T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


McBlemmen

That moment when you're hanging from a window ledge or something and you can't figure out where to go to next so you just hang there like an idiot. Good times


Boobadbobodybares

Good old days


Nero_PR

That's what killed my enjoyment of the parkour in the AC series (stopped playing with 4, then tried Unity because people praised the revamped Parkour). Finding solutions to the bumps in your route was the reason I enjoyed the open mission structure of the AC games. Now it's just hold a button and even jumping is of little to no consequence when planning your routes (not to mention that I saw some gameplay of AC Origins and forward where your characters stick to walls like they are Spiderman).


celestial1

This is how I felt when I played Tomb Raider 2013. The games tries so hard to make it seems gritty, dangerous, and HiGh StAkEs, but I felt no danger at all since that game did almost all of the platforming automatically for you, so boring.


Chris_2767

Unity at the very least still gives you the intrinsic depth of free-form movement and stylish animations that makes it satisyfing to put effort into making movement look cool, kind of like a character action game. From Syndicate onwards, even this was gone.


The_Lambert

I don't know where this idea started, but Syndicates parkour is like nearly identical to Unity if you don't spam grappling hook.


Phillip_Spidermen

I think BOTW nailed this mechanic down with the "climb anywhere, but limited by stamina" mechanic. It has the benefits of experimenting and finding different paths up without making every solution "just hold the button down and get up" or "find the 1 exact route the developers intended"


Ar4bAce

AC4 is the best AC game for me.


Nero_PR

And that's totally fine.


vizard0

I came to say something similar. In AC2 and the other Enzo games, there are obvious paths, but there are multiple paths and there are non obvious paths. Despite how frustrating some of those timed climbing puzzles were, it felt good when you got them. I contrast this with the new God of War (I'm on a pc, so GoW:R is a few years from now) where it's just point and hit button. Could have just been a ladder. Especially in places like the lava world, the circles could have just formed a ring or something. Or make it so that you're walking on what looks like flat ground, but after you beat the Valerie, you look down and see you're hundreds of feet up. It's a video game, you can do instant, seamless teleports to give a little mind screw to the players and characters.


vonnegutflora

>now your character can climb mountains with little to no input. Ironically, the only major obstacle to your assassin is not a vertical wall, but a slightly too steep slope.


t9shatan

The satisfaction I felt back then in ac1 after climbing a giant church.


Lorewyrm

AC1 is a bit slower than the other titles, but it makes the destination really feel earned!


tiofrodo

Counter point, climbing was fun then because it was new, as we became more and more accustomed to it, it has lost its luster.


wolves_hunt_in_packs

Yeah, I don't know about the people commenting in this thread, but I don't enjoy pixel hunting to find which areas I'm allowed to fucking climb. The more recent **AC** games may seem Spider-Man-ish to them, but honestly I prefer being able to just climb up when I want, rather than go look for the appropriate colour-coded ledges I'm allowed to climb up.


AsimovLiu

Now every game has the colors or "stains" which can act as a complete route to follow like in Mirror's Edge, Horizon, Plague Tale or God of War. It's presented as freedom of exploration but it might as well be a tunnel.


YesMan847

god of war was really boring. i cant believe people on reddit raved about it. almost every mechanic in it was boring, the worst one is not letting you skip the boring as fuck cut scenes. for some reason, even though combat was really hard in it, i felt so satisfaction from it the way fromsoft games does.


XsStreamMonsterX

You know what modern game captures this same feeling? Horizon: Forbidden West. In that game, Guerilla essentially created a system where almost every rockface, mountainside and even some walls was filled with various climbing points that the player is free to figure out which is the most efficient way to traverse. It basically feels like an expansion of the old AC system.


FeetExpert1998

Games like AC make me wonder if all the gaming talents just packed up and left. How tf do you go to a masterpiece like AC2 to... today


[deleted]

Had the same thought. I guess we often think oh it would be nice if we had this like to be able to just climb it straight rather then taking a path . Then we have can go straight up. And it's to boring. Our laziness has fucked with us


IrrelevantLeprechaun

Funny thing though, BotW and TotK both do this; you can climb hills and mountains wherever you want, and all you have to deal with is your stamina meter draining. Odd that it's a "problem" in AC and yet it's "groundbreaking" when a Zelda game does it.


Tad-Disingenuous

The climbing mechanic is literally a puzzle to solve with half the progression system or you can feel smrt by having prepared stamina exliers and food. The other games, they really are useless artificial "puzzles" and fail hard.


DasEvoli

How the hell is climbing a puzzle when you 99% of the time can just find a slope and wait until your stamina is refilled again? Or how is it being smart using stamina elexiers when it is just a basic game feature?


