stealth toilet
Moderator
Zidart said:
Metroid does blend levels and bosses together more seamlessly than most First Person games, I agree with you on that. However, its overall structure is still primarily based in level by level segments, granting access to new areas after bosses have been defeated. Even so, I concur that this game was a step in the direction I proposed FP games ought to move towards.
Fr0dus Maximus said:
I always wanted to, actually, but never had the PC power to do it. Bring it to a console, slap some WWII skins on it, and I'll be all over it.
Out of curiosity though, wasn't S.T.A.L.K.E.R. primarily about one man, in an apocalyptic setting, killing monsters whilst trying to survive? Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I'd like to see the single person focus and adventure style of STALKER, combined with military engagements. So throw in some squad-based combat or even up the anti by throwing the player into some full scale battlefields involving hundreds of troops? Make the main character part of a greater whole, but don't constrict them to fulfilling one specific roll to complete one specific objective at a time.
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Agreed, major hurdles would have to be overcome to fully realize this sort of game, but that is what I would like to see, and in the meantime I grow weary of the cliched way of dealing with the subject material. In response to the specific problems you posed:
1) Time progression can be dealt with in a number of ways, so going from one battle to another could occur in a way that remains consistent with how the player interacts with the game world when in an actual battle. In this instance, cutscenes are cop outs, not because cutscenes are bad or ineffective, just overused. Minigames, or other incentives, could be used to keep the player from getting bored during these "downtimes," but ultimately the player should be able to decide if they even want to fight in the next battle. Time progression is not really an issue unless the developers are constructing the game world in such a way that the player is supposed to engage in certain battles at certain times. So already the issue of "how do you transport the player from one battle to the next without a cutscene" is missing the point of having the player's input determine if the next battle even happens, or if it does and they have no involvement with it at all.
2) These games also do not need to be constricted to historical battles and events. Again, if the focus is on the player's input, the game could still take place in a WWII setting without representing the reality of the war in its entirety. The question here is not one of getting the player to experience certain battles at certain times in certain orders without breaking them up into missions. Rather it is one of putting the player in the boots of a soldier, and letting their actions guide them through a war they are trying to survive. Creating a dynamic world in which various battles take place at variable times in no particular order, all based on the player's involvement, is the ultimate goal.
I guess the idea is to make the game about an individual, not a larger action. Their participation in that larger action is not necessary, and also not finite, but their choices will influence the outcome of it. Major hurdle, but if it could be overcome...
I'm sooo looking forward to this game. Also, it doesn't have the cliche of finding random weapons all over the place. You can customize and put together parts into a weapon since your character is an engineer. I thought that was cool to go ahead and eliminate that cliche.