|
Shadow Complex is a game that truly highlights the nature of non-linear
progression (NLP). NLP is just player-determined progression. There is
no set course to play the game other than “Find the Backpack” and
“Defeat Final Boss”. More importantly, it isn’t a direct course from
start to finish There are multiple ways in which to reach the ending. Despite this NLP, the player does not feel like a mouse trapped in a
maze unable to plan ahead, nor does the player wander aimlessly in
order to somehow discover by divine intervention which way to go. All
actions still remain goal directed, and certainly not boring.
Ultimately, NLP is all about exploration. Without NLP, exploration is a
waste of time that is unnecessary.
Does exploration really
require something open ended as NLP? Can NLP only be limited to
purposes of exploration? Shadow Complex shows that the answer to both
is a definitive yes. It even shows the potential harm of linear
progression when the game encourages a player to explore. The early
portion of Shadow Complex begins with linear progression. There is a
definitive and single path to take. It is simply not possible to veer
off the pre-selected path, since all that the player can do is jump and
shoot with a pistol. Simply put, at this early point in the game,
exploration has little purpose. It is clear that exploration is one of
the goals of the game given the obvious passageways the player cannot
access yet as well as curiosity about why there is an underground
military facility in the middle of a forest. The early linearity does
nothing more than prevent a player from exploring. It is not any fun
for a player to see what they can do but not be allowed to do it.
To
have an exploration based game, NLP is a requirement. Exploration is
inherently open-ended, so anything that increases open-endedness is
necessary to produce the strongest effect. It is also important to
recognize that NLP’s only purpose is for exploration. The first time
NLP becomes noticeable is when the player is asked to make decisions
where one choice isn’t any more right than another. When the player
acquires the grenade, they’re able to choose to backtrack to get
upgrades that they missed, keep progressing in the most direct manner
or just take a look at other paths that may have been overlooked. It is
pretty self-evident that NLP will only be noticed when NLP comes into
effect, but the important question is why does the NLP only get noticed
at this particular point? It is because this is when exploration
actually matters. If there wasn’t a need for exploration, NLP wouldn’t
matter. Why say “the direction you choose is your decision only” if
exploring has trivial consequences?
Even with NLP, goal
directed action is maintained. The number of potential goals increase
as the game goes on. As the player acquires more items, they can access
more areas. Few areas are actually required. This makes it necessary
for the player to set intermediate goals, all while the only ultimate
goal is to defeat the final boss. To reach an ultimate goal in a game
as open-ended as Shadow Complex requires intermediate goals to be set,
otherwise the player will feel like they’re trapped in a labyrinth. If
a player wants to be super-powerful, they’ll want to find as many
upgrades as possible. This in turn requires exploring every corner. If
the player just wants to complete the game, they’ll want to limit
exploring to survival needs. More upgrades allow a player to fight more
efficiently. Even after completing the game, different ultimate goals
can be set, such as completing the game to beat a fastest time or
completing the game with as few items as possible. A modified ultimate
goal necessarily modifies all intermediate goals. Open-endedness does
not imply limiting goals, only limiting pre-determined goals.
NLP
is effective when used in games when exploration and discovery are key
game components. It allows the player to determine what is important,
while the designer only has to provide a bare minimum of requirements. Since exploration implies a spatial element, the most crucial aspect of
developing a game based on NLP is spatial design, or in other words,
level design. A well defined game-world is required for NLP to work,
but the player has control over how the game will be explored.
(from my blog http://wlwords.blogspot.com/ )
|
Maybe I'm just a bit unwelcome to trends, but I have simple points to add:
- NLP is for replay.
- Everything you do by first time, like going by a new place, is exploration, even in "linear" progression.
- If the player does not now what's next, than he's making blind choices and it's not any different than not having choices at all, it's still linear progression, just works differently for each player.
Excellent points, I agree with you in that NLP doesn't necessarily benefit the player until he actually takes advantage of the fact that he can go multiple ways, which implies a replaying.
It would take a perfect game, with physics far beyond our current computing capacity, to present a game to players that is truly open ended, allowing them to do anything they can possibly imagine.
In current "open-ended" games, players are really just trying to find one of the possible ways that the designers will currently allow them to go, which is not necessarily a benefit because I constantly find myself questioning "am I supposed to be here yet," when I enter a new chamber.
Shadow Complex was only moderately non-linear, in the sense that there were still waypoints you had to reach and goals you had to complete, with clear cut lines leading you down the correct path.
Arkham Asylum is an example of a game that promotes exploration, while remaining essentially linear, through its pairing of the "Riddler's Challenge" and the main storyline.
Both games are more linear than truly open world games like Fallout 3, or older games like Might and Magic 7 and 8. I would cite them if I were trying to exemplify games that encourage exploration.
I'd also imagine profit skyrocketing. I do not think Shadow Complex is the epitome of NLP. But it is the most recent game that I've played that actually demonstrates my theory/principles of NLP. Fallout 3 has the open-ended choices, but not the proper level design. Shadow Complex has the appropriate level design, but not enough open-ended choices.
How so ?
Fallout 3 has a number of places you don't _need_ to go or that are visited as unnecessary side missions. Many of these areas contain rewards that make exploration worthwhile (e.g. bobble-heads, various diaries and the named weapons).
While you don't need to visit these locations there's both a gameplay, and a story benefit to visiting them.The game also leads you to these locations through the in-game radio stations, found items (like maps) and NPCs mentioning they've seen something interesting somewhere which encourages you to go look around an area if you're so inclined.
You also have markers indicating where nearby places of interest are and the fast-travel system so you don't have to wander lost for any length of time if you want to get back to civilisation.
I think the level designers at Bethesda knew exactly what they were doing. I guarantee you that without the huge preponderance of side missions and sections of empty terrain, Fallout 3 would not have been anywhere near as successful as it was.
Open ended level/world design and boring (low level of interactivity?) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The problem with Fallout 3 world design was that it clashed with future story segments and generally offered far less interactivity and narrative if you went to certain areas before you were instructed to by a bread crumb questline.
Open ended world and level design like this is a great idea if it is actually supported by mission structures, but if you are just going to develop an open geography because you feel like it and then not actually support open-ended progression and exploration with narratives and complex interactive elements beyond unknowingly killing a future quest giver for the hell of it or looting items you would have gotten in the future anyway, then the whole feature is shallow.
I think the urge to explore an environment is somewhat unaffected by the presence of oodles of content or the lack thereof; but for players who are maybe only partially motivated by the urge to explore, the idea of potentially compromising intended quests and plot devices by deviating off course is a discouragement, even in an open geography.
I totally agree with what you're saying about fallout 3 which is a game I appreciate for what it did but it should have been a more defined world (more because i think it should have had morrowind/oblivionesque guilds or similar groups/factions to guide some non-main-quest adventuring as opposed to any issue with the world they created). I explored the wasteland because I wanted to, not because the game encouraged me to.
So Prototype - Smallish open world, has a focused main quest, side events, and the Web of Intrigue targets necessary to reveal the storyline but not to complete the main quest. The main quest gives you all your necessary tools but everything you do outside the main story gives you 'xp' to build on those tools. The game encourages you through reward/fun events to take on things outside the main questline.