Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

I won't belabor this point. I think Fortnite is the GOAT because it gives players a wide set of interesting options during gameplay. The building, interesting gadgets, interactive level design combine to make every PvP engagement feel like a unique symphony of elating highs and crushing lows.

So...in the single player realm, I try to check out games that give players interesting choices.

I've bounced hard off both Dishonored games and I'm now playing Cyberpunk2077 and I'm running into the same problem.

These games often give you a door. You go up to it, learn that you don't have enough door punching points in your character, so then you must find the window that the developers have placed 10ft away. Wow, the window is open. Who would have thunk it?

I find these choices to be bafflingly stupid. Who cares if I go through a square (window) to get into the building or if I use the rectangle (door). The game doesn't differentiate between the two. Finding the window isn't fun. Going through the window doesn't give me a new set of options. I'm just plopped right next to the door once I enter.

Why aren't these games docked for this and what can they do in the future to make infiltrating an area more interesting? Arkane is supposedly making Dishonored 3 and I suspect they're going to run into this problem a 3rd time. What problem do they still need to solve?

 

[cireza]

Play better games. You should play Hitman 3.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Going through the window usually puts you in a more disadvantageous place, or if you don't have enough door points you may not have access to an area with cool loot.

Besides, CP2077 isn't even the best example for this sort of gameplay design. Try something like BG3, Ctrl Alt Ego or Deus Ex (with some mod like GMDX).

 

[killatopak]

You like options then proceed to shit on more options?

You have to be more specific in this case as locked doors in CP2077 usually allow you to obtain items, pass through an area without alerting the enemy, or obtain credit/hacking chips.

Besides some are also there for the RPG aspects. Not all locked doors can be picked. Some are hacked and some are brute forced by having arm augments. It emphasizes the downsides or upsides of your build.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Play better games. You should play Hitman 3.

I did enjoy Hitman 1 and 2, but fell off 3 as I felt it was more of the same.

You are right though. I think Hitman does a better job at making choice feel more meaningful/fun.

What is Hitman doing differently?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You like options then proceed to shit on more options?

More options is not the goal.

More fun/rewarding options is the goal.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[Varteras]

Asking the real questions now. We should never be limited in the openings we can enter. I fully agree.

 

[Nankatsu]

I won't belabor this point. I think Fortnite is the GOAT because it gives players a wide set of interesting options during gameplay.

And you've bounced from Dishonored and Cyberpunk 2077 because of doors and windows?

Can't take you serious, sorry.

 

[ChoosableOne]

They should make you explore the entire city to find the red key needed to open the door, because you deserve it lol.

 

[Kuranghi]

Metal Gear Solid V is fun

I need to finish it finally. What an amazing game.

Its so strange that MGS 1, 2 and 4 are some of my favourite games in no small part due to the story cutscenes and Phantom Pain absolutely shat the bed for me in that regard... yet its still one of the best games ever.

The gameplay is so fucking good it makes that previously integral component fall by the wayside.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

And you've bounced from Dishonored and Cyberpunk 2077 because of doors and windows?

Can't take you serious, sorry.

It's a distillation of the greater issue. These games give you choice, but very few of them feel rewarding. Fortnite will present to you a variety of choices and they all feel like they have a massive impact on the remainder of your game. I'm trying to understand what makes choice interesting, not partake in fanboy nonsense.

 

[Guilty_AI]

More fun/rewarding options is the goal.

Thats the opposite of 90% of online games.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Thats the opposite of 90% of online games.

Good games, online or not, share many similarities. Rewarding choice is one of them.

 

[Sleepwalker]

I won't belabor this point. I think Fortnite is the GOAT

I was going to give it serious thought but you opened with this so:

 

[Guilty_AI]

Good games, online or not, share many similarities. Rewarding choice is one of them.

Well, there are other types too. Many story driven stuff, puzzle games, some construction games, many of which the choice either doesn't exist or is diluted within the game's mechanics.

 

[Loomy]

Buildings have doors and windows. Doors are sturdier than window, and are harder to break. Windows are made of glass. Easier to break. Most games can't have Fortnite's building feature, because it doesn't fit the world the developers have created. Most game can't give their characters the ability to break down walls or doors, so they give them the option to sneak around.

Fortnite is a very different game than Cyberpunk is a very different game from The Last of US is a very different game than Disco Elysium is a very different game than Tetris is a very different game than Starfield is a very different game than Assassins Creed etc

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Well, there are other types too. Many story driven stuff, puzzle games, some construction games, many of which the choice either doesn't exist or is diluted within the game's mechanics.

True. But I think as time plays out, it's getting harder and harder for games that don't leverage player choice to succeed. Games are slowly evolving into the form they were always meant to become.

