Shorter Games

[Skwish-E]

Jeff's blog entry today is about writing shorter games.

Old People Don't Finish Stuff

For some reason, I can't comment on his blog anymore, so I have to post it here. The thing about Jeff's games that make them so great is the sweeping scope and sheer length of time it takes to get through them. My attention span is much longer than 10 hours, and I want a game that I can play for a year while waiting for the new one. Of course a full year for one playthrough is a bit too much even for me.

 

So here's the question:

Should future games be Avadon Length of Avernum 1-3 length?

[Enraged Slith]

I really don't like discussing length as an indicator of quality. A game should be as long as it needs to be.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

but sometimes it needs to be long

 

i like a game that i can sit over for a long while

[Deukalion]

Unfortunately, I don't have enough information to answer the poll, as I am a bit of a newb when it comes to SW games.

 

However, I do feel that games, particularly RPGs, should be at least "longish." A 10 hour RPG is short, in my opinion, 20 hours seems reasonable. 30 Seems awesome if the game is enjoyable.

 

Maybe you guys can help me out here; exactly how long are we talking?

 

How long is Avadon, do you think, on average?

How long were the Avernum games on average?

 

I am playing through Avadon now, and I am really enjoying it, so I hope it isn't TOO short. I need games to keep me occupied until the next SW release, as I think I have found one of my favourite game companies thanks to this game. Between Eschalon and Avadon, I'm hoping to make it to the new Avernum, but if not I might have to shell out for more SW titles.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

I really don't like discussing length as an indicator of quality. A game should be as long as it needs to be.

This really should be true. I want this to be true. Alas, I have trouble replaying Spiderweb games because of the time investments. I always plan to go replay and finish (for the first time, often) the Geneforge games, particularly 1 and 2. The problem is, these games require a bit of time, and I just can't bring myself to invest my free time in something more productive than lazing about.

I can play long games. I've beaten the last three SW games I've bought (G4, G5, and A:TBF), but I don't think I've done more than one full run on any other than possibly G4.

This may be in part due to my dislike of repetition, which makes starting these games over hard. Then again, if the rewarding endings came sooner, I may be more inclined to replay.

But don't get me wrong, I will always make time for an initial run of SW game that appeals to me, even if it takes a month to finish.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

I really don't like discussing length as an indicator of quality.

Originally Posted By: Darth Ernie

but sometimes it needs to be long

Originally Posted By: Deukalion

Maybe you guys can help me out here; exactly how long are we talking?

Must... resist... obvious... jokes...!

[Alorael at Large]

Without a timer, I'm not really sure how long Spiderweb games are. Avadon seems shorter. 20 hours? 30 hours? I replayed parts of it quite a lot during beta testing, and I can't count accurately.

 

—Alorael, who thinks there's a length that's too short, and then there are games that are long. The difference to him between 20 hours and 50 hours isn't that big. If the story is finished in 20 hours, great! If it's not finished in 40, he'll keep playing. He may be unusual in that he tends to play very few games and play them a lot. He's okay with playing a game over the course of months if that's what it takes to get through it.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Should future games be Avadon Length of Avernum 1-3 length?

Ideally, Avernum 1-3 length, although hopefully not as meaninglessly large as Avernum 3. However, I also recognize that there are multiple ways to increase game length.

The Geneforge series has always been my favorite, and one of the main reasons has got to be replay value, without a doubt. In Geneforge, and other games (notably Nethergate), you could replay the game multiple times and get a completely different experience and plot structure each time.

[Aoslare]

Length isn't what you want to measure. Games can be long simply because they have a lot of padding: either repetitive geographic padding (A3) or simple time sinks, whether it's waiting for an unneeded animation to finish every time you fill an ability bubble, summon Knights of the Round, have an intolerably slow walking speed (hello Eschalon 1) or stupidly long PS2 load times.

 

What you want to measure is _content_: the stuff that engages you and takes up your attention, your thoughts, and your time. Furthermore, I think it might be helpful to distinguish different types of content. I'll suggest:

 

- Geography

- Plot Progression (events/cutscenes/characters)

- Atmosphere (including backstory)

- Combat

- Thinking (including combats that push you to ponder tactics/builds)

- Major Options (including variety of build and ability options, differing plot paths, etc.)

- Errands (quests/miscellaneous but positive time consuming activities)

 

For some examples:

 

* Avadon is short in terms of geographic content and somewhat short, maybe, in terms of plot content. On the other hand, it has a fair number of errands and is fairly large in terms of thinking content.

