291 replies to this topic

[Watson]

Did you know you can reach the base without getting on the truck? Instead climb the conveniantly built scaffholding behing the wall?

Then once you are in the tight corridors, there are about 1.5 different methods to get along, tampering with the camera, shooting the general through the window, dropping the cell phone then killing him, dressing as a high officer, sure confined, but stilll had some degree of variety.

And most missions in SA were not linear, God know in Absolution we might get about 5.

I don't think that your assumed definition of linear is fitting. Linear is suggestive of a tightly constrained level that only gives you one dimensional gameplay. You are stating that all missions in SA were not "linear" because you could complete them in more than one way. Automatically, I can use your argument and too state that all missions in Absolution won't be linear since they can too be completed in more than one way.

Linear = very few options to complete a mission, limited surroundings, mission offers few alternate paths, limited player freedom, tightly scripted etc.
Sandbox = a variety of options available to complete a mission, interactive environment, multiple paths to complete level, greater player freedom etc.

Edited by Watson, 13 April 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Mr. ME]

I don't think that your definition of linear is fitting. Linear is suggestive of a tightly constrained level that only gives you one dimensional gameplay. You are stating that all missions in SA were not "linear" because you could complete them in more than one way. Automatically, I can use your argument and too state that all mission in Absolution won't be linear since they can be completed in more than one way.

No, I am stating that the overwhelming majority of SA levels are, Freeroam, and some are barely an exception, Jacuzzi job, The 2 Japan levels, and Tubeway Torpedo, Maybe graveyard shift.

They were all open anyway, as in not separated by checkpoints, the places felt real, not like specifically built levels inorder for you to peogress.

But the main point here is

How does IOI define sandbox?

Will Abso's sandbox be different then the last 4 games' sandbox?

I'm not jumping to conclusions, just having inferopinions.

Edited by Mr. ME, 13 April 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Habit]

Did you know you can reach the base without getting on the truck? Instead climb the conveniantly built scaffholding behing the wall?

Then once you are in the tight corridors, there are about 1.5 different methods to get along, tampering with the camera, shooting the general through the window, dropping the cell phone then killing him, dressing as a high officer, sure confined, but stilll had some degree of variety.
And most missions in SA were not linear, God know in Absolution we might get about 5.

I didn't say there wasn't veriety, I only said linear and not open. TT isn't an open world, It's not open ended, there isn't any more room for free roam than what was displayed in rosewood, and there is 1 or two paths to the same checkpoint, the elivator. So I agree there will be levels in absolution like what you describe below, but i'm saying that's been the case with previous games too, and having a Map or not doesn't affect that.

"There are sandbox, open world, open ended, non linear, free roam, levels in Hitman absolution, and the form the majority of levels, and by those descriptions, we mean actual sandbox, not 1 or 2 paths to the same checkpoint."

Will Abso's sandbox be different then the last 4 games' sandbox?

I'm not jumping to conclusions, just having inferopinions.

Fair enough, no judgement

Edited by Habit, 13 April 2012 - 03:58 PM.

[Watson]

No, I am stating that the overwhelming majority of SA levels are, Freeroam, and some are barely an exception, Jacuzzi job, The 2 Japan levels, and Tubeway Torpedo, Maybe graveyard shift.

Those levels you mentioned were quite linear oriented in several areas.

They were all open anyway, as in not separated by checkpoints, the places felt real, not like specifically built levels inorder for you to peogress.

You are assuming checkpoints constrain a level without considering how large a checkpoint can be. Many of Hitman's missions were made for you to specifically progress to the other. Take a look at all the linked missions set in Japan, or those in the Petronas Towers, or those set in the Middle East and India. Take a look at the Rotterdam missions, or the ones set in Hong Kong. They were all strongly linked to each other as a progression of the contract.

How does IOI define sandbox?

Will Abso's sandbox be different then the last 4 games' sandbox?

I don't think there's any reason to believe IOI have changed their interpretation of what "sandbox" means. To me, the Rosewood Orphanage mission is clearly "sandbox" as it shows a sufficiently large interactive environment with a lot of freedom contained inside it. "Sandbox" is too often associated with the dimensions of a mission (it's size) rather than the freedom and choice it offers to the player.

