As the commentary states: it was meant to avoid overwhelming the player with irrelevant objects that provide no use to the player. Likewise, the white squares that line the walls and floors were done so to explain the modular rooms with extending piston floors.
Generally signifiers to guide players in the right direction were more natural parts of the environment, in l4d they laid a pipeline in a cornfield and players would naturally want to climb on it to follow it or have a knocked over lamp or dim red exit sign at the end of a dark hallway. That game is a masterclass at letting players explore and without feeling like they're being told what to do and its not the only one, most games did this for decades incorporating level design as a tool for the game.
The thing with in game hints is that it all comes down to time and effort. Since games seem to be targetting adults nowadays, they make note of an adults lack of patience and lack of time. Back in the day games were marketed towards children and children would do anything to have a fun experience, they were willing to be patient and experiment with the game. That was how games were traditionally meant to be played, that's how a five year old could beat mega man 2 in the 80s while an adult can't beat dark souls today. So they chip away anything which could be perceived as inefficient or a time sink, not realising that experimentation is part of the experience. That seems like one of the game industries problems now that I think about it, having the core demographic be adults instead of children. Most of the games which come out are probably streamlined and suck due to that reason.
Funny thing about this. Before the PS3, interactible objects were in high definition compared to the background (especially prerendered backgrounds) which indicated that they were interactible (Sorta like how old cartoons from the 70s have outlined characters and low contrast backgrounds). It's not as blatant as yellow paint but it trained people to discern what's interactible and what isn't and remained the industry standard till the PS3 when realistic lighting and photorealism made that contrast go away. Also RE isn't really a good indicator of the yellow paint phenomena since RE has been feeding hints since the ps1 where interactible objects sparkled if the player took too much time.
Yeah, there's always been ways to avoid lazy design. Ghost of Tsushima's method of guiding the player with changing wind instead of an arrow is pretty great. It's not intrusive like a giant floating arrow and it doesn't take you out of the game because the environment reacts to the wind. Really fits thematically with the wind guiding you on your journey.
To me, there are proper ways to indicate interactive objects or linear progression without being obtuse in your design. Those spinning/flashing/glinting objects you mentioned are either design choices to aid the player or necessary implementations given the limitations of the engine/hardware.
Great example:
The PS3 fucked up a bit in visual signfiers. In GTA 4, stuff like climbable ledges and other things have to be manually tested sometimes to know whether it's doable. Most of them are climbable but not always. Games which tried to push photorealism didn't really excel at visual signifiers (similar problem with modern games where they're overbrightened ruining the contrast and visual design). But there were games where the contrast is used well. Ubisoft games especially AC, interactible objects and people had a thicker outline than everything else. Borderlands had more detailed enemies and objects than environments, also thicker outlines.Great example:
This fortress level is from Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. In it, you can scale, climb, swing and mantle across various objects and terrains in the environment. It's subtle enough to blend with the hyperrealistic graphics, but noticeable enough for the player to decode that it's traversable.
Or, let's look at another open world game from that same generation: GTA IV. That is the first GTA to have interiors within the same game world as the player itself.
DR and to a lesser extent dark souls are not hand holdy games. They're problem solving games. Since playtesters are not really looking for creative problem solving, the devs are going to be more inclined towards constricting the player into linearity. I played the first DR like 5 years ago I think, even I immediately climbed up the boxes during the carlito fight. But then some others used different strats after I looked it up, rich evans's famous perfect run had him handgunning carlito up on the rafters while standing at the center of the cafeteria. Climbing boxes is the best strat but it's open ended so go wild. Another strat I can think of is if you went to cletus's before he spawns in the afternoon, you can secure a sniper and snipe carlito during the fight.
Sounds funny as hell lol. Real 90's humor.
One looks retarded and gay though. It boils down to one not even trying to be organic and instead embracing what its function is and looking cool, the other doing the exact opposite. It is aesthetically shit to spill yellow paint everywhere, it's immersion breaking in a way that's even worse, ironically because it's trying not to be and failing. It's extremely inelegant and not even really as effective either, so it's the worst choice in many ways.
I think it looks great. And looking for tiny, dark objects in dark areas sounds like a nightmare.
i never really understood hitmarkers on singleplayer games, they feel like a crutch for developers that can't manage proper weapon feedback on shooting enemies or/and can't manage enemy feedback on getting injured/killed.
If this is your defense I'd hate to see your offense lol
This is from the Dead Rising Remake.
There's no way Card isn't a Mr. Nubly type.