 

* E/A 3 is large in terms of geographic content (even accounting for the repetitive towns) and options (since it is so large and so open-ended) but has relatively little content in terms of plot, atmosphere, and thinking.

 

* Angband has no real geography, plot, or errand content at all. On the other hand, it is stuffed full of combat and thinking content.

 

* Final Fantasy 6 had large amounts of most categories of content, except for thinking and errands.

[Earth]

length of SpidWeb games doesn't matter to me as long as there's reason why they are so long, I spent over month playing A6 (mostly cause I needed to restart twice) with couple hrs per day.

 

Avadon's length is good but since we hop between few areas those areas get old quickly especially we need to go back on some areas to finish quests or buy things which we couldn't afford at 1st or 2nd trip.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Deukalion

How long is Avadon, do you think, on average?
How long were the Avernum games on average?

I'd say Avadon is a 20-hour game, maybe a little more, while the Avernum games average around twice that, assuming you do most of the optional fights and quests but don't get seriously stuck anywhere. I haven't like timed myself playing them or anything, though, so I could be way off. We'll be able to get better estimates once people start beating the Steam version.

[Harehunter]

Quote:

He may be unusual in that he tends to play very few games and play them a lot. He's okay with playing a game over the course of months if that's what it takes to get through it.

Not so unusual as you may think, Alorael. I keep the entire set of Exile, Avernum, and Myst games installed on my pc. Also King's Quest in my DOSBox folder. (BTW, Exile plays nicely in DOSBox with a Windows 3.1 installed.)

On a second note, Slarty's definition of quality for RPG's is right on!

[Death Knight]

I would probably prefer shorter in quests than in games, if that makes any sense. When you have quests that are average in length you can appreciate them. Once them become too long, they better have an awesome story, otherwise you wont enjoy all of it.

 

In bg2 there was a quest that some of you might remember called the unseeing eye quest. The quest was honestly epic and long and that was what kept me enthralled. The characters were real, the story was cool, and mostly it kept me busy trying to figure out what the real deal was. In short, keep the games however long they have to be. Keep the quests to the point and not too overdrawn.

 

Thats just my 2 cents.

[BlueDraconis]

30-40 hours is the sweet spot for me.

[Trenton.]

I just HATE it when I run out of things to do in very good games. Witch is why Im glad jeff did stuff like, oh I dont know, added the xian Items for Avernum, or gave plenty of locked doors and explorable places in geneforge, as it gives me an excuse to continue the game

[Randomizer]

Games need to be shorter to cope with the shorter attention spans of the players and ....

 

Where was I going with this argument?

[Earth]

short version (only main quest) for those who don't like long games and long version (main quest + alot sidequests) for SW vets and those who like long games.

 

doubt that happens.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Earth Empires

short version (only main quest) for those who don't like long games and long version (main quest + alot sidequests) for SW vets and those who like long games.

doubt that happens.

Can we please stop encouraging Jeff to make his games more like Dragon Age? I mean, really. I know I seem to yammer on about this, but there is already a company that makes the games that you're describing. Jeff should stick to making the games he makes, not the games other people make.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Can we please stop encouraging Jeff to make his games more like Dragon Age? I mean, really. I know I seem to yammer on about this, but there is already a company that makes the games that you're describing. Jeff should stick to making the games he makes, not the games other people make.

Ditto!

[Enraged Slith]

Frivolous side quests have no purpose in linear games. I wish developers would take the time they put into making side quests and pad out their games in meaningful ways, though this probably defeats the purpose of incorporating side quests.

[Sudanna]

I don't mind purposeless sidequests, I mind boring sidequests. If just a few sidequests in a game were approached as important, story-rich, long-term parallels to the main storyline, perhaps influencing it in some ways, it would go a long way towards padding a game with good but optional content.

[*i]

Not every side quest should help with the main storyline; it's a big world with a lot going on, after all. Side quests should, however, make sense within the world they're in and be interesting in their own right.

[nikki.]

Developers should just write a .txt file with the main plot. If anybody wants to play extra quests, they should email the developer for more .txt files.

 

Problem solved.

[*i]

Here's what I posted on Jeff's blog. Summary is I thought the length of Avadon was about right, but ended too abruptly because the plot did not flow as well as it could have.