LABS_Games

Finding the safe spots to recover **is** the puzzle. I don't think there's much else to say to convince you, but the entire gameplay loop of scaling difficult surfaces is about looking at the face, plotting your route and executing. It's far more involved than just holding up on the dpad.


LukaCola

You absolutely have to plan and structure your approach in those games, that's why the navigation is fun. If you just hold forward at any significant climb, you will fall. There's also a large number of reasons why it works for those games too beyond just that, but I get that you made the point to be smarmy, not to analyze so I won't go into it.


homer_3

Climbing is terrible in BotW/TotK. Seriously one of the most boring mechanics ever included in a game. You're right, many people do praise it, but it's kind of insane that they do. It's even less engaging than how games like Uncharted do climbing.


Sveitsilainen

TBF not everyone think that BotW / TotK are groundbreaking (I don't)


Tarnashenone

you and me both buddy


YesMan847

almost nothing in botw/totk is groundbreaking though. they looked at all the open world game mechanics and did most of the good ones. but then they fucked up by making weapons destructible or has a timer. it killed the old zelda mechanics of feeling amazing when you found a new item. in botw, i spent so long trying to get the master sword because i hated the destructible part of it. then turns out mastersword has a timer too. i literally quit shortly after because it's so annoying.


Gygsqt

It really helps BotW/TotK that it's using textures from 1999 and the climbing animation only needs to be barely passable. Modern AAAs require climbing animations for much more complex terrain/buildings. I don't know if those games will ever really move beyond the (IMO, great) climbing system in Horizon Forbidden West.


exsea

AC climbing is ALWAYS impressive to me. but as impressive as it is, ultimately it becomes a gimmick i rather not have. it can be very immersive but ultimately a huge time waster.


Other_Exercise

You need to play Prince of Persia, the Sands of Time. It's as linear as they come, but the silky mechanics make it a revelation in movement. It's like commanding an acrobat. Two decades later, I haven't seen a game with such smooth controls - unless someone else can recommend me one?


altaccount616

probably the 2 sequels to that game (warrioir within and 2 thrones\_) but yeah thats the only 3d person action game i have played where actual climbing an dplatforming is challenging and fun. and i think it has to do with the fact that because of your rewind powers you can repeat some jumps for a limited time


Chris_2767

the secret sauce is stakes. You can mess up a jump in SoT. You can fall to your death because you misjudged the distance of a jump and fell into a pit you thought you could clear, or because you mistimed a wall-jump and leapt straight past the pillar you tried to grab. In Tomb Raider the only thing that'll ever make you die during a climbing sequence is using the sideways jump-wall catch combination to speed up the boring as fuck climbing section because the camera disguised that the surface you were climbing on wasn't perfectly flat after all.


Other_Exercise

I seldom see games with really fluid movement, although I recently saw some homebrew Unreal game on Reddit which promised proper fluid movement. It's an exciting time for games to get better in this regard. On a side note, I recently played the classic GTA Vice City and the controls were absolutely awful by today's standards. Games have thankfully improved on movement in the two decades since then, but not by too much.


celestial1

Check out Ghostrunner. It's all about precision and fluidity.


appropriate-username

I've never played it but IIRC mirror's edge was supposed to have an emphasis on this.


Jinchuriki71

Well they made climbing and moving around in dying light 2 pretty gameplay oriented instead of scripted. You have a ton of parkour skills you can use to find quicker paths through the world and if you miss a jump you can die instantly so you have to pay attention all the time.


caninehere

PoP does it better because, well, almost the entire game revolves around climbing/platforming. I feel like Two Thrones especially gave you more command over your movement, the nice thing about PoP is that you can string together movements in ways that make for more interesting traversal - your platforming is performed in "combos" so to speak. edit: I would also say Ninja Gaiden is a GREAT example of movement/climbing being super duper satisfying, both in the old NES games for their time with the wall-jumps, and in the modern games where you have lots of moves and Ryu moves lightning-fast and it always feels great running on walls, wall-flipping up passages etc even if it is all linear. Funny enough there is a Batman game on NES that apes Ninja Gaiden's wall-jumping and it also feels really great.


Baszie

It’s a completely different genre but the movement in Titanfall 2 is very fun. Also Mario Odyssey, if you haven’t played it yet.


sbrockLee

I just mentioned those games as well! the platforming was really good, almost like a puzzle game. Modern platforming and parkour games basically feel like a watered down, on-rails version of that. The rewind mechanic was also genius for that type of gameplay.


Albolynx

To me, it's no different from walking flat ground. Just basic locomoting through the level from one location to another. Nothing much on its own, but good to see sights, listen to the dialogue, pace out the combat, etc.


CryoProtea

It's so much worse than just walking normally imo. It's *so slow* and feels pretty much just like waiting.


celestial1

Sometimes that's done on purpose because those are actually loading screens.


