The Grand Theft Auto games used to have a lot of ways to complete missions. In 3 and Vice City, you could snipe enemies before the mission, park cars to block their getaway, steal their car and fit it with a bomb to detonate. In 4 and 5, every was extremely scripted. If you had to chase an enemy, they were invulnerable until they crashed at a predetermined point. You couldn't shoot them off their bike, blow up their car or pop their tires. Sometimes when things are so scripted, I wonder if I'm doing something wrong because I can't find the answer. In MGS5 when you first escape the hospital, you're hobbling down a hallway. A helicopter shoots through the window and sets fire to your escape route. You are supposed to turn around and stumble back the way you came. It's possible to die and there isn't a radio instruction or waypoint telling you to turn back. This type of event would be better as a cutscene where the action is taken away from the player and they are shown what happens and what to do.
I haven't really liked the "freedom" that zelda has been doing since botw. For me it's choice paralyzation, i also hate constantly circling menus and id like a character to have a basic combat toolkit. That said if this game means dungeons are back that at least is a step back in the right direction for zelda. Botw and totk have no real dungeons and that was more or less a major reason i even played zelda games in the first place.
I agree. It's the difference between dumping out a box of legos to play with, and questing in a TTRPG. They serve their own means but shouldn't replace one another.
Agree. While it's may not be as streamlined as LINK BETWEEN WORLDS it is MUCH more of that ilk. I appreciated BOTW and TOTK but could never love them...too big, too empty, just left me cold. This isn't that at all.
I don't know if you remember the 360 era Alone in the Dark, but this was some part of the premise. As a gamer, I've always been one who wanted to push against the walls, enough that they collapse and I avoided the lock door altogether. I do think this is going to be a huge stream of game design projects in the future, but there's huge drawbacks when the systems are so vast that their is no more design left (like in the last two Zeldas, which quickly become too easy). I personally MISS the classic, intricate dungeons and puzzles of Zelda and ready for the next one to return too it. But I also want to drop logs to make bridges, or start fires to make doors weak and kick them in.
Agree on the latest Zelda being too easy. I mean, I like it because it is very satisfying when the 'I wonder if I try this will it work?!?' and it does! BUT when that occurs 90% of the time it starts to feel...flat.
I've been playing Disco Elysium on Hardcore recently and the conversation trees have varied immensely due to my constant failures thus far in a way that has been enjoyable, it feels open but I'm starting to notice how linear it truly is. Freedom in gaming or multilateral valid solutions to a seemingly simple objective are fantastic more often than not if the rails lead them to interesting encounters! Sometimes those Scribblenauts types games feel barebones relying too much on the player to conjure what's fun, the crux of too much freedom.
Depending on the genre both the level of freedom required and desired are very different and yes, too much Freedom can be a bad thing as it can feel directionless. It's a balancing act.
The freedom of modern Switch Zelda games actually angers me while playing. I don't have an engineering mind to create solutions to puzzles. I'm not MacGuyver. Much prefer games that offer a more direct experience. One that may still require critical thinking, but not one that requires scavenging hundreds of items and creating solutions by combining them. Most games are A --> B problem - solution. Or perhaps A --> C ---> D --> B. These Zelda games or others like Minecraft are like, "I dunno you figure it out."
@@DavidJaffeGames the black spider tends to be pretty predictable, but if I see it pointing the wrong direction I spawn in another. I don't think the player has any control over which direction it moves.
I think it's being overused a bit. For example, "sentient" npcs might be cool for an RPG like Skyrim. Or sim shooter as you've shown here. And puzzles being solvable by multiple solutions might sometimes be interesting. But I definitely don't want every single game to be a sandbox with AI npcs, crafting and building, bows and horses etc. Yet it seems like every couple years someone makes something and it sticks forever even where it makes no sense.
@@redcommander27 there's a weed strain called greasy runts but in Buffalo reservations, they sell it as Obama runts. In the meantime, I said there's a weed strain called peyote. The English I used checks out!
That’s why I stopped streaming single player narrative games- I was never able to fully process the experience when my focus was split between game and chat.
