-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CliffyB talks about new game design philosophy, wants less linear/scripted games
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
For the most part I agree.
It's not linear level design in itself that annoys me, it's games that are scripted to the point of taking greater measures of control away from the player.
An example of a "good" linear game would be Halo - its level design points in one direction, but you don't feel like the designers are actively steering you through the entire experience like all the games that try to rip off Call of Duty. Infinity Ward is just about the only developer that does that kind of roller-coaster game design well. Most of those games feel like roller-coasters or at worst interactive movies. Halo still feels like a dynamic game where you have control over what happens within the levels. Crysis is a similar example, even Crysis 2 or BioShock 2.
Helscream
Banned
Well I was coming from the perspective of arena shooters being the perfect theme to have great level design. I'm still bitter with how UT3 turned out. So I hope one day we will get a true successor to UT99/UT2K4.
yeah, that is why I never liked them and sticked to games which offered more varied experiences.
also even though I never liked shmups they actually required SKILL. Most modern titles don't require it. I mean I can replay Ninja Gaiden a lot of times but Gears of War? nah.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
That was my poorly generalized view of what I picture you'd be into.
Well you seem to have a very narrow mind when it comes to games which is ironic. There is nothing wrong with linear games and nothing wrong with open games. Both have their place in gaming and no one should feel that all linear games should die. That's a terrible viewpoint.
And we're not talking about on-rails either.
Riposte
Member
STGs are often more about surviving to the end of the game than score. Score just gives you more room to compete with other players. The descriptions of "grandfather" games in this thread really makes me wonder about some people. That's more Donkey Kong and Pacman type stuff.
Also "depth" in videogames is not the storylines or graphics. Naturally there is more depth in a typical classic arcade STG than there is in just about every JRPG of the SNES era. Those JRPGs might have more complexity though.
Also "depth" in videogames is not the storylines or graphics. Naturally there is more depth in a typical classic arcade STG than there is in just about every JRPG of the SNES era. Those JRPGs might have more complexity though.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
My point was that there is room for all types. If every game became a vast open world game where talking to npc A had you fetching potions, that'd fucking suck.
Not every game has become linear either. People need to calm down. In a world where Skyrim, GTA, RDR, Deus Ex, Uncharted, AC, Arkhum games, GeoW, GOW, and Mario Galaxy co-exist in the console space is pretty fucking neat and displays a lot of different game types for action-adventure/platformers...
Valve's stuff is very linear, it's just really good at *disguising* the fact. Which might be key, really.
I think one of the big advantages of linearity is one of pacing. Everyone's been through those moments in Doom where you've pretty much cleared the immediate area of enemies but you're still plodding around trying to actually open the passage to the next area, whereas with linearity you can actually control the pacing to suit the player.
The downside, of course, is the massive loss of exploration, which I will admit is something I absolutely adore. I think that might be what works so well for Valve: It's linear at heart, but with small areas of exploration; maybe the quarter of the size of a large Doom level, but interesting enough to investigate and *feel* adventurous to poke around.
Refreshment.01
Member
In this case Bleszinski is out of his depth. The most recognized games which he contributed to create are just quailty iterations on someone else projects. Unreal was raised from the Doom/Quake blue prints and Gears is a bastard child of RE4.
He needs some other developers to show him and Epic the path and onllly then they can do something worthwhile.
He needs some other developers to show him and Epic the path and onllly then they can do something worthwhile.
Riposte
Member
I wonder how far you need to be sitting from the picture to see what you want.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
Tell us how you really feel. haha
I felt Gears and RE4 just are both over the shoulder third person games, don't think Gears is a spawn of it at all they just happen to use the same perspective.
Refreshment.01
Member
Honestly i don't understand your reply. But that's what Epic does, they are good on improving on existing formulas, nothing wrong with that and that's what many do in this industry.
But to make the kind of experience he talks about in the interview, few developers have that hability, Epic is not one of them so far.
So what's the problem?
Net_Wrecker
Member
Gears 1 was clearly going for a RE4 + Aliens vibe. They may have gone away from that with the sequels which become much more blockbuster affairs, but it was there for the first game. I believe going away from that actually hurt the sequels. Gears 1 had a more unique atmosphere when it was darker and had more slight horror elements.
Oh I understood that, the first three UT's had great level design, arena shooter or no. I just don't think his mind was working along the lines of arena shooter as an example to showcase this. If he could plot the game structure of UT on top of a proper storyline it might actually work as both of us implied.
Cliffy straight-up admitted he got the idea for the over-the-shoulder camera from RE4. Gears was gonna be first person before he saw that game. The other major influence was Killswitch. Shit, a lot of the level design and enemies in the first Gears felt like they were deliberately evoking RE4.
Refreshment.01
Member
A huge part of what has become "modern" day action 3D gaming was stablished by one company and one team specially. That's how it is, we have to give credit where is due, doing so doesn't make the series we like any less enjoyable or relevant.
Yes, Notjeally seems to brush a side that i gave Epic credit for being so good at refining and iterating.