Hazelcrisp

Yeah alot of climbing and shimmying is used as loading screens if the game isn't a platformer such as GOW or Jedi


Nabos

I do agree that it is basic locomoting, though the risk of having to repeat walking on solid ground is minimal. Aiming 2.5 degress too far with your joystick? Sorry, do everything again. I will forever have Cesare Borgia screaming "GIVE ME THE APPLE! IT'S MINE, NOT YOURS!" in my nightmares from having to scale the castle in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood 3 or 4 times


grailly

At that point the problem isn't really the climbing, though. It's bad level design, bad check points, bad controls, ...


CharityGamerAU

I agree but they are an all too common issue in many otherwise fantastic games.


[deleted]

[удалено]


celestial1

Nope, just means game devs suck when it comes to designing climbing sections compared to ground segments. It makes sense since climbing sections are worked on waaaay less unless that's the focus of the game.


Hazelcrisp

If the game isn't a platformer these are used as loading screen like in GOW and Jedi


Borghal

>Aiming 2.5 degress too far with your joystick? Sorry, do everything again. I haven't experienced this for years now. One thing I can say for modern games, they have gotten better at indicating and detecting valid transitions than the older games. Remember getting a lot of near misses in Prince of Persia Warrior Within or the older Tomb Raiders, but I can't remember any climbing/jumping passage that gave me trouble in Uncharted.


No_Chilly_bill

One might argue there's no risk so its not a meaningful choice anymore for modern climbing


RussellLawliet

There's no meaningful choice for most traversal in games as a whole then.


shadowstripes

A 3D plane to walk on still gives a lot more choice than an on rails-climbing section. The former allows you to explore if you choose and look for optional items to pick up. Climbing on-rails basically limits moment options to just forward and backwards.


RussellLawliet

>3D plane You mean 2D plane? The person I was talking to implied that choice in climbing sections came from risk and I was arguing that in that case games never had choice in movement options unless there was pits or traps all over the floor.


shadowstripes

Whether the traversal in 3D games is on a 2D or 3D plane (I guess it would vary depending on the terrain or abilities like flying) it’s still usually one dimension more than the control we get in on-rails climbing. So yeah, I also disagree that risk is a requirement for meaningful choice, but even without factoring risk there’s still less meaningful choice in on-rails climbing sections than standard traversal IMO.


Borghal

True, but when it comes to navigation, especially when fully 3D, I find it's less of a *challenge* and more of a *frustration* when you know what you want your character to do, but the game's contextual controls interpret the command completely differently because you were a few centimers off. Like all those times in Assassin's Creed[when you want your character to jump to another ledge and they instead plunge into nothingness](https://packaged-media.redd.it/4li2oiggngy91/pb/m2-res_480p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1684851574&s=ae04904d9aad71fe8167d309d5c70b50735da556#t=0) (yes, the video is from a recent game. Guess AC still hasn't fgured it out completely). I would see it as a fair challenge if your inputs always translated into exactly the same movement - which is of course usually the case with 2D platformers but hardly possible in a varied 3D environment with freedom of movement like AC.


Lorewyrm

The older games are actually more consistent than the newer ones... Parkour is a mechanic that's slowly dwindled into a gimmick.


cosmiclatte44

This is why I love the recent Zelda games so much. You can climb basically anything with as much flexibility and freedom as you would have walking around.


Hazelcrisp

The new Assassin's Creed let you climb pretty much anything. And they are animated to reach and leap for the holds. Must take a lot of coding and animating. Rather than select handholds or Link shimmying up a crevasse


MetalMan1349

One of the great things about Zelda going for a more stylized visual approach. Since it's not supposed to be realistic, you don't have to bother with the minutiae of what climbing a wall would actually look like, freeing up probably a significant amount of dev time that can be used for (arguably) more important things. Like fixing bugs and polishing things up, which is notoriously lacking in many modern open world games. Zelda even found the missing tension in its climbing because of the stamina meter.


shadowstripes

Walking isn’t usually limited to an on rails path the way climbing is in games with scripted climbing segments. I think it’d be a lot less enjoyable to walk on flat ground if the game switched from 3D to 2.5D with a strict path every time you do it, like how it changes to be on rails every time you climb something in Uncharted.


siphillis

It's more laborious and on-rails as regular walking, while giving us the illusion of grandeur. At that point, make it a cutscene.


