← Back to context

Comment by gwbas1c

2 days ago

> owing to the relative freedom it affords players

That's really not "true". The 3D games at the time let you go anywhere, view anything. Myst only let you move to predefined locations.

The difference is that you didn't have enemies trying to kill you all the time, or extremely difficult bosses to defeat in order to advance to other levels. Instead, Myst let you generally explore most of the game as you wished. You could explore quite far without technically "advancing" because you could ignore the puzzles. This made the game quite fun if all you wanted to do was look around.

It's kind of similar to the actual freedom in Breath of the Wild / Tears of the Kingdom, where you don't need to advance in the game to explore the world.

I think this probably depends on your definition of "freedom". If you mean freedom as in movement, then yes, 3D games were freer.

If you mean freedom as in game design, then I'm having a hard time coming up with contemporary rivals. You can reach any of the Ages from the beginning, tackle them in any order, and even leave them unfinished if you wish (though you couldn't go back and forth at will, since you had to find the exit book first). Combined with the lack of enemies you mentioned and lack of any chance of failure (until the end), it stands out among its competitors.

Possibly there were some other adventure games that rivaled its freedom. Day of the Tentacle comes close, though it's more scripted than Myst—and it's not 3D.

> The 3D games at the time let you go anywhere, view anything.

In 1993? I don’t remember any full freedom games back then. Certainly nothing could begin to approach the visuals for a very long time.

There were no full 3D games in 1993. Quake was still 3 years in the future.

  • Maze/Maze War, Chuck Yeager's AFT, Elite. Not as polished or fast as Descent or Quake on a Pentium chip but you'd need to redefine 3D with rather obtuse constraints to exclude them.