Whats the point of these free-roaming type games?
Discussion
BSR on the red dead thread said:
GTA adn Red Dead are the two Ive played now and Ive become bored with both.
THe initial appeal of the massive world becomes irrelevant when it occurs to you that there isn't actually any point to it being like that. You are still ultimately channeled along a course of specific tasks and the secondary element of it is just a really really s
t game where you just ride a horse across nothing, doing nothing. Its absurd when you think of it like that!
I typed this and then thought Id be curious as to a wider opinion on the fact that it has just occured to me that this type of game is absurd and a bit sTHe initial appeal of the massive world becomes irrelevant when it occurs to you that there isn't actually any point to it being like that. You are still ultimately channeled along a course of specific tasks and the secondary element of it is just a really really s
t game where you just ride a horse across nothing, doing nothing. Its absurd when you think of it like that!t for the reasons detailed aboveRead a very very interesting discussion on player numbers versus world size from some of the elad designers/devs from Blizzard (World of Warcraft).
They were answering a question on MMOs and having all players in one 'server' rahter than spread across many (as wow does). Balancing the 'world' to be engaging and interesting is a population issue - too many players and the place is crowded and 'questing' impossible. Too few and it's dull with no interaction.
Not sure if RDR suffers from this - too big for the player-base or the lack of any structured path through the game to give it focus.
They were answering a question on MMOs and having all players in one 'server' rahter than spread across many (as wow does). Balancing the 'world' to be engaging and interesting is a population issue - too many players and the place is crowded and 'questing' impossible. Too few and it's dull with no interaction.
Not sure if RDR suffers from this - too big for the player-base or the lack of any structured path through the game to give it focus.
I see a GTA game,
The idea looks cool,
Free roaming, cars, guns, girls, adventure,
I buy game, take it home and play.
Bored after a couple of hours.
I always do this I have quite a few GTA games and I never get into them. 2-3hours before I gave up last time.
It's not like they are even pick up and play, the controls are over complex (set 1 = cars, set 2 = planes, set 3 = on foot etc).
They just seem very repetitive as well, mission after mission of go from a to b, kill guy x come back. Which is odd as I like FPS which are variations on shooting guys.
I also hated Far Cry 2 and Assasins Creed and never got into STALKER although it was better than most.
The idea looks cool,
Free roaming, cars, guns, girls, adventure,
I buy game, take it home and play.
Bored after a couple of hours.
I always do this I have quite a few GTA games and I never get into them. 2-3hours before I gave up last time.
It's not like they are even pick up and play, the controls are over complex (set 1 = cars, set 2 = planes, set 3 = on foot etc).
They just seem very repetitive as well, mission after mission of go from a to b, kill guy x come back. Which is odd as I like FPS which are variations on shooting guys.
I also hated Far Cry 2 and Assasins Creed and never got into STALKER although it was better than most.
IainT said:
Balancing the 'world' to be engaging and interesting is a population issue - too many players and the place is crowded and 'questing' impossible. Too few and it's dull with no interaction.
Eve online uses a single server for everyone, and is better for it. It means that things that happen have knock on effects all over the place. Pvp can happen everywhere, and there are no instances that prevent anyone else from interfering with what you are doing, but it far from makes it impossible. A lot of the things that are legitimate activities would get you banned in other games. Griefing (with a few exceptions), lying, cheating, scams, theft, sabotage are all accepted and encouraged aspects of play.This is why I've given up buying a lot of games and generally rent them from Lovefilm. I really enjoyed RDR but once the story was complete, and I'd done the stranger missions, I rapidly lost interest. The only games I tend to actually buy these days are things like Forza and CoD as there's a lot of online "value" in them beyond the single player.
For 9.99 a month, which gives me 4 games a month (2 at home at a time), I think it's better use of my cash.
For 9.99 a month, which gives me 4 games a month (2 at home at a time), I think it's better use of my cash.
I think the free roam element appeals to certain people more than others. E.g A friend of mine never gets more than 10% through the missions on GTA but spends ages just walking around figuring out all the random stuff you can do. I on the other hand, do more of the missions and get bored of the free roam pretty quickly.
To me the appeal of free roam is that there can be different ways to achieve the goals. To give an example from old games : I hated things like MOH because you were forced down a very narrow route with no variation. By contrast Operation Flashpoint gave you targets but left it up to you how you did them. So more thought required. And it is the thinking/puzzle solving that engages me.
I agree though that many of the supposedly 'open' games are actually quite forced and the quests can be very dull/samey (sic).
I like the idea of free roaming games, the problem is that the game designers have a much more difficult task to code real free ranging stuff. I'd like to see games with fewer explicit quests but with different routes.
eg quest to get an item for someone able to be fulfilled by any means - including direct attack, coercion of guard, seduction of lady, having fake one made up, etc.
I don't really do online gaming because I'm not that hung up on the running round shooting everything which seems to be the norm. But I guess that that Sci-Fi mmrpg might be interesting. Forget the name. edit: EVE online.
I agree though that many of the supposedly 'open' games are actually quite forced and the quests can be very dull/samey (sic).
I like the idea of free roaming games, the problem is that the game designers have a much more difficult task to code real free ranging stuff. I'd like to see games with fewer explicit quests but with different routes.
eg quest to get an item for someone able to be fulfilled by any means - including direct attack, coercion of guard, seduction of lady, having fake one made up, etc.
I don't really do online gaming because I'm not that hung up on the running round shooting everything which seems to be the norm. But I guess that that Sci-Fi mmrpg might be interesting. Forget the name. edit: EVE online.
