Originally posted by Shatterhand
I love to have freedom in my games, but I hate when I have freedom and still I need to follow certain paths to finish the game. Silent Hill may have dozens of different paths and 5 different endings, but after I finish it the first time (I must add I never played Silent Hill), I'll hardly want to play it again, I'll probably want to move to something else. And then I'll know I have missed something.
Drake gave a good example: Alone in the Dark . This game is big enough, and it never gives you the feeling of being missing something. 2 other great examples of this are Flashback and Another World.
And I agree with Drake in another point: HUGE games usually gets boring before you finish it. I never finished Half-Life , just because I got bored before doing it (And being an FPS doesn't help it too much. You have to kill the SAME ENEMY over and over and over... yawwnn). Surely, it gives you some surprises, but between each one, you have to kill a bunch of soldiers that are just like the last ones you've killed.
But I have to admit there are 2 games that are HUGE, and it took me a LOOONG time before I stopped playing both: Elite and Frontier
IMO telling different paths and different endings is a fault of a game is nonsense. Whats is wrong if you do have some choose how to complete the game, and several endings according to how you act during the game...? You DONT have to see all locations, characters, etc, and all the endings. But if you do like the game you surely will enjoy playing it again choosing other solutions to complete it...
Shatterhand doesnt seem to realise that in MOST Amiga games (and in fact games on every platform) "You have to kill the SAME ENEMY over and over and over... yawwnn). Surely, it gives you some surprises, but between each one, you have to kill a bunch of soldiers that are just like the last ones you've killed."
... I think I dont have to quote examples here... just think of some 'small' Amiga games you like very much.
Just try to be objective...