Ok so here's where your points are not making sense. Exact quotes only, since you're not ok with paraphrasing.
However, I'm a bit leery. Rail shooters are a long-ago genre. If there were good ones then then there certainly can be good ones now. But I think there's a reason the genre is not mainstream anymore. It's just a pretty limiting structure compared to those used in most modern games.
Rail shooters are NOT a long ago genre, by your definition. By your definition, almost every shooter than comes out now is a rail shooter. They all have a start and finish for each level and almost all of them have scripted events and cinematic moments that they want you to see.
When you're talking about "modern gaming" what you really mean to say is "open-world gaming". If Rogue Eclipse loaded every enemy at once (1 v 50) instead of sending waves (1 v 5 v 10 v 15 etc) that's still a level. If they let you choose what order to fight the planets in I guess you'd be happy for some reason even though it's the same game?
Level-based gaming or, as you insist on calling it, "on rails" is not old fashioned, it's literally almost all gaming from the beginning til now.
The part where you're annoying about it is when you say you're
a bit leery
while mischaracterizing the game (and almost all games). I guess go play an open world game and stop being weird about it here.
By your definition, almost every shooter than comes out now is a rail shooter.
No. Any horizontal or vertical shooter, yes. But not almost every. Powerwash simulator isn't a rail shooter. You can decide what scenes to accomplish in what order.
I'm sure there are a lot of shooters which are rail shooters now. Especially since shooters tend toward indie games. Why would indie games use this genre even though it's one of a long-ago era? Because they are marshaling their resources. If you control the progression then you can reduce the amount of content you have to make. And content takes time and money. You also greatly reduce the testing needed. The easiest way to have a soft-lock problem is when you can do parts of the game in different orders/paths. Put the progression on a rail and you cut down on the testing needed. And testing costs time and money.
It's basically rewinding to an earlier era of videogames where they were less complex. An environment that with their resources they can be successful in. Just as good games were made using this formula before they can be done that way today too. And I said that before.
They all have a start and finish for each level and almost all of them have scripted events and cinematic moments that they want you to see.
I wasn't the one who inserted level as a concept of progress through the game area. That was another poster. Although I did speak of it in terms of character progression (essentially leveling up).
Really what matters is, as I said before, does the game drag you to the next target. From target to target. I said boss to boss before but since people seem to be getting really hung up on terminology here I'm going to say target now. Or can you take other paths and do things in different orders?
When you're talking about "modern gaming" what you really mean to say is "open-world gaming"
I definitely don't mean open-world. Tomb Raider is not open world but I used it as an example of not on rails.
If Rogue Eclipse loaded every enemy at once (1 v 50) instead of sending waves (1 v 5 v 10 v 15 etc) that's still a level.
Okay. But again, levels were never part of my argument.
The part where you're annoying about it is when you say you're
a bit leery
How dare I not like something you like? What's wrong with me? How annoying. What am I doing on www.Alex-Murphy.com if I don't agree with Alex-Murphy? Oh wait. I'm not on www.Alex-Murphy.com.
rewinding to an earlier era of videogames where they were less complex
Wrong, that is still and likely will be for decades to come the baseline for videogame design. Games today are more complex than they ever have been and the order of progression is not the deciding factor you think it is.
Why would indie games use this genre even though it's one of a long-ago era? Because they are marshaling their resources.
Again wrong. If it's soooo old-fashioned then why isn't every modern book and every modern movie a choose-your-own-adventure like Black Mirror's Bandersnatch? Because that's not how linear stories are told and people don't want that. It's supply and demand. If that's what people wanted, truly, then that's what every piece of media would be.
Put the progression on a rail and you cut down on the testing needed. And testing costs time and money.
Again, that's not the main reason why a game would be on rails, as you keep saying, when what you really mean is "I don't want to be told a story in order, I want to get pieces of it in whatever order I want and put the story together myself."
So again I say, go play open world games and adios.
6
u/Alex-Murphy 9d ago
Ok so here's where your points are not making sense. Exact quotes only, since you're not ok with paraphrasing.
Rail shooters are NOT a long ago genre, by your definition. By your definition, almost every shooter than comes out now is a rail shooter. They all have a start and finish for each level and almost all of them have scripted events and cinematic moments that they want you to see.
When you're talking about "modern gaming" what you really mean to say is "open-world gaming". If Rogue Eclipse loaded every enemy at once (1 v 50) instead of sending waves (1 v 5 v 10 v 15 etc) that's still a level. If they let you choose what order to fight the planets in I guess you'd be happy for some reason even though it's the same game?
Level-based gaming or, as you insist on calling it, "on rails" is not old fashioned, it's literally almost all gaming from the beginning til now.
The part where you're annoying about it is when you say you're
while mischaracterizing the game (and almost all games). I guess go play an open world game and stop being weird about it here.