December 26, 2017 at 4:42 am #1597
I’m Noy, hardcore gamer from Israel since the early 90s.
I bought and played Rune when it first came out in 2000.
This game crept to my heart and mind and never really left.
As many others have stated – I think the decision to make this a big sandbox open world game with RPG elements is rather disappointing.
As a fan of Rune. We don’t really need this. This is not Rune.
In my eyes, you should focus your efforts at making Rune as true to the original formula as possible, but with updated standards and a modern take. Old school enough but also cutting edge once more:
Linear or Semi-linear with great sophisticated level design. Powerful hack and slasher. Immersive and atmospheric with an outstanding tone. Story driven. A pure gratifying and captivating Action Adventure focused game.
Do not make this yet another tiring and generic open world, sandbox-ish, with formulaic, repetitive, endless and pointless activities. Side quests that don’t matter and distract you from the main game. Or useless RPG elements – like pointless stats, weak upgrades, meaningless progression systems that lack any impact. Tedious crafting. RNG of loot drops and so on.
We need more and more linear games – or semi-linear with big maps. Seamless connected worlds with semi/linear progression and flow are also fantastic. These games are the most engaging. Especially story focused games: they are more intense, meaningful, memorable and fun to play in the long run. The lasting appeal and final taste is much more powerful and satisfying. And they never really lose their welcome.
Please don’t give us another fatigue inducing derivative Open World or give it an MMOish vibe. We have had enough of those in recent years- I think Open World games are a thing of the past, or at least not as attractive as before. Rune was never about being super open – but it had big levels with exploration and path-finding being essential.
Some of the best games to date are either linear or seamless worlds (Dark Souls for instance). Rune was like The Dark Souls of 2000 – I am saying this because when I first played Demon’s Souls (2009) – it reminded me of Rune in some ways – that’s just how GOOD Rune was!
At it’s essence it was a pure survival action adventure hack and slash. It was gritty, it was gripping. It was a beautiful game – but it wasn’t “pretty”. The tone and atmosphere was unmatched for the time.
As a gamer from the early 90s, I still remember picking up Rune from the store’s shelf. In one of my random “hunt” picks for new games: Going into the physical store and looking at the shelves and browsing through games -checking out the cover arts and back of the boxes. Rune immediately caught my eye. I remember picking up the physical copy, and being excited to see what it was all about. Couldn’t wait to pop the disc in and play it. I remember playing it for the first time. I remember the intro with the amazing groundbreaking graphics, strong music and high quality voice acting!!! I remember the tutorial level as well as so many other great moments and scenes: “I have forty men within an axe throw of your heart!”
I still talk about Rune to this day. I still compare games to it – saying stuff like “Yeah that part is like Rune..” – though they never have quite the same effect and feel. I yearned for another Rune spiritual successor. I’ve been dreaming about a Rune sequel since being a child. Every year, every time.
The only other game of the past that I can speak so highly of is: Drakan: Order of the Flame (1999)- to me both games are a thing of legend – super classics.
This new Rune game can be a childhood dream come true, so please don’t mess this up!
Don’t stray too far from your roots!
I also can’t wait to take part of the Beta – I’d be super happy to participate!!!
You have your own HUGE – old & battered – viking boots to fill here! Whether we realized this or not – we have waited 18 long years for this!
P.S Regardless of where you go with it. I think that RPG shouldn’t be the main genre of this game. I would take it out entirely. The game is an Action Adventure and always have been. So I’d say: Action Adventure > Hack & Slash > Story Driven > Semi/Linear > Open World > RPG – in that order of priorities.
Skill trees, Loot drops, materials etc- we really don’t need that. I think I can speak for most of the old fans, saying this.
January 10, 2018 at 3:45 pm #1778
Well actually i would love a game like Witcher 3 with open world, lots of quests and side quests and good story like w3 but with the ability to play it with at least 4 friends.
I agree MMO’s are basically crap but so far NO ONE has yet created a sort of Hybrid mmo/co-op game.
