Articles like this remind me why I so loved Demon's Souls, and why Dark Souls is far and away my most anticipated future release.
Extra Punctuation: The Rise of Rail Roading
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I actually don't see this trend, obviously being from the Pc masterrace and being smart enough to avoid bad titles, I already disliked the former CoJ Games, not going to buy another one.
Now I think the thing here is natural exploration against a cinematic gameplay, having a linear game allows you to script along the ways, see CoD 4 as example, the game does indeed hold your hands here and there, but at the same time gives you enough freedom to deploy your own strategy, the missions where you fight up that hill village, defend it and fight it downwards again comes to my mind, other times like the ship in the beginning at least give you the last room for some freedom fighting, so I think its unfair to say it holds your hands completely, sure you got missions where you go from point a to b, but while doing so it creates immersion in the game, the sniper mission and the first part of the ship come to mind..yet again, not to mention the moment you run from the ship, panic mode just sets in.
On the other side we have big titles like Fallout 3 and NV, where you are free to explore, fight or talk your way around, while the karma, reputation and fraction system is just sweet. Of course the new deus Ex will probably a wonderful throwback to the genius first game and the new bioshock seems to be much more open aswell.
I however don't understand people claiming Halflife would allow much freedom, we are talking about a set of one way underground tunnels here, the only exploration is in the borderworld, if any, and there you just got a few little Rooms with ammo, while Halflife 2 has a few "open" battlefields.
Another old example would be beyond good and evil, while I love the game which gives you freedom to explore around it still restricts you, you always have one..and one way only though the factory's to reach your goal and I only need to decide if I sneak past the guards, kick them or throw a disk at them or even openly attack them and even if I decide to sneak around I will just follow a predetermined path.
So whats the core of all this I ask, do we either have vast games with a lot of choices and a lot of exploration, but at the same time possibly shortening the game, simply because the programming needs time to allow all those decisions or do we like a more cinematic approach, where you indeed just have one linear way, but at least make it a good one.
One last thing that actually killed Deus ex for me, why in the blue hell where you never allowed to kill your brother and stay with UNATCO and MJ12, that would have made the game for me, simply because you could actually switch sides to fight against NSF and thus creating a "dark/evil" path, the maps didn't even need to change simply juggle up your mission objectives and your enemys and you are set. This would have made this awesome game just a bit more awesome.
Now I think the thing here is natural exploration against a cinematic gameplay, having a linear game allows you to script along the ways, see CoD 4 as example, the game does indeed hold your hands here and there, but at the same time gives you enough freedom to deploy your own strategy, the missions where you fight up that hill village, defend it and fight it downwards again comes to my mind, other times like the ship in the beginning at least give you the last room for some freedom fighting, so I think its unfair to say it holds your hands completely, sure you got missions where you go from point a to b, but while doing so it creates immersion in the game, the sniper mission and the first part of the ship come to mind..yet again, not to mention the moment you run from the ship, panic mode just sets in.
On the other side we have big titles like Fallout 3 and NV, where you are free to explore, fight or talk your way around, while the karma, reputation and fraction system is just sweet. Of course the new deus Ex will probably a wonderful throwback to the genius first game and the new bioshock seems to be much more open aswell.
I however don't understand people claiming Halflife would allow much freedom, we are talking about a set of one way underground tunnels here, the only exploration is in the borderworld, if any, and there you just got a few little Rooms with ammo, while Halflife 2 has a few "open" battlefields.
Another old example would be beyond good and evil, while I love the game which gives you freedom to explore around it still restricts you, you always have one..and one way only though the factory's to reach your goal and I only need to decide if I sneak past the guards, kick them or throw a disk at them or even openly attack them and even if I decide to sneak around I will just follow a predetermined path.
So whats the core of all this I ask, do we either have vast games with a lot of choices and a lot of exploration, but at the same time possibly shortening the game, simply because the programming needs time to allow all those decisions or do we like a more cinematic approach, where you indeed just have one linear way, but at least make it a good one.
