Sleeping Dogs dev: “You’ll have very little impact on the story”
News: United Front Games want to tell a very directed story with Sleeping Dogs, resulting in a linear narrative “without a whole bunch of branching.”
(PC, PS3, Sleeping Dogs, United Front Games, Xbox 360)
This is a good thing in story telling for what looks to be a cinematic game. I hope the stages themselves have a bit of freedom for how you complete your objective however. Good that the devs are telling us early what to expect in terms of how things pan out, rather than fib.
Since when was a linear story a bad thing? I have yet to play a game with multiple endings that were actually great, case and point ME3. I'd rather all the effort go into one great ending then fifty ok endings.
Most high rated games have linear storylines with corridor gameplay paths. This game will have a linear storyline however, it at least gives us an open world to explore and side missions to play. This hybrid system isnt new, but it's what I've always wanted in a game with a linear story.
“People come to the game potentially with two different mindsets. They might play a bit of the story and go: ‘I just want to screw around now.’ Then you’ve kind of lost the drama and tension [of the linear story],”
I sure don't like the sounds of them reducing my freedom to do what I want when I want it. I mean this is one of the best things about open world games.
Open-world games need very loose stories where you don't need to be in a rush. Sadly, devs like to pretend they're making a Hollywood movie, so they tack pretentious, badly written plots even in games where they don't belong.
Keep focused writing in linear games like Alan Wake (the hub world in the sequel hurt the narrative big time) and let open world games have actual freedom.
If you're only "free" during side quests, your game fails automatically.
I'm just pretty much down for praising everything Square does. I love the fact that Activision didn't want it and Square was like,"Are you crazy? We'll Publish it."
Seems like they didn't keep the elements from True Crime, where you never had to actually complete missions, you could just carry on even if you failed. That impacted the story and there were three different endings, atleast in the original one.
Frankfurt, so how do you explain GTA? Because that game is all about linearity and familiarity when it comes to the story. The only time you're "free" is when you aren't in a mission in any GTA game.
I sure don't like the sounds of them reducing my freedom to do what I want when I want it. I mean this is one of the best things about open world games.
Where was everyone at when they bashed Killzone and Crysis 2 for being linear?
I thought open world was about being able to effect the story as you saw fit.
Keep focused writing in linear games like Alan Wake (the hub world in the sequel hurt the narrative big time) and let open world games have actual freedom.
If you're only "free" during side quests, your game fails automatically.