Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Molyneux on Fable: The Journey: Its not on rails

I do think that people on these forums are often chauvinistic about certain game genres. However it isn't without a good reason. The thing is we know how hard it is to make a good game in a genre, and we know how much it does tend to cost. So when you say that a game is on rails. Two thoughts spring to mind this was a cheaply made game, and it is pretty hard to screw up a game in this genre. What really doesn't help matters is that developers are rarely willing to price accordingly. Often we see these games priced at the same level as games we know took a lot more time, money, and innovation. So a lot of people are justifiably jaded against them.

I agree games on rails are perfectly fine, but they are only fine within a context. That being that they are priced in a way that is respective to what they naturally offer. Someone in this thread said they would rather play a great rail based game over a bad open world game. My answer to that is this I wouldn't pay sixty bucks for either. There are a lot of game genres that I refuse to fork that much money out for.



Around the Network

Maybe this might clear things up for some? http://e3.gamespot.com/video/6318603/ its pretty much the same thing but it is better to actually listen to it explained.



"Basically, the theory is that if a game has horses, it’s substantially more likely to be extremely good. Ocarina of Time: horse. Shadow of the Colossus: horse. Assassin’s Creed 2: horse. Red Dead Redemption: TONNES of horses."

Hmm how great would those games be if you can't get of the horse and move around. Plus every time you have to drive a carriage in a game it looks and controls terribly.

I never liked combat on horse in Zelda. I rather got of to fight. I hardly ever used a horse in AC2. It was fine in SotC to get places fast as long as you don't want to turn too tightly. RDR shooting from horse, awful, getting over walls or through gates, terrible, but the animation was good.

Anyway great way to hide the lag and unresponsiveness, blame the horse.



One thing that people need to consider: When it comes to games for Kinect, or even the Move, you're marketing the game to a smaller userbase. Now suppose a company goes all out and makes the next Legend of Zelda or Grand Theft Auto for Kinect or Move. Look at what they're sacrificing. They're trying to sell a game to a userbase of the 6-10 million people that own the console AND the peripheral as opposed to the 50 million+ people that own the console.

And they aren't just competing against the other Kinect/Move games that are on the market. They're competing against every other game available for that console for our dollar. If you have the option of buying Assassins Creed 3 and Fable: The Journey, what are you going to buy? Just because you have a Kinect, that doesn't mean you automatically buy the Kinect game--you buy the 360 game. If the one you happen to want is for Kinect, that's fine--but the more polished, higher profile game is the game for the controller.

For that reason alone, I think Kinect development is a little gimped. Why go all out to create something new and unique and polished when it already has to start the race with a handicap? So, while I applaud Lionhead for at least trying to make a hardcore, triple A Kinect game, I just don't know how well it will be done or even if it should be done. I think the way to go is to make the traditional games have optional Kinect support (which is the route that Sony seems to be taking) but, will that sell more Kinects? I'm glad I'm not the guy that has to figure that one out.

Maybe if somebody could come up with a Pokemon styled game that kids will fall in love with and uses Kinect.....



mZuzek loves AA batteries

Travelling in Albion was the one thing that made Fable II so absolutely beautiful for me. Thats absolutely not saying I will accept them giving up combat in any form. I don't like the idea of being tied down to a mule the whole game, or not having melee weapons . . .

. . . but I'm now way more willing to give this game a chance. Had it been on-rails, it would have lost absolutely everything I love about Fable games. I just hope that its world is nothing like the disgustingly bland one of Fable 3.



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.

Around the Network

Yes it's on rails. The carriage segment is best described as being on rails and the walking segment is even more so.

"The action comes to you", that alone is a clear indication of on rails.



Slimebeast said:

Yes it's on rails. The carriage segment is best described as being on rails and the walking segment is even more so.

"The action comes to you", that alone is a clear indication of on rails.

Not sure why navigation being rail like, or certain segments of the game being a single screen, ends up meaning horrible.  A game can consist of rail network type navigation, with single screen combat and be a fine game.  Think about a JRPG where you would navigate over a larger map to places.  It doesn't mean it is horrible, or would suck.  I know Puzzle Quest had bejewelled as its combat engine, and going from point to point on a larger map, for the campaign.  That worked fine.  In short, a rail network and single screen action.



They're shoehorning the series into a control scheme rather than getting concepts from the control scheme and building a game around it. I'm not expecting a huge amount from this particular game despite quite liking the Fable series.



richardhutnik said:
Slimebeast said:

Yes it's on rails. The carriage segment is best described as being on rails and the walking segment is even more so.

"The action comes to you", that alone is a clear indication of on rails.

Not sure why navigation being rail like, or certain segments of the game being a single screen, ends up meaning horrible.  A game can consist of rail network type navigation, with single screen combat and be a fine game.  Think about a JRPG where you would navigate over a larger map to places.  It doesn't mean it is horrible, or would suck.  I know Puzzle Quest had bejewelled as its combat engine, and going from point to point on a larger map, for the campaign.  That worked fine.  In short, a rail network and single screen action.

Of course it works for some people. But personally I can't stand on rails as I already have huge problems liking the linear action and shooter games of today.