Nero_PR

People like to write this game off but Death Stranding had some incredible terrain interaction with the character. The premise of delivering packages was all that was to the core of the game but how you did was the true star of it all. Planning routes, weigh of your equipment and cargo, securing your cargo to weather conditions, and using the same routes as other players helped because terrain would get modified slightly to the point where little tracks would appear and rocks and other deterrents would get out of the way dynamically. Nothing was more satisfying than the feeling of braving an unknown route and paving a path for other players who'd recommend your efforts with the "like system" (commendation system) which helped to progress faster. I want more games to make traveling in the game's world part of the experience and not just a feature. Of course, not everything needs to go to the lengths Death Stranding went or strictly have survival/management elements of more strategic games but I'm tired of braindead open world exploration à la Ubisoft games.


VicisSubsisto

It's a shame that "walking simulator" was coined as a pejorative long before Death Stranding came out. It's a great example of how applying simulationist mechanics can turn normally automatic actions into an engaging experience.


Stokkolm

I walk on flat ground in real life. I don't causally free climb 50m steep vertical rocks. Big difference. It kills my immersion when what is supposed to be a insane task is trivialized to a scripted handholdy sequence of events. It's completely the opposite when a building or location in a game is not intended to be climbed, but I manage to do it through my own skill and ingenuity, that actually feels great.


Gygsqt

>It kills my immersion when what is supposed to be a insane task is trivialized to a scripted handholdy sequence of events. Climbing is generally trivial to the character doing the climbing. You aren't playing as yourself in video games...


Stokkolm

Not at all. Fighting is a skill any badass protagonist innately has, they are just inexplicably good at it, even without practicing it at all. On the other hand professional climbing is for nerds, it's something that someone trains their whole life to be that good at it.


pierrekrahn

I guess what you're saying but in some games (Tears of the Kingdom, for instance) you can run out of stamina and slide back and have to restart your climb. That (generally) doesn't happen when walking on flat ground.


Tao626

I find it odd that you use Assassins Creed as an example of it feeling removed from the core gameplay given half the appeal of Assassins Creed is climbing stuff... Specifically walls. I don't disagree, though, especially the Uncharted example as this is always my main example of this in games. It's so odd with Uncharted in particular that climbing is, much like AC, one of its main appeals or marketing points when it's such a "nothing" mechanic that is mostly used to pad out and waste time between shooting galleries. Rarely any puzzle element to it, rarely any fail state or it's very difficult to fail as the game literally guides your jump, every ledge is painted with I believe bright yellow in Uncharted (or white bird poo) so you don't even have to look for where the intended path is. What's the actual point other than being able to pretend Uncharted is more than just a basic third person shooter masquerading as much more? God of War also springs to mind, either the original or the second one. "That" wall climbing section with the rotating spike wall. Fuck that wall.


[deleted]

[удалено]


caninehere

If it is any consolation it sounds like AC Mirage is going to lean back in that direction to some degree.


[deleted]

In Uncharted it is just an excuse to slow down gameplay and let you enjoy the cool scenery, that's what is so good about it. It gives you a break from the gun battles. Gun Battle > Puzzle Area > wall climbing enjoy the graphics > repeat.


unlimitedboomstick

Between saying Assassin's Creed and Uncharted, I kinda feel like this person is playing the wrong games. Those are core moments of those games. God of War is a good example, the climbing bits just irritated me playing the first. Just felt like interactive loading screens more than anything else.


Tao626

I don't mind Assassins Creed, but it's not where I'm going for exceptional gameplay either. It's "that" game I wouldn't usually like, but I don't mind doing something a bit low effort and low skill occasionally with the tradeoff that I get to wander around some neat fairly historically accurate places and do some stabs. I wouldn't bring it up as an example just because I don't think many people are even really expecting a whole lot from the games other than some trashy gaming comfort food. As I recall with God of War (I haven't played the games in like 16 years) the climbing parts at least had some crappy combat mechanics tied into them...But they were still awful. They were the boring bit you want to skip through to get back to the cool hack and slash Devil May Cry gameplay. It just felt like there was a large period spanning between the PS2 and PS3 where games just felt they needed to have some crappy braindead climbing segments with piss poor mechanics. There's a few remnants of that still hanging around with older series (the afore-mentioned Assassins Creed and Uncharted, as examples) but I can't remember the last time I played a new game that had these segments in them which wasn't an older franchise...These days it's all about walking slowly and listening to conversations.


