Extra Punctuation: The Rise of Rail Roading
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I can't help that alot of the herding originates from the older games where the only way to succeed in some games was to die over and over again trying to find the right path or combination of instruction's or timing to pass the current section of the game.
Granted these things are alot harder to apply to your general shooter. But i think as you point out the fault lies with the actual gameplay. I know plenty of people who if they get stuck at a point for more than a couple of minutes, and the game is essentially forcing them to do something where they will die, they just give up. And i think that's the real reason the player gets escorted through the game. It's less of a game and more of a movie and no one wants to get half way through the movie and then sit there and watch the last 5 minutes over and over again before they get to move on.
Things used to prevent a challenge. looking at a more recent game in World at War, large amount's of people insisted that the endless army spawn points ruined the game, partly because for once they couldn't just sit in one place and have everything come to them till they all died. Instead you had to dash quickly between cover while avoiding nades which generally managed to land in the same place, like a maze until you found the right combination to either reach a point where the endless spawns were now prevented or made it to a checkpoint.
Sure this isn't really adding content, or longevity to the game but it provides a challenge. And when it comes down to it that's one of the reason's i play games. I want to be challenged and if possible enjoy a good narrative arc. The challenge shouldn't be removed so the game can escort me through the narrative because then it feels like i haven't achieved anything. There's not a big a reward when you finally make it to the otherside of the compound and blow up the impending "Rocket of Doom" if the game ensure's your safety the whole time
I remember some time ago a bunch of developers were saying that they had realized that large amounts of their games weren't being played all the way through to the end by the majority of players so they looked at ensuring that a larger amount of players did, which in some cases i think has led to serious shortening in gameplay length
Granted these things are alot harder to apply to your general shooter. But i think as you point out the fault lies with the actual gameplay. I know plenty of people who if they get stuck at a point for more than a couple of minutes, and the game is essentially forcing them to do something where they will die, they just give up. And i think that's the real reason the player gets escorted through the game. It's less of a game and more of a movie and no one wants to get half way through the movie and then sit there and watch the last 5 minutes over and over again before they get to move on.
Things used to prevent a challenge. looking at a more recent game in World at War, large amount's of people insisted that the endless army spawn points ruined the game, partly because for once they couldn't just sit in one place and have everything come to them till they all died. Instead you had to dash quickly between cover while avoiding nades which generally managed to land in the same place, like a maze until you found the right combination to either reach a point where the endless spawns were now prevented or made it to a checkpoint.
Sure this isn't really adding content, or longevity to the game but it provides a challenge. And when it comes down to it that's one of the reason's i play games. I want to be challenged and if possible enjoy a good narrative arc. The challenge shouldn't be removed so the game can escort me through the narrative because then it feels like i haven't achieved anything. There's not a big a reward when you finally make it to the otherside of the compound and blow up the impending "Rocket of Doom" if the game ensure's your safety the whole time
I remember some time ago a bunch of developers were saying that they had realized that large amounts of their games weren't being played all the way through to the end by the majority of players so they looked at ensuring that a larger amount of players did, which in some cases i think has led to serious shortening in gameplay length
Excellent point here I must say.koriantor said:
I'd like to add to that by bringing up one thing. Programmers have to do this all the time.
Make things dummy proof. A basic example would be where you've written a program that says "enter a number" and some jerk throws in a letter or something just because he can. The fail-safe to this is obviously some extra code that says "That's not a number, dumbass" or something, but that's the lazy man's way of doing it. A not-so-lazy way would be to throw in a conversion from Anscii to a number and do the computation (or whatever) that way.
In context of games today, a blatant hand-holding linear path is like the "that's not a number" solution. it forces the player to go back (or stop or whatever) and do exactly what the game is saying. example: fighting your way through the streets instead of running through or stealthing your way through.
Since I don't work in the industry I'm sure there are some budget/marketing related reasons for this, but frankly linear diven games used to be fine, there were never any problems like this back when we were all playing MMX for the snes or doom. It feels like the only way to break away from this horrific committee design is to make sandboxes all around, but that'd be stupid too.
This is why I support XBLA indie developers. They actually try...
iOS developers can suck it too... I don't even think they play games....
do i need to point out that HL2 was split into 3 parts, with he 3rd being the supposed biggest.RJ Dalton said:
so that might be why 1 is bigger then 2.
you even state this.
here is a better example: fable 1 and fable 3.
Good article, expressing my own fears that have recently become moreso pronounced.
I happen to be a big fan of Bioware precisely because I enjoy its theme-park approach to games moreso than the straight sandbox style of some of its competitors (I've dabbled extensively in Oblivion by now but apart from arsing around for shits and giggles, I find any kind of investment towards its world wholly pointless. Why would I want to explore its setting if it, along with its characters and story idea, looks like a cardboard cutout to me with next to no depth?)
