss my point... Alan Wake, as it is, could be transitioned into an open world game by simply removing the barriers that they put up. The only reason they even put up the barriers was for narrative reason.

Yet again, cows prove that they can deny things that are plainly in front of them.

Alan Wake IS linear, but it has nothing to do with the TECHNICAL capabilities of the engine, because it could just as easily have been open world on its current tech as it could have been a linear game...

I am quite aware of the difference between modeled environment and skyboxes, thank you. Uncharted 2 does indead have a very large draw distance (ref. video posted earlier in this thread).

Could the Wake engine be used in an open world game? Sure. But it wasn't. You keep talking about technology and the capabilities in the engine, so what exactly does the Wake engine do to support an open world game that the Uncharted engine doesn't do?

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="lawlessx"]

sorry..once people read the title thread it's official :P

i haven't picked up the game yet,but it sounds like the storyline is on a linear path while the game takes place in a massive world.

lawlessx

Are you sure you didn't make this thread to beat that "foliage king" horse a bit more or have you actually played the game since your drawing gives a very vague description of the items you find? :? The game isn't open world, but that doesn't mean it's set on a very strict course either. There's plenty of room for exploration along the way so that you experience a little bit more of the story before ending the episode. Personally, I think it works best this way.

Its linier, big deal, it doesnt stop the game being amazing.. i would give this game a 9.5/10.G-O-M-J

Those are my exact thoughts on FFXIII, yet everyone viewed it bad because of linearity. Funny.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]The main problem i think we're all having is that some consider an open world to just be one, big environment and others think it cannot be an open world unless you are free to travel around that environment any way you like at any time, as opposed to having your hand held as you travel around it as you are in Alan Wake. Alan Wake is not an 'open world' game in that most who read that would think it's therefore a game like GTA or Oblivion where you can wander around any way you please, throughout the whole world. It isn't like that. But it DOES feature the same one, large, fully-rendered and detailed environment that games like GTAIV and Oblivion do, it just wont let you run around it at your own discretion. They put up barriers restricting when and where you can go for the sake of the narrative.Animal-Mother

Actually that is completely wrong.

THings are broken down to episodic content.

Non of the enviornments are connectted at all.

I am quite aware of the difference between modeled environment and skyboxes, thank you. Uncharted 2 does indead have a very large draw distance (ref. video posted earlier in this thread).

Could the Wake engine be used in an open world game? Sure. But it wasn't. You keep talking about technology and the capabilities in the engine, so what exactly does the Wake engine do to support an open world game that the Uncharted engine doesn't do?

asylumni

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

I am quite aware of the difference between modeled environment and skyboxes, thank you. Uncharted 2 does indead have a very large draw distance (ref. video posted earlier in this thread).

Could the Wake engine be used in an open world game? Sure. But it wasn't. You keep talking about technology and the capabilities in the engine, so what exactly does the Wake engine do to support an open world game that the Uncharted engine doesn't do?

Ninja-Hippo

I could say the same thing for Uncharted 2. You can pretend it's fake all you want, but Uncharted 2 does render out quite a good distance from where you travel as well. Saying you "could ___ if it was in the game, but you can't" is just a poor excuse. The fact is, this feature is not in the game. Whether it could be added is irrelevant. This is a discussion of what the game is, not what the game could be. The sticking point is that you make the assumption that adding explorable area would have no effect on the performance of the game or the fidelity of the graphics and this is rarely ever the case. It's as if you think the LOD and fidelity weren't optimized for the environments you have access to, even though this is a very basic principle of game design.

So I didn't really get an answer to my earlier question... could someone more in the know about Alan Wake's engine and game design in general clarify whether we're to assume everything off-the-beaten-path is being rendered all the time in Alan Wake, to the same degree as the beaten path?

For example in this video that saolin/theseeker posted earlier, if for example I pause at 1:25 to look at the vista in the background, am I to assume that everything on those mountains through the fog in the distance is being rendered to the same LoD as the road and grass and trees in the immediate vicinity?

I don't think even sandbox games like GTA do that, do they? :?

This threads 12 pages the other ones are on ave on 5 or more, the u2 vs alan wake is 30 + pages and then theres all the foliage threads as a result.

Time for alan wake sticky?