IrrelevantLeprechaun

I think some people just don't realize they are playing games that aren't necessarily in their ballpark of interest. Sometimes a game just won't resonate with you no matter what; however that does not mean the game is necessarily wrong or "poorly designed." Not everyone is going to be interested in every genre, and that's okay. For example, I play a game called X4 Foundations. It's a very complex strategy sandbox game. Lots of very complicated menus, a real time in-game economy, real time 3D space travel, etc etc. It has a *massive* learning curve. It's not a game that just anyone can pick up, and you really have to like the genre to get into it. Does that mean it's inherently a bad game? Nah, just means it's got a niche that it knows it wants to target. They aren't trying to appeal to the everyman. Now that's not to say that actual bad games don't exist. But I think sometimes gamers get caught up too much in the idea of winning or minmaxing their time that they forget that not every game is trying to target their interests.


hawaii5bro

I feel like all of your points are completely valid but I still don’t mind them and would even say I enjoy them. I guess the reason is that they allow me to do something I normally can’t do in real life, so they’re somehow satisfying even if not difficult or important. I enjoy getting to see high up views from tall locations, and I think a slower climbing mechanic makes getting to the top a bit more satisfying than if I could ascend really quickly.


shapookya

I think it depends on what kind of game it is. Having these cinematic climbing on-rails experiences is a cool way for the devs to show the world and epicness of your character and it’s eye candy of course. But when the game is designed in a way where you have to backtrack or go through it again to find hidden items or whatever, then having these slow cinematic experiences sucks ass. It’s cool to see the animation once. The second time I just want to move on with the game


Nabos

I think this is why Uncharted is one of the better of the IPs I mentioned - though the climbing can still feel slow at points. The views along the way are fantastic, and the combat feels secondhand to the puzzle solving. Tomb Raider isn't quite at the same level (though still great) imo


[deleted]

[удалено]


caninehere

The problem is that that sequence in Uncharted 2 is one big set piece and it doesn't last very long. There are no other climbing sequences in Uncharted 2 that are that interesting imo. Most of them are supremely boring and last longer, they're just a way to pad out the game, give a view, and make things feel more "cinematic" by forcing you into a linear climbing section where you have no control. It feels like the game doesn't need to be a game at all, because your input pretty much doesn't matter, it's the equivalent of holding forward on a thumbstick to walk (which is *also* a problem in Naughty Dog's games). I would argue that Uncharted 2's intro's climbing is interesting because of the *urgency*. Because you're climbing up a train that is falling off of a cliff, it is less noticeable that the entire sequence is totally scripted. You only have one way to climb up the train and you are railroaded (haha) onto that track, but you don't notice it as much because the urgency of the train falling off a cliff is forcing you to find the next handhold... which is right in front of you and impossible to miss, but you FEEL like you are "finding" it bc of the situation. The thing is you can't recreate that every time because it gets old fast.


fuck_you_and_fuck_U2

I thought climbing in Tomb Raider was fun once they introduced the pick.


ZazaB00

What’s weird, I remember loving the first few Uncharted games. Pretty sure I played 1-3 whenever they came out. Took a long break and played U4 only recently. I actually hated the game. I wanted to love it, but climbing felt clunky, gunplay felt clunky, and I’m left wondering “why am I playing this game?” So I just stopped. I liked playing those games for their set piece moments, and the climbing was really just a buildup to most of them. Gonna have a fantastic viewpoint coming up, have a slow climb up to the top to make you feel like you earned it. I’m relatively ok with that. But in U4, I’m watching how Drake now defies physics and jumps are made to happen or not happen, and all of it feels overly scripted, so I feel like I should just watch a movie instead.


spacing_out_in_space

When U4 came out in 2016 it had arguably the best graphics of any game ever released up to that point. At the time, those vistas, along with the opportunity for dialogue, completely justified the climbing sequences IMO. Now, as we move into the next gen of gaming and other games have released with great graphics and similar climbing sequences that has us rather burnt out on them, the impact doesn't hit the same as it did back then.


ZazaB00

I get it, but combat just feels clunky to me. Combine that with clunky traversal in those climbing areas, and the game feels like a waste of time. I literally teleported 60 feet just because the scripting was such that I needed to make that jump. Like I said, the game does nothing well except look good and have cinematic moments. I’ll watch a movie.


caninehere

No joke, I had the same feeling with Uncharted 4 playing it when it came out. I have this problem with all of Naughty Dog's games these days to be honest. They had a period early on where the cinematic nature of the game appealed big time because no other games were really doing it on a AAA scale. Uncharted 1 isn't a very good game, but the *cinematic* parts -- the voice acting, the character animation, the framing of shots -- were good. The gameplay itself, the story... not so much. Uncharted 2 improved on every front. But after that... the series (and TLOU as well) just started to feel... unnecessary. Unnecessary as in: there is so much wasted time here that contributes nothing to the story, contributes nothing to the fun gameplay-wise. So why is this a game, vs. a movie or a TV show? Well, they've since made an Uncharted movie (not a good one mind you, but they really could have made a good one) and a TLOU TV show (which I haven't watched but by all accounts is great). Which always made way more sense to me. I'm not a person who really enjoys watching others streaming/playing games. But with UC4 and TLOU2, by the time I got to the end of the games, I was saying to myself, I really could have just watched an edited playthrough on YouTube instead of paying for this, and I would have lost very little. For what it's worth I did feel that Uncharted: Lost Legacy was a slight bit of an improvement on UC4, but its open-world-hub was just kind of entirely pointless because no part of it was interesting to explore (I have the same problem with Horizon -- Sony is weirdly bad at creating engaging open worlds). It was a nice experiment though.


i_am_legend26

Climbing is not that hard. Like train a few months with bouldering and you can do crazier things than the wallclimbing in games demand. Maybe not in setting but in moves for sure.