Edited by Watson, 13 April 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[carbono]

I think this is where it boils down to me, or why I understand that people would desire visual proof.

For me, linearity is literally a matter of "path" not necessarily of features to transverse such path. If in a mission I'm supposed to get to point B, but to get there there is a "more or less" set path that doesn't allow too much deviation, then it is a linear game for me.
Sure, I may kill every enemy on the way, or sneak by every enemy, or find a series of disguises that allow me to pass by such places, or a ventilation duct, but I'm still "more or less" bound to this path, and this is linearity for me.

Hitman Games, so far, for the most part, allowed the player to move freely by the enviroment, only limited in such "Freedom" by sneaking skill or disguise-set, but you could usually reach your object from many different angles, or even in different orders. That for me is "Free-Roaming", it is not really about the "tools" that I can employ, it is more about the path itself.

The problem with linearity in games like Hitman, Splinter Cell, Assassins Creed, Batman is that the game takes a very "puzzle-like" feel to it. There is this room, and you need to get to that room, so you basically are trying to solve this very well defined "Puzzle", while Free-Roaming usually has a very pleasant "making up as you go along" kind of feel, and Hitman specially has a very "Overwhelming" feel on its free-roaming parts, where you have no idea about how many ways to get thru a level there are. It is a unique feeling.

Am I making any sense here?

[Habit]

I think this is where it boils down to me, or why I understand that people would desire visual proof.

For me, linearity is literally a matter of "path" not necessarily of features to transverse such path. If in a mission I'm supposed to get to point B, but to get there there is a "more or less" set path that doesn't allow too much deviation, then it is a linear game for me.
Sure, I may kill every enemy on the way, or sneak by every enemy, or find a series of disguises that allow me to pass by such places, or a ventilation duct, but I'm still "more or less" bound to this path, and this is linearity for me.

Hitman Games, so far, for the most part, allowed the player to move freely by the enviroment, only limited in such "Freedom" by sneaking skill or disguise-set, but you could usually reach your object from many different angles, or even in different orders. That for me is "Free-Roaming", it is not really about the "tools" that I can employ, it is more about the path itself.

The problem with linearity in games like Hitman, Splinter Cell, Assassins Creed, Batman is that the game takes a very "puzzle-like" feel to it. There is this room, and you need to get to that room, so you basically are trying to solve this very well defined "Puzzle", while Free-Roaming usually has a very pleasant "making up as you go along" kind of feel, and Hitman specially has a very "Overwhelming" feel on its free-roaming parts, where you have no idea about how many ways to get thru a level there are. It is a unique feeling.

Am I making any sense here?

Based off what you say above do you consider tubeway torpedo Linear or free roam, and why?

[carbono]

Based off what you say above do you consider tubeway torpedo Linear or free roam, and why?

If my memory serves me right, I remember subway torpedo as a linear level.

It gives you some choices along the way, like getting to the facility by truck, foot or underground. And in the facility you can disable the cameras or not; But the level has a very checkpoint-esque approach to it. From the sewers to the facility, from the facility to the elevator, from the elevator to the exit. If I'm not mistaken, both your objectives are in the same room so there is not much room for breaking sequence.

It is a pretty simple and even relaxing level, if I'm not mistaken. I always felt it was meant to be a more "time off" between missions, to let you relax a little before "Invitation to a Party", that has a more "here are the tools, find your way" approach to it.

Edited by carbono, 13 April 2012 - 06:48 PM.

[HitMantis]

...What you advocate is IOI should show you "proof" of sandbox levels, regardless if they've affirmed this countless times in primary source material (i.e. interviews)...If IOI were to state "Absolution will have 20 levels" – you are not going to seriously question this and demand immediate visual evidence...

No, I'm not advocating anything. Neither am I saying that IOI are lying or that I have to have visual proof of anything before I will believe it. I'm saying that I understand why someone would want visual proof of a dev statement regardless of how often they have repeated this statement. Just because you say something very often does not mean that it becomes a fact.

What you missed by clinging to my words regarding the ending of ME3 is that there are countless examples of features and elements from a game being removed or presented as more than they are. Even such simple statements as "there are 20 levels" can turn out to be false. Crunch times happen and sections of the game can be cut. Peter Molyneux is probably king when it comes to promising the moon during development and failing to deliver.

