/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5016245
wrong, this is

>>5016245
Played the nes games only recently

they're great

>>5016245
It's not even the best one of the NES games.

>>5016245
unironically agree. The first is great too, but them rpg mechanics and the bump in difficulty make zelda 2 a tier above

>>5016245
This isn't skyward sword

It's stupidly underrated but it's not better than the first game or LTTP

>>5017220
>LTTP
This game was a disappointment compared to the first zelda. It's mostly linear with really obvious "designed" solutions to every room. It's basically the SNES equivalent of a modern AAA movie-game, where you're being mindlessly led along a train track. The kind of game you could just watch on youtube and have the same experience. It opens up in the 2nd half but it's too little too late. Should've been open world from the get-go like the original.
I admit it has decent basic mechanics and was probably graphically impressive at the time it came out.

>>5017679
Linearity is not necessarily bad, especially when it's as meticulously designed as LTTP. Thinking that non-linearity automatically makes a game better is the reason the entire industry is flooded with open world shit.

>>5017798
in general it's bad because it means a) you don't have to think, which makes you less engaged and b) you have no sense of autonomy, since you have no control over where you go, or what happens. Autonomy is one of the most important factors in making a good game, according to scientific research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vct13OhIio

>>5018470
>in general it's bad because it means a) you don't have to think, which makes you less engaged
Text and graphical adventures, games that are entirely designed around the player having to think, are very often extremely linear. Linearity and "having to think" are not mutually exclusive.

>b) you have no sense of autonomy, since you have no control over where you go, or what happens.
That's completely independent from linear game design. You are in full control over "what happens" in games like Sonic, Half Life, Monkey Island, or F-Zero, without experiencing a restricted sense of autonomy, and yet they are all strictly linear.
To restrict player autonomy is to take away direct control, maybe by making decisions during cutscenes that the player wouldn't have made, or by having the game play itself (like in certain sections of later Sonic games). A linear game progression during which the player retains full control, however, is not a restriction of autonomy.

I think you've loaded your brain with a whole bunch of really dumb ideas about what linearity means and what it implies regarding player freedom and interactivity. Maybe you should reflect on this stuff a little bit more and look at whether the games that fall under the umbrella of linear progression actually do suffer from the things you assume they do.

>>5016268
>not Link: Faces of Evil

>>5018520
>You are in full control over "what happens" in games like
But you're not. You're missing the bigger picture. Sure, you can choose when to jump in Sonic, which is a kind of limited autonomy, but you can't make any kind of big decisions. Part of the reason why open world games are so popular and successful is because they give you the opportunity to make many more decisions, on many more levels. You can literally choose your own direction, whereas in Sonic you have to go right.

I think you've loaded your brain with a whole bunch of really dumb nostalgia and what that implies about game quality, such that you've dismissed the explosion and innovation of open world games. Maybe you should reflect a little bit more about why your favorite genre is dying.

>>5019023
I wasn't arguing for linearity over non-linearity, "dismissed the explosion and innovation of open world games", nor did I make any implications favoring older games over new ones (regarding your absolutely retarded nostalgia comment). I responded to and disagreed with two very specific things:

1. The claim that "linear = not having to think"

2. The claim that "linear = lack of autonomy"

>Part of the reason why open world games are so popular and successful is because they give you the opportunity to make many more decisions, on many more levels.
Yeah, great, no disagreement there. I understand the appeal of open world titles just fine; I love many of them. But this has nothing to do with my post. You projected some really weird things into what I actually said.

>>5019023
>Part of the reason why open world games are so popular and successful is because they give you the opportunity to make many more decisions, on many more levels.
Even the best open world games don't come close to the quality of level design found in the best linear games. You have way more actual options in how you approach a scenario in a game like Deus Ex or Prey than you do in a game like Grand Theft Auto or The Elder Scrolls.

>>5019120
>You have way more actual options in how you approach a scenario in a game like Deus Ex or Prey than you do in a game like Grand Theft Auto or The Elder Scrolls.
Not the guy you're responding to, but I think this, too, is completely unrelated to whether a game is linear or non-linear in terms of progression. One of the most non-linear games I've ever played, Fallout, offers a comparatively wide array of options for approaching its many individual (side-)objectives. Same goes for Arcanum, another extremely non-linear game. Conversely, there are severely linear games that are effectively void of relevant options, like Shadowrun Returns, for example.

My point is, I think you can fill any game with a myriad of options without forcing it to be either linear or non-linear. Implementation might just be a bit harder with a non-linear structure, but there are examples of games that managed to pull this off.

>>5016245
2d dark souls

>>5016245
That's not Links awakening

>>5019562
So much about LA is fucking tedious. It's a good game but it loves to just waste your time. Item switching, an overworld that's a chore to traverse, and dungeons that send you in circles. no

>>5017798
>>5018470
>>5018520
>>5017679
Eh, ALTTP is not THAT bad, there's still plenty of freedom to explore and non-linearity especially once you get to the dark world, but anon has a valid point. It's not as open or orthogonal as the first game. There is a good bit of going through the motions in ALTTP that isn't present in the first game.

>>5017220
Agreed. It's overlooked and ragged on more often than it deserves, but it's a very flawed game.

>>5016245
Step aside, cartridge peasants!

It sure as hell isn't. It's a total fucking slog.

>>5019674
this. they didn't design the game with it's limited buttons in mind.

>>5019023
I could argue that you're not ever making decisions in any game, everything is predetermined and accounted for. Choosing which "path" you want to go through differs little from choosing your favorite weapon in Megaman, for instance. Unless you're talking from the sense of doing self imposed challenges, like doing dungeons out of order. I can give you that, but a game is not instantly better because it lets you do things out of order. The autonomy you speak of is a placebo. There's no such thing as a big decision in a videogame. I don't like to pull that card, but it sure sounds like you think Bethesda games and Bioware games give you "freedom" and "let you make big decisions". Based on what you're saying, even shit like Heavy Rain is better because it allows for """decisions."""

Guys wtf super Mario Bros 3 is a terrible game it’s linear ugh why didn’t they make it open-world

>>5019674
I do like Awakening more than the previous ones, but the compass wastes so much time telling you it has a NEW FEATURE, even in the final level.

>>5016245
Ocarina of Time > Majoras Mask > Twilight Princess > Wind Waker > Zelda 2 > Zelda 1
I haven't played the new ones so I don't know if they are any good.

>>5019979
>cartridge peasants
I like that phrase.