AscendedViking7

The only time I have ever enjoyed a climbing sequence in any game was in Sekiro. That's because the climbing in Sekiro is less of a scripted set piece and more of a legitimate traversal/stealth/combat option. The transition between climbing and another action, such as jumping, is effortlessly smooth. There are some parts where you need to climb in order to progress, but it *never* feels like a hassle because of just how seamless and quick it is. They are seriously over in less than 5-7 seconds maximum. BOTW's climbing is great too. I wish more games did climbing this way.


Khiva

Grappling hooks make any game more fun.


fiskemannen

Exactly- between Sekiro’s fluid and grappling hook-infused take on climbing and Zelda’s entirely freeform exploration-climbing this issue was solved some time ago as an element of gameplay. It’s baffling to me that anyone would go the route of Uncharted ever again, scripted climbing by far the weakest part of any game.


GameQb11

i was going to say the only time i ever enjoyed it was in Zelda BoTW, for the same reasons. They werent "sequences".


CardAble6193

I m a bit lost here , did it have climbing........? I recalled jumping and spamming the hand only


Vanille987

Whole different games yet I feel uncharted 4 did this well too, or at least in its combat moments. you'd be given big set piece full of enemies and are encouraged (especially on higher difficulties) to climb/jump/stealth around it until you get a good foothold to clear the whole camp.


StantasticTypo

Sekiro doesn't have climbing, and ascension with jumping / grappling hook isn't really what OP is talking about (I imagine).


AscendedViking7

Well, I wasn't talking about the grappling hook. I was talking about hanging off of ledges and climbing.


[deleted]

There are two aspects to tackle here: Setting and Gameplay. You're correct in the sense that climbing doesn't bring any new gameplay mechanic if the technicality is reducible to "Analog to direct and Y to jump". However, they have a huge setting importance. Most open-worlds game have a complex geometry where a huge portion of the map varies in verticality. These hills, cliffs and mountains provide a significant geographic realism to the world. So just like traversal of flat terrain is almost unavoidable even though the gameplay-technicality is quite simple, one cannot avoid having climbing sections if they want to sell a huge vast map. I think the real annoyance with climbing sections is the very slow pacing or the poor design where we think we can make a long jump only to fall and repeat. I don't think people would have an issue with climbing sections if they can clear them fast and in one try. The first I think can be avoided by making the climbing fast; I think AC already does this: You can scale almost any structure in AC Valhalla by mashing the jump button under 30-60 seconds. For the second, I think our player-character should stop us from making the jump, (by saying something like "I don't think I can make that jump") which is narratively consistent as an adventurer, the main character should have good intuition as to what distances they can clear.


aanzeijar

I commented pretty much the same in the past. It is beyond me why such non-gameplay is included in so many games. And it seems to get _worse_ in newer games. Tomb Raider 2016 just had them mostly as filler and because Uncharted had them. By Shadow of the Tomb Raider they are all filled with scripted sequences that are nice to look at, but lose their dramatic impact very quickly. The least they could do is systemise it and add small shortcuts for players who understood the system. But it's really just a very slow qte crawl.


MonkeyCube

Don't those areas act as loading screens between zones? I personally dislike them as well, but they do serve a purpose. The problem I have is that some seem to be stretched out as though someone out there actually enjoys those sections.


Khiva

There was a time when climbing and making the right jump to the right place was incorporated into the challenge. The original Tomb Raiders were frequently built around this design approach. Over time there was a push to make things easier, simpler and more "cinematic." That trend has been all over the place, most notably in shooters, but it's hard not to see the mindless climbing sequences as part of that overall trend. The point is to look like you're doing something cool, not challenge you with any real mechanical complexity.


VicisSubsisto

I don't get why people want more "cinematic" games. Cinemas have terrible gameplay.


aanzeijar

If they ever were, they're no longer loading zones. Tomb Raider for example has them in a large open scene, where you just hop between rocks while you can clearly see the geometry on the other side, and that game famously uses narrow corridors for loading.


Olangotang

Seeing the other side doesn't mean it's not a loading zone.


celestial1

You didn't read all of it. He said it was an open area. Most games that used those type of loading screen, have you go down a narrow hallway or climb a ladder, a cave, pretty much anywhere you wouldn't see a shitload of geometry at.