 

[Guilty_AI]

True. But I think as time plays out, it's getting harder and harder for games that don't leverage player choice to succeed. Games are slowly evolving into the form they were always meant to become.

Not really, gaming is splitting up into many different niches. Naturally some types get more popular than others, but you'll still get games like AC6, Elden Ring or JRPGs and such.

Not to mention trends come and go. There doesn't exist a "trend to end all trends" or a "gaming final form".

 

[Boneless]

Playing serious Fortnite if you're above 18 should be a felony.

 

[rabbity-thing]

These games often give you a door. You go up to it, learn that you don't have enough door punching points in your character, so then you must find the window that the developers have placed 10ft away. Wow, the window is open. Who would have thunk it?

I find these choices to be bafflingly stupid. Who cares if I go through a square (window) to get into the building or if I use the rectangle (door). The game doesn't differentiate between the two. Finding the window isn't fun. Going through the window doesn't give me a new set of options. I'm just plopped right next to the door once I enter.

Why aren't these games docked for this and what can they do in the future to make infiltrating an area more interesting? Arkane is supposedly making Dishonored 3 and I suspect they're going to run into this problem a 3rd time. What problem do they still need to solve?

It's not about the destination, it's about the journey. In those games you criticize, it's not that you don't have enough door-punching points or that the devs couldn't be bothered to make the door accessible. It's that having the door locked and impassable forces the player to find an alternate route and that alternate route itself is part of the gameplay experience. What you see as a lack of options is simply level design. You might not feel this because you are comparing titles against a game like fortnite. Fortnite doesn't want to impede your forward progress. It wants you to be able to go shooty shoot with as little distraction as possible. It's not giving you "options" so much as it is removing barriers to gunplay. Many games, conversely, intentionally create barriers because overcoming said barriers offers up exciting and rewarding gameplay opportunities. Different games, different loops. Embrace more genres.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Not really, gaming is splitting up into many different niches. Naturally some types get more popular than others, but you'll still get games like AC6, Elden Ring or JRPGs and such.

We don't really disagree here. As gaming matures, the star dust left in its wake will cater to small niches of people.

Not to mention trends come and go. There doesn't exist a "trend to end all trends" or a "gaming final form".

I don't think player choice is really a trend that's in danger of coming and going. That's a long term stock you want to hang on to.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I don't think player choice is really a trend that's in danger of coming and going. That's a long term stock you want to hang on to.

It came and went once. It started growing in the 90s and slowly died out in the 2000s. Don't see why it wouldn't again.

 

[RagnarokIV]

Firstly, fortnite is for fucken poofs mate. Sort your life out.
Secondly, it's not even an online game with amazing choices and opportunities anyway. Try something like Metal Gear Online 2 for creativity.

I can choke someone unconcious while his mate is distracted by a porn magazine. After knocking them both out, I shake them down for their weapons and leave them unarmed for the shark tank that is my team.
Sadly, I then got killed. But the person killing me suffers from diarrhea and shit his pants, buying enough time for me to respawn and tranquilize him with a non-lethal weapon. I teabag him before stabbing the kunt to death.

 

[Wildebeest]

Dishonored is more about style than strategy. Try the Prey Mooncrash DLC.

 

[Filben]

Cyberpunk, and many others, try to tell very specific stories that need certain boundaries (and hence limits to the player's action) you don't need in an online game like Fortnite. Breaking walls there works because the only consequence and lasting effect is for this round. There's no NPC behaviour or story that needs to react to this approach. In singleplayer games you need to be more careful in giving players freedom. In this more scripted environment you have to consider any, or at least, most options the player could think of so they won't be breaking the whole game's logic and universe and end up locking themselves out of progressing.

So the easy route for the devs is your example. It gives you some sense of choice and multiple solutions without too many implications down the line.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It's not about the destination, it's about the journey. In those games you criticize, it's not that you don't have enough door-punching points or that the devs couldn't be bothered to make the door accessible. It's that having the door locked and impassable forces the player to find an alternate route and that alternate route itself is part of the gameplay experience. What you see as a lack of options is simply level design.

Let me ask you...why do I view choice as more rewarding in the Hitman games as opposed to Cyberpunk2077? Do you agree that it is?

You might not feel this because you are comparing titles against a game like fortnite. Fortnite doesn't want to impede your forward progress. It wants you to be able to go shooty shoot with as little distraction as possible. It's not giving you "options" so much as it is removing barriers to gunplay.

I would argue the opposite. Fortnite definitely wants to impede your forward progress by pitting 99 other human beings against you. It also gives players a relatively low amount of action (22 minute games often yield 3 - 5 kills) which suggests the game is feeding players interesting "non action" choices during the match.