Epic so far couldn't output something like say for example System Shock, Deus Ex, Thief or an Elder Scrolls game.
There's other ways to create what he talks about in the interview. Take Halo: CE for example, game structure is linear yet the AI is so masterfully executed that there are many outcomes to the same combat scenario so users get lots of experiences even in the same level. This somewhat rings true for something like Bioshock.
Even the most iconic weapon from Gears comes from ones of RE4 most impressive moments.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
The horror elements were a joke to me, I guess maybe that is why the RE4 vibe doesn't click with me. I just don't really see it, not enough atmosphere for me to say it derived from it.
As far as the Aliens franchise goes, I think of Halo not Gears.
Edit: Pretty much when I think of RE4 rip off I think of Dead Space mainly, that is what I am trying to say. haha
Maybe he realized this now?
MiniBossBattle
Member
If anyone has worked on unreal engine, he may be posing a very exciting way on how the new unreal engine may work. No longer having to create airlocker/partitioned zones with trigger volumes loading up enemy placements with scripted pathing they need to do.
Maybe he is suggesting an engine that can create an algorithm of reacting to character (health, weapon selected, characters type) and change environmental parameters (materials, line of sight, position) as well as enemy generation.
The designer creates general trigger nodes (player running out of ammo, a dropship will send an ammo create but players has to find it and hang in there until it arrives) to set the story beats of a sandbox game narrative.
Just some game design navel gazing.
Maybe he is suggesting an engine that can create an algorithm of reacting to character (health, weapon selected, characters type) and change environmental parameters (materials, line of sight, position) as well as enemy generation.
The designer creates general trigger nodes (player running out of ammo, a dropship will send an ammo create but players has to find it and hang in there until it arrives) to set the story beats of a sandbox game narrative.
Just some game design navel gazing.
Windom Earle
Member
Wow, wouldn't have expected that from Cliffy but good to hear. Next time just say Dark Souls instead of Skyrim.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
I've already realized that this guy is a loot whore. If he can't walk around vast environments where enemies don't spawn to admire pretty graphics in tucked away corners while looking for pieces of fruit/coins/gems/a sense of purpose, he can't enjoy it.
I want more open environments in the next Uncharted as much as the next guy. I also want to see a Thundercats open world game that I have had in my head for years. But I'm not so quick to rule out linear games altogether.
You should stop assuming you know me from comments that don't give off much of a hint as to what I prefer to play, other than open world > linear. It's making you look like quite the asshole.
CoconutTank
Member
And that was great and I'm not complaining about that.
But you could not play it as a straight up shooter. The stealth elements where greatly fleshed out, but the more in your face gameplay was very limited. Lets say I expected to take a bit of the style of Bulletstorm.
Sir Garbageman
Member
Winner.
well said. Gears is a mix of Killswitch, RE4, Aliens, God of War(brutality).
More than a little annoying that the article glosses over Epic's non-Unreal output in their first eight years so quickly, especially seeing as how ZZT is all about systems interacting and the Jazz Jackrabbit 2 fanbase has done all sorts of things with the multiplayer that were never intended by the developers. Epic used to make that sort of game, they've just spent this entire generation forgetting how.
rohlfinator
Member
It's cool to see a prominent developer take a critical look at the weaknesses of their game design. I'm interested in seeing what comes out of this.
Not sure if I buy into his YouTube theory, though. I'm all for emergent gameplay, but if most of your "unique YouTube videos" are just people exploiting the busted engine, no thanks. Look at Deus Ex: HR for a better example of a game with a lot of player agency while still being reasonably polished. Or if you're going for the random goofiness factor, at least aim closer to Minecraft than Skyrim.
Not sure if I buy into his YouTube theory, though. I'm all for emergent gameplay, but if most of your "unique YouTube videos" are just people exploiting the busted engine, no thanks. Look at Deus Ex: HR for a better example of a game with a lot of player agency while still being reasonably polished. Or if you're going for the random goofiness factor, at least aim closer to Minecraft than Skyrim.
makes sense
would be pretty cool if devs define the idea behind their game and you choose to do wat you want with it.
For instance take uncharted 3 where u play thru the game as you normally would but halfway u decide to say fuck it all and join the bad guys and end up having to fight your previous allies for total destruction, and it all happens procedurally so you and your friends would have vastly different play throughs even if you all decide to betray your homies around the same time. every decsicion you would make would affect the world and change things uniquely.
would be pretty cool if devs define the idea behind their game and you choose to do wat you want with it.
For instance take uncharted 3 where u play thru the game as you normally would but halfway u decide to say fuck it all and join the bad guys and end up having to fight your previous allies for total destruction, and it all happens procedurally so you and your friends would have vastly different play throughs even if you all decide to betray your homies around the same time. every decsicion you would make would affect the world and change things uniquely.
Testify!
This is the image he's mentioning by the way:
Aaaahhhh now I have a picture to go with my theory of 7th generation, it's 300+ shooters and no thinking involved.