One last thing that actually killed Deus ex for me, why in the blue hell where you never allowed to kill your brother and stay with UNATCO and MJ12, that would have made the game for me, simply because you could actually switch sides to fight against NSF and thus creating a "dark/evil" path, the maps didn't even need to change simply juggle up your mission objectives and your enemys and you are set. This would have made this awesome game just a bit more awesome.
Something about this rant feels off to me... far be it from me to squash any dissent, but I'm not convinced we should be targeting linear gaming as a concept. The problem here is not the degree of "freedom" (if you can call anything in a game truly free, but that's getting a bit too deep for our purposes). No, the problem is linear gameplay handled poorly. Because as we've seen, simply adding more choices does not make a game better. Sandboxes can be handled poorly too. What we need is for game developers to not make the kinds of mistakes you describe. I have no problem running through a pre-crafted experience. It's the reason I play games in my free time instead of making them myself. But they can't be so obvious or so limiting in how they handle it.
I guess my playing devil's advocate is borne of a concern for games like Mass Effect, which would seem to fall in the same pile into which you toss this Call of Juarez game. I can't know if loosening up the narrative experience in a Mass Effect game would improve it, but I'd hate to see a push for more freedom turn into another rut where devs do the wrong thing. We need game makers to be smart about their choices not chase the whims of a disgruntled demographic. I think that's what bugs me about this rant. It needs that extra tip: design smart. We can have linear narratives, open sandboxes and everything in between. What matters is how it's handled not which style is chosen.
I guess my playing devil's advocate is borne of a concern for games like Mass Effect, which would seem to fall in the same pile into which you toss this Call of Juarez game. I can't know if loosening up the narrative experience in a Mass Effect game would improve it, but I'd hate to see a push for more freedom turn into another rut where devs do the wrong thing. We need game makers to be smart about their choices not chase the whims of a disgruntled demographic. I think that's what bugs me about this rant. It needs that extra tip: design smart. We can have linear narratives, open sandboxes and everything in between. What matters is how it's handled not which style is chosen.
Yes, I remember when games let you make decisions. I remember this one MMORPG that I played called the World of Warcraft. I was a young night elf druid and I was given a quest to go somewhere called Ratchet, which was in enemy territory. So I transformed into a cat and started running there; the monsters were a higher level than me so I would occasionally die and have to walk back to my corpse. The entrance to the zone where Ratchet is was guarded by orcs; I held my breath as I sneaked past them.
I kept going straight down the road, where I came across a town called The Crossroads. I ran around it. At the time I thought I was just avoiding a bunch of Horde guards. It was only later that I learned that I had avoided getting ganked by a Chuck Norris comedian.
I can't remember what the quest was (I think it involved alcohol) but I remember the epic knuckle-biting journey that I took to complete it. And I remember the lolz of my friends when they told me I could've taken a boat there.
Sadly, I started playing WoW again this summer. I blame global warming because it's too hot here to go outside. But less importantly WoW is about as rail roading as it can get now. Which is sad for a MMORPG. Oh well it's a good time sink until Skyrim comes out. I love all the choices and mistakes I can make in Bethesda games, and I hear that this one is "streamlined." YEAH!
I kept going straight down the road, where I came across a town called The Crossroads. I ran around it. At the time I thought I was just avoiding a bunch of Horde guards. It was only later that I learned that I had avoided getting ganked by a Chuck Norris comedian.
I can't remember what the quest was (I think it involved alcohol) but I remember the epic knuckle-biting journey that I took to complete it. And I remember the lolz of my friends when they told me I could've taken a boat there.
Sadly, I started playing WoW again this summer. I blame global warming because it's too hot here to go outside. But less importantly WoW is about as rail roading as it can get now. Which is sad for a MMORPG. Oh well it's a good time sink until Skyrim comes out. I love all the choices and mistakes I can make in Bethesda games, and I hear that this one is "streamlined." YEAH!