I could say the same thing for Uncharted 2. You can pretend it's fake all you want, but Uncharted 2 does render out quite a good distance from where you travel as well. Saying you "could ___ if it was in the game, but you can't" is just a poor excuse. The fact is, this feature is not in the game. Whether it could be added is irrelevant. This is a discussion of what the game is, not what the game could be. The sticking point is that you make the assumption that adding explorable area would have no effect on the performance of the game or the fidelity of the graphics and this is rarely ever the case. It's as if you think the LOD and fidelity weren't optimized for the environments you have access to, even though this is a very basic principle of game design.

asylumni

Also, what's a poor excuse? A poor excuse for what? What am i excusing? You asked what the difference was between an open world engine and what Uncharted does and i explained. I'm not saying either is in anyway better than the other, i just explained the differences as you asked.

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

I could say the same thing for Uncharted 2. You can pretend it's fake all you want, but Uncharted 2 does render out quite a good distance from where you travel as well. Saying you "could ___ if it was in the game, but you can't" is just a poor excuse. The fact is, this feature is not in the game. Whether it could be added is irrelevant. This is a discussion of what the game is, not what the game could be. The sticking point is that you make the assumption that adding explorable area would have no effect on the performance of the game or the fidelity of the graphics and this is rarely ever the case. It's as if you think the LOD and fidelity weren't optimized for the environments you have access to, even though this is a very basic principle of game design.

Ninja-Hippo

Also, what's a poor excuse? A poor excuse for what? What am i excusing? You asked what the difference was between an open world engine and what Uncharted does and i explained. I'm not saying either is in anyway better than the other, i just explained the differences as you asked.

But I don't think Digital Foundry made it very clear what exactly they think is being rendered and when (particularly in the last paragraph of this excerpt), here's an excerpt from the tech analysis:

Playing Alan Wake, there's an odd sense of schizophrenia about the game's technical make-up. Long-time followers of Remedy's efforts will know that Wake was originally designed as a free-roaming open-world game. The final product is anything but - it focuses on a tightly defined, very narrow narrative that is supremely linear.

There is the illusion of the open world in places, but make no mistake, the sandbox element has been significantly dialled back in favour of an item-collection mechanism that sees manuscript pages and coffee thermos flasks secreted about the levels. This is clearly a "Plan B" and it would be fascinating to learn more about the original concept Remedy envisaged and why it was jettisoned in favour of the game we have today.

However, there still remain some elements from the sandbox game that can be found in the final shipping product. First of all there is the inclusion of cars: not just the vehicles that the ever-present compass bearing guides you towards, but other vehicles abandoned on the road that you can take control of. Different cars, different handling models, none of them really necessary to a linear narrative - however, their inclusion makes perfect sense from a time in the game's development when the expansive area of Bright Falls could be explored at will and you needed a fast means of transport to get around.

There's also the fact that the engine itself is capable of rendering some phenomenal draw-distances. Some of the shorter engine-driven cut-scenes (for example, Wake on a rope-bridge, with the view panning out) show some stunning vistas, and there's also a mountaintop look-out complete with telescope that allows you to survey the environments.

According to Remedy, the engine itself is capable of rendering with a 2km distance. We can well believe it. After the initial action scene at the start of the game, Alan Wake's story switches back to his arrival in Bright Falls via ferry, accompanied by his wife. While many sections within the game give us some idea of just how far this engine can generate beautiful scenery, this small episode - taking place in daytime - with no atmospheric effects obscuring the view, perhaps give some idea of what the tech can do.

However, depending on when the game transitioned from open-world to a more linear experience, it's equally likely that in levels like this the faraway elements are generated especially for this scene alone - similar to the way the Uncharted 2 engine occasionally gives the illusion of rendering sandbox environments. Oh for just half an hour of access to an earlier build of the game!Digital Foundry

No game is truly "non-linear" if it has a plot. The plot is scripted to turn out a certain way (or certain number of ways) but the means of going through that plot, if not from point A to B to C would make it non-linear. If like in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, you can go do something else, entirely unrelated to the main plot, then the game has become non-linear in the sense that you are not forced down a path, from single event to single event, towards an ultimate goal that has been pre-determined.