Many games, conversely, intentionally create barriers because overcoming said barriers offers up exciting and rewarding gameplay opportunities. Different games, different loops. Embrace more genres.

I'm not sure I'm interested in games + genres that don't leverage the interactive part of the medium. They feel dead to me.

It came and went once. It started growing in the 90s and slowly died out in the 2000s. Don't see why it wouldn't again.

It's funny. My friend sold me on GTA 3 in the 2000s by saying "You can literally go anywhere and do anything". I'm not sure if I agree with you that player choice went out of style during that time.

 

[Guilty_AI]

It's funny. My friend sold me on GTA 3 in the 2000s by saying "You can literally go anywhere and do anything". I'm not sure if I agree with you that player choice went out of style during that time.

GTA 3 at the time was already several steps back something like Daggerfall back then in terms of player choice.

Heck, its a step back from GTA 2, that had a faction system and could be beaten in multiple ways other than just "go to the next mission until you beat it".

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

GTA 3 at the time was already several steps back something like Daggerfall back then in terms of player choice.

Heck, its a step back from GTA 2, that had a faction system and could be beaten in multiple ways other than just "go to the next mission until you beat it".

I think what you're doing here isn't helpful.

You're cherry picking games to pit against one another to suggest that choice is more random that it really is.

What I think would be more helpful, and something we can't do, is to take the theoretical 20 most successful games from specific years, line the groups up, and see if player choice in games increases over time. I suspect we would.

For example, the 20 most successful games from 1984 vs 1986 vs 1988 vs 1990...all the way up today.

GTA3 was lightyears more successful than Daggergall so it would be more illuminating to find out what the most successful game from 1996 was and compare it to GTA3. I think that would show the trend holds.

 

[ReBurn]

Playing serious Fortnite if you're above 18 should be a felony.

That's what many of the women who are over 18 are playing, though.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I think what you're doing here isn't helpful.

You're cherry picking games to pit against one another to suggest that choice is more random that it really is.

What I think would be more helpful, and something we can't do, is to take the theoretical 20 most successful games from specific years, line the groups up, and see if player choice in games increases over time. I suspect we would.

For example, the 20 most successful games from 1984 vs 1986 vs 1988 vs 1990...all the way up today.

GTA3 was lightyears more successful than Daggergall so it would be more illuminating to find out what the most successful game from 1996 was and compare it to GTA3. I think that would show the trend holds.

If some sort of financial "success" and popularity are your only measures for this, its time we all bow down to Candy Crush.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

If some sort of financial "success" and popularity are your only measures for this, its time we all bow down to Candy Crush.

I suspect you realize you needed to go to a different market altogether to attempt a win here. I think I've proved my point.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I suspect you realize you needed to go to a different market altogether to attempt a win here. I think I've proved my point.

I'm not the one randomly narrowing the conditions until they get the desired outcome.

But as you wish, the most popular game in 1996 was without a doubt Super Mario 64. A game where you could go wherever you want, could be completed in many different ways, had tons of hidden paths and secret stuff.

Compared to GTA 3, a game that gave you an illusion of freedom because you could shoot up stuff, but ultimately boiled down to going from mission mark X, completing the mission in usually very restrictive ways (that got worse in future entries) and repeat that until you beat it.

 

[bender]

GTA 3 at the time was already several steps back something like Daggerfall back then in terms of player choice.

Heck, its a step back from GTA 2, that had a faction system and could be beaten in multiple ways other than just "go to the next mission until you beat it".

I guess it depends on how you define player choice. GTA3 was the last time players could embrace the sandbox presented for them and complete missions in a variety of ways. Entries in the franchise after GTA3 became heavily scripted. For example, stealing the escape vehicle of an assassination target prior to initiating the chase sequence, planting a bomb in the car, parking it back in the same spot and then blowing up the vehicle up as he tries to escape. That sounds a lot like going through a window instead of a door (continuing the pursuit in a vehicle).

 

[Guilty_AI]

I guess it depends on how you define player choice. GTA3 was the last time players could embrace the sandbox presented for them and complete missions in a variety of ways. Entries in the franchise after GTA3 became heavily scripted. For example, stealing the escape vehicle of an assassination target prior to initiating the chase sequence, planting a bomb in the car, parking it back in the same spot and then blowing up the vehicle up as he tries to escape. That sounds a lot like going through a window instead of a door (continuing the pursuit in a vehicle).

Yes, it only got worse from there. But still, even though it still gave you some degree of freedom it still wasn't up to par with games that came before (GTA 2 included)

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

Windows are the thinking man’s doors.

Also I’ll have you know I just did a mission where i didn’t have enough technical ability to open the gate. But, there was a section of barbed wire fence missing, with a dumpster conveniently placed right next to it. It was very intellectual.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'm not the one randomly narrowing the conditions until they get the desired outcome.