Even when a section of the game is presented to the public it can be a matter of perspective. Since I am replying late to your post I have the advantage of showing the rest of the thread as evidence that what one person considers a sandbox might not be regarded as such by another individual. That is why it is perfectly possible for a person to question a statement such as "there will be large sandbox levels" and at the same time believe a statement of "there will be 20 levels." One is open to interpretation and the other is a fairly factual statement.

...you can't assume developers lie unless they've been proven they're not...

Why couldn't a person assume that? It would depend on how often a specific person has been burned by "false" information regarding a released videogame. It would be a pretty miserable way to view everything, but that doesn't mean it is a completely invalid way of approaching the release of information.

[Watson]

No, I'm not advocating anything. Neither am I saying that IOI are lying or that I have to have visual proof of anything before I will believe it. I'm saying that I understand why someone would want visual proof of a dev statement regardless of how often they have repeated this statement. Just because you say something very often does not mean that it becomes a fact.

What you missed by clinging to my words regarding the ending of ME3 is that there are countless examples of features and elements from a game being removed or presented as more than they are. Even such simple statements as "there are 20 levels" can turn out to be false. Crunch times happen and sections of the game can be cut. Peter Molyneux is probably king when it comes to promising the moon during development and failing to deliver.

Of course you're not accusing IOI of lying since you don't have anything to back this up. However, your point that IOI could be lying (or presenting misleading information) is still an assumption that's got no evidence to support it. Yes, I can see that you likely have a greater instilled distrust towards developers based on experience, but in my personal opinion you're being a bit too skeptical. Things do indeed change throughout the development process, however it's incredibly unlikely IOI would convey simple and integral facts about the game without being sure they are correct - particularly since the game will be released in the coming months. They are not in business to mislead and practice dishonest tactics.

Let's use the hypothetical example of the developers stating that "Instinct can be turned off in the game settings" in an official press release. Using probability, we can generally be more confident that if this statement were made one day prior to release it's validity would be reasonably stronger than if it were stated while the game was in development a year before. It would also be probable that if any changes occurred, particularly changes important to core elements of the game (or even any visible changes for that matter), they would be conveyed for the benefit of avoiding misinformation and possible fan backlash.

In terms of IOI stating we'll have "sandbox" levels, yes we all have various interpretations of the "perfect" sandbox level, but we can generally reach a reasonable consensus that sandbox is equal to freedom in player movement and options. I do not believe IOI's interpretation of sandbox has changed compared to the previous games. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt since I'm not going to immediately assume "all game developers cannot be trusted until we see some specific game footage that meets my individual demands even though many individual demands are different".

I can too say that fibre wire won't be in the game because we haven't "seen" it yet. If no subsequent video footage shows 47 specifically using fibre wire am I to believe this until the day of release? even if IOI have sated in interviews it'll be featured in the game? Am I to believe we won't have a Silent Assassin rating because IOI haven't shown a playthrough achieving that rating? am I to dismiss information about the developers saying that Silent Assassin is Absolution's "top honor"?

However, the principle you raise can too be applied to video "evidence". If you suggest things like a numerical fact about the game's number of missions can be untrue, what's stopping you from assuming that the video footage isn't accurate? After all, much of it is a reflection of the game in the context of a development cycle. You could argue it's entirely possible it may turn out to be very different than the final product, can't you? And while you may suggest gameplay footage is "polished" and "more reliable", why not apply this to official interviews where IOI affirm important parts of the game? PR is seemingly checked and the information released is controlled (i.e. IOI stating they cannot comment further "at this time"), it would be entirely detrimental to release misleading information after all, wouldn't it?

Anyone can be skeptical about anything without valid reason to various degrees.

Why couldn't a person assume that? It would depend on how often a specific person has been burned by "false" information regarding a released videogame. It would be a pretty miserable way to view everything, but that doesn't mean it is a completely invalid way of approaching the release of information.

I view it as an unreasonable way of approaching information if someone has a deep bias like that - and while a person may choose to assume developers lie unless they've been proven they're not, it's a logical fallacy nevertheless. Absence of (in this case, visual) evidence is not evidence of absence. The only thing you can argue is that people can simply have general instinctive distrust towards the developers, but that does not make the speculation any less baseless nor misleading. I understand the sentiment of learning more about the game, but I believe we shouldn't immediately demand that all official statements made by IOI be "visually confirmed" via video simply because of speculation.

