Extra Punctuation: The Rise of Rail Roading

[bojac6]

This is why I love Half Life 2. Yes it's a linear game, but it's built in a way so that it feels like you found some clever way through the level by just being smart.

The opening is especially great. Lets you figure everything out for yourself, and doesn't force-feed you info about everything or give you an annoying-ass companion talking to you, or anything really. Hell, it's about an hour before you even get a weapon of some kind. That hour is spent just... exploring the world and figuring things out. It's amazingly well done.

Half Life 2 trusts you to be smart, trusts you to be smart enough to figure things out for yourself, and I love it for that.

But there isn't any choice. You have to progress in exactly the same fashion every time. Look at the beginning. You aren't allowed to go through the normal line, you have to be pulled into the side room where Barney is. If you wait too long or go the wrong way, you either find a dead end or get beaten up by a Combine with a stun baton. It's all a single path, the entire game. They just made that path zigzag a bit so you aren't walking in a straight line.

It doesn't ask or expect you to be smart. It doesn't give you any choice. Whenever there's a plot event that you need to see, it locks you in the room. Whenever there is a character that is vital to the story, you are rendered unable to kill them.

Is HL2 a good game? Yes, certainly. But does it allow you to find a clever way to do things? Not really. Almost everybody will beat the puzzle the same way. Portal definitely had more options and cleverness to it.

 

[Metal Invader]

yeah. lately i HAVE been noticing this trend.

games of last generation would have insane levels of customization, hidden collectibles, and just, well, stuff that you could do (example: Perfect Dark)

it seems as time goes on they're stripping out more and more features just so the pores on every character's nose in Modern Warfare 3 will be perfectly realistic.

Seriously? Plants versus Zombies has more content into its 15 dollar self than most 65 dollar games coming out for the rest of the year (including Gears of War 3, Modern Warfare 3, and anything nintendo is churning out these days)

 

[beleester]

I'd like to hold up Mirror's Edge as a well-made linear game, even if Yahtzee hates it. There's only one way to go, but it's often very circuitous (similar to HL2's fascination with air ducts). Also, since it's a free-running, the linear corridor which you are in is cleverly disguised as cranes and balance beams and empty space to leap through.

For clever people who think the obvious route is too boring, the developers threw in some faster, alternate routes and hidden bags to find. And for those of us who can't figure out which way to go, you can hold down Alt to look in the direction of your next objective. This stops you from getting lost in the middle of a high-octane chase, but lets you still have the fun of getting there. So they did a really good job of leading you through a linear map while making you feel like you're finding your own way.

 

[Helmutye]

There are plenty of popular recent games/ upcoming games that give you lots of choice. The Witcher 2, all of Bethseda's sandbox titles, Deus Ex 3, for example.

As far as Bethesda sandbox games go, I actually find the more recent ones to be very shallow and limiting. Morrowind was pretty open, and gave you the sense that there really was a whole world out there for you to bang on without fear of finding the edges, but that game is almost 10 years old. Oblivion was considerably less free--yes, there was a big world, but all of the quests were very, very tightly scripted and you were basically lead around by the nose through each checkpoint. Yes there were a lot of skills, but they all did pretty much the same thing and had very little impact on gameplay--was there any actual difference between Blade and Blunt weapons? The skill perks were the same, the damage progression seemed too close to tell a difference. Magic skills opened up spells that did slightly more damage, but they looked the same as the lower level ones and, because the game scaled with the player anyway, it made absolutely no difference. If you gain the ability to do 10 more points of damage, but all your enemies have gained 10 extra hit points when they scale up to match your level, there is no net difference.

I am less familiar with the Fallout games, but from what I've seen and heard they are basically the same--there are lots of choices, but none of the choices actually mean anything.

Another good comparison are the Thief games--Thief 1 and 2 were marvelously open. Each mission had a contained map and defined objectives, but the maps were incredibly detailed and non-linear, and you got virtually no direction about how to approach it. You could explore to your heart's content, find secret passages and figure out gaps in guard patrols, find all kinds of extra things that added to the setting and the flavor of the world, etc. You could eavesdrop on the guards and hear little bits about their lives--in one mission in Thief 2 you hear two guards complaining about the new factory that opened up near their houses and how it smells bad, puts out lots of soot, and is making their children cough and develop asthma. In another you hear various guards complaining about how one of the other guard got drunk and made a big mess all over the place. If you explore around, you can find the drunk guy and find the messes he made. If you want, you can jump out of the shadows and scare him and teach him a lesson. The levels were huge, there were no loading zones or set paths, and you were just left to figure it out on your own and create your own story within the mission. And when you were finished with each sandbox mission, you could complete it and move on to the next one. It was a perfect blend of nonlinear freedom and story.