But what I worry about greatly is that they'll become TOO fond of their approach and not seek to mix it up in the future. I happened to actually like Dragon Age 2 on the whole, but it had a big share of problems and the fact that you stayed in and around Kirkwall was certainly not something I found too endearing.
Moreso worrying is that for SWTOR they've so far revealed it to be a very theme-park MMO and though this is fine for a starting point, to teach and immerse the players into the game and setting...what I worry greatly is that as time goes on they'll refuse to add a few sandboxy elements to offer players the possibility to make their own fun...because if they refuse to add that and go down the line of thinking that the only additions post-launch that are worth having are theme-park based ones, then eventually there is no way they'll manage to supply enough content to keep the public's demand for it through expansions going and SWTOR will probably wither and feel like too much handholding in the end. Players will expect their hands to be held...and every expansion they'll have to hold their hands until one day the audience will get bored of it and begin their exodus.
So good article. And definitely one worthy of consideration for all theme-park games designers.
I happen to be a big fan of Bioware precisely because I enjoy its theme-park approach to games moreso than the straight sandbox style of some of its competitors (I've dabbled extensively in Oblivion by now but apart from arsing around for shits and giggles, I find any kind of investment towards its world wholly pointless. Why would I want to explore its setting if it, along with its characters and story idea, looks like a cardboard cutout to me with next to no depth?)
But what I worry about greatly is that they'll become TOO fond of their approach and not seek to mix it up in the future. I happened to actually like Dragon Age 2 on the whole, but it had a big share of problems and the fact that you stayed in and around Kirkwall was certainly not something I found too endearing.
Moreso worrying is that for SWTOR they've so far revealed it to be a very theme-park MMO and though this is fine for a starting point, to teach and immerse the players into the game and setting...what I worry greatly is that as time goes on they'll refuse to add a few sandboxy elements to offer players the possibility to make their own fun...because if they refuse to add that and go down the line of thinking that the only additions post-launch that are worth having are theme-park based ones, then eventually there is no way they'll manage to supply enough content to keep the public's demand for it through expansions going and SWTOR will probably wither and feel like too much handholding in the end. Players will expect their hands to be held...and every expansion they'll have to hold their hands until one day the audience will get bored of it and begin their exodus.
So good article. And definitely one worthy of consideration for all theme-park games designers.
It probably has something to do with all those whiny dipshits complaining about the Water Temple in Ocarina of Time or similar dungeons and puzzles, so developers went "Fine, let us hold your hand and lead you through the game like a blind paraplegic 4 year old."
Why Gearbox? Borderlands is one of the only games you can mod for the console version. In fact, I would say it's one of the more compelling games of this gen; even if it is in a crack/cocaine (I need another gun) kind of way.targren said:
Besides, the only time that bothers me is when they fix all the little exploits and things like that but don't fix the big (game halting) glitches and crashes: I'm looking at you Bethesda.
But actually Fallout 3 is one of the only games that is as deep or interesting as my favorites from last gen. It was actually worth $60.
The shallow and ridged gameplay from this gen I don't think is completely borne out of a lack of creativity. Not to say the industry is overflowing with creativity; far from it. However I think it's more of a push by publishers to complete as many titles as possible and get them on the shelves.
I can totally see why: Gamers have proven themselves to not be too picky and most are easily talked/hyped into buying the new shiny disc. So of course the publishers want to get as many different titles out there and will spend as little as possible on development. Why pay people for two years to make a spectacular product that will only sell a bit more than a more shallow product they can make in one year.
Yahtzee, I know that you won't reply to this, but I have to ask you a question: Why does it always seem like you hate us fans? Every time you bring up people who watch Zero Punctuation, you talk the nimrods and morons who infest the earth.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
What about those of us, like me, who never say, "HEY YATZEE, REVEIW THIS GAME, PLZ!1!!1", always halt what we're doing every Wednesday to watch the latest episode of your show and never register complaint when you give a bad review to a game we like?
Just curious.
That's what I'm talking about. Niggling little gameplay tweaks like downgrading chests to prevent farming and "adjusting" certain plot fights, while some quests are annoyingly bugged.GonzoGamer said:
Admittedly it's not as bad as what Blizz did to Diablo II (admittedly, subjective, but I don't like that I can't use the official no-cd patch without all the crappy MMO elements and the game elements being rebalanced around them), but I still find it obnoxious.
Yahtzee has put into better words than I ever could the very same vibe I've been getting from this current generation of games.
Ten years ago, I would claim I didn't like JRPGs because they were all linear railroaded corridors compared to traditional western CRPGs, especially those I grew up with that didn't even give you a map or told you where to go. You had to figure it out all for yourself, and dialogues were handled by text parsers so yeah.