 

Quote:

Hi Jeff,

 

Agree with you that it's difficult to find time for longer games these days. Part of that is a demographic shift of what defines gamers today: I used to be able to play nearly every evening after school as a kid, but now with a job, it's difficult.

 

Avadon is a very good game, but I do think there is one aspect that made it feel too short. You have three independent quest arcs that do not really feed off each other. The linear nature of the plot bounced you between them in relatively suspense-free ways. Each segment, more or less, ended with too much closure and too little flow to the next to keep the excitement going. As such, the endgame section (awesome in its own right) occurred very abruptly. There was no steady rising action that kept the player in anticipation of the inevitable crescendo. Rather, the game felt like a series of disjointed quests, and "BOOM!" the endgame occurs. For this reason, I think it felt too short to many players.

 

My advice for future titles is to keep the same length, string plot arcs together more tightly, and add suspense when the player has to leave one to do another. During this process, the player should clearly see the problems grow throughout the story until the final and most exciting parts occur.

[nikki.]

That's a cool idea. Getting a message saying "The Ogres are being all uppity, but we need you more in x location" would have let the player know absolutely that the troubles were a constant thing, and would've given the latter quests a real sense of urgency.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: *i

There was no steady rising action that kept the player in anticipation of the inevitable crescendo.

rising action is a crescendo (metaphorically); the term you were looking for is "climax"

sorry, pet peeve

[*i]

Yes. You are correct.

[Vent]

Originally Posted By: *i

...
My advice for future titles is to keep the same length, string plot arcs together more tightly, and add suspense when the player has to leave one to do another. During this process, the player should clearly see the problems grow throughout the story until the final and most exciting parts occur.

For me a weakness of Avadon is that long final part, for sure it's very well done. But it transforms a RPG into a linear thriller. It reinforce too much the story building at the price of the world building.

So I'm looking with a very suspicious eye your "string plot arcs together more tightly" I'm worry to reading it as a request for less world building and more story building.

On another way, I think the game provides many elements on a more global plot/conspiracy that is building above your head. But I would agree it's not fully efficient... but I'm not sure why. One possibility is that too many of those elements are too obscure and not enough concrete. For example the mysterious man is well too mysterious. Also because of your Hand position you are too much out of the global loop that could be a global investigation on a suspected conspiracy. That was the goal of the base design of the game, but the effect isn't good overall you are too passive for the global plot.

My favorite area is certainly the most culprit of a lack of links with the main story, it's where you hunt the weird beast. With a rewriting a quite similar area and plots could have fit a more global plot.

When it's about building a world and a plot I always come back to a trilogy scenario from Realmz, The Sword Lands Trilogy and perhaps even more the second in the trilogy but the first is already an interesting world+plot building. In my opinion every RPG designer should play that trilogy and study how it's done from a general point of view.

Let's take an example of trick used. At some point you'll make investigations for some Duke and depending of your choices you could just conclude it get the reward despite some suspicious details, and later start suspect the Duke is on wrong side of a huge global conspiracy and manipulated you. Or you could discover him sooner and solve a part of the machination sooner and learn few elements on the global conspiracy. The trick is despite you are solving local troubles you are constantly deep into a global huge conspiracy. During this phase you'll visit a tavern and will see a small group of men with black uniform, you could skip or investigate, take a room for the night, sneak, uncover a murder attempt and make it fail or not, and find some notes revealing there's something huge behind. Or you could skip, learn later someone get murdered who wanted contact you, and find some notes hidden in his room at the tavern.

In Avadon, the Ogre part could seem build a bit like that but, it's very thin, too thin, you are mainly a Hand solving trouble, not investigating on some mysterious conspiracy.

In the Realmz scenario beside solving local troubles the game constantly put the player in the situation of an investigation of a global conspiracy, the main plot. Also to reinforce that conspiracy global plot, the player is confronted multiple time with manipulations he has a strong chance to unveil himself. This building very well the global plot despite it's along sub stories that seem at first independent.

Here another element, that game has also his mysterious man, but there's an abuse of it in Avadon, too often, without real progression. In that game, at second meeting it's up to you to quote him in a tavern through a crowd, and get some more vague information, and at third or fourth meeting he will join the party if you want.

Or another example, one companion could join your team and will reveal be a traitor, one more link with the main plot, in fact multiple links because you'll get clues to be suspicious about him.

