Space shooter - on rails or 360 degree freedom?

[Mephs]

Hey all,

I just thought I'd try and get some opinions on preferences for space shooters. I'm looking at making a space shooter game that has an almost cinematic quality to it (in an arcade game kind of way) and I'm divided over whether to give the player a free roaming spacecraft or whether to put the player "on rails" and allow them to perhaps make decisions about how to continue through gameplay.

I'd basically considered having the action on rails (top down shooter style) with segments of gameplay that allow the player to branch from the main action. Perhaps the player is persuing an enemy fighter and they reach a certain point along their gameplay rail and are presented with the quickfire decision to either follow the fighter, or let the fighter go in order to say... rescue an allied cargo ship from attack.

The player's performance in any given segment could affect which decision is the best decision for the situation. I see this making the gameplay quite similar to something like Time Crisis, but with points in the gameplay where the player is presented with several options about how they wish to continue, probably in a kind of Nintendo style with an announcer calling out the available options... "Chase the fighter!" or "Defend the base" or whatever, with the player being presented with a large button for each option, perhaps with a graphic to represent the option. Each different branch could also offer different benefits such as a weapon upgrade upon completion or a free full ship repair or whatever which could influence the players choice along with the decisions also having tactical, moral or emotional impacts.

My only slight worry with this is that perhaps despite the innovations, the fact that the game is on rails may be seen as a negative point... I know there are still a lot of "on rails" shooters out there, but I'm not sure how they are generally perceived, hence this post. I just thought I would see what people think about the two approaches.

I have also considered keeping the traditional top down shooter viewpoint, but allowing the player to rotate their heading by moving towards the edge of the screen. In this case the gameplay would not be on rails, it would be more like Starfox with a top down viewpoint (so the player needn't be concerned with their elevation... they fly at a fixed height). The choice about which targets to attack and which benefits to aim for are then left to the player to determine. It almost gives us the freedom of a full 3D space shooter, whilst retaining the control scheme simplicity of a normal top down shooter.

It's an important decision as it will affect a lot of the rest of the game. With a free roaming approach, levels will likely be smaller as allowing the player to travel a long way in any given direction would require a huge amount of scenic and general gameplay content. Enemies will not be able to attack in the traditional patterned waves as the player is able to roam where they like, so enemies would probably need to rely more on AI than on scripted behaviour, but on the flip side the player is not on rails and can create their own experience. With an "on rails" shooter, enemy behaviour can be scripted but can also be dynamic to an extent depending on how the player approaches the decision points.

Which idea do you think has the most potential? I could see that on rails with limited choices would fit a fast and furious gameplay where the player has not got to think about much other than shooting alien ships, but still gets a somewhat unique experience dependant upon their decisions. Going with a free roaming approach means that the action would be a little more strategic as the player is responsible for determining their own path, but would probably give a slightly slower pace of gameplay and the player would almost completely dictate their own experience in terms of choosing targets.

I'd like to go for the idea that most people will find fun and I'm just hoping that perhaps there will be a consensus that people are vastly in favour of one particular style over the other (or maybe neither!), so any opinions on the two styles would be much appreciated :)

thanks,

Steve

[Pyabo]

Still haven't figured out what game you're going to make huh? :)

Rails suck.

But come on. You've got to start small, small, small. All you've done so far is post about 8 different game ideas you want to make. Get crackin'.

[Mephs]

Well, yeah I haven't quite figured out a design I've been happy with, but at least I'm not submitting and just producing an obvious clone of something. I think there is some merit to wanting to produce something worthwhile.

Having said that, I actually have been hard at work though and have some of the framework in place, hence this post. I've gotten a ship flying around with the camera angle I would like and I've implemented the edge of screen rotation method and have got a mesh in place to act as the level, granted it's not much, but I have finally started. That is why I'm torn between the two types of gameplay. Having implemented the 360 degree movement scheme I really like it, but having sat down to try and brainstorm how the gameplay would fit in around the free roaming nature of the game I've hit upon some stumbling points and so I'm just wondering if it is worth losing a control scheme that feels good for something that is a little more tried and tested, but a little less evolutionary in style.

I will take your comments as a vote for the "on rails" system though I think, although you don't necessarily think it a good system, it does fit the ethos of what you are saying about starting small, it's tried, tested and would keep the game on a smaller scale. Perhaps that would be sensible.

[jefferytitan]

I'll share an idea I had which although not the same may give you some inspiration. I was trying to come up with a game idea which has a pure form of exploration, by which I mean that you can never return where you've already been but you can choose where you're going. It was a philosophical thing. ;)

Basically you control some sort of car travelling across a plain (in FPS view) with all sorts of wacky features. You have a minimum speed (can never stop or reverse) and an outrageously high maximum speed. Curved walls spring up in a line behind you to prevent you going back. However the clever bit is that by arranging the minimum speed and turn speed right, and making the curvature on those walls such that they turn you back parallel to the wall, you can never even see where you came from. The upshot of this is that it's hard to prove that the walls weren't there all along. :)

What you could do is perhaps as you say only allow them to control the direction by moving near the edge of the screen in certain circumstances. A voice or flashing arrows could indicate when they can do that. If you did it in the midst of the battle you could add a frantic new element - you know how hard it is to "stay right" when people are shooting at you? :)

[jefferytitan]

Damn system said it failed the first time I submitted my comment - obviously not!

[Mephs]

The idea about the movement limitations sounds really interesting. I'm not sure I could apply it in any meaningful way to my own ideas, but I'm sure you could get some interesting gameplay from it in some form... I guess you'd have to be careful to avoid having the player box themselves in though :P It certainly make every movement count for a lot more given that they can't go back on themselves.

Actually, as you've suggest, I could have the 360 degree movement limited to small sections of the gameplay... perhaps the decision making points could literally offer forking paths, but then it does limit the movement style to a bit of a gimmick. I guess it's an option to look at enabling it in certain other areas of levels, perhaps having the majority on rails but including small battlefield areas with free movement. It could also fit in with keeping the idea simple.... it's an element that could be left out if it proves to be too much work.

Anyhoo thanks for the thoughts... I think already I have a better picture of what I'm working on, but any more comments are always welcome.

Cheers,

Steve

[Agent 4125]

Pick what's the best for your overall design. Right now it sounds like you're just gluing mechanics together randomly, hoping the end product will be fun. Once you decide what the core fun is, these kind of decisions become easier. Then, if you're still not sure, prototype both options.

[AnthemAudio]

Ever played Panzer Dragoon Orta?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FDc6xXA1_mU&mode=related&search=

Dig it...rails rock...when appropriate.

[Mephs]

I can't say that I have played it actually.

It looks very interesting, although on rails, I guess it's kind of explained away by being on the back of a dragon with a mind of it's own. They certainly make use of the 3d environment though.

It looked interesting, but I can't help but think that the sound effects sounded like they were ripped directly from a space shooter rather than being the sounds of a dragon spewing out fireballs or energy balls or whatever they are. Having said that though I can't say I've ever heard a dragon do that before, so maybe they would sound like that :P

Does anyone have any idea how other games on rails perform in the market such as Jets n Guns, Star Monkey, Ultra Assault, etc? I'm guessing that the creators of these games are probably around on the forums somewhere, it might be interesting to know if they do relatively well, or if they are just a labour of love that struggles to find a decent market.

Cheers,

Steve

[jefferytitan]

I would also be interested to find out what techniques are used when writing a game on rails. I can imagine as a player it could have that rollercoaster glee, never knowing where you're going next, which would also ensure the well-crafted storyline occurred as planned. On the other hand it could be annoying and confusing, going somewhere you think you shouldn't be going or just not knowing what crazy path the developer had in mind. So how do you write levels such that the path they're stuck to makes sense to them?

[Mephs]

Well I suppose you could emphasise the need to follow a set path through things such as chase sequences. Taking Time Crisis as an example, you weren't randomly wandering around all the time, you often could just see an enemy boss character that kept just moving out of reach, requiring you to generally follow in his footsteps where possible. It also gives the player that feeling that if they just survive for another 30 seconds they might get the chance to catch the elusive character and presumably get some kind of reward for doing so.

Though having said that, it's a part of the reason I would like to offer discrete branches where the player can choose to follow a different objective.... let the player concentrate on the action rather than their route, but at the same time give them a bit of influence every now and again in the lulls between action segments so it feels a little less heavily scripted. I think it could be a nice compromise between the two extremes.

[jefferytitan]

You could do it quite seamlessly... e.g. the target you shoot the most is the one you want to follow. Or if you allow limited movement within the rail, e.g. dodging left and right they can select that way. Nothing worse than adding an extra control they only use once every five minutes. ;)

[LilGames]

I don't like 360' shooters. They are more like flight sims. I hate it when I get shot from outside my field of view. I hate trying to shoot an enemy and having to turn around, and then they shoot past me, and then I have to try and find them again, etc, etc. I want to be shooting stuff up, not playing tag.

Take a look at Starfox 64

[AnthemAudio]

Starfox 64 (at least the all range modes and the multiplayer) was nothing but glorified tag. Hella fun to be sure but it's saving grace was the controls (which Nintendo usually nails).

In Panzer Dragoon, the lasery stuff came from the girl with the gun on the dragon's back. So yeah, it was all spacy whatnot.

Though a pure space shooter, unless you're hugging the surface of a planet or flying through debris might not benefit from the 360 combat angle.

I just finished a game that mimicked Panzer pretty well. They started with a large, varied level. Then they created a camera/rail path that essentially acted like a guided tour of the level...some dives, ascents...kinda like a roller coaster. Then you had waves of enemies come out Galaga style that you had to take out before they got a shot off. They gave you a radar so you can see who's where. It's not very confusing when balanced right. It lets you focus on shooting and dodging versus traditional dogfighting techniques.

So ask yoursellf what's the crux of your game...shooting or flying?

[Mephs]

Ahh, I didn't realise she had a gun.. probably due to the fact it was a low res movie rather than the game in fullscreen, I just didn't spot it!

Actually also the game is going to have the player pretty much hugging the ground, or at least at a low altitude.

You say that I need to chose between flying and shooting, and I agree that it pretty much comes down to that choice, but the intention behind the original idea was really to take a game that feels something like galaga or defender, but allow the player a little more freedom.

Basically with a game on rails you are forced to destroy things in a given order, I wanted to give the player the ability to choose what order they fight things in, like for example, they could decide to destroy an enemy power plant to slow down the enemy spawn rate or something similar. We could still do this in an on rails shooter, but there is little strategy there as players just blast whatever they come across and it is just a case of whether they manage to hit the target or not. If the game is a little less linear then it will add an element of choice to the gameplay where players must weigh up the pros and cons of their actions,e.g. is it better to attack the heavily guarded power supply to slow down the general spawn rate, or is it better to rescue a scientist to gain access to a powerup.

So I guess I'm basically after the best of both, the freedom to choose your targets, but also the simplicity that goes with an on rails shooter.

As Jefferytitan suggests I think having an essentially on rails shooter where the player can push the screen a bit choose which fork in the path they wish to take might work nicely. The guy I'm working with is currently mostly on the side of going for free roaming shooter controls as I described but in a penned in area with distinct paths, of course with this method the player could double back on themself, so it would have to be a little less heavily scripted and more AI based enemies I think... I suppose you could liken it to the game Desert Strike, but with distinct paths of movement, perhaps a couple of screens in width to give a little maneuvering room, this would give the player the freedom, but I think would make combat feel less like dogfighting, as like Lilgames suggests I don't think that dogfighting is the feel I am after. So that is another option.

Anyhoo, the comments have been great help so far, I think I'm getting a clearer picture of how I would like my design to work now. In fact AnthemAudio, your game sounds quite similar to what I'm thinking of, I was again planning to borrow from the Time Crisis school of game design the idea of having pretty lethal enemies, but having them charge up their weapons to fire and have the player attempt to shoot them before they could do so, so rather than being a bullet dodging fest, the game would be more about trying to react before the enemies can. Of course there would be a little variation in there to break the pattern. Is there any chance of a demo of this game of yours? Could be a sale for you in the name of research if there is :P


Cheers,

Steve

[arcadetown]

I love 360 degree space shooters however haven't seen a single one do well in the download market. Simply too hardcore IMO.

Rails would be a nice way to make it a more casual & accessible. However space settings normally = bad sales. Try something that hits with a wider audience, for example an old wild west themed shooter on rails game. If you go space perhaps try a funny edge ala Chicken Invaders series.

Here's a couple excellent Flash game examples. #2 is more casual & fun, easier, with funny edge. #3 has better graphics but got too hardcore.

Combat Instinct 2 (http://www.arcadetown.com/combati2/index.asp)
Combat Instinct 3 (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/63199)

[Mephs]

Just so everyone knows, I'm off to Cornwall for a week, so I probably wont be able to respond to anything while I'm down there due to no internet connection.... but any further comments I'll reply to when I get back. I'll check those games out ArcadeTown.... thanks for the links and it is interesting to hear your insight on how shooters perform in the market, it does pretty much match what I would have expected from the sounds of it, it's something to consider anyway, perhaps putting some kind of twist on the game to make it more accessible.

Sorry, would reply in more depth if I had the time, but at the moment we have a mini-crisis going on with missing train tickets!!

Thanks,

Steve

[Qitsune]

I have no sense of direction whatsoever. Drop me in a fps map and I'm lost within 20 seconds not knowing where the end of the map is or where other people are. In a space shooter it's 10x worse because of the uniformly black backdrop. So on rail is the only way I can play, like the large SW arcade ones. Not giving the player the responsibility to pilot lets you cram more enemies in a level. It can be frustrating to some players but I think it's perfect for a more casual gameplay.