I am glad he recognised it, coz it seems a lot of people need to hear that from him to have noticed it after all these years with our AAA games of the 7th gen.
These hallways designs overshadowed all explorative, thought-provoking games this generation, guess it goes to show how the majority feels about what is called a good game...
Sorry Guys, I loved Gears of War 1 (graphics pulled me), liked the worm stage in GoW2, I finished the Trilogy, and when I got to the end I felt a large hole of emptiness because I had no relationship with that game. I just remember the cutscenes (Maria
) and never made a decision except for gun-switching and 2 minute-separations. I WANT THOSE HOURS BACK!!!Thanks to these mind-numbing shooters, and 2 FPSs being released each week, I have told myself that I should only play Shooter if it makes me think,... i.e. Bioshock, Half-Life, Portal, F.E.A.R., RSV2, Battlefield (to some degree) there should be a couple more... my point being everything else an automotive brainwash I'm afraid.
I should go to sleep >_><
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Games like Skyrim are both infinitely boring to me, and I wouldn't have time for them even if they were more interesting. Minecraft the same. I see the quality there, but we need more than one type of game philosophy, and luckily for everyone, so far we've always had them. There's always been popular and successful fun linear games (P&C adventures are great example) as well as less linear ones, like RPGs, strategies, etc. It's the same now, and I hope it will remain the same way.
jordan0386
Member
Nobody is funding the production towards 4-5 instances of the 'same thing'. So, he is just throwing shit at a wall.
Maybe for one or two levels, but a whole game of 'randomness', I highly doubt it.
Maybe for one or two levels, but a whole game of 'randomness', I highly doubt it.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
Will this be rewarded by money, though? There's the rub.
Cliffy's always thought this, but financial and Dogmatic realities plus the success of Gears kept him tied to the norm which GoW helped establish. He has a varied portfolio and a lot of whistful interviews touching on this subject in tangents.
Boom. Headshot.
Thing is, I do not hate on any game like this, nor any person purchasing them. It is their right to buy what they want, and the game maker's reward for accomodating that. It's just that Dogma that this is required for success this generation. That to not hew to this superstition is death to one's career or dev house. That this is somehow an "evolution" of gaming. The last time we saw Dogma so strong that it corrupted this much outside its normal sphere of influence this badly was when 2D was hated by Sony in the early PSX days (all for that jagged poly flat-mapped goodness).
If Cliffy and others (gamers buying the games included) causes this Dogma to lose its grip on people's minds from major shareholders down to dudes shopping for bargains at the Gamestop, I'll be happier, creative devs will be happier, hell, maybe even budgets will stop ballooning where they're needed to ease off the most. Who knows?
Cliffy's always thought this, but financial and Dogmatic realities plus the success of Gears kept him tied to the norm which GoW helped establish. He has a varied portfolio and a lot of whistful interviews touching on this subject in tangents.
Boom. Headshot.
Thing is, I do not hate on any game like this, nor any person purchasing them. It is their right to buy what they want, and the game maker's reward for accomodating that. It's just that Dogma that this is required for success this generation. That to not hew to this superstition is death to one's career or dev house. That this is somehow an "evolution" of gaming. The last time we saw Dogma so strong that it corrupted this much outside its normal sphere of influence this badly was when 2D was hated by Sony in the early PSX days (all for that jagged poly flat-mapped goodness
).If Cliffy and others (gamers buying the games included) causes this Dogma to lose its grip on people's minds from major shareholders down to dudes shopping for bargains at the Gamestop, I'll be happier, creative devs will be happier, hell, maybe even budgets will stop ballooning where they're needed to ease off the most. Who knows?
Of course, a guilty doq will bark.
Unreal 1 is far better than quake's brown level garbage design.
lol
Quake's level design is fucking masterful. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry, but your totally delusional if you think
looks better than
Quake's level design was good for 1996. Unreal set the new standard in 1998.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Holy shit I think you just completely failed to understand the design part of level design.
Ah, and our resident Quake fanboy shows up right on schedule, claiming he understands level design.
Sentenza
Member
I actually do, to tell the truth.
Even taking what at its core is the more linear game in the world, I honestly think that offering at least some degree of non-linearity, some *illusion* of freedom, can improve immersion and fun immensely.
And just to be clear I'm not even a big fan of the "sandbox 100%" formula, which often ends being quite boring, lacking in variety, design, etc. As I already stated few times now I can't stand any Bethesda game, for example.
On the other hand, I could list dozen of games nailing this properly (starting with one of my favorite series, Gothic), but let's take the most famous franchise: Zelda.
In Zelda there is essentially a bunch of important things you need to do in the proper order, and then a bunch of optional or secondary stuff you can manage as you like, and some room to wander almost as you like.
How great is that?
I can't think of a single game, not even picking from the most tight and polished ones, that wouldn't improve to some extent adding more freedom, more room for exploration, more secrets you need to hunt down and so on...
Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
He must be reacting to his own creation because Gears of War 3 was one of the most linear, forced games I've ever played. It's pretty much what made me give up on today's "epic" games. So stupid.