The Fable Trail

[Spirit]

I'm not a Fable fan, but the girlfriend is, which means i've at least witnessed every Fable game at least in part (read near whole). And one thing that strikes me as being odd about Fable (for being an open world/sandbox type game) is something I call the 'Fable trail' the Fable trail is that golden glowing thread which guides you through the game (at least in Fable 2, which is the one she is playing atm).

So, with so many people unhappy with SS's linearity and its tendency for keeping large sections of the provinces unavailable until later in the game, and TP's path blocking Twilight Realm curtains would you rather a world being wholly open to you like OoT and WW but with a Fable trail to guide you instead of path and region blocking?

Do you think the Fable trail is a better game guide than blocked paths and reserved regions? Would you like to see on in future titles?

One of the pros of the Fable trail is that you don't have to follow it, it merely guides you, but try going to where you want to go before the first two to three dungeons in TP, WW and SS and you'll be forced down one direction every time until later. An easily ignored trail on the floor is easier to ignore than a neon orange and black wall is it not?

Thoughts?

 

[Curmudgeon]

I was raised on the old school RPGs like Ultima 4 where it was totally open world with no guidance at all besides a profoundly vague quest. While I don't advocate that sort of game design today, I'd be happy with a non-linear plot and a LttP-esque "go over that way" marker.

 

[Cfrock]

I'm not a Fable fan, but the girlfriend is, which means i've at least witnessed every Fable game

Witnessed is appropriate because those games are crimes.

Anyway, this is a tricky one for a few reasons I think. First off, the Golden Trail was completely optional. You could turn it on and off whenever you wanted so in that sense it was a good thing. However... well, Fable 2's world was narrow pathways. Besides that lake and... nope, that was the only vaguely open space in the entire game... So besides that lake, there was no room to deviate from the actual path anyway. Whether or not you had the Golden Trail on didn't really matter when the game's world was designed to always be moving you either directly towards your objective or in the exact opposite direction. So turning it off basically changed nothing.
Besides that there was so much obvious signposting of what you should be looking at and doing that without the Golden Trail it was impossible to not end up at your objectives anyway. You had nowhere to go and explore so the only things to do was to go get the quests over with which were painted so bright you had to be blind to miss them. So turning it on basically changed nothing.

None of this is really the fault of the Golden Trail itself, just a result of a game designed by idiots. Fable didn't benefit from the Golden Trail because the Golden Trail was redundant in a Fable game. That's not to say a Golden Trail is totally useless though. Look at the Clairvoyance spell in Skyrim. That is, essentially, a Golden Trail (well, a wibbly-purple trail if we want to get 'tech-ni-cal') and it can be extremely helpful at times in that huge open world or in those labrynthine dungeons. With the omnipotent map it is also, arguably, worthless, sure, but it makes more sense to have such a feature in Skyrim than it does Fable.

Zelda falls in the middle of those two extremes I think. It's not as open as Skyrim, not even close, but it also avoids (for the most part) the strict funneling that Fable uses as its world design. A Golden Trail could be beneficial to Zelda but I don't think it's even vaguely necessary. The games are never big and confusing enough to get truly lost in and for those who do use such a feature, a lot of the joy or challenge of exploration will be taken out, in my opinion.

Of course (and, seeing how this usually goes on here, I am very reluctant to mention it) Zelda already kinda has had a Golden Trail. It's a little feature in Skyward Sword that begins with 'D' and ends in 5-pages of comments that go round in endless circles.

 

[Tearbender]

I've played the fable games and honestly 1 was the only good game. They're destroying the franchise, and the golden trail while I don't like it, to me its not really something to complain about as its optional. For zelda following this? Hell no, u can say that it could be helpful for players, but really has anyone really complained about this for Zelda? Personally I'd rather have the blocked regions as I don't see how a golden trail will really make it better. Even if SS was linear(not as linear as TP) it had some exploration. Though anyone who was expecting Skyrim like exploration in the game( I know a few), thats ur fault.

 

[DarkestLink]

No, absolutely not. This would lead to non-linearity and either lower quality or pointless confusion. If the entire world is open from the get go, players will find themselves exploring and stumbling into areas and side quests they aren't ready for. There's simply nothing to do in these areas and Nintendo needs to trouble themselves with designing dialogue and various other things to occur when the player reaches this area in their unprepared state. All for the sake of a currently useless area.

Why bother a player with an area they can't even do anything in? Make it easier on the developers and less troubling on the players by blocking off these areas until the player is ready.

 

[Hanyou]

Look at the Clairvoyance spell in Skyrim. That is, essentially, a Golden Trail (well, a wibbly-purple trail if we want to get 'tech-ni-cal') and it can be extremely helpful at times in that huge open world or in those labrynthine dungeons. With the omnipotent map it is also, arguably, worthless, sure, but it makes more sense to have such a feature in Skyrim than it does Fable.