Edited by Watson, 14 April 2012 - 09:47 AM.

[Boost!]

I think this is where it boils down to me, or why I understand that people would desire visual proof.

For me, linearity is literally a matter of "path" not necessarily of features to transverse such path. If in a mission I'm supposed to get to point B, but to get there there is a "more or less" set path that doesn't allow too much deviation, then it is a linear game for me.
Sure, I may kill every enemy on the way, or sneak by every enemy, or find a series of disguises that allow me to pass by such places, or a ventilation duct, but I'm still "more or less" bound to this path, and this is linearity for me.

Hitman Games, so far, for the most part, allowed the player to move freely by the enviroment, only limited in such "Freedom" by sneaking skill or disguise-set, but you could usually reach your object from many different angles, or even in different orders. That for me is "Free-Roaming", it is not really about the "tools" that I can employ, it is more about the path itself.

The problem with linearity in games like Hitman, Splinter Cell, Assassins Creed, Batman is that the game takes a very "puzzle-like" feel to it. There is this room, and you need to get to that room, so you basically are trying to solve this very well defined "Puzzle", while Free-Roaming usually has a very pleasant "making up as you go along" kind of feel, and Hitman specially has a very "Overwhelming" feel on its free-roaming parts, where you have no idea about how many ways to get thru a level there are. It is a unique feeling.

Am I making any sense here?

I totally 100% agree with everything you've said, and from all the gameplay vids I've seen of Absolution, it's seeming very much like a linear game for me.

[Cold Shadow]

^Go and watch the previous games' playthroughs and tell me what you see because I can guarantee that if you don't see linearity, it's because you know the game wasn't linear. However tell someone new to Hitman to see the previous' games' playthroughs and he'll tell you that it looks linear.

A playthrough cannot prove how open/ linear a game is.

[Habit]

If my memory serves me right, I remember subway torpedo as a linear level.

It gives you some choices along the way, like getting to the facility by truck, foot or underground. And in the facility you can disable the cameras or not; But the level has a very checkpoint-esque approach to it. From the sewers to the facility, from the facility to the elevator, from the elevator to the exit. If I'm not mistaken, both your objectives are in the same room so there is not much room for breaking sequence.

It is a pretty simple and even relaxing level, if I'm not mistaken. I always felt it was meant to be a more "time off" between missions, to let you relax a little before "Invitation to a Party", that has a more "here are the tools, find your way" approach to it.

Thanks. I agree with your description. You see the reason I asked is a lot of people chastise absolution for being linear and not hitman esque. Yet missions like this already exist in the series. What makes the absolution levels seem linear are two things. It being played by someone else so the choices aren't presented since the viewer only sees one path. Second both level are in doors. When you are in a building its harder to show how "open" a level or game can be. Most buildings have 1 or 2 entrances exits so it narrows the approach. Maybe one elevator or corridor that takes you to where you need to be. There for giving the appearance of limited choice and being linear. Hitman has always done a good job of still giving a variety of playing options even in a confined place that might seem linear in nature. Absolution should probably follow this model too. Its going to be hard to be satisfied as a fan Just viewing someone else playing and having to settle for the choices they make. Once we play the game we'll see the openness and the variety.

[Nitro]

I think this is where it boils down to me, or why I understand that people would desire visual proof.

For me, linearity is literally a matter of "path" not necessarily of features to transverse such path. If in a mission I'm supposed to get to point B, but to get there there is a "more or less" set path that doesn't allow too much deviation, then it is a linear game for me.
Sure, I may kill every enemy on the way, or sneak by every enemy, or find a series of disguises that allow me to pass by such places, or a ventilation duct, but I'm still "more or less" bound to this path, and this is linearity for me.

Hitman Games, so far, for the most part, allowed the player to move freely by the enviroment, only limited in such "Freedom" by sneaking skill or disguise-set, but you could usually reach your object from many different angles, or even in different orders. That for me is "Free-Roaming", it is not really about the "tools" that I can employ, it is more about the path itself.