I feel as Rune will be a generic repetitive game but i’m willing to be proven wrong.
Time will tell but i think they could start something unique here and build upon it as long as they don’t make it just another forgettable experience.
Go small and polish it, than have a vision and build upon it.
January 10, 2018 at 4:04 pm #1779
I have to say that when it comes to gaming, the word “generic” is frequently used as a catch-all criticism typically used by people hoping to appear more discerning than they actually are.
How many open-world RPGs focus on co-op, melee combat, and sailing? Dragon’s Dogma has great melee combat (Skyrim has shallow melee combat, understandable given the scope of the game), but outside of that I’m struggling to find other examples, which suggests that Rune: Ragnarok is attempting something pretty specific.
January 10, 2018 at 5:10 pm #1781
Many fans seem to want a Rune 2.0, basically the same but shinier, but I hope they’re just a very vocal minority.
Like yeah, of COURSE we want Rune to feel like RUNE, and keep it’s identity, but I’m actually pretty open to whatever direction they take. You need to remember how long it’s been since the original came out, and aside from HOV, had no proper sequels.
Now that they finally get to make a sequel, I’m more interested in seeing what NEW ideas they have to add to the franchise than I am to see a 1:1 shinier Rune 2. I mean come on. They’ve wanted to make this sequel for over a friggin decade. Creatively, I personally wouldn’t be stoked about that if it just meant to practically remake the original. You know. Do the same thing all over.
This sequel is their chance to go a bit nuts with it. Maybe some of the stuff won’t work. Well, at least they’ll know, and they can keep that in mind for the NEXT installment. So like… if this game goes way nuts with ideas and veer off course by a huge deal, then at least they now have two reference points for the third one.
So yeah, cut HH some slack and let them do their thing. Then it’s our job to provide them with feedback about everything we didn’t like, but also all the new stuff we DID like and probably didn’t even know we wanted in the first place.
January 28, 2018 at 11:05 am #2307
I usually hate when people do it… but this post, this post so much, as it perfectly conveys how I feel (and have been unable to formulate myself)!
January 10, 2018 at 11:47 pm #1787
It’s sounding more, and more like conan exiles, or some survival game.
January 20, 2018 at 1:53 am #1915
That conan exiles reference scares me. I don’t want a survival borefest. If they do add building it better be very basic and/or not required to engage in!
I don’t think rune is supposed to be a farming simulator.
January 25, 2018 at 4:19 pm #2238
I was very interested when I heard there will be a new Rune but I was hyped when I heard that it will feature a big open world with coop and possibly PvP intertwined. That could be big actually, nothing generic about it as far as I can tell.
January 25, 2018 at 6:25 pm #2239
Interesting post Ransom Seraph.
Thank you for your reflection.
I have more or less, the same doubts, that you have.. i’ve questioned myself about it too
I want RUNE to BE RUNE and not something else, with a Rune logo on it..
But at the moment i can’t realy say much without seeing in-game footage of combat and all that.
We all know what RUNE was.. and how the multiplayer felt like.. even the singplayer..AMAZING!
That unique combat system flow, kept us wishing for a new Rune all these years.. i hope we will be able to see that..
I feel like joining a DM or TDM-Hildir, and hack and slash a bunch of people for as much as i want to… and i don’t want to be forced to do quest X, in order to unlock quest Y, and so on, and so on.. that’s tedious.
But the hype so big right now.. some of our questions will be answered in a few more months i believe.
January 26, 2018 at 12:22 pm #2269
Like many of you I probably spent some years on Rune / HoV.
The best thing ingame was the combat system, because it doesn’t depend on your ingame level, nor the level of your sword/axe/hammer skill.
It all depends on your personal skill & reactions.
+ every player in (t)dm had equal chances to beat his opponent. It’s just like in MOBAs or PUBG for instance.
If this is gonna be a game where level 90 chars slaughter lvl 40 chars, by having stronger (learned) skills or finisher I’ll be disappointed, cause this game is not that unique anymore.