That's not the commonly accepted definition of Linearity at all. You've got it all wrong sorry. What you're talking about is a real-time dynamic world. Non-linearity means that the world changes in a tangible manner depending entirely upon your choices. In several Witcher and Fallout quests you can choose to let someone die and that hugely impacts and alters the narrative. THAT's non-linearity.bojac6 said:
And besides, what you're talking about; if that was realized in every RPG? It would be a fucking pain in the ass cause you'd have no "sandbox-style" freedom whatsoever. You'd just be fleeting about doing quests non-stop, just to make sure you don't cross any time limits. It'd be like a full-time job....in a video game. It would be even MORE Linear, in fact. You could never stop to just admire the scenery, or do a side-quest.
It works in Mount and Blade because....well because there is no scenery.
a good article as always. Sandboxes are the solution. When red faction went sandbox and then went back to linear gameplay i was like "what the hell are they thinking". in the third instalment they realized the greatness of sandboxing and their going backwards.
But, there are enough games with free choices for us to play, really, so its not such a huge problem, but its a problem that's been around for a long time now.
But, there are enough games with free choices for us to play, really, so its not such a huge problem, but its a problem that's been around for a long time now.
Completely agree. One thing that's really made this trend stand out in my mind, is playing a game that DOESN'T hold your hand and guide you along. Recently picked up a copy of Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, and that game is absolutely brutal with the lack of hand-holding.
There is a "main" story line to follow, with plenty of divergent options, and a whole slew of side quests that are both awesome, and cleverly hidden. There's no minimap full of question marks telling you "NEW QUESTS ARE HERE! COMPLETED QUESTS GO HERE," and when you do get a quest, there's no compass or arrow guiding you blindly where you want to go.
"But how will I find my way?" I hear you saying ... easy, you read. You can read the quest logs, examine the items you pick up, talk to the person who gave you the quest, etc. You can figure it out, all the pieces to the puzzle are provided. They're just not categorized, alphabetized and highlighted for you.
And I loved it. There's an actual sense of accomplishment in finding a clue, checking a bus-stop for a map, going to a location and diggin up info on someone's computer... instead of just "GO HERE, KILL HIM, LOOT MACGUFFIN, NOW GO BACK. TURN IN MACGUFFIN. REPEAT"
There is a "main" story line to follow, with plenty of divergent options, and a whole slew of side quests that are both awesome, and cleverly hidden. There's no minimap full of question marks telling you "NEW QUESTS ARE HERE! COMPLETED QUESTS GO HERE," and when you do get a quest, there's no compass or arrow guiding you blindly where you want to go.
"But how will I find my way?" I hear you saying ... easy, you read. You can read the quest logs, examine the items you pick up, talk to the person who gave you the quest, etc. You can figure it out, all the pieces to the puzzle are provided. They're just not categorized, alphabetized and highlighted for you.
And I loved it. There's an actual sense of accomplishment in finding a clue, checking a bus-stop for a map, going to a location and diggin up info on someone's computer... instead of just "GO HERE, KILL HIM, LOOT MACGUFFIN, NOW GO BACK. TURN IN MACGUFFIN. REPEAT"
I actually said something about this specifically on page 2008Zulu said:
The Metal Gear Solid games are probably some of the least linear "linear" games I've ever played. Have you actually tried them? You could go stealthily, choosing to kill, knock out, or avoid every guard, or you could go guns blazing, or a mix of both. Even the bosses had multiple entirely different ways to beat them. I'm kind of flabbergasted (that's right, flabbergasted) whenever I hear this because the only possible reason Escapists would say it is by misinterpreting and then parroting Yahtzee.
Maybe you also think that having so many cut scenes makes it more movie-esque, which one: is a different category than the rail roading of gameplay entirely, and two: the gameplay itself is still longer than three of your average modern shooters.
Anyway, maybe you can clarify?