Compare it to Thief: Deadly Shadows, the most recent installment, and you see the differences in big name game design--the missions are divided up into stages punctuated by loading zones. Guards can't chase you within a certain distance of a loading zone, and can't follow you between them, and once you leave a zone the time there is frozen, so when you come back it is exactly as you left it, guard positions and all. All the loot items glow so you can easily tell what is loot and what isn't (in the first two some things were valuable loot and some things were worthless, and if you couldn't tell which was which because of the light you had to make a tough choice--wander into the open in hopes that it was loot, or leave it alone rather than risk being spotted). The levels are much less detailed and much more path-oriented (there are always shadows exactly where you need them, easily noticeable breaks in the guard patrols, etc; as opposed to the first two, which pretty much made a plausible mansion or fortress and left you to figure out how to get through--it wasn't neat or pretty, and there were plenty of places where you had to get very creative because the designers hadn't done all the work for you).

It can be frustrating when a game has unclear objectives or when you truly are good and stumped about how to progress or how to get more clues to help you progress. But I think those flaws are worth the freedom they bring with them.

 

[bojac6]

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.

But those games are quite linear when it comes to story. Nothing happens in Fallout (especially 3), Bioware, and the Elder Scrolls unless you arrive. It's not a non-linear story if I receive the quest "rescue so and so from trolls" and I can either do it immediately or dance around the countryside fighting bandits for 6 hours and then do the quest. It's the same quest either way, and events unfurl the exact same way.

A simple example of non-linear story telling would be if you got that quest, but the person is killed if you take too long to get there. Or if you're too far away. Of course this just means the game has to adapt to the character being alive or dead. Ultimately, in a computer game, the developers have to predict all possible plot lines for a narrative to progress. And the only way to do that is to make it linear.

Oblivion after you're done with the story is nonlinear. It's just you in a world leveling up. But the narrative is very linear. Same with Fallout. Old Bioware RPGs just ended. Mount and Blade is a great example of a non-linear game, but it makes no attempt at a narrative.

The only way to have a non-linear narrative driven game is a table-top, where the person running the game is able to adapt and progress the narrative in response to any and all actions taken by the players. A computer simply cannot be programmed to do that.

 

[Woodsey]

I think there's no need for alarm in that matter. There are plenty of popular recent games/ upcoming games that give you lots of choice. The Witcher 2, all of Bethseda's sandbox titles, Deus Ex 3, for example. And if they are or probably will be a lot more successful than streamlined, linear stuff like Call of Juarez

They won't be more popular than Call of Duty, however.

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.

He meant in terms of the narrative being completely non-linear.

OT: Its certainly a problem. Somehow Crysis went from a game where I could punch the shack of a wall out, grab the guy inside and throw him through the other wall, to a game where I must press F to look at the pretty scripted sequence happening right in front of my eyes.

Having said that, I don't think developers are jumping back a bit now. As Dyre said, there's Bethesda, The Witcher games, Human Revolution, etc.

 

[scorptatious]

This is why I love Half Life 2. Yes it's a linear game, but it's built in a way so that it feels like you found some clever way through the level by just being smart.

The opening is especially great. Lets you figure everything out for yourself, and doesn't force-feed you info about everything or give you an annoying-ass companion talking to you, or anything really. Hell, it's about an hour before you even get a weapon of some kind. That hour is spent just... exploring the world and figuring things out. It's amazingly well done.

Half Life 2 trusts you to be smart, trusts you to be smart enough to figure things out for yourself, and I love it for that.

Not saying you do this, but it's interesting how often people will praise Half Life 2 for it's freedom while condemning something like Halo when HL2 is actually far more linear than Combat Evolved. In fact Half Life 2 and all Valve games (not so much L4D) are highly regulated experiences and Valve constantly tries to control the experience. In Portal 2 if testers didn't look the right way for long enough they'd stick an arrow in the path or cut off possible alternate routes. Despite being a huge proponent of linearity, Half Life 2 usually get's a pass for having nostalgic features like a health bar, multiple guns, and decent pacing. Again, not saying you think that, I just knew it would come up.

Oh, I know. Half Life 2 is one of the most linear games ever. However, what sets it apart is that it does a great job at hiding the rails. Valve made it feel very... organic, I guess would be the best word to describe it. Even though you are on a forced path, it never really feels like it. It's especially jarring after playing shooters which don't seem to hide them well, and constantly try to shove you where they want you to be, while Half Life 2 lets you take your time, lets you move at your own pace.

It's why I love it so much at least. I know you didn't accuse me of liking it for silly reasons like the health bar/multiple guns, but I just wanted to expand upon my post in case anyone else does.

Though I wonder, why you consider someone liking a game with good pacing to be nostalgia?