Anyways, I’m curious how his game turns out. Cheers 😉
Btw, I’d love to see custom mod/map support if its possible :))
January 28, 2018 at 10:06 am #2305
I’m also very disappointed in the direction this appears to be heading, but I hope we find out more information about the single-player experience soon. I absolutely loved the world of the original, and just about every level was memorable and visually distinct. It felt like an epic personal journey through a dangerous but magical world, and I was really hoping to see more of that in Rune 2.
January 28, 2018 at 11:17 am #2310
[quote]I’m also very disappointed in the direction this appears to be heading, but I hope we find out more information about the single-player experience soon. I absolutely loved the world of the original, and just about every level was memorable and visually distinct. It felt like an epic personal journey through a dangerous but magical world, and I was really hoping to see more of that in Rune 2.[/quote]
Yeah, and when you were done with the story there was nothing to do anymore (except for multiplayer ofc). I want a game I can play for hundreds of hours like Skyrim. So, I applaud the direction the game is taking.
January 28, 2018 at 12:07 pm #2312
Fair enough, I guess we’re just looking for different things in our Rune experience. I couldn’t get into Skyrim (or any Elder Scrolls game for that matter), but I really enjoy playing fan-made levels/campaigns for games like Thief, The Witcher, and even the old Rune, so to me, that’s where the “hundreds of hours” would come from after the single player campaign is finished.
January 28, 2018 at 11:27 am #2311
I don’t mind having a loot grind after the main story is done as long as story is at least 15-20 hours. I don’t want another call of duty or diablo 3 clone. Diablo 3 is fun and i have thousands of hours but you need a good long story first.
My ideal game would of course be Witcher 3 kind of game that you can play through the story with couple of friends.
My biggest concern is this turning into a survival game where you spend most of the time chopping trees. I want crafting kept simple and to the point. And if we need to farm for something it should be loot like weapons and armors.
January 28, 2018 at 1:50 pm #2313
They seem to be headed that direction…..
January 28, 2018 at 5:42 pm #2315
Im kinda the one that started the Conan Exiles comparason thing. But, I was refering more to how that game handles it sp, coop, pvp intermingling. Not necessarily its crafting, survival and building elements.
I asked about base building in recap thread, so, hopefully they will talk about that in the next one. Rather, if its a planned element or not.
But, do note, in one of the previous recaps, Chris did state there would be crafting, but that wouldnt be a focal point of the game.
So, maybe but the funeral arrangments on hold on a moment more.
January 29, 2018 at 12:52 am #2318
I don’t believe we need ANY RPG or survival elements.
They did mention hypothermia as a cause of death.
There’s really no need for crafting, building, skill points, stats and unnecessary progression systems.
Rune was a pure Action Adventure game.
To me – Rune was always about it’s SP story mode experience. Yes I played some mp -but given the bad lag at the time and connection issues as well as the fact that many matches were total mayhem- I didn’t enjoy it as much.
I remember really liking dueling people with basic 1 handed weapons and shields. But once people had started to equip the heavy top end weapons all they did was spaming: jumping+attack for the flip attack + casting Rune magic.
Right now it seems to shift focus to MP which is bad and dated imo. And to coop and stuff like ship combat which I am very skeptical about their ability to deliver there.
There’s too many forgettable online MP or MMO games out there- and yet the most memorable games are single player and usually linear or semi linear games.
I do like Coop though, coop vs AI enemies built into SP story mode. But as long as the game doesn’t turn into some The Division. It also sounds really bad that you can sail with your new 2 man boat and hit a Viking longboat with 4 players level 99 with high end gear and balistas and weaponry. That will spoil all the fun.
January 29, 2018 at 5:42 am #2319
I agree with most of this. I really don’t mind some RPG elements. I just hope they add a nice and lengthy campaign at least 15-20 hours.
After that it’s all good. They can add diablo 3 kind of searching for loot. I always wanted a diablo like game from Rune perspective.