I'd say, and it's probably wrong, but it's like if the writer/designer was first designing independent sub plots to build interesting intermediate plots but wouldn't stop rewrite it until plenty elements get linked with the main story.

In fact if you look at it globally, it's clearly artificial, you can't have a wide area with multiple towns and even countries and all your adventures and event linked to a wide global conspiracy. But in practice it's very efficient anyway.

[*i]

Quote:

For me a weakness of Avadon is that long final part, for sure it's very well done. But it transforms a RPG into a linear thriller. It reinforce too much the story building at the price of the world building.

So I'm looking with a very suspicious eye your "string plot arcs together more tightly" I'm worry to reading it as a request for less world building and more story building.

The Avadon title appears to be more of already more of the linear type. You had very little control about where you went and when you did what in this game. The main quests have to be done in order -- no variation allowed. This feature makes it a very different game than the Avernum or even the Geneforge titles, which are more of the open-ended type.

In the Avernum series, we had more of an open-ended format, where the goal(s) were fairly clear early on. You knew where you were going and it was largely your job to figure out how to get there. In Avadon, it was not clear what was going to happen, and you had no control over the course of your journey. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it must be handled differently. The rising action is constantly being reset to zero after each plot segment, so that when we do hit the story climax and finally figure out where the endpoint is, it inevitably feels "too short".

One way to address this, without going back to the open-ended style, is to employ classic storytelling techniques of maintaining flow and employing suspense when shifts do occur. Done this way, the game will feel longer as the player is being pulled along with the story that is gradually becoming more exciting leading to the climax near the end.

[Alorael at Large]

Open or closed world has very little to do with it. Go back to the major quests of Avernum 1 or 2, and you'll see that big things like killing Hawthorne or Garzahd start with fairly minor quests. By doing one thing, you open up new opportunities that eventually grow bigger.

 

By "stringing together" I think *i really means "tying together." There's still plenty of room for side quests, but there should be momentum built from main quest section to main quest section.

 

Let's suppose a slightly modified version of Avadon. You go to kill wretches, and your aptitude for slaughter gets you assigned to dealing with Khemeria's monster problem. You manage to do so while making the town happy and not alienating the hostile local lord. Your knack for doing these things without too heavy a hand gets you called back to deal with the touchy dragon again. Now every emergency has a dragon bellowing for you to fix things, monsters are your specialty, and in the course of these things you still don't ruffle many feathers. That makes you perfect for the historic treaty arrangements.

 

The key is making your reassignments seem natural rather than jerky. Rather than having problems crop up in different places, you're needed everywhere at all times; you have to get to things one at a time. And the game progresses, you've met more people who are more impressed by you and the demands on you grow.

 

—Alorael, who thinks this is even, quietly, the model that A3 runs on. You get to deal with slimes or roaches by virtue of being present and willing. Your ability gives you the ability to draw enough attention to get the critical permission and information to tackle the bigger plagues. Being huge heroes gets you summoned to deal with the biggest threats.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Preprandial Beliefs

Let's suppose a slightly modified version of Avadon. You go to kill wretches, and your aptitude for slaughter gets you assigned to dealing with Khemeria's monster problem. You manage to do so while making the town happy and not alienating the hostile local lord. Your knack for doing these things without too heavy a hand gets you called back to deal with the touchy dragon again. Now every emergency has a dragon bellowing for you to fix things, monsters are your specialty, and in the course of these things you still don't ruffle many feathers. That makes you perfect for the historic treaty arrangements.

Avadon was a string of pest control problems. You start out with rats and work you way up.

[*i]

Quote:

Open or closed world has very little to do with it. Go back to the major quests of Avernum 1 or 2, and you'll see that big things like killing Hawthorne or Garzahd start with fairly minor quests. By doing one thing, you open up new opportunities that eventually grow bigger.

Maybe my point was not clear. In Avernum, you the player largely got to pick where you went and what portion of the game you tackled next. Certainly, there were restrictions, but you didn't have essentially one quest giver handing out missions the entire game. Because of this choice, I contend that the story flowed more naturally keeping engagement up, since the player had quite a bit of control. In Avernum, the player controls, or at least has the illusion of controlling, the plot, creating the sense of flow in the story.

In Avadon, the player has no real control at all over how the story proceeds. Since the three arcs are assigned, the designer has assumed full control over how the plot advances. Because of the lack of connectedness and arbitrary nature that the arc segments are given to the player, there is no natural flow in the story. Further, the player, having not even the illusion of choice, does not create a sense of flow here.

