My reviews of Fallout and Eschalon Book I

[belowmecoldhands]

So Fallout has less tactical depth than JA2? I'm shocked.

When I wrote that, it was more a jab at Fallout and a nod to JA2 which should have just been kept to myself, since I didn't really explain and it's not pertinent. Grim said latelyvanilla JA2 has dumb AI. So is it tactical? To me it seems to be. BUT there were many times in Fallout when I was making tactical choices. Fallout does have its moments.

 

[Drowed]

I know people here just want to blame me for sucking at the game or wanting it to be something it's not, but if you just ignore all of that for a moment, can you ask yourself whether you think new games have more rails than older games?

They do. The difference is so huge that it's difficult to compare.

Rails are a pun but they're things that guide you in the game to keep you on track or to prevent you from wasting time on dead ends.

I don't think that this is a "waste of time". It's part of the learning process and a way experience the world. Doing 'wrong' things has consequences, failure is a fundamental part of the process. You have the mistaken notion that the ultimate goal of any game is to "reach the end of the story" - so, you consider that a "wrong" way is a problem if you can't go any further. But this isn't necessarily the real goal. Often, the goal is the experience itself, the consequences of your choices - whether good or bad. (As, for example, in tabletop RPGs where you can simply permanently lose your character - there is no "loads" and "saves" in a table session.)

The experience of defeat, or failing to do something, is a fundamental part of the game experience. It's perhaps even more important than achieving the "real" goal in the game. Especially when it comes to RPGs.

And if you agree new games have more rails, do you think this is a good thing?

In most cases? Hell no. Read above.

And do you think open worlds can have rails and still beopen worlds?

If you have 'rails', by definition, it's not really open, is it?

This is I think tied to the rails and open world thing. Open world means lots of options (some say too many), but how do you know which ones are good ones?

You shouldn't.

(Edit: At least not in the literal sense; as in, to know what is the "best choice of all." You, using common sense and the knowledge of mechanics of the game, should be able to find a way to get to the end of the story - but should not be able to "solve all situations". Many of them must necessarily remain insoluble depending on your choices.)

Should there be negative outcomes or bad choices?

Of course.

So another question I might put out there is Can open worlds sabotage themselves by not building more positive rails or at least (invisible) hands which guide the player to making good choices?

No. Only if the player is spoiled to the point where he no longer is able to realize the importance that exists in the 'failure state'.