Zelda falls in the middle of those two extremes I think. It's not as open as Skyrim, not even close, but it also avoids (for the most part) the strict funneling that Fable uses as its world design. A Golden Trail could be beneficial to Zelda but I don't think it's even vaguely necessary. The games are never big and confusing enough to get truly lost in and for those who do use such a feature, a lot of the joy or challenge of exploration will be taken out, in my opinion.

Skyrim "funnels" too, just as its predecessor Oblivion did. The quest arrow, while not necessarily bad, is a far cry from the arguable pinnacle of the Elder Scrolls series, Morrowind. There, you were held responsible for following directions, and for making your own way in the world. The main quest was there if you wanted to follow it, but it was never as blatantly obvious as with Skyrim (now, Daggerfall had many of these elements too, but it wasn't an exploration game like Morrowind-Skyrim are--it was a totally different type of world and gameplay style).

Fact is, games are dumbed down. Zelda hasn't avoided it. The "Fable trail" sounds pretty similar, too. I'd say that in every game since A Link to the Past, it's been clear enough how to move forward. If you can't find your way around Ocarina of Time's main quest, that's no one's fault but your own. It's fine to get stuck on puzzles, but in no way is that game remotely ambiguous.

The linearity since The Wind Waker has not only been detrimental, but completely unnecessary. The fourth and fifth dungeons in The Wind Waker should both have been accessible as soon as the third one was finished. Twilight Princess had some nice locations--if only you were allowed to discover and explore them yourself instead of being handed the answers by a guild in a preordained order the game might have played a lot more naturally. Same goes for at least the third through sixth dungeons of Skyward Sword, though that game would probably have required some more basic structural changes to keep it from being overly linear.

Anyway, none of this is necessary. Just set people loose, give them a clear thread for the main quest like Navi, and let them figure out the rest themselves.

 

[The Wanderer]

No, absolutely not. This would lead to non-linearity and either lower quality or pointless confusion. If the entire world is open from the get go, players will find themselves exploring and stumbling into areas and side quests they aren't ready for. There's simply nothing to do in these areas and Nintendo needs to trouble themselves with designing dialogue and various other things to occur when the player reaches this area in their unprepared state. All for the sake of a currently useless area.

Why bother a player with an area they can't even do anything in? Make it easier on the developers and less troubling on the players by blocking off these areas until the player is ready.

I don't necessarily see why it has to be that way. In regard to sidequests, harder sidequests with bigger rewards can be unlocked after completing the earlier ones. Non-linear worlds can be tricky to pull off enjoyably, but certainly not impossible. Story and difficulty would have to be layered in a somewhat different manner, but it seems to me you may be envisioning the progression of Zelda as it is too much. In most Zelda games, you have to reach certain parts of the story to open up the game as whole, especially in installments like Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, but games don't have to "open up" as the story goes on. As I said, it would require somewhat different tactics to pull off successfully, but openness from the beginning doesn't always equal useless emptiness.

 

[DarkestLink]

I don't necessarily see why it has to be that way. In regard to sidequests, harder sidequests with bigger rewards can be unlocked after completing the earlier ones. Non-linear worlds can be tricky to pull off enjoyably, but certainly not impossible. Story and difficulty would have to be layered in a somewhat different manner, but it seems to me you may be envisioning the progression of Zelda as it is too much. In most Zelda games, you have to reach certain parts of the story to open up the game as whole, especially in installments like Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, but games don't have to "open up" as the story goes on. As I said, it would require somewhat different tactics to pull off successfully, but openness from the beginning doesn't always equal useless emptiness.

It's not that Nintendo can't open these areas. They can. It'd take extra work, but sure, they could do it. But to what point and reason? You have no purpose in being there. You can't access the main quest yet. And the sidequests in this area require items and skills you don't have, along with story progression. In the end, all that is accomplished is that some poor unsuspecting player is going to stumble over here, think he needs to do something, and tear their hair out in annoyance when they can't.

 

[Dragoncat]

I really don't mind areas being blocked off...even though Midna couldve probably took you into Eldin or Lanayru province before you got the fused shadow in Faron Woods, why would she? The fused shadow is right there. It's easier, and makes more sense, to get the closest fused shadow first. Storywise, why would you even want to explore during a crisis? Wouldnt you want to get things back to normal asap?

I would say no, no glowing gold line on the ground. Unrealistic. I'd rather have NPCs that point you in the right direction. As for not being able to access certain areas, TP had its reasons, like I said. Big glowing walls won't work for other games though, that would be unrealistic like the glowing line. Nintendo handles their blocked areas well imo, they usually tie them into the story(like in TP). And theres never a big barrier that makes no sense for it to be there. In Pokemon, there are NPCs that won't let you pass unless you have the town's gym badge. Annoying, yes. But you know what you have to do, right? Pokemon also has areas that you need an HM move to get through. Zelda has toyed with a similar method. Bomb a wall to get a heart piece...etc. Now they need to take it a step further and have areas that can't be accessed without certain items be relevant to the story.