I just hope they start small and make a quality game and than keep adding PvP and PvE elements. I would gladly buy expansions and this can turn out to be one hell of a game.
What i fear is this will be a 5h story with PvE and PvP borefest.
January 29, 2018 at 5:57 am #2320
Ok, I have to say on this “OH GOD PLEASE NO! NO! NO!!!”
There’s already such a game – it’s called Nioh – and HELL PLEASE NO no Diablo/Broderlands style randomized loot where no weapon is unique and your weapon becomes worthless 1.5 seconds after killing the next enemy and getting the next drop.
NO PLEASE DON’T DO RANDOM LOOT WEAPONS and GEAR with some worthless stat change that lack any impact.
A Battle Axe should be identical to all Battle Axes, and a Dwarven Axe should be identical to all Dwarven Axes used by all players and enemies throughout the whole story, etc.
Nioh’s greatest shortcoming – aside from having many terrible bad design choices and issues; being cheap and unfair; extremely tedious and repetitive – is how the game handles LOOT. There’s a TON of obnoxious extremely tedious horrible micromanagement, you spend about 50% of your time managing loot for hours.
What made classic games like Rune and Devil May Cry great was the fact every weapon was unique, impactful, and meaningful. You could talk about it saying “my favorite weapon is the greatsword – because it has mid speed, reach and a lot of strength” – but you cannot do it in a game where every weapon has 9999999 varieties of meaningless randomized properties.
Also, games where every weapon is unique and special means these weapons will usually be viable and handy all game long.
I really don’t want anything randomized in Rune, and I really don’t want any loot to be honest. I am sick of those.
If a reward is a special Viking Axe – I want that axe to be singular and unique. That I will FEEL the difference in move-sets, abilities and properties.
Dark Souls and Bloodborne does that best now-days. Every weapon is unique and has a different move-set.
January 29, 2018 at 11:50 pm #2329
Well seems like they will be going that way at least to an extent. If you have PvE content that isn’t story related and you have the ability to hunt bosses and creatures, i’m pretty sure that means loot. I hope they do create good loot without the need of diablo like loot but i doubt that.
Developers nowadays try to create products that engage players for thousands of hours. And i’d rather hunt for items like in Diablo than chop wood like in survival games.
We’ll see i guess. I just hope the story is a decent length and that they don’t only concentrate on quantity but on quality.
January 29, 2018 at 6:35 am #2321
Don’t mean to be rude. But if they end up going with the lazy repetitive Nioh/Diablo loot and weapon system I will probably not play the game. It won’t be Rune.
I hope they ditch the Open World altogether.
Did you know that Hellblade was originally open world in concept? Thanks god they didn’t went through it and instead made this a memorable semi linear game.
January 30, 2018 at 2:32 am #2330
After Nioh I have a “trauma” over randomized drops and drop rate factor. The amount of micromanaging in this game is absurd and by far the most tedious thing I have ever had to do in a video game.
Heck come to think of it, a lot of things about Nioh are they memory tedious things I had to do, and no game ever made me that mad.
Even though I am pretty damn good in the game, but instead of being challenging and fair in difficulty – they use cheap tactics (like immunity to stagger, spam of enemies and 1shot attacks combos), broken enemy and enounter design, and downright shatter own game logic with many enemies – making the game super cheap-hard, unfair and frustrating – instead of fun. And I played much harder games like Dragons Dogms and Bloodborne that never made me angry like that. Those games required a lot of skill too.
I feel like this Rune will grow to be another RPGish knockoff of Nioh hand Borderlands and Destiny etc. I don’t even consider those games Role Playing..
Just make it smaller, more focused, story related, with weapons you unlock at story and game events and locations, and upgrades that matter. The game should be about atmosphere and a personal or coop journey. Not some MMO chaotic rushed and shallow experience
January 30, 2018 at 2:35 am #2331
I remember 15 years ago we all dreamed about having the game you guys are complaining that Rune 2 might possibly become.
