this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
69 points (91.6% liked)

Patient Gamers

10291 readers
390 users here now

A gaming community free from the hype and oversaturation of current releases, catering to gamers who wait at least 12 months after release to play a game. Whether it's price, waiting for bugs/issues to be patched, DLC to be released, don't meet the system requirements, or just haven't had the time to keep up with the latest releases.

^(placeholder)^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
69
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I know this isn't strictly related to patient gaming, but I think it fits the ethos of this community and I can't think of a better choir to preach to.

The director of Dragon's Dogma II made the following statement regarding limiting or removing fast travel

Just give it a try. Travel is boring? That's not true. It's only an issue because your game is boring. All you have to do is make travel fun

I think this is fairly compelling. Though I will say, I don't think the answer is to limit fast travel. The real limitations developers should be placing should be on filler quests that have you traveling from point a to point b and then back with some slight pretext as to why you're doing so. It's not fast travel that's the issue so much as mission design and the manners in which the player is compelled to cross the game world.

Metroidvanias are a great example of how to allow for fast travel while still making traveling around the game world compelling. The latest Metroid, Metroid Dread, was really fantastic in this aspect. You have this sense of progression and exploration even as you're backtracking.

Would removing fast travel from Metroid Dread have made it any better? I don't think so. The inclusion of fast travel feels thematic. You have to work for it so it feels like an achievement to unlock. It augments the game.

So in short, I agree with some of the sentiment expressed, with regards to lazy gameplay design being boring. I disagree with the opinion that fast travel necessarily is boring, or causes lazy desing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BleakBluets 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

I would rarely choose to fast travel if I had engaging and interesting means of travel like bunny hopping and strafe jumping in Quake, or wall-riding like Lucio in Overwatch. This assumes the world was built to facilitate this kind of movement and there were challenging obsticles, enemies, treasures, secrets, and other points of interest scattered among a variety of paths for the player to choose. Obviously much easier said than done; Super Mario Oddessy and Sonic Frontiers tried to do something like this on a smaller scale (relative to the large open worlds of other games) with varying levels of success.

Exploration was fun in the BotW and TotK Zelda games, but I found myself relying on fast travel by the midpoint of each of those entries because the enemy camps and treasures just weren't worth the time nor effort. Dashing on horses wasn't mechanically deep enough and Ultra Handing vehicles was either too inconvient or resulted in "path of least resistance" designs that led me to hoverbike to new locations very cheaply and easily.

[–] dumpsterlid 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Quake movement mechanics need to be brought out of obscurity and applied to some different genres. Imagine a Minecraft-like where you could work up crazy speed strafe jumping across endless procedurally generated landscapes?

[–] BleakBluets 4 points 11 months ago

I remember someone porting Mario 64 movement to Minecraft a few years ago. The original is outdated, but here are a few mods I just found for version 1.20.1. Note that I haven't tested these yet.

Obviously vanilla Minecraft wasn't balanced around these movement techniques, but they certainly can't be any more overpowered than elytra+rockets.

Super Mario 64 movement in Minecraft

Quake movement in Minecraft

load more comments (4 replies)