By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why on rail shooters are dimished?

 

How much would you pay for a good on rail shooters?

The same i pay for any AAA title 17 35.42%
 
The same i pay for indie stuff 14 29.17%
 
Probably just trade off with someone 2 4.17%
 
I have no interest on games like these 15 31.25%
 
Total:48

I have see that people, at the moment that discover that a game is a on rail shooter, start associating this with a bad mechanic, or a lazy effort. Why is that? I played a lot of on rail shooter on arcade, and they were good. Start fox is a good game, and is on rail shooter.

 

Why people hate this style so much, or at least, don't think its is as valuable as others genres? Its not like some shooter areadly work like a on rail anyway, giving only the opition to move foward.



"Hardware design isn’t about making the most powerful thing you can.
Today most hardware design is left to other companies, but when you make hardware without taking into account the needs of the eventual software developers, you end up with bloated hardware full of pointless excess. From the outset one must consider design from both a hardware and software perspective."

Gunpei Yoko

Around the Network

I prefer playing rail shooters at the arcade over playing them at home because I feel like it's more of an experience. Though to be honest, there aren't really many arcades left in this area. :/

The reason people don't really care for rail shooters is because they want more control over their experience as they are playing through the game.



I think it's because people associate it with a limitation of technology. 3D just seems much more "in." It could make a comeback like pixel art games have with the indie scene.


Also I think mp has a lot to do with it. The most popular fps is liked for its competitive online matches. On rail shootors can only do co-op.



Am not sure what you mean. If you are not going to be fully technical. I'll say that, Call of Duty outsells most other games every year. The campaigns have the spirit of on rails shooter with the slight added functionality given to the other stick.

So, in a way it is one of the biggest sub genre of shooters. *ignores the multiplayer component*



I think the ire is more directed towards on-rails sections in otherwise non-railed gameplay, rather than towards the genre of rail-shooters in general.

The reason these sections aren't that popular is that it usually represents a dumbing-down of the mechanics in limiting the player's usually free movement and generally skewing the difficulty curve. There are times when this can be effective, but in general it stands out negatively from the rest of the game.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

Around the Network

I am a filthy terrible spambot that contributes nothing to this website. Thank you Axumblade for showing me the error in my ways and sending me back down the right path (the permabanned one). 



I'm not sure, it's probably the perception of being dated or cheap. Honestly though it does provide a really awesome level of immersion. Since the entire game can be directed and scripted, every movement, camera angle, focus point, etc. each dramatic scene can achieve full impact. There's quite a few games I've played where something awesome was supposed to be happen like an explosion or whatever but because I wasn't standing in the correct spot or the camera was slightly off, I didn't see it fully or get to experience it properly, you don't have to worry about that with on-rails. Also with on-rails games there's no need for cut scenes as dramatic scenes can already be directed onto the...rail, I guess. I also like that multiple characters can be present alongside you without ever having to worry about physically getting in the way of each other e.g. RE5, Halo, etc. Dead Space Extraction is still probably one of the most immersive, cinematic games I've played. Not that I think anyone type of game is better than the either it all comes down to the core experience and storytelling techniques. 



...Because most people think they're repetitive and shallow so they don't make money!?

-GASP!!!!!!!!!!!- :-O



Well, this is new.

Read.

I'd pay full retail price for a quality rail shooter. I know Yukio Futatsugi wants to do a full retail Crimson Dragon sequel if Crimson Dragon sells well, if he ends up doing it I'll definitely pay full retail price for it.



Part of it is player tastes change over the years.

Personally, I used to love arcade style on rails, pre scripted, pre timed shooters. Having the plastic guns was an integral part of the experience and these were really best enjoyed at arcades.

But as arcades diminished during the 6th console gen as arcade cabinet hardware was essentially the same as what could be played at home, the relevance of on rails shooters seemed to diminish as well.

I still enjoyed playing Namco's Time Crisis on the PS2 along with a few on rails shooters by Capcom, and it was pretty cool having essentially the same arcade experience at home, but for some reason, playing these at home didn't have the same appeal; one just didn't have to go to an arcade to experience it was all.

Fighting games lost quite a bit of their luster with the slow demise of arcades as well. By the beginning of the 7th gen, they were no longer breaking sales records or drawing the same crowds at arcades.

I think I bought one on rails shooter on the PS3 (Time Crisis 4?) with the updated gun that used IR LEDs for tracking since most people had stopped using the older CRT light gun tech. I don't think Namco released any other games that used the redesigned gun.

I don't know what all this mumbo jumbo is about labeling FPS games or TPS games "on rail shooters." If you played in arcades, you know what they are.