January 30, 2018 at 7:09 am #2333
I loved Rune 1’s campaign, but I also wished I could see more of the world, so Ragnarok is pretty much what I wanted. I don’t want another Rune that’s basically everything the first was all over again. I want something new.
If you want some more linear gameplay, it’s possible some of the islands are designed that way, who knows.
But a big NO to randomized loot a la Diablo! Holy fuck, but that’s something I hate! It’s basically like each enemy you kill is a Loot Box. It’s another form of gambling yet again. NEED to kill more enemies for a CHANCE to get more LOOT and has a CHANCE of being GOOD and another CHANCE to be good for ME….. Ugh!
Chris was talking about going to kill Giants to get rare loot, like Giant’s Blood so they can craft a powerful weapon, but I hope the blood can be used on ANY weapon you craft, giving it a powerful enchantment or whatever, rather than using the Blood in a recipe which can ONLY be used to make a VERY SPECIFIC battle hammer. If you don’t want a battle hammer, the blood is useless to you.
So I hope those “rare drops” can be used to enhance whatever weapon you might prefer.
January 30, 2018 at 1:23 pm #2343
Random loot is not gambling. You don’t have to pay money. But the enchantments you talk about are exact same thing. There will be builds that are best and you will be forced to find those items. Random loot is same.
But i don’t really care. I’ll see what they come up with. As long as killing is what get’s me going i don’t care. I just don’t wanna spend my time chopping trees.
January 30, 2018 at 1:48 pm #2347
Random loot with random stats is gambling. But instead of money you spend your time.
Rare loot like giant’s blood is not the same. I assume it’s guaranteed you’d find giant’s blood by killing a giant. There’s nothing random there.
But I agree, no point speculating of what it might be. Here’s hoping they have some good solid content outside of the main quest.
January 30, 2018 at 9:09 pm #2362
Dude gambling is defined as spending money or something of value. Just because it’s random chance it does not make it gambling. My free time is not something of value. But i know what you mean. It’s chance.
Rare loot is exactly the same. You might get it you might not.
What i’m trying to say is in any case you will be forced to find the best gear to be competitive.
And people that play more will have an advantage in any case. That’s just the nature of the beast.
January 30, 2018 at 1:44 pm #2346
January 30, 2018 at 1:50 pm #2348
Looks more like a weapon hotbar.
January 30, 2018 at 2:29 pm #2353
Randomized loot isnt gambling. Its a skinner box tactic.
If you put a pigeon in a box with a button that dispenses food ever time it is pressed, the pigeon will hit the button when its hungry. If you do the same thing, but make the button dispense food only a percentage of the time, the bird will peck at it frantically, even after getting more than its fair share. This is the skinner box effect. And its been used to manpulated and make players addicted to games for years.
Thankfully, this sort of stuff is starting to fall out of favor in recent years.
January 30, 2018 at 2:57 pm #2355
No to the word: “build”. Argh I loathe that. No builds please.
No RPG elements or really RPG at all unless done right.
No random loot or weapons.
No stupid stats.
No silly pointless progression systems of: + 3% damage to ogres with axes.
Just give us pure unadulterated action adventure.
January 30, 2018 at 3:16 pm #2356
Don’t understand most of the complaints here, especially since we don’t know what server and option variety the game will have.
So long as server controls allow for classic setups where stats, abilities and most other rpg elements are disabled, then you’ll have the best of both worlds separately (or together if you pick and choose the rpg elements you want).
As for concerns over single player, while the addition of side quests may detract from the game’s quality if done poorly (e.g., all quests being fetch/kill objectives), I would not call Rune’s original SP (without co-op), as great as it was, replayable. Sure it was memorable, atmospheric and fun, but in over 10 years of playing this game, I only completed it twice (not counting several rounds at the co-op mod). An open world variant, by contrast, adds much more replay value, already includes co-op opportunities, and until we see the campaign and missions ourselves, we have no real basis to criticize it. And again, if server customization can reduce the rpg elements at play, then people could opt for enjoying a more Rune-like single player experience.
