12-05-2014, 03:23 AM
Okay, so we had the discussion about tasks or no tasks, and the general opinion of the Contra team was it is railroading the player.
Which I do not understand.
In Alias' mission, we had a section "Objectives" in the mission description that listed the two tasks, destroy tanks and take out general. This supposedly is less railroading than having the exact same text only in the task section. I don't follow.
Order of tasks or order of Objective entries in the Briefing are equally irrelevant. In almost 99% of all cases, the order of objectives is more or less given by mere proximity, and that was also the case in this mission. We start near the tank base, so naturally the tank base is the first thing attempted. However, we might have attempted the second objective first, which would have been the exact same thing for tasks vs. briefing description.
So, what exactly is the advantage? Not railroading the player? Tasks do not do this either.
What are the advantage of Tasks?
1) Everyone can easily see if they are achieved or not. Sure, you can pop up a hint (which is easily overlooked since it is silent when you have music disabled), or do a sidechat (which is easily scrolled out by constant AI chatter). A task always tells the truth. Without it, you are guessing.
2) JIP players can check quickly what they have to do and what is still to be done. Sure, you can argue they can ask, but why burden the gameplay down with this? Task lists immediately show what has to be done still.
3) Tasks are very visible. They pop up in the middle of the screen. And even if you happen to miss that, it is easy to check.
4) Tasks are easier to read. You do not need to search the briefing for information, the information is right there. The fact that you can easily recognize what remains to be done means you don't run into a situation where you suddenly are at the end of a three kilometer hike only to discover that you didn't blow up all the ammo crates at that depot forty five minutes ago.
So, to bottom-line it, I'd really like to hear an explanation why not having tasks is a good idea, because quite plainly, it isn't. It's not about realism, because we're still talking about a game, and if we want to make this realistic, we wouldn't know if a mission is finished or not. It's not about immersion, because the briefing itself is already an out-of-context item. It's not about forcing the player to play in a certain order, because there is no such requirement unless it is artificially introduced. On the other hand, we have a list of very distinct advantages of tasks.
I know I am probably not convincing anybody that things otherwise, but here's your chance to make a point. Because plainly, I don't think there is one
Which I do not understand.
In Alias' mission, we had a section "Objectives" in the mission description that listed the two tasks, destroy tanks and take out general. This supposedly is less railroading than having the exact same text only in the task section. I don't follow.
Order of tasks or order of Objective entries in the Briefing are equally irrelevant. In almost 99% of all cases, the order of objectives is more or less given by mere proximity, and that was also the case in this mission. We start near the tank base, so naturally the tank base is the first thing attempted. However, we might have attempted the second objective first, which would have been the exact same thing for tasks vs. briefing description.
So, what exactly is the advantage? Not railroading the player? Tasks do not do this either.
What are the advantage of Tasks?
1) Everyone can easily see if they are achieved or not. Sure, you can pop up a hint (which is easily overlooked since it is silent when you have music disabled), or do a sidechat (which is easily scrolled out by constant AI chatter). A task always tells the truth. Without it, you are guessing.
2) JIP players can check quickly what they have to do and what is still to be done. Sure, you can argue they can ask, but why burden the gameplay down with this? Task lists immediately show what has to be done still.
3) Tasks are very visible. They pop up in the middle of the screen. And even if you happen to miss that, it is easy to check.
4) Tasks are easier to read. You do not need to search the briefing for information, the information is right there. The fact that you can easily recognize what remains to be done means you don't run into a situation where you suddenly are at the end of a three kilometer hike only to discover that you didn't blow up all the ammo crates at that depot forty five minutes ago.
So, to bottom-line it, I'd really like to hear an explanation why not having tasks is a good idea, because quite plainly, it isn't. It's not about realism, because we're still talking about a game, and if we want to make this realistic, we wouldn't know if a mission is finished or not. It's not about immersion, because the briefing itself is already an out-of-context item. It's not about forcing the player to play in a certain order, because there is no such requirement unless it is artificially introduced. On the other hand, we have a list of very distinct advantages of tasks.
I know I am probably not convincing anybody that things otherwise, but here's your chance to make a point. Because plainly, I don't think there is one
I don't need luck, I have ammo.