Now compare it to nowadays' "Game of the year" RPGs: three choices, at best, with one clearly marked as "This is evil", one "This is good" and the other "This is neutral", with good being the parody of the most naive and gullible protosaint on earth, evil being a completely insane mouth-frothing baby eater and neutral being "I do it for the moneys". Oh, and don't ever hope that your choices will actually make some sort of impact in the game! You'll get either the "good" ending or the "evil" ending.
I know asking for another Planescape: Torment or another Deus Ex or another Thief or heck, even just another Baldur's Gate lookalike may be a little too much for today's industry, but damn it why is there no other option except from the opposite extreme?
Ten years ago, I would claim I didn't like JRPGs because they were all linear railroaded corridors compared to traditional western CRPGs, especially those I grew up with that didn't even give you a map or told you where to go. You had to figure it out all for yourself, and dialogues were handled by text parsers so yeah.
Now compare it to nowadays' "Game of the year" RPGs: three choices, at best, with one clearly marked as "This is evil", one "This is good" and the other "This is neutral", with good being the parody of the most naive and gullible protosaint on earth, evil being a completely insane mouth-frothing baby eater and neutral being "I do it for the moneys". Oh, and don't ever hope that your choices will actually make some sort of impact in the game! You'll get either the "good" ending or the "evil" ending.
I know asking for another Planescape: Torment or another Deus Ex or another Thief or heck, even just another Baldur's Gate lookalike may be a little too much for today's industry, but damn it why is there no other option except from the opposite extreme?
Oh wow....an admonition to the freedom of running around that Tomb Raider (in the pre-Crystal Dynamics era) allowed. If you died, it was mostly your fault, even though the objective was clear. Of course, in hindsight, I realize it was the simplicity of the engine and the flatness of most of the objects due to low polygon counts that created the ability to land and continue from places the developers hadn't considered.
I don't mind linearity as long as it serves a purpose. Esentially, that feeling trapped, contrained and/or inevitably obedient generates an atmosphere or feeling that is used as part of a narrative framework. This can be temporary or go along for all the game, but it has to have some sort of meaning to it. (Examples: The Last Express, Bioshock, every game that pulls the "we took your guns away" schtick at some point).
I don't mind linearity as long as it serves a purpose. Esentially, that feeling trapped, contrained and/or inevitably obedient generates an atmosphere or feeling that is used as part of a narrative framework. This can be temporary or go along for all the game, but it has to have some sort of meaning to it. (Examples: The Last Express, Bioshock, every game that pulls the "we took your guns away" schtick at some point).
I just played through Unreal I love the how your not really given any diection in the game. It makes it way more fun.
Black ops is really bad being yelled at every 10 secs what to do. Hitting buttons when told to is too much like simon and very boring.
I also Liked the brothers in arms series for lack of hand holding.
Black ops is really bad being yelled at every 10 secs what to do. Hitting buttons when told to is too much like simon and very boring.
I also Liked the brothers in arms series for lack of hand holding.
I disagree with the notion that "there is no such thing as a non-linear narrative-driven game" Whatever the fuck gave you that Idea Yahtzee? Just because GTA 4 had a fuck-balls story?
What about Fallout? Or The Elder Scrolls? Bioware RPGs have a good amount of sandbox freedom to them as well(atleast in between missions) and those are, if nothing else, narrative driven games. You might wince at this next one.....but the Witcher 2 gives you quite a bit of choice and freedom. If only you'd done you job that week and actually played the game before slandering it as usual.
What about Fallout? Or The Elder Scrolls? Bioware RPGs have a good amount of sandbox freedom to them as well(atleast in between missions) and those are, if nothing else, narrative driven games. You might wince at this next one.....but the Witcher 2 gives you quite a bit of choice and freedom. If only you'd done you job that week and actually played the game before slandering it as usual.
Yahtzee, I really think you should give Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway a shot. For one thing, there is no health meter nor blood splatter that magically goes away. Instead, there is a luck meter which you want. If you poke your head out of cover while being shot at, the entire screen will slowly (or quickly, depending on what's shooting at you) turn red. If it goes solid red, your luck's run out, you're shot once, and you die. There's even an option to turn off the red screen, making the game more realistic.
Secondly, you can choose how you want each combat section to play out. You can command your squad to dig in and cover while you go around, any way you choose, to flank the enemy. Or, you can dig in and send your squad. Or you can all dig in and hope someone gets a lucky shot. Or you can be completely stupid and charge headlong--like other shooters--and realize just how bad that idea is as you're cut down before you take four steps.
There are other problems with the game, but based on what you've asked for, I really think you'd enjoy at least the combat part of it.
Secondly, you can choose how you want each combat section to play out. You can command your squad to dig in and cover while you go around, any way you choose, to flank the enemy. Or, you can dig in and send your squad. Or you can all dig in and hope someone gets a lucky shot. Or you can be completely stupid and charge headlong--like other shooters--and realize just how bad that idea is as you're cut down before you take four steps.
There are other problems with the game, but based on what you've asked for, I really think you'd enjoy at least the combat part of it.