Rocket Surgeon said:
I've yet to play Uncharted, but I don't see why an Indy game couldn't offer both. As well as I could remember GTA, you could play the main missions without bothering with the rest of the environment.
You could have the main storyline missions, side quests, random quests. But, that does not mean the game will be linear (hence both).
I enjoy both types of games, but I greatly enjoy linear games more. Moving from point A to point B in a natural way seems more appealing for an Indy game IMO.
Rocket Surgeon said:
I have no love for RPGs but I would enjoy a game where, if I chose to go to another place instead of heading off directly on the main mission, I would be swarmed by children and potentially have my pockets picked. If I wasn't fast enough to appease them with money or food I might have to chase them down to get my part of the map back...
This could be done in a linear game as well.
Have the more action-packed levels set as a linear path. But also add breathing time to explore and look around(more open-ended) in another level.
Some levels could be more open, and have multiple routes with different events happening in each one, but still have a main focus.
Rocket Surgeon said:
I think the two can co-exist...
You can have your scripted fast paced linear adventure, and/or you can check out the locals for assistance or a deeper adventure.
Yes, I think the can co-exist to a certain degree. There can't be a Red Dead Redemption style sandbox game that has huge elements being linear. Just like a Castlevania game can't also be fully open-ended. But, there can be small snippets of both.
Indy's brother said:
Yeah I don't get that. It was a decent game, but didn't live up to the hype for me. Well executed game, but it didn't blow me away. It felt too scripted, like I was watching a movie, and the controller was in essence the remote I was using to fast forward to the next cutscene (by way of bullets). Granted, I've only been able to play the first in that series so far, but every level was made to look open, but really just bottle-necked you into the next area, the next cutscene. That's fine and all, but how many games have we all played like that. It's gotten old to me.
I can understand your point.
But after playing so many open-world games, I have grown tired of them like you have the linear ones.
Uncharted was meant to feel like a movie. HUGE set-pieces with tons of action, with some breather time (puzzles) thrown in. I do agree the gunplay got a little thin at times.
Uncharted 2's pacing is far better than the first one. It truly felt like an Indy adventure.
Indy's brother said:
It's gotten old to me. But hey, everyone's different. And c'mon Lonsome, "aimlessly wandering the landscape"? You don't really think that's how this type of game is played do you?
I have played my share of sandbox games.
Using the storyline missions in said genre as an example - One completes a task. Has to travel across the map to the next one (fast traveling is usually not allowed until you visit the area first), go fetch said item for the NPC, fetch another item. Travel, travel and more travel is what most of the quests are made of. It may not be aimlessly wondering, but one still walks the empty expanses too much; hoping a random quests may be triggered.
I know my view is not a popular one here. But, I like to have a goal in my games. Even when not doing a mission in the sandbox genre, walking or riding around without reason really gets boring to me.
It would be great if there was an Indy game where unique events happened in almost every corner of the map. But, the fact is with almost all open-world games, they get repetitive and trite.
I've yet to see an open-world game which feels like something new is happening at all times, but RDR was in the right direction.
But, all of this prittle-prattle is just my two-cents.