I share in most peoples’ concerns that rpg elements like levels and stats would definitely worsen the combat, forcing us to choose only certain weapons or play styles, and make it unlike the fair playing field Rune provided. But so long as server options will allow us to perfectly replicate the traditional Rune experience, and assuming that the combat is exceptional, then I’d have zero issues with the game. Whether those server options will exist, however, is the question that I believe will determine many old school players’ hype for the game (not to mention the many important questions people raised in the weapon suggestion thread).
As for the funny video just released, the character rotation and everything thus far is on point (again, not much to go on here). So long as both the HUD (I believe that just shows what weapons you have) and health bars are able to be disabled in the options, then I don’t foresee any problems here.
January 30, 2018 at 7:22 pm #2360
Gonna miss seeing weapons on my person if this is the new system. Not at all crazy about the health bar, either. But, good point on the movement, sees good there, thus far.
January 30, 2018 at 7:33 pm #2361
I always consider games to be something a kin to recipes, Bringer of Pain. The various elements all work together to create a unique experiance. Now, there is good meals, and bad meals, but even if you make a good meal, not everyone is going to like it. Taste does factor in.
But when you dont like tomatoes, and someone is making spegetti, the idea of ‘well just dont eat the tomateo sause’ doesnt really hold water. To much of the elements that make spegetti good hindges on the use of tomatoes.. noodles by themselves are not a good meal.
Thats kind of the concern with these elements people are opposed to, I think. The idea that to much of the experiance will hidge on them and that not having them will leave us with a bowl of tastless noodles, rather than delicious mac and cheese.
January 31, 2018 at 12:47 am #2364
Come to think of it, the whole concept of quests and subquests also fits poorly.
I don’t think every game need EVERY one of these elements nowadays to be good. Yet it seems developers think every game should be like every other game, or include as many elements (ie RPG elements) as possible- in a throw in on the wall and see what sticks attitude.
Following your recipe analogy – it’s almost like making one gigantic pizza – and filling it with 101 toppings. Surely all of us will like some of the toppings mix, but many of us will think it’s too much, and that pizza will become just like any other pizza (combined).
I think some smart developers know we don’t need that to make good games. SuperGiant Games are one (Transistor, Pyre, Bastion). Developers of the new GoW seem to not make a RPGish stat&loot based repetitive game either. The new Hellblade has no nonesense either. I wish more games will go back to the old school style, with a more linear design. More story focus and eventful design. Meaningful upgrades. I want every new weapon found to be a “oh wow hell yeah!” moment – like it was in the Original Rune, or like it feels in DMC3&4 for instance.
And finally, a game can be quite repetitive and “cheap” even with a few original/new ideas. And I feel like currently Rune is heading to that direction.
Again, we need to know and see more, but I do hope Human Head ARE READING THIS – and will get influence by fan requests and feedback here.
January 31, 2018 at 3:49 am #2367
I’m sure they are reading a lot of this. It’s still early and they can make compromises.
As for me i like open world as long as it’s hand made and not generated like skyrim. I like meaningful locations and moments that i remember. Gothic 1 and 2 were so much fun and not too big and the world felt alive. Skyrim just feels meh. In gothic you actually had to wait to reach some places with tougher enemies you couldn’t just waltz in like you are superman. This annoys me so much in skyrim. And enemies that level with you BLAH…i’m gonna be sick. Spend time fighting a wolf the same amount when you are level 40 vs lvl 2 is just plain STUPID.
What i would like to see with Rune Ragnarok is kind of a mix. I want nice long story at least 15-20 hours and than i don’t mind if it turns into a loot hunt with your friends or PvP. Gives players something to keep going after the story is done. But i don’t want a call of duty 5h story and than pointless raiding.
I think best idea for them would be to go smaller at first and than add with addons. It will make them money and it will make the game better over time.