I know you're kidding.

But as you wish, the most popular game in 1996 was without a doubt Super Mario 64. A game where you could go wherever you want, could be completed in many different ways, had tons of hidden paths and secret stuff.

Compared to GTA 3, a game that gave you an illusion of freedom because you could shoot up stuff, but ultimately boiled down to going from mission mark X, completing the mission in usually very restrictive ways (that got worse in future entries) and repeat that until you beat it.

I'd give the edge to GTA3. It's probably debatable though so I don't think you're insane for suggesting it. Now let's go to 1994...1992...1990.

Remember, trends look like this...

I think it's safe to say that player choice is a long term growth stock.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I know you're kidding.

I'd give the edge to GTA3. It's probably debatable though so I don't think you're insane for suggesting it. Now let's go to 1994...1992...1990.

Going back isn't gonna help since the trend was peaking more around the 1995-2000s, while the 'linear corridor' types of games were peaking around 2005-2010. As i've even discussed here with another user, we can see this trend with GTA itself, where each subsequent entry until GTA V saw even more restrictive gameplay and mission design than the last.

Remember, trends look like this...

I think it's safe to say that player choice is a long term growth stock.

The current 'trend' isn't even player choice, its casual+social gaming. Heck, your beloved Fortnite is a good example of this.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Going back isn't gonna help since the trend was peaking more around the 1995-2000s, while the 'linear corridor' types of games were peaking around 2005-2010. As i've even discussed here with another user, we can see this trend with GTA itself, where each subsequent entry until GTA V saw even more restrictive gameplay and mission design than the last.

GTAV is tricky because it's when multiplayer became the primary component of the game. A multiplayer that gives players a ton of choice. Will be interesting to see how the SP portion of GTAVI looks in comparison. Your point is well made here though I remain unconvinced that the trend isn't real.

The current 'trend' isn't even player choice, its casual+social gaming. Heck, your beloved Fortnite is a good example of this.

If you look at the most successful multiplayer games with a poor social component and compare them to the most successful multiplayer games with a great social component, you'll see the social games give players much more player choice.

Street Fighter + trad CoD vs Fortnite + Roblox.

It's night and day.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Not surprised one bit the op is a big time Fortnite player. Go play BG3 and then tell me about choices.

 

[Black_Stride]

This is a stupid thread.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Not surprised one bit the op is a big time Fortnite player. Go play BG3 and then tell me about choices.

So I can reload my save if a non ideal outcome occurs?

I hunt humans. Once a warrior, always a warrior.

 

[Thirty7ven]

So I can reload my save if a non ideal outcome occurs?

I hunt humans. Once a warrior, always a warrior.

The only choice that is permanent in Fortnite is the time you wasted competing against children.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The only choice that is permanent in Fortnite is the time you wasted competing against children.

 

[bender]

Great minds.

 

[Hugare]

"Why game X isnt as good as Fortnite?"

Average Men_in_Boxes thread

Always comparing apples to oranges

Dont even know where to start, because the comparison is so nonsensical.

 

[digital_ghost]

I won't belabor this point. I think Fortnite is the GOAT because it gives players a wide set of interesting options during gameplay. The building, interesting gadgets, interactive level design combine to make every PvP engagement feel like a unique symphony of elating highs and crushing lows.

So...in the single player realm, I try to check out games that give players interesting choices.

I've bounced hard off both Dishonored games and I'm now playing Cyberpunk2077 and I'm running into the same problem.

These games often give you a door. You go up to it, learn that you don't have enough door punching points in your character, so then you must find the window that the developers have placed 10ft away. Wow, the window is open. Who would have thunk it?

I find these choices to be bafflingly stupid. Who cares if I go through a square (window) to get into the building or if I use the rectangle (door). The game doesn't differentiate between the two. Finding the window isn't fun. Going through the window doesn't give me a new set of options. I'm just plopped right next to the door once I enter.

Why aren't these games docked for this and what can they do in the future to make infiltrating an area more interesting? Arkane is supposedly making Dishonored 3 and I suspect they're going to run into this problem a 3rd time. What problem do they still need to solve?

Because a door is a rectangle and a Window is a box. Men can go through boxes easier than rectangles. You should know this Men_in_Boxes

Source: I got an F in Geometry class

 

[Dr. Suchong]

What are your thoughts on skylights?

 

[killatopak]

Playing serious Fortnite if you're above 18 should be a felony.

I don’t like gaas at all but I can see the appeal of adults playing against children.

 

[marquimvfs]

Why should we care about going in through a door vs. going in through a window?​

I'm old, my knees cannot stand jumping trough windows anymore. So, I prefer to enter places using doors these days...