Quote:

The key is making your reassignments seem natural rather than jerky.

I disagree. The problem I see is that it is not natural to visit the places in the order I have to visit them. If we do not allow the player to pick the order somewhat, I think the key is to connect the arcs better. Something in the Kva should lead you to Khemeria, perhaps ogre attacks force you to return, there you find a plot point leading you to the Beraza Woods, and so on.

[Enraged Slith]

I'd honestly prefer a shorter game if Jeff gave the player more missions/choices of actual consequence. There's a lot of potential with Avadon, and it almost hurts to see it wasted on pest control.

[Vent]

Originally Posted By: *i

...
The Avadon title appears to be more of already more of the linear type.
...

The point is the final parts where you get hunted are a lot more linear than what was the game before those parts.

For me there's a strong difference and I bet most players would agree.

In my opinion that's a point Jeff should really take care of. The long final parts where you get hunt are interesting only because of their original implementation, it's rare a hunt is really working and here it does in my opinion. But also that final parts are too much linear.

Before that final parts, which starts where the game warn you you need be prepared, there's some general linearity but with much more freedom. Sometimes that parts lost a bit the original focus of the game, a conspiracy, or conspiracies.

Originally Posted By: *i

You had very little control about where you went and when you did what in this game. The main quests have to be done in order -- no variation allowed. This feature makes it a very different game than the Avernum or even the Geneforge titles, which are more of the open-ended type.

It's not pure linear/not linear. The freedom of a globally open world is in my opinion an interesting design but involving too many problems from focus to story building.

Not all Avernum was just a global open world but I won't focus on the comparison. So to stick with Avadon, before the long very linear hunt, the world is opened by area, but each area is opening some freedom of exploration and secondary quests, that what's make a huge difference with the very linear final hunt.

[Vent]

Quote:

...
I disagree. The problem I see is that it is not natural to visit the places in the order I have to visit them. If we do not allow the player to pick the order somewhat, I think the key is to connect the arcs better. Something in the Kva should lead you to Khemeria, perhaps ogre attacks force you to return, there you find a plot point leading you to the Beraza Woods, and so on...

It's a point and a possible solution. But that has in mind to reinforce a linear story building and in my opinion going there will be too much.

Instead the game needs build better a web of links with the main global plot and put more decisions linked to this main global plot in hand of the player. That's an alternate solution I would prefer a lot.

Quote:

I'd honestly prefer a shorter game if Jeff gave the player more missions/choices of actual consequence. There's a lot of potential with Avadon, and it almost hurts to see it wasted on pest control.

I could be wrong but for me Avadon made a much better job of building choices and consequences than in the Avernum series, there's also often a good highlighting/reminding of past choices when later consequences appear.

EDIT2: Companions is a key point of Avadon and in my opinion, if there's some features that worth a game a bit shorter it's that. More developed companions or more companions as much developed, here what I would expect from Avadon 2.

EDIT: That lack of multi quote is VERY tedious.

[Enraged Slith]

Let me elaborate a little. In Avadon, the player is given many choices on how to deal with certain situations, but most of these situations bear little importance to the plot. The game hints at instances where Avadon has administered incredibly draconian and harsh punishments on uncooperative villages, for example, but the player never gets to see this first hand. Putting the player in this sort of situation and then giving him the choice on whether or not to obey orders is where moral ambiguity really starts to shine, especially if your party members are given a bit more autonomy in how they react to your decisions.

[*i]

Quote:

Not all Avernum was just a global open world but I won't focus on the comparison. So to stick with Avadon, before the long very linear hunt, the world is opened by area, but each area is opening some freedom of exploration and secondary quests, that what's make a huge difference with the very linear final hunt.

I do not think you are correct in your assertion. I can't think of a single, non-trivial instance (exception may be land outside the town) where it was something other than the main plot-line trigger that opens a new zone. Yes, you had to get to the edge of the Dhorla Woods to reveal the Beast Woods, but they would not reveal before you talked to Runner Faiga on the main quest, even if you had side quests that needed to be done in that area. Same with the Beraza Woods and Beraza Pits, and I suspect Kva Lands and Zhethron's Aeire. We just had a post explicitly complaining about this a week ago, that you got side quests that you could not visit because the main plot has not yet revealed the zone.

Please give me a counterexample.