Another thing that bugs me about people who liked Half Life 2 and hate Halo is that they say Halo was bad because Master Chief was a dull character. Meanwhile, they praise Gordon Freeman, who has even less of a personality because you never hear him speak or actually see his face in-game. Seems rather hypocritical of them.

Not saying that all people who like Half Life 2 are like that though.

EDIT: Oops. I thought I was just quoting Hobonicus. This wasn't directed at you Irridium. Sorry about that.

 

[rayen020]

What happened to the trust between players and developers?

Well I believe pirating was the first big misstep, and DRM was the final where developers just came out and said we don't trust you.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

This is something that's been bugging me a lot from games I see recently. I haven't really known what to call it, but I refer to the lack of ability to freely move and instead of jumping when you decide, you go to a ledge and it gives a button prompt, and if you press this button the character jumps for you, control be damned.

I assume it comes from the fact that it's easier to do, instead of creating an ability which lets a player move or interact with his environment differently, you just put in a few segments where the character moves himself without any real thought from the player.

It's annoying. The thing that bugs me the most is how little people oppose shallow game making decisions that are invoked to create prettier games faster and easier, and then said games are forgotten in a few months... it's ridiculous, so many games completely rely on an initial pre-order expense and then a few months later they make another one, with no more depth than the last 5.

 

[w00tage]

And that's why I've spent like 50 bucks total on games in the last 3 years. I don't need my hand held through MW or ME, I need you to get your hand out of my way so I can go win the war. I am the player, it's in my job description.

Need me to do something before anything else for the sake of the story? Give me a priority message. Need me to do it in a certain time? Give me a deadline or a timer.

You'll note that I didn't say I needed either of those, they are strictly for the DEVELOPERS' needs in creating the game experience. I can work with their needs if they can work with mine, no problemo.

 

[w00tage]

Batman Arkham Asylum on the other hand is a classic example of hand holding. When you're having a boss fight and the game tells you, on your first run through the fight, how to defeat the guy it's friggin annoying. Though, less annoying than the fact you have to fight at least four similar bosses in exactly the same way. There may even be more after that, I don't know. I got fed up on boss#4 and started playing Bulletstorm instead.

Exactly. I expected that I'd get all of the gameplay of "being the Batman", and instead I got some mooks to pound, some cutscenes, and a button to push to take out the first bad guy. Then I quit it, uninstalled and it's sitting in my archive of Steam games where it will stay forever.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Is less choice and less complexity really the future of gaming?

It reminds me of Kojima and Metal Gear Solid a few years back, essentially "Play the game how I want you to or don't play at all."

It seems to be the direction the Triple A game producers seem to be taking.

 

[ischmalud]

hahaha i take that as a thumbs up for what im doing - reinstalling rpgs from 10 years ago, guess what they still more fun although i prolly played them 100s of times already

 

[Advancedcaveman]

This railroading has basically made me completely lose interest in nearly all shooters (and by extension nearly all current generation console games, because heaven forbid anyone make anything that isn?t a shooter), but I don?t like open world games either; I find them just as tedious and irritating to play as hyper linear games. In an open world game, all I ever do is walk around sixty billion miles of flat terrain dotted with millions of identical skyscrapers performing the same 3 missions over and over again. I spend all my time walking to the damn objectives, and I?m not going through interesting scenery.

I like level design and variety. There was, in fact, a really good happy medium between linearity and openness in early 90s first person shooters. The levels in Duke Nukem 3d are basically non linear with multiple routes and numerous secret areas despite all being hand crafted, distinct environments (rather than copy/pasted procedurally generated shit). As much as I like Half Life, that is the game that led to all this bullshit railroading: Modern games are all constantly forcing you to sit through more tightly controlled variations on the opening train ride sequence from Half Life.

Also, this thing where people claim games are more linear because they?re story driven is such bullshit. Video games aren?t developing more narrative richness because they?re all telling the same fucking story over and over again: ?Bald military grunt man must save the world from aliens or terrorists or aliens that are also terrorists.? That?s it. That?s the only fucking story modern games are telling. Mass Effect is often cited as some richly narrative driven game, yet it?s just more bald space marine bullshit. It?s a game about a vast universe of identical bald military people and off brand aliens having endless monotone conversations about space ethics and space politics. Its bad in the same way the Star Wars prequels are.

 

[Warforger]

People stop using the word "devolving", it's impossible to devolve, you can only evolve.

 

[Sylveria]

This is something I really agree on. Trotting out my favorite whipping boy, Final Fantasy 13.. Aka The Tube or The Worst DVD Movie Scene Selection Menu ever. You walk down a hall, occasionally end up fighting an enemy, and the game is kind enough to let you pick your attacks before it carries out the pre-scripted actions, regardless of the battle conditions, then lets you watch a cut scene as a reward. One of the biggest titles of 2010 had almost zero interactivity between the player and the game experience.