Giving the playerany choice in how to change the flow of events can be cIassified as a non-linear game. Whether the plot is scripted to move from one event to the next or not, as long as the player can do something else, other than the main plotline, the game has become non-linear.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

I could say the same thing for Uncharted 2. You can pretend it's fake all you want, but Uncharted 2 does render out quite a good distance from where you travel as well. Saying you "could ___ if it was in the game, but you can't" is just a poor excuse. The fact is, this feature is not in the game. Whether it could be added is irrelevant. This is a discussion of what the game is, not what the game could be. The sticking point is that you make the assumption that adding explorable area would have no effect on the performance of the game or the fidelity of the graphics and this is rarely ever the case. It's as if you think the LOD and fidelity weren't optimized for the environments you have access to, even though this is a very basic principle of game design.

shinrabanshou

Also, what's a poor excuse? A poor excuse for what? What am i excusing? You asked what the difference was between an open world engine and what Uncharted does and i explained. I'm not saying either is in anyway better than the other, i just explained the differences as you asked.

But I don't think Digital Foundry made it very clear what exactly they think is being rendered and when (particularly in the last paragraph of this excerpt), here's an excerpt from the tech analysis:

Playing Alan Wake, there's an odd sense of schizophrenia about the game's technical make-up. Long-time followers of Remedy's efforts will know that Wake was originally designed as a free-roaming open-world game. The final product is anything but - it focuses on a tightly defined, very narrow narrative that is supremely linear.

There is the illusion of the open world in places, but make no mistake, the sandbox element has been significantly dialled back in favour of an item-collection mechanism that sees manuscript pages and coffee thermos flasks secreted about the levels. This is clearly a "Plan B" and it would be fascinating to learn more about the original concept Remedy envisaged and why it was jettisoned in favour of the game we have today.

However, there still remain some elements from the sandbox game that can be found in the final shipping product. First of all there is the inclusion of cars: not just the vehicles that the ever-present compass bearing guides you towards, but other vehicles abandoned on the road that you can take control of. Different cars, different handling models, none of them really necessary to a linear narrative - however, their inclusion makes perfect sense from a time in the game's development when the expansive area of Bright Falls could be explored at will and you needed a fast means of transport to get around.

There's also the fact that the engine itself is capable of rendering some phenomenal draw-distances. Some of the shorter engine-driven cut-scenes (for example, Wake on a rope-bridge, with the view panning out) show some stunning vistas, and there's also a mountaintop look-out complete with telescope that allows you to survey the environments.

According to Remedy, the engine itself is capable of rendering with a 2km distance. We can well believe it. After the initial action scene at the start of the game, Alan Wake's story switches back to his arrival in Bright Falls via ferry, accompanied by his wife. While many sections within the game give us some idea of just how far this engine can generate beautiful scenery, this small episode - taking place in daytime - with no atmospheric effects obscuring the view, perhaps give some idea of what the tech can do.

However, depending on when the game transitioned from open-world to a more linear experience, it's equally likely that in levels like this the faraway elements are generated especially for this scene alone - similar to the way the Uncharted 2 engine occasionally gives the illusion of rendering sandbox environments. Oh for just half an hour of access to an earlier build of the game!Digital Foundry

The last paragraph is purely speculation. And tech demos have already suggested that the game world was already REALLY far along when it made the transition to a more linear game(IDF 2006, where the camera zooms across the massive map, showing the incredible size of the world. Then again in the more recent Xbox Live videos documenting the game, particularly the part where they show the guy working on the game and zooming all around the MASSIVE game world as he shows off various parts). My guess is they had a largely playable build of the game(probably late Pre-Alpha level, nearly content complete but not done yet) ready in an Open World state and then started running into narrative problems, and went back to change it. Interviews suggest the transition happened sometime in mid/late 2008.

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

I could say the same thing for Uncharted 2. You can pretend it's fake all you want, but Uncharted 2 does render out quite a good distance from where you travel as well. Saying you "could ___ if it was in the game, but you can't" is just a poor excuse. The fact is, this feature is not in the game. Whether it could be added is irrelevant. This is a discussion of what the game is, not what the game could be. The sticking point is that you make the assumption that adding explorable area would have no effect on the performance of the game or the fidelity of the graphics and this is rarely ever the case. It's as if you think the LOD and fidelity weren't optimized for the environments you have access to, even though this is a very basic principle of game design.

Ninja-Hippo

Also, what's a poor excuse? A poor excuse for what? What am i excusing? You asked what the difference was between an open world engine and what Uncharted does and i explained. I'm not saying either is in anyway better than the other, i just explained the differences as you asked.

Here's a reminder. Yes they use skyboxes and backdrops, but this doesn't mean it still doesn't have a quite impressive draw distance. Alan Wake uses these as well as other "tricks" to manage the data and processing load - all games do. Modeling the area around where you can travel is not something just open world games do.