I’m very excited to see what they have in mind i just hope they don’t screw it up…it would brake my heart!
January 31, 2018 at 4:49 am #2368
Skyrim’s map is not generated… wtf
January 31, 2018 at 5:54 am #2370
I’m up for Open World, as they tend to be more interesting since people can go after what matters for them.
Want a linear experience? Go from quest to quest.
Want to explore? By all means, the world is yours.
Want to roleplay? No rush, have this open world to do so!
Having a linear game will limit it’s potential to be “something for everyone”. Whilst yes, you can add a ton of cinematics and one of a kind experiences, it’ll still be less than ideal in today’s gaming world. You can only get so many hours out of a game by exploring every crook and cranny before you have seen everything in an area. You will have a more awesome time with the story, yes, but that’s a one way ticket with no replay value, unless you cram in 25 different endings, which is a shallow choice given they depend on “did you turn that rock in level 3 or not”.
Ransom, your own playtimes prove that, the loved games you mention all got sub 50h in, whilst some Open World titles easily double that, with some going more than 8x that.
We don’t know what kind of RPG systems we are even looking at here, so I’d rather wait the alpha/beta or even gameplay videos before making such statements. It might be that the variety is limited and the materials of the weapons only decide how long they last or are they able to hurt certain monsters ( Witcher style ).
Besides, HH has put in quite the work already to achieve what it is right now, doing a full 180 degree would be scrapping half the project and would probably only done if people play the early access and overwhelming majority complains about the open world.
January 31, 2018 at 6:33 am #2373
Yeah, I’m sure i’m gonna be complaining about -something-, because I’m a fan boy. But I’m pretty sure the open world thing is not gonna be one of of those things. I’m actually kind of.. curious what a company like HH will do with an open world game.
January 31, 2018 at 7:47 am #2379
I beg to differ. I am frankly, quite skeptical of HH capability to produce an Open World as interesting and soundly built as HZD’s or TW3’s. Even those worlds can become too damn big and overwhelming for their own good. And they are the BEST OW games I ever played.
But it really makes sense and feel pivotal for those games as well.
Moving on, I don’t think RUNE:R Should be Open World at all. After (still) playing HZD and finishing TW3 and MGSV about a year+ or so ago (not including DLCS!) and playing other open world and sandbox games – the industry needs a change. Some already acknowledge that. We need less and less OW games. Simple as that. In the end – most huge sprawling sandboxes/OWs are just “lazy” short-cut taken by devs to fill and pad everything and make it look bigger. More flash, less substance.
For instance, I was really disappointed when I heard Ghost of Tsushima will be a massive open world, and that it will be more “world focused” than story driven.
Truth be told, I hope HH will feel that the OW is restricting and that they will run out of budget and time to make a massive world and instead focus on a game smaller- yet BIGGER – if you know what I am getting at.
Quantity =/= Quality, more often than not.
A linear game is NOT quest A to quest B to C. You don’t have artificial cursors to carry you through too.
I believe linear games can have more incentive to freedom and explorations – good examples are the classic Thief 2 game – with its massive open-ended levels, and Dishonored series- which followed in its footsteps with huge “mini-open-world” levels with lots of incentives for exploration, sheer MEANINGFUL freedom and tons of options to play the way YOU want.
Open World games’ Main Quests ALWAYS – (99.9%) feel super underwhelming, are under-leveled, uninteresting and have no challenge. They also appear so few and far between all the endless activities – that you lose interest or forget why you are there. They are almost always rushed, or poorly handled. When was the last time you played a main quest and felt it was challenging and exciting? It rarely feels better than the side and free stuff that you do.
So what I am getting at- games should be more linear – and more FOCUSED yet have good degree of freedom, open playstyle, and meaningful upgrades and weapons with real impact on gameplay.