Glad you managed to refrain from blaming "consolification" for it, it seems a lot of people are tired of that argument, I sure am, despite being a PC gamer myself. But I had this article topic going through my head when I heard about the new Hitman game, having some enemies path showed to you by pressing a button. I mean, why?? The best part of it was discovering where the enemies went, and how to engage the scenario, with disguises, hiding bodies, millisecond timing, poisoning, orchestrating accidents and whatnot. Sure, I guess the "ooh hardcore" players just don't have to use it, but it takes away a bit of the flexibility and cleverness/satisfaction you might otherwise feel having done it. But I don't blame consoles for it, nooo I do not.
I blame gamers and developers. The games which have this railroading just seem to do so well, that developers just love pushing them out one after the other. To the point that games which were happy to let the players think are now taking away the controls. Just look at Splinter Cell: Conviction, where as Yahtzee put it something along the lines of "Sam is just a beast you ride and whip him on the back of the head to make him do something, like move to another point of cover or clear a room of enemies". Or the abovementioned Hitman. Actually I don't think that game is out yet so I think I should shut up about that one.
It's just another evolution that we have to swallow I guess, much like QTE's, cover-based shooting, regenerating health and the rest, despite their pros and cons.
I blame gamers and developers. The games which have this railroading just seem to do so well, that developers just love pushing them out one after the other. To the point that games which were happy to let the players think are now taking away the controls. Just look at Splinter Cell: Conviction, where as Yahtzee put it something along the lines of "Sam is just a beast you ride and whip him on the back of the head to make him do something, like move to another point of cover or clear a room of enemies". Or the abovementioned Hitman. Actually I don't think that game is out yet so I think I should shut up about that one.
It's just another evolution that we have to swallow I guess, much like QTE's, cover-based shooting, regenerating health and the rest, despite their pros and cons.
Nope, but here is what determines it, what sells. If Minecraft, Saints row the third and Terraria sell or CONTINUE to sell very well, the market will be shook, at least enough to warrant a BIT more change in the market, its just on what sells and what appeals to the largest demographic. Want CoD and mundane shooters to stop being kings? Buy yourself a action adventure sandbox game, don't want that, an rpg, or simulation, or even some FUCKING indie games, but you HAVE to spend money else where if you really want the market to change.
A big majority of people in the world are playing games nowadays. A big majority of people are stupid. So in order to sell more games, developers have to create something that will appeal to the majority not the minority. It's a sad reality we live in. But there will always be a few diamonds in gaming industry. Indie games as Yahtzee stated, free roaming games like Saints Row, GTA and Just Cause, RPG games like TES, FPS games like Bioshock, horror games like Amnesia. Well, hopefully.
As for the comment about MGS. I agree 100%. It's kind of ironic that my favorite game is MGS3, and I'm a PC gamer. I love all of the different approaches you can take in MGS games. Especially MGS3 and MGS4. Every weapon in the game can be used to create different strategies. Combined with CQC and multiple paths to infiltration, it's less linear than Thief and Hitman.
Another thing that pisses me off. Developers are dumbing down completely linear games. Take Splinter Cell for example. First 3 games, and Double Agent on PS2 were great games. Amazing games. Linear, but still great. And what did Ubisoft do with Conviction? They made it more cinematic and they got rid of all the features that made it stand out from the other stealth games. It wasn't even a stealth game. Stealth should be the first choice in that game, and guns should be used as the last resort, not the other way around. Not to mention how they fucked up the story in the process.
As for the comment about MGS. I agree 100%. It's kind of ironic that my favorite game is MGS3, and I'm a PC gamer. I love all of the different approaches you can take in MGS games. Especially MGS3 and MGS4. Every weapon in the game can be used to create different strategies. Combined with CQC and multiple paths to infiltration, it's less linear than Thief and Hitman.
Another thing that pisses me off. Developers are dumbing down completely linear games. Take Splinter Cell for example. First 3 games, and Double Agent on PS2 were great games. Amazing games. Linear, but still great. And what did Ubisoft do with Conviction? They made it more cinematic and they got rid of all the features that made it stand out from the other stealth games. It wasn't even a stealth game. Stealth should be the first choice in that game, and guns should be used as the last resort, not the other way around. Not to mention how they fucked up the story in the process.
