tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35823570.post7960398241807069349..comments2023-10-31T02:20:18.172-07:00Comments on Dinomo: Bridging the GapRicky Haggetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12897391180126329383noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35823570.post-563373863739437682008-02-11T18:15:00.000-08:002008-02-11T18:15:00.000-08:00Sorry to be a gravedigger, but I've just found you...Sorry to be a gravedigger, but I've just found your journal and am enjoying it immensely. The way I see it is, you could have large open environments with small scripted sequences. It would take a while to program, but it would be worth it. My only concern is that scripted sequences in a sandbox game would seem contrived, and limiting. The other way it could work is if the game alternated between sandbox and linear levels, or, sandbox and linear sections within levels. Give players an enormous jungle w/ various points of interest and optional objectives, then funnel them through a linear cave-system, full of scripting. In fact, Crysis does this in a sense - many of the later levels are linear with numerous scripted events. I couldn't help but feel that something was missing in these areas.. integrating the two types of level design - instead of separating them - would probably provide a more immersive experience. I think this would be fairly easy, as most games, even sandbox games, have objectives. You could center scripted events around objectives. I think for the most immersion however, scripted events would have to happen throughout the sandbox environment. In that sense, they would be completely optional. Chances are a single player would not initiate them all on a single play through. This would, in fact, increase the longevity of the game by increasing its replayability. The question then, is, are there developers out there, who would be willing invest the time/money/effort into optional material - stuff that some players may never see?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08992431658627130885noreply@blogger.com