The only difference between the endgame and the rest of the story is you didn't have the freedom to leave. This, I feel, is another issue entirely, and, yes, I still favor the flexibility to leave. I never said I wasn't, and wanted the whole game to be like the Avadon endgame.

Quote:

It's a point and a possible solution. But that has in mind to reinforce a linear story building and in my opinion going there will be too much.

Now, all I'm saying, to be more clear, is to connect the arcs better. You as a player would not lose anything in the way of flexibility. The only change is purely psychological on the player, in that the reassignments are not as jerky, and the player feels they are still working in the same story, even if it opens up new, unrelated parts of the arc. For example, make it Khermeria the natural next destination from the Kva because of something that happens there.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: *i

Quote:

The key is making your reassignments seem natural rather than jerky.

I disagree. The problem I see is that it is not natural to visit the places in the order I have to visit them. If we do not allow the player to pick the order somewhat, I think the key is to connect the arcs better. Something in the Kva should lead you to Khemeria, perhaps ogre attacks force you to return, there you find a plot point leading you to the Beraza Woods, and so on.

I don't think we're disagreeing. There are many ways to put the story together so it feels like a single story instead of many mini-stories. Have the authorities make it seem more like one major damage control effort where you're needed in multiple places instead of sending you after targets of convenience. Have the quests themselves push you into the next quest. Rearrange the geography so that it's linear like other Spiderweb games. There are options.

—Alorael, who thinks Avernum doesn't give real choices, Geneforge is full of them, and Avadon largely gives them cosmetically. You can say things and people will react, but there's no real consequence going forward until you make your big decisions for your companions' quests and then decide whether to fight Redbeard.

[Vent]

Originally Posted By: *i

...The only difference between the endgame and the rest of the story is you didn't have the freedom to leave..

I felt that part very linear, you are constantly push forward, the exploration is very linear, I don't remember much or even any subquest. Too linear a lot too linear and I feel awful encourage Jeff in that direction, but yeah that's only my feeling.

Before that too long final the area are, for me, much less linear, you have to explore and subquests to pick and do. I feel weird you don't see the strong difference. But well could be me that see differences where there is none or few, I wonder.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Vent

Before that too long final the area are, for me, much less linear, you have to explore and subquests to pick and do. I feel weird you don't see the strong difference. But well could be me that see differences where there is none or few, I wonder.

There is a difference between most of Avadon and the very final end section. However, the difference is very, very slight compared to the difference in linearity between Avadon and other Spiderweb games. In Avadon, you can't get the Kva wretches quest and the Shadow Beast quest at the same time and decide which you want to do first, while, say, A3 lets you choose between going up to the surface immediately or exploring Upper Avernum for a while first. And when you do get to the surface, you choose whether to fight slimes or cockroaches or whatever else you are strong enough to kill.

Dikiyoba.

[*i]

I agree with Dikiyoba; it's all in relative terms. Avadon seems to be of a different style than previous titles. As I've said, this is fine, but it could use a little more consistency in how the storyline unfolds.

[Randomizer]

Avadon is more like Avernum 5 and 6 where you are sent to an area with quests, but can't explore outside that area until you've done enough. Unlike Avernum there isn't that much to do and explore in each area.

[Vent]

For me Avadon and Avernum 5 have a similar general organization, and even Avernum 5 is a bit more linear from a general point of view. But each area of Avernum are quite bigger than one area of Avadon.

 

Avadon has two levels of area to compensate but yes the region of areas usually don't allow explore freely from one area to another without have trigger some story event. I didn't noticed the area transitions in a region was so limited. I feel the mechanism requiring find new path through some NPC dialogs is fine but I can understand that it can be sometimes considered as restrictive. But for me it's like finding a switch or hidden passage, that or find the right NPC, it's just variations of a same general mechanism.

 

Myself I feel some of the area was good to explore, a good merge of freedom to explore, NPC talks, and action. To have a better perspective I need replay it.

 

For me Avernum 1 was very open, a large part of Avernum 2 was very linear and I probably quit just when it started be very open, overall the Avernum 1 to 3 use a multi scale approach matching much better a very open world. But not Avernum 4 to 6.

 

Now I about the story consistency, I'm still not fully convinced. I would tend agree the Averdon failed some points on that point of view. But I consider a trap in RPG to make the main story too much constantly at center. A RPG needs a slower pace than what requires a pure story building. That's why I insist about having a web of links between secondary stories and the main story is the way to do it, instead of building a stronger more present main story.