This. Linearity isn't inherently bad, and if handled properly, it's just a part of the experience. A game doesn't have to be a sandbox to be good, but it must be handled properly. Plenty of the old adventure games have linearity, but my interest is still piqued even though I'm mucking about trying to get the "flag" for the next area. About the only memorable bad railroad game for me was Unreal II. Although I did finish it, it was a chore around the end because it was missing something to hold my interest. The same with Brood War. Once I started playing the Zerg, I completely lost interest and never bothered finishing it.koriantor said:
I'm pretty sure the current trend of "railroading" will shift as two or three years ago, you couldn't fart without hitting a sandbox game. Not that there is anything wrong with sandbox games, but it seemed the industry was using a crowbar to shoehorn games to fit that genre because the public seemed to be all over it.
The illusion of freedom has died off in the past 6-12 years this is when Jrpgs and Wfps's moved to the tighter corridor layout format(with WRPGs following in due time), I blame lazy developers getting rid of exploration for reasons as simple as development time issues, we can save time thus money by dropping depth down a few rungs, these days its worse with dailog tree options and even combat so utterly ultra simplified I am at a loss at times to stay in this hobby thats growing more shallow by the year.
It gets more shallow so more people can get into it, developers and publishers can make more money. Yet on the flipside games won't gain that respect they deserve when all the newer players see is the shallow, hyped, and or overrated stuff. They're normally put off by older games because of raw difficulty, the need for timing, graphics, there's a curve to control mastery and or the use of raw instinct. Most newer players have it really easy compared to past generations where you had to rush in and get the job done. Now the game tells you when its safe or unsafe to proceed. Even though you had to put in 75%+ of the work in pass generations the games left a better taste after I beat'em, I took in my own tactics and won. I wasn't being handheld because developers think some people are too dense too notice common sense choices when it comes to games.ZippyDSMlee said:
Ya things will get worse and games will get cheaper and cheaper a month or 2 after launch, still 30$ is too much for most modern games, I wait until its 10-20$ before I add stuff to my collection.TheDooD said:
I really wish devs would put more effort into options and difficulty settings as so you can turn off the hand holding and glowy guide things.
Sandbox games tent to have five types of missions and 20 clones of each one spread over the map.
Just saying, things are even worse than Yahtzee's vision.
Just saying, things are even worse than Yahtzee's vision.
Maybe it's that twenty hours of gameplay you mentioned is an absolute fabrication. That game is like 12 hours, including cutscenes and gameplay. I do agree that MGS4 did have some great free form gameplay mind, it just sort of falls apart sometimes. Act 3 is a good example, having only 2 sections near the beginning you can actually explore. Act 5 is even worse; there's literally 2 rooms with actual stealthy bits, then it's boss fight, cutscene button mashing, loooooong cutscene, boss fight, loooooooooooooooooooong cutscene, end.Hobonicus said:I actually said something about this specifically on page 2008Zulu said:
The Metal Gear Solid games are probably some of the least linear "linear" games I've ever played. Have you actually tried them? You could go stealthily, choosing to kill, knock out, or avoid every guard, or you could go guns blazing, or a mix of both. Even the bosses had multiple entirely different ways to beat them. I'm kind of flabbergasted (that's right, flabbergasted) whenever I hear this because the only possible reason Escapists would say it is by misinterpreting and then parroting Yahtzee.
Maybe you also think that having so many cut scenes makes it more movie-esque, which one: is a different category than the rail roading of gameplay entirely, and two: the gameplay itself is still longer than three of your average modern shooters.
Anyway, maybe you can clarify?
It's a frustrating game when sneaking through the middle east and the jungle is so much fun, that the game just wants to yank that from you constantly. It's like having really good chocolate, only after you have a piece, it's taken from you. I just want more of it. MGS3 had a somewhat reasonable balance. Still had a fuckton of cutscenes, but there were far, far more areas to explore than in 4.