A good example is Dark Souls and Bloodborne. Big seamless worlds, huge maps, open-ended yet all make sense. It is much more memorable and engaging. There’s incredible amout of freedom. You are not droning away or moving aimlessly from A to B. You are constantly engaged and your brain connects the dots as you explore and return to recover secrets and paths you couldn’t take before. Warrior Within is also a wonderful game with a similar world. In Bloodborne every weapon is basically a whole “game” on its own right. They are entirely different and unique – and feels so great. The result mean you can use the same outfit or weapon from start game to end game. This is perfect.
And I am not sure what you meant by my game time.
I actually feel more encouraged to play good beefy linear games more than once. And I hardly every play more than once (becomes my 1st run is super thorough, deep and also non-rushed).
I played Hellblade 2.5 times (almost 3). Warrior Within 2 times. Transistor 2 times. Doom 2 times simultaneously (on 2 difficulty levels). MGS 4 2-times (maybe more). I played Bloodborne for 2 times plus DLCS over hundreds of hours, Dark Souls 1 2.5 times for hundreds as well, Demon’s Souls 2 times, DS2 over 400 hours, Dragon’s Dogma DA over 400-500 hours (not that big of an open world game). etc. All are linear games.
February 9, 2018 at 3:37 am #2475
I have to somewhat agree. After Dragon Age Inquisition, I am very wary of open world games. When the games are huge but lack substance, it’s more of a slog that fun. It had exactly the problem you describe. You are to save the world, but if you want to be thorough, you have to spend tens of hours in the very first open world area, completing quest like “Lead my lost bull back” and other nonsense like that. The world is ending, but you definitely have time to go kill 10 goats to help a starving village…. and search for milions of mysterious shards, harvest hundreds of plants and ore and zzzzzzzz…….. And you will have to do it, because otherwise, you will be underleveled, which is a problem when you are playing on harder difficulties. I almost forgot what was the main plot by the time I finished the FIRST area of the game. The great voice acting and ACTUAL story missions made me finish it, but too bad they are so few and far between the constant tediousness. That said, open world can be done well and I believe that HH will show us what they are capable of.
I also prefer focused single player games and not multiplayer grinds or constantly repetitive PVP, raids and such. That is why I replayed Overlord games probably like 5 times already, have hundreds, if not thousands of hours on old Dooms (and many of the community WADs). Multiplayer was always a secondary thing for me and single player should definitely NOT be any lesser because of multiplayer being forced into a game. Also, basically any MMO concept is detrimental to the single player experience.
February 13, 2018 at 5:46 pm #2508
in my eyes, the combat is what’s going to make or break this game. As a long time veteran of the franchise, this is what needs to have a very familiar feel and moveset to the original.
The jump spin moves of the worksword. The larger heavier weapons with more range, but ultimately slower(dwarven battle sword / dwarven battle axe). The dodge / evade slash moves. The crouching at just the right time. Throwing weapons. All of this needs to be like the original.
Anything else is really corrolary and doesn’t worry me, as long as it doesn’t fundamentally change it from an arena game, to a hardcore RPG with less of an emphasis on skill.
February 17, 2018 at 11:44 am #2578
Let’s wait for the gameplay footage, we can’t say much atm but I really hope this doesn’t become a game like Skyrim…Rune was the first game I got addicted and still play until today, I spent hours making mods in 2002 until 2005 and maps until 2013 because I loved everything and still love what the old Rune had to offer, the scenarios were so good and captivating…I even lost a girlfriend because I was so addicted to Rune and played 24-7 and she left me saying I was a game addict LOL please…I agree with Ransom in every line…
March 15, 2018 at 3:00 am #3129
Barba – you are a TRUE VIKING !!
July 7, 2020 at 6:20 pm #25989
I’m 2 years late to this post but It’s so refreshing to not be the only person that is obsessed with both Rune and Drakan OOTF. Rune is probably my favorite windows PC game ever (Blood being my favorite DOS game), and Drakan has been one of them too for years now. Both of them have great combat, a linear set of maps and progression but lots of room for exploration and rewards, an awesome story with lots of lore, and an unmatchable atmosphere.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.