The problem with linearity in games like Hitman, Splinter Cell, Assassins Creed, Batman is that the game takes a very "puzzle-like" feel to it. There is this room, and you need to get to that room, so you basically are trying to solve this very well defined "Puzzle", while Free-Roaming usually has a very pleasant "making up as you go along" kind of feel, and Hitman specially has a very "Overwhelming" feel on its free-roaming parts, where you have no idea about how many ways to get thru a level there are. It is a unique feeling.

Am I making any sense here?

Yes I think this makes complete sense. And while both (portions of) levels we've seen have had this sense of a "more or less" path, in that your only objective is to get to Point B, there's a few considerations that, for me at least, make me not worried about the game as a whole.

First, these (portions of) levels still look damn fun and it appears as if there's enough different options and potential paths that there will still be a good amount of replayability to be had as well as a bit of that "making it up as you go" feel to it. While there's not *as* much of that feeling as in stages where, as you say, you can approach objectives from any direction and in any order, there's still an opportunity to present a "get from here to there" scenario in this way, particularly if the AI is dynamic and not 100% predictable in its reactions to what you do. We haven't gotten a chance to see the AI really tested yet, but the way in which they converse with each other is intriguing. As is the statement in one of the interviews, by Hakan I believe, that there are over 10 different "states" that the AI can be in (as in, e.g., curious, suspicious, searching, etc.), and each NPC has an individual consciousness as opposed to the hive mind of past.

Second, I am optimistic to the point where I am nearly certain that the "get to Point B" objectives will be outnumbered by the "kill target(s)" objectives. It is a Hitman game after all, and we've heard it said countless times that the way to get Silent Assassin on missions is to kill only your target - clear indication to me that most levels will indeed have a target who is in desperate need of a bullet to the skull (or wire around the neck, poison in the tum-tum or chandelier to the cranium). Point being, it seems more likely than not that most if not all of the targets will be either moving around the level as in previous games or at the very least approachable from different routes/angles. And as to the inevitable question (not asked by you necessarily, carbono, just by the forum at large) of: "if that's the case, why haven't we seen it?" Well, we haven't yet been shown a mission where the objective is to assassinate a target - I have to figure that's not an accident and the marketing strategy/schedule has been intentionally designed to keep the reveals of who your targets will be and in what context you will be assassinating them for a later date, closer to release. That sounds more likely to me than concluding the reason we haven't been shown this is that there *aren't* any assassination missions or targets in the game.

Edited by Nitro, 14 April 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Shobhit7]

To help with this Sandbox/Linear Dilemma...I present to you 2 cases:


1. GTA IV: Open world game...do whatever you want. A typical "Free-Roam" game

2. Splinter Cell Conviction: Scripted, linear narrative driven game with a bounded game world.

Which is the sandbox game here?

If you guessed Conviction, you'd be right.

The mission design and parameters for success in GTA are tightly scripted and do not allow for any variation. You want to Kill Dude#3345? you can only do it after chasing him across half the town and by either ramming him or shooting him.
So for all the "open-world free roaming" aspect of the title it is a linear game....with a lot space between the narrative highpoints.

Conviction, does not allow any sort of latitude in terms of 'Navigation'. The exploration factor is limited to finding avenues of approaching the enemies...yet in its tightly bound game world it allows for a plethora of playstyles and ways for the player to "express" him/herself. This multi=option/playstyle approach is what makes a game truly sandbox in nature.


People often consider a "linear" game to be a freedom-sapping one, this is not always the case. Linear does not always equate to loss of player options. If a game allows multiple APPROACHES to a problem it is a sandbox one.
I say "approaches" and not solutions because as of now, it is extremely hard to get user-based solutions in games due to time and technological constraints.

True open ended gameplay is 'Emergent gameplay' when the player can forge a completely new solution out of existing game mechanics for a completely novel way of completing the objective. DXHR does it to some extent.

Now in case of Absolution....does it matter that the levels would be smaller or more "linear" than the ones before? Nope. It can still offer sandbox gameplay on a deeper scale than the previous games.
It depends on how the game mechanics allow each individual player the ability to experiment, replay and figure out new ways to play.
With the addition of better stealth and combat mechanics...it seems that the sandbox gameplay is still intact.



I can design a a single Corridor where the objective is to go from point A to B....and populate it with enough mechanics and options to allow for several paths to B...and thus allowing different playstyles. This would be the classic Sandbox gameplay in current games.