 

[Beauts]

I think there is a 'fable trail' of some sort in all the Zelda games, including the linear ones as well as the more open ones. The trail just exists within the story and probing by the sidekick of the game (e.g. Navi's incessant hey! listen! insert relevant person or region or item that you should be associating yourself with instead of aimlessly gazing at the skyline trying to figure out where something is in TP in relation to OoT or whatever). I don't know though because I'm not familiar with the Fable series, but perhaps if there was to be an option to have the trail turned on or off, it would make the game more accessible to a wider audience.

 

[The Wanderer]

It's not that Nintendo can't open these areas. They can. It'd take extra work, but sure, they could do it. But to what point and reason? You have no purpose in being there. You can't access the main quest yet. And the sidequests in this area require items and skills you don't have, along with story progression. In the end, all that is accomplished is that some poor unsuspecting player is going to stumble over here, think he needs to do something, and tear their hair out in annoyance when they can't.

To kind of reiterate my point, a non-linear world can only work well if there is something to do right from the beginning, meaning dungeons that can be done in any order and kind of an open Skyrim feel. Openness without meaningful substance is worthless and annoying, I agree with you there, but that's kind of why I said it seemed you were comparing non-linearity with the progression of older Zelda games. Open Zelda worlds where you're still forced to do everything in a rigid order would be pointless. Open Zelda worlds where you're free to do things your way in whatever order you choose...the sky's the limit. Again, dungeons and items would have to be implemented a little differently, but with this approach, non-linearity doesn't have to be blank and empty.

 

[Hanyou]

It's not that Nintendo can't open these areas. They can. It'd take extra work, but sure, they could do it. But to what point and reason? You have no purpose in being there. You can't access the main quest yet. And the sidequests in this area require items and skills you don't have, along with story progression. In the end, all that is accomplished is that some poor unsuspecting player is going to stumble over here, think he needs to do something, and tear their hair out in annoyance when they can't.

1.) So what if people get a little annoyed?

2.) Have you ever played A Link to the Past? The game's structure once you get to the Dark World is absolutely liberating. You can access several different dungeons and areas in several different ways, and playing the dungeons out of order allows you to really feel like you're adventuring. The "default" order was too difficult for me the first time around--I found my way around, struggled a bit, but eventually found an item in a later dungeon that helped me with an earlier one.

This is intelligent game design, and it's a fundamental part of the Zelda series. Arbitrarily blocking off areas is a way for the developers to avoid the pitfalls this kind of design might bring, yes, but frankly, I don't care.

Storywise, why would you even want to explore during a crisis? Wouldnt you want to get things back to normal asap?

Storywise, I'd want to explore. Exploration at its best yields rewards, and the intelligent thing to do would be to equip yourself for what's to come.

 

[Dragoncat]

Storywise, I'd want to explore. Exploration at its best yields rewards, and the intelligent thing to do would be to equip yourself for what's to come.

May be true in some cases. In other cases, no. The bad guy is going to destroy the world, or he captured my friend. If I spend too much time piddlefarting around, my friend will be killed or other terrible things will happen and it will be all my fault.

Not saying I'm against exploring though...

 

[DarkestLink]

1.) So what if people get a little annoyed?

Nintendo wasted their time only to upset some of their fans and do nothing for the rest of us.

2.) Have you ever played A Link to the Past? The game's structure once you get to the Dark World is absolutely liberating. You can access several different dungeons and areas in several different ways, and playing the dungeons out of order allows you to really feel like you're adventuring. The "default" order was too difficult for me the first time around--I found my way around, struggled a bit, but eventually found an item in a later dungeon that helped me with an earlier one.

This would be an entirely non-linear game, not a non-linear world. But with this in mind, I found aLttP to be one of the weaker games in the series. I confess, I'm not a huge fan of 2D gaming, but the non-linearity really brought the game down too. I will give it some credit being an older title, but by current standards, it's weak. It's story is weak and Zelda story hasn't even been recognizable as a story at all until OoT came in and introduced a more linear concept. Not only is aLttP's story weak, the puzzles are poor, easy, and constrained. This is all due to non-linearity and the inability to build off previous puzzles.

This is intelligent game design, and it's a fundamental part of the Zelda series. Arbitrarily blocking off areas is a way for the developers to avoid the pitfalls this kind of design might bring, yes, but frankly, I don't care.

Blocking off areas is easier on Nintendo, better for the players, and simply makes sense for a linear series like Zelda. Why delay the game and waste Nintendo's time on something that is no use to us?

 

[misskitten]

Actually, the original Fable did not operate with a golden trail. This was an addition in the two sequels - and as previously mentioned this was completely optional. If there was areas you couldn't visit in Fable, the game makers made other reasons for why it wasn't available (path is blocked, guards won't let you pass until you are more famous, bridge is broken, etc).

Also Zelda has already dabbled with its own version of "golden trail" through sensing (TP) and dowsing (SS)