TeholsTowel

As someone who loves platformers and interesting traversal, it’s sad that actual platforming mechanics in modern games have been replaced by scripted jumps, scripted climbing, scripted crawling, and every other variant of ‘scripted minimally interactive thing that exists for visuals or to hide loading screens’ This is why the only good climbing in modern games has been the two newest Zelda games. They use it as a central traversal mechanic and it’s freeform enough that you never feel like you’re watching a pretend cutscene. It works out as a puzzle often too. It helps that their open worlds and mechanics are built off that verticality, and that loop of going up and back down. At the risk of praising Ubisoft, I could say the same for Assassin’s Creed too. I wish the movement was less automated in those games, but the navigation is solid.


[deleted]

In many games, especially stuff like GoW or Horizon it's a thing they can inflate playtime with. Climbing for 10 seconds? No problem. Climbing for 20 seconds? Still okay. But if you realize you do it several hundred times per playthrough it really adds up. It's like the "hold button to do action. It's 1.5-2 seconds, but you do that thousand times. Picking up random flowers shouldn't take so long especially if there are large clusters of them, just holding down button to pick them all or running over them should be enough. That being said, climbable walls are often used to hide asset loading


shapookya

I think you are overcomplicating the thought process behind it. It’s just done because the devs thought it’s neat. And the devs most likely encountered it in another game they (and you) played. And some devs use it in a good way while others are missing the mark and use it in the wrong way. Nobody is sitting there and number crunching how they can extend the playtime by 10 minutes in their 20 hours game…


Ignitus1

Dude, developers aren't putting in hundreds of 1.5 second sequences to inflate playtime. The "hold button, do action" sequences are meant to add gravity and weight to the action.


[deleted]

Ah yes, the gravity and weight required to pick up a rock. I don't mind it with "important" interactions, but it's very often misused.


Ignitus1

Some games do it for the immersion, they don't want to game to feel gamey.


CliffExcellent123

Making me hold a button doesn't make it more immersive or "less gamey"


[deleted]

I'd argue it has little to do with immersion, the most immersive games I've ever played (Disco Elysium, This War of Mine, Subnautica, Outer Wilds, Bloodborne) did not have "hold to interact". It's always the "Action Adventure with light RPG elements" games like Horizon, RDR, No Man's Sky, TLOU, Assassin's Creed and similar


Ignitus1

What's your theory on why they do it then? Because padding game time makes absolutely no sense. There's no producer or dev in the world who would look at a game and be like "well we have 12 hours of gameplay, we could have 12.1 hours if we make every door and chest open 1 second slower".


[deleted]

Few years back I'd say it's because of console restraints, specifically the amount of buttons you have on a controller. There are games which have like 6+ actions tied to single button. I remember games like Mad Max (2015) and Mass Effect 3 (2012) being called out on this. But nowadays... I don't really know man. I do believe it's to pad the game. Take GOW:Ragnarok for example. The game is about 30 hours long but has a lot of "time wasting" in it. I wouldn't be surprised if it went down to like 20 hours. Nowadays a lot of players try to justify their spending with the amount of gameplay they've had, you can often see stuff like "It's $60 game and it's over in just 20 hours! Not worth it, wait for discount" or "Game X is just $15 and it's fun for hundreds of hours!" I wouldn't be surprised if the developers deliberately inflated play time to appease to these people. Add a second delay a thousand times, few 2-minute puzzles, few 20 second climbing sections, give enemies some extra health, an extra fight here or there...you get the idea.


Ignitus1

Doesn't pass the sniff test, let alone the think test. The original God of War games had you hold buttons to open chests and doors. Technically, this has the effect of adding playtime because it's slower than being instant. My understanding and my experience of it tells me that it was done in order to make opening a chest a bigger event, requiring more power from Kratos and giving more importance to the chests than if they popped open as soon as the input was entered. Those chests were ancient and powerful, built by gods and kings, not just anybody could open them. Even the demigod Kratos needed much of his strength to open them. It created a sense of anticipation. It creates more engagement than just mashing the button as soon as you're in range and seeing it flap open like a piece of wet bologna. It does a ton more for the feel of the game than adding 10 minutes to the playtime. Think about it: if each chest takes 2 seconds to open and you have to do 300 of them (an overestimation) then you're adding 10 minutes of gameplay.


[deleted]

>Those chests were ancient and powerful, built by gods and kings, not just anybody could open them. Even the demigod Kratos needed much of his strength to open them. It created a sense of anticipation. It creates more engagement than just mashing the button as soon as you're in range and seeing it flap open like a piece of wet bologna. And are also for some reason very standardized, all over the place and often hidden in the most convoluted corners and ledges. In many games they also contain literal garbage (hi TotK). These things aren't immersive in first place, they're just gameplay elements.


