View Single Post
Old 12-01-2007, 10:18 PM   #2

Activity Longevity
0/20 19/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssssss35
Default reply

While I understand and agree with most of your statements, I find that most of them are already implemented. For instance interactive open ended worlds are not absolute but are certainly becoming more and more interactive. I just got done playing Assassins Creed for instance and the ai and reaction of the people and environment is ridiculously good.
I wanted to make a lot of specific points but upon reflection they all come down to the same idea which is over acclamation. I believe that you can make a game too realistic, too interactive, too moral, or too open ended. There's a fine line between all these balancing properties and I will not pretend to understand where that line is but I do recognize it's existence.

Vanguard-Saga of Heroes = too open ended, game time is consumed by travel and lessens the action.

Mass Effect= too moral, they stress morals through the whole game and half way through it i was so tired of the game harping on it incessantly that I just killed everything and skipped dialogue constantly.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. = Too realistic, while I feel it was an important breakthrough to see a video game digitally recreate factual disasters of mankind it was done poorly which didn't really inform any of the players or move for a solution to such violence.

I actually can't think of an example of a game being too interactive so I retract that statement as i'm under the impression lately the interaction is by far the most important part of a game, maybe that view will change but for now it feels right.
Crastin is offline   Reply With Quote