Edited by TooLateForAName on Sunday 18th July 10:01
tank slapper said:
IainT said:
Balancing the 'world' to be engaging and interesting is a population issue - too many players and the place is crowded and 'questing' impossible. Too few and it's dull with no interaction.
Eve online uses a single server for everyone, and is better for it. It means that things that happen have knock on effects all over the place. Pvp can happen everywhere, and there are no instances that prevent anyone else from interfering with what you are doing, but it far from makes it impossible. A lot of the things that are legitimate activities would get you banned in other games. Griefing (with a few exceptions), lying, cheating, scams, theft, sabotage are all accepted and encouraged aspects of play.Sometimes I just want to be anti-social and do my own thing.
Actually, mostly, it was the gameplay that turned me off Eve - I wanted it to be Elite but MMO and it's not. Plus a game where you improve by not playing... lol.
IainT said:
Entirely possibly why Eve only held my attention for the duration of the free trial and not beyond.
Sometimes I just want to be anti-social and do my own thing.
Actually, mostly, it was the gameplay that turned me off Eve - I wanted it to be Elite but MMO and it's not. Plus a game where you improve by not playing... lol.
Eve isn't a game where you improve by not playing. Yes, it has a real time skill system but that is better than having to sit there grinding away at things to make your character useful, and means that those who play for a few hours a week instead of all day every day are not necessarily at a disadvantage. In eve, you train the skills that are relevant to what you want to do - to train everything would take something like 25 years.Sometimes I just want to be anti-social and do my own thing.
Actually, mostly, it was the gameplay that turned me off Eve - I wanted it to be Elite but MMO and it's not. Plus a game where you improve by not playing... lol.
If you never joined a player corp and only stayed in the starting corp, then I'm not surprised that you didn't like it, as most of the interesting stuff happens when you are doing stuff with other people.
I like free-form games... but it annoys me when they're advertised as free-roaming but due to the accidental placement of cliffs, rivers, trees etc they're actually not ("-Cry-" series, I'm looking at you).
Hitman was about the best for letting you wonder about to achieve your goals by any means you like.... so good, I managed to get stuck in one level as I think I found a way to kill the target the game didn't recognise at all!
Hitman was about the best for letting you wonder about to achieve your goals by any means you like.... so good, I managed to get stuck in one level as I think I found a way to kill the target the game didn't recognise at all!
tank slapper said:
If you never joined a player corp and only stayed in the starting corp, then I'm not surprised that you didn't like it, as most of the interesting stuff happens when you are doing stuff with other people.
Nah, I mainly didn't like it because of the combat paradigm. The social side of any MMO is, almost by definition, what makes the game and one's involvement in that builds with time.While I loved the Eve Graphics I just wanted it to be Elite but an MMO.
Well.
My interest in games is waning as I get older but I do like to put GTA on sometimes and just mess about on it.
In some ways more constrained games could produce more of a laugh because of "improvements via improper gameplay" as some bloke on teletext used to put it.
In a similar way, sports games can produce inadvertent humour (goalkeeper AI being one of the more reliable sources of comedy).
My interest in games is waning as I get older but I do like to put GTA on sometimes and just mess about on it.
In some ways more constrained games could produce more of a laugh because of "improvements via improper gameplay" as some bloke on teletext used to put it.
In a similar way, sports games can produce inadvertent humour (goalkeeper AI being one of the more reliable sources of comedy).
It all comes down to personal preference.
I think I had over 200 hours of gameplay on Fallout3 before I finally got bored (after playing it twice through). Sometimes just wandering around and exploring / doing random minor side quests is nice. I prefer it to pinch points and guided play, which even Crysis suffers from (and that's fairly open).
I think I had over 200 hours of gameplay on Fallout3 before I finally got bored (after playing it twice through). Sometimes just wandering around and exploring / doing random minor side quests is nice. I prefer it to pinch points and guided play, which even Crysis suffers from (and that's fairly open).
I know what you mean - GTA can be a lot of fun just messing around, but without any missions to do that soon gets boring as there's nothing to achieve.
I do enjoy having an open-ended game, the good thing about games like GTA, Fallout 3, Oblivion etc is that you can do them at your own pace. They have a main quest, and after finishing each part you can either go onto the next or go and do something different - I quite like that freedom. With Oblivion/ F3 you also have the character levelling to do which gives you a bit more impetus to do side-missions etc to level up skills. You also have to discover a lot of the quests and good items/ weapons, rather than just having them handed to you, so that's kind of a reward for wandering around exploring.
Once the quests are finished though, it does become a little pointless just wandering around killing things.
I do enjoy having an open-ended game, the good thing about games like GTA, Fallout 3, Oblivion etc is that you can do them at your own pace. They have a main quest, and after finishing each part you can either go onto the next or go and do something different - I quite like that freedom. With Oblivion/ F3 you also have the character levelling to do which gives you a bit more impetus to do side-missions etc to level up skills. You also have to discover a lot of the quests and good items/ weapons, rather than just having them handed to you, so that's kind of a reward for wandering around exploring.
Once the quests are finished though, it does become a little pointless just wandering around killing things.
Neil H said:
Once the quests are finished though, it does become a little pointless just wandering around killing things.
Yes, that's what ultimately killed Fallout3 for me, but I more than got my money's worth from it. I've heard there is a third-party expansion for the PC that adds a load of new side-quests and a handful of locations, but I've not got round to installing it. Besides, I feel like I've kind of done F3 now and New Vegas is coming out soon anyway.
The issue is a linear game can become unplayable if you get to a stage that you can't get past, whereas with a free roaming game you just don't do that mission again and find something else you can do, it is a PITA if one stupid jump or shot is preventing you going any further in the game.
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff