For as long as I could remember, a vocal minority constantly trashes Alan Wake’s linear approach once it was announced. The sudden exclusivity deal coupled with the original open world design being trashed years earlier lead to a bunch of undeserved hate against the game. Some blamed Remedy’s decision on the 360’s hardware limitations to handle early builds ( http://www.youtube.com/watc... ); the reality of this decision came, in the developer’s words, “from a storytelling perspective.” With that in mind, the reason for this blog is to attack that small group who still like to look at old builds and dream about the beauty this could’ve been with a fully optimized PC engine, and posting thousands upon thousands of direct gameplay screenshots to show off to console gamers saying “You want REAL power? Spend hundreds to play this beautiful game in all of its glory!”
What do these fantasies do to us? Instead of just enjoying that commendable game for what it is, why not try looking at Remedy’s decision with a fresh set of eyes? After playing Alan Wake’s American Nightmare (which I’ll eventually review), I believe there’s enough evidence for fans and detractors to see why the open world setting just wouldn’t work for this series--at least not yet.
1.) The game plays off of linear principles
Throughout your journey in Bright Falls, you’re given the chance to search for manuscript pages that are either in plain sight or slightly hidden. Given that their twinkle can be viewed from space, it would be fair to say they’re intertwined into the gameplay itself. These pages (with voiceover work prompted whenever you pick one up) give an “illusion of suspense”. You see, oftentimes these letters gives specific details about the next attack by the ‘Taken’, what Wake calls his dark foes. Like any decent horror writer, Wake sometimes throws in descriptions about the Taken’s actions: something like “His half-ton grinder cut through the car like butter.” You might ask “if you know about the attack and what you’ll be facing, where’s the suspense?” The suspension comes in what ISN’T WRITTEN. Since you’re worrying about the finding a car, you initially expect there to be no other attack before that, which leads to a few decent frights.
The reason this aspect felt novel (pun intended) was thanks to a linear design giving you crumbs to move forward. Sure, the times of wandering off the beaten path of extra ammo and manuscript pages were there, but changes in weather pattern or the yearning to find a generator-powered streetlight as you progressed made you constantly want to reach the next checkpoint. That wouldn’t be the case with an open world design. With American Nightmare’s hub setup, the player is given too much control of when the action takes place. Example: you’re about to venture into a web-infested cave, but then figure it would be best to scour the entire open area for all of the pages. This is when extras like listening to the radio, watching a TV, or reading manuscript pages become ‘empty collectibles’. You’re only compelling yourself to find everything for achievements, rather than immersing yourself into that illusion I mentioned earlier. Don’t get me wrong, American Nightmare is an excellent spin-off and will probably remain one of my favorite games of this year, but it retains the flaw horror games try to avoid: allowing the player to choose when the suspenseful moments happen.
2.) Would side stories even work at this point?
I suppose it’s ironic for me to mention this when considering Red Dead Redemption released the same day as Alan Wake, and has a better story. While RDR has an exemplary main story, the setting also calls for you to become interested in the local inhabitants. You’re considered a stranger around those parts and others take a particular liking to your interesting past. While the concept of a city boy like Wake helping strangers does sound like an interesting grind, it doesn’t seem like a welcome idea for writers to create an interesting atmosphere for a game relying on moment-to-moment events. Take a look at some of Hitchcock’s best films; you’ll find that most of them rely on isolation. Developers of horror/suspense titles want to hold you under the water as long as possible until you have to come up for air; at this point in time, a linear approach seems to be the only way for anyone to do that.
3.) Just look at my first paragraph in number one
After putting this blog out there, I’m curious to see how many posters already knew most of the exposition given in that paragraph. That is the same case for certain manuscript pages laid out in American Nightmare (it does introduce a few new ideas to the canon as well). What’s always a problem in later iterations is the need to go back and retell past events for newcomers in obtrusive ways. Since each episode is introduced with a “Previously on Alan Wake,” there will probably be enough detail given in the possible upcoming sequel to address past events without ever having to look back at them. What happens if that concept is built around an open world environment? Instead of integrating an evenly-paced TV format through one-and-a-half to two hour episodes, you’ll be hampered by side story elements for the sake of a writer filling a void. There’s a fine line where exposition is either needed or useless, and I believe most of it would be the latter had Alan Wake been an open world game.
In conclusion, I think Remedy’s decision to make Alan Wake a linear game was for the better. Could there be a chance next generation for the developer to create an innovative way for the term “open world psychological action thriller” to be something considered? Who knows what the future holds to that question. I just thought it was time to voice my opinion on their decision. Make no mistake about it, I was there throughout Wake’s entire development cycle: from the tech demo of displaying rampant tornadoes while going through abandoned areas to the shocking 360 exclusivity announced a few months before the game released (which we all know now was timed exclusivity). As amazing as those early impressions were, I think it’s time for everyone to move on and accept the final product rather than fantasizing the ‘what could’ve been’.
The fact that it didn't live up to what it set out to do and just became another survival horror (and a pretty tedious one in my opinion) is why people hate on it.
That's already pointed out earlier. Then, they recognized it wouldn't work from a storytelling perspective (some of the reasons listed are probably why). The only reason I ask that question at the end was to leave the idea as a possibility, since I don't know what games could be coming 5-10 years from now.
The reasons listed are also meant to be viewed as a pessimistic viewpoint if I were to hear "AW2 to be open world". After playing American Nightmare, I felt that the chance for solid pacing throughout the game could be flushed down the toilet if I chose to run back to double check every nook and cranny.
-"The fact that it didn't live up to what it set out to do and just became another survival horror is why people hate on it."
Isn't that sort of telling about the gaming community to focus their hate on what they expected the title to be, rather than its own merits?
In reference to blog: Give me a few mins to change "(old AW link" to a link from youtube to see an early tech demo.
For instance the tornado and its destruction would need to be scripted. I personally don't think alan wake caved on its design for story reasons. I don't think it was possible this gen, and as much as I hope it is possible next gen I have a funny feeling that such features which look amazing as a concept for a game will be pushed aside for massively higher texture resolutions instead
And "because consoles can't do _____" is only another infuriating matter for the "vocal minority", screwed out of a game because Microsoft cast aside the PC because "you can't game on the couch, which suits Alan Wake better". I didn't know a game that's supposed to be edge of your seat (but isn't) should only be experienced on a sofa, lol.
"Then, they recognized it wouldn't work from a storytelling perspective"
-
Did they REALLY, though? Because they showed it off after working on it for 2 years. Were they really going around walking into walls for 2 years thinking that the story was going work just fine in an open-world fashion and then suddenly meet a revelation that it wouldn't?
Or is it more likely that they retooled for the console limitations?
Remedy's Oskari Hakkinen: 'The basic vision has stayed the same. When we announced Alan Wake, we announced it as an open world game, and that was a mistake. We're not even shy to say it. Remedy is a humble group of people and we will say it was a mistake. It was a tick-box back then, that was a trend. "Open-world," "free-roaming" and "sandbox" was the way to go. We tried that for about six months, trying to get the pacing right of a thriller in an open world setting. When you have the player turning up to a love scene in a monster truck when they should be showing up in a Cadillac you know something's wrong. You know something is not working.'
http://www.joystiq.com/2010...
How long are you going to cocoon yourself in some false belief fueled by fanboys on the internet? Please stay on topic in your replies (like your second one) and not drag in tired rhetoric that Remedy (you know, the creator of the game!) has already denied.
Their last game: Max Payne 2 (2003)
Alan Wake reveal: E3 2005 (2005)
So I wasn't wrong. Like I said, they either retooled or were walking into walls those two years. It doesn't surprise me much that it was the latter. It only took them 7 years to finish their rather linear, short game.
"and not drag in tired rhetoric that Remedy (you know, the creator of the game!) has already denied"
-
Yawn. They also said that Alan Wake was only right for the couch. You can't believe everything a developer (especially one so heavy under the power of its publisher) says.
And what did I say that's off topic? I said why their "right decision" upset some people and made the point that they spent a LOT of time screwing around if 2 years after launching their last game, they still presented the game as an open world PC game instead of the revised "right decision" version.
Their last game: Max Payne 2 (2003)
Alan Wake reveal: E3 2005 (2005)"
*Insert obligatory game release timeline to act as if I know something about game development*. We have no idea what went on behind closed doors throughout the development of the title except what the developers show us in vids or tell us in interviews. Your "logic" seems awfully flawed.
2.) "some games are more suited for the intimacy of the PC, and others are best played from the couch in front of a larger TV screen," according to a MICROSOFT SPOKESPERSON."
http://www.1up.com/news/rem...
I capitalized the letters in the quote that should stick out to you. I'm curious to see how many times I'm going to need to correct you in this blog alone.
3.) "And what did I say that's off topic?"
From your first post on here: ". . .screwed out of a game because Microsoft cast aside the PC because 'you can't game on the couch, which suits Alan Wake better'. I didn't know a game that's supposed to be edge of your seat (but isn't) should only be experienced on a sofa, lol."
I don't see how this could be considered a consistent reply with the first post, especially when considering that my blog mentions BOTH the early exclusivity deal and the later PC release. We're meant to tackle the points at hand, not regurgitate random PR jargon from 2 years ago (get over it, for crying out loud). You're wasting both my time/bubbles and yours by grasping at these straws.
The worst thing i said about it is that i thought it was tedious, which pretty much every major review also agrees with.
Deadly Premonition tried sandbox horror. You can play that, and tell me how well it worked out from a narrative perspective. (spoiler: it doesn't)
They weren't manipulating the weather constantly, they wanted you to fight off hordes of Taken with auto shotguns and assault rifles conveniently lying in manuscript lockboxes, and more.
You don’t have to use another survival horror game to judge the concept of a story driven game with an open world.
A good point of reference would be the original Deus EX which is universally praised for its deep story and immersive atmosphere, while also taking place in a semi open world where your decisions had consequence to both how the game played and its outcome. Alan Wake could have done something similar with chunks of story set within semi open world levels.
But the main point is that Alan Wake itself is not a bad game but it is not what it set out to be, and it was those tantalising glimpses of something new to the genre that got everyone excited. It was touted by developers as being inspired by Twin Peaks, Steven King, and that it would contain random events that would reshape the game in real time – it sounded amazing and I for one was very excited for it.
What we actually got was a very linear 3rd person shooter. The actual gameplay itself did very little to advance the story, it was just a zombie shooting gallery set in the dark - so yes people are going to be disappointed. Does that make it a bad game – No. Do people have a right to be disappointed and point out that it did not achieve any of the key features it set out to accomplish – Yes.
- The problem with using Deus Ex is that's a different setting entirely. Any sci-fi game, whether it be cyber-punk, space opera, etc., LENDS itself to the idea of self discovery through means of making different choices. You were implored to advance because of the decisions you would make through different dialogue options, like any other RPG. Suspense-related material-across all mediums-heavily relies the moment-to-moment events to thrill the viewer.
- As stated in the blog, American Nightmare did present chunks of the story within a semi open environment. As interesting as I thought it was, the concepts doesn't really hold up in comparison to its predecessor. You're still shuffled along to the same objective, but can meander all you wish, which is something horror writers probably dread seeing.
- "What we actually got was a very linear 3rd person shooter. The actual gameplay itself did very little to advance the story, it was just a zombie shooting gallery set in the dark - so yes people are going to be disappointed."
While that's your opinion, it's tough to take certain portions of this statement seriously. Why does being either linear or "very linear" (wth does that even mean at this point?) have to act as a red flag for gamers these days? There are times when games call to be either be linear or have open world elements.
I'm not saying people don't have a right to disappointed, as I was when I heard the change of pace back in...what was it, '08? At the same time, it seems fair to examine the genre as whole and come to an understanding that the open world idea for any suspenseful horror doesn't sound capable of effectively keeping you on the edge of your seat at much as possible, which is something Remedy realized.