OR

I can make it so that the game allows you to circumnavigate the need to travel from A-B entirely via the ability for the game to understand User fed solutions and react accordingly.....True Open-endedness

For now we are stuck with the former.

[Lizard Buzzard]

allows for a plethora of playstyles and ways for the player to "express" him/herself.

A plethora? Please elaborate.

[Shobhit7]

A plethora? Please elaborate.

Although you question hints at being a rhetorical one..I will go ahead nonetheless.

1. Third Person Shooter: You can ditch stealth and just start engaging enemies. The mechanics accommodate such a playstyle. The AI is designed to behave convincingly in this capacity and unlike the usual AI found in stealth games it can put up a fight without the game "cheating".

2. Tactical Shooter: The Dynamic AI, the heightened environmental navigational abilities, presence of a stealth loop and the fleshed out environments allow for a highly tactical approach. You can launch multi-directional attacks, pull a tactical retreat, create diversions and plan out your attack before committing.

3. Stealth-Action: The way the game was meant to be played. The game was designed to facilitate the player in killing all AI NPCs. This itself is a micro-puzzle, as the player experiments with the combinations and possibilities. It focuses on multi-AI takedowns and coordinated attacks.

4. Classic Stealth: I admit its the weakest playstyle offered by the game, but classic no-contact stealth is still a viable and fun option to try out in the game.

The game doesn't break if a player decides to go on a shotgun spree. That is dynamism.

What I'm trying to say is that open spaces, large levels or even multiple paths to a place are not truly representative of 'Sandbox' or Non-Linear gameplay. It merely conjures an illusion of it.

Sandbox gameplay lies in allowing the player to experiment with PLAYSTYLES and providing several approaches. Now a large detailed map/level is inherently a factor in this but not the sole deciding one.

[Cerb]

Someone actually gets the point of Conviction and Hitman and puts it in the same post? I'm actually actively looking down at the ground to see if there's any frost kicking up from hell having frozen over.


Oh, and I disagree with point 4 in that it's really not that weak. I've not had a harder time getting past groups of enemies unnoticed in any Splinter Cell before Conviction. I still have yet to complete that challenge where you have to complete an entire level without getting detected or restarting.

Edited by Cerb, 15 April 2012 - 12:09 AM.

[Watson]

If a game allows multiple APPROACHES to a problem it is a sandbox one.
...
Now in case of Absolution....does it matter that the levels would be smaller or more "linear" than the ones before? Nope. It can still offer sandbox gameplay on a deeper scale than the previous games.
It depends on how the game mechanics allow each individual player the ability to experiment, replay and figure out new ways to play.
With the addition of better stealth and combat mechanics...it seems that the sandbox gameplay is still intact.

This. Very well articulated.

4. Classic Stealth: I admit its the weakest playstyle offered by the game, but classic no-contact stealth is still a viable and fun option to try out in the game.

I wouldn't say "weakest", it's certainly the most challenging and there's a very significant satisfaction element combined with it. Being patient and planning an approach, observing the environment instead of always acting spontaneously can be very rewarding. In Hitman I still believe classic stealth is paramount as a gameplay directive.

What I'm trying to say is that open spaces, large levels or even multiple paths to a place are not truly representative of 'Sandbox' or Non-Linear gameplay. It merely conjures an illusion of it.

Exactly, couldn't have conveyed this better. The parameters of a level have nothing to do with the level of freedom and multiple approaches it can include. Simply having more room to run around and walk to and from is not "sandbox" at all.

Edited by Watson, 15 April 2012 - 01:48 AM.

[Johnny Drama]

What's the point in that Watson and Shobhit? The fact that the levels is not 'sandbox' like previous levels like 'A Vintage Year' etc., is still the concern for many people. Calling it a illusion of a real sandbox does not change the fact that most people want it like that, 'illusion' or not... the style of the level is still different no matter what you prefer to call it.

Edited by Johnny Drama, 15 April 2012 - 02:40 AM.

[Watson]

What's the point in that Watson and Shobhit? The fact that the levels is not 'sandbox' like previous levels like 'A Vintage Year' etc., is still the concern for many people. Calling it a illusion of a real sandbox does not change the fact that most people want it like that, 'illusion' or not... the style of the level is still different no matter what you prefer to call it.

How do you know that?