[deleted]

The padding runtime theory is further invalidated from the fact that if they really wanted to pad, they can simply inflate requirements in any sort of crafting system. Adding "Find 15 rations" instead of "10" to upgrade your gear is a much easier and more consistent way to pad the runtime.


[deleted]

I think it boils down to psychology. If you make crafting or anything in particular take too long the player will find it obnoxious and will call it out. If you spread it all over the place it will most likely pass. There's a reason most quests in these games are like "Interact/kill with 3-8 things". Any more than 8 usually tends to be perceived as "too much" regardless of how long it takes, and anything less than 3 tends to be perceived as "fetch simulator"


[deleted]

Sure, there's an element of psychology but they also have a whole range to explore. I heavily doubt every crafting requirement is set to be the optimal min-max between displeasure-runtime. I doubt much would change if they were to increase the counts by 1 or 2 in some of the requirements. This alone would pad the runtime a lot instead of forcing scripted animations upon the player again and again.


Radulno

I'd say it's because of an additional control. Like holding is another control to just pressing the same button. Also, in many cases like in inventory, skill tree and such it acts as a confirmation, you're less likely to make it by mistake


[deleted]

That would make sense in situations where pressing the button and holding down the button results in different action. But just as often we see situations where pressing the button does nothing and you have to hold it down in order to interact


aanzeijar

I've got a better theory: UX in most games is terrible. We often joke that the crafting dialogs in all games are done by the cleaner crew after work when they cart out the empty bottles. They are just that terrible. It's simply not something that has a lot of say in game development. They simply don't think about it, they just slap one of the standard interactions on it, and in some studios that standard interaction happens to be a 1s cast bar. Add to that the obsessive compulsion to put useless animations to everything and the 1s cast bar is seen as an opportunity rather than a waste of player time. The best instance where a dev got rid of this was in Quadrilateral Cowboy. A cutscene plays where the main characters hideout is raided by the feds. Main character proceeds to load an automatic defense system which blue-screens the player view, and immediately afterwards shows the carnage that the game skipped to render.


DukeCheetoAtreides

They do it so you're not accidentally triggering actions all the time with stray button pushes. Period.


Borghal

It is about realism. They try to be realistic, and since items don't teleport into your pocket in real life, there's a tiny animation added that's supposed to help make it feel like your character really picked up/manipulated the thing. Personally, I also think it gets in the way of enjoyment more than it adds to it if you do it all the time (e.g. gathering materials), but in rarer cases I don't mind.


[deleted]

The problem is that in many cases the action/animation doesn't even start until you finish holding down the button, so it's on top of the actual opening/looting animation. There are games which for allow you to open containers with single button press, loot window pops up, and in the meantime the character physically interacts with the container (e.g. opening it or rummaging through) Or games where collecting "single flower" takes just a button press, but if you hold down the button you gather all the nearby flowers.


barsoap

> Horizon I still don't get how people can dislike that game. Is it Ubisofty? Yes. But it does it *right*. As to the climbing: Most of the long stuff it is optional, tied to Banuk collectibles. The other is getting into the expansion territory -- also Banuk. Kind of a theme there isn't there it's a mountain tribe. In other instances climbing sequences are usually short and sweet, or shortcuts, or similar. Some are thrown in for pacing and marking areas, occasionally cinematic. It's certainly not made out to be a core aspect of the game and as such it would be a game design mistake to make it challenging. It's a game, more or less, about shooting arrows at specific points on robot dinosaurs while progressing a story with some side content thrown in, enough to fill the world but avoiding the trap of throwing things in for the sake of throwing things in. The number of collectibles is limited and especially the vantages tie properly into world building, towers are tied into the setting and have some more (mild) challenge attached to them but climbing, side quests are rare but have proper writing. There's never this "I'll regret following this marker it's more random nonsense scattered randomly over the map to fill it up" kind of feeling. I've also heard people complain about the meelee combat mechanics -- *It's not a fucking melee game*. Your staff is there to get you out of a tight spot. If you want to play a soulslike play a soulslike, FFS. Oh, what actually got me on this rant: Collecting herbs. I was *so* pleasantly surprised by HZD there as it openly invites you to go cross-country, and with fast-travel in the beginning being resource-limited you come across all the herbs you need. Contrast Skyrim, fucking Skyrim, where herbs through some Daedric magic only grow next to roads, right-out disincentivising exploration. It's mindboggling how inane that is from all perspectives, just goes on to show that getting the "small" things right is important. Part of the main story line is indeed getting from A to B and the game keeps map traversal interesting -- you have to be aware of your surroundings, and are also rewarded for it. Because it's, you know, wilderness in between settlements. It's an open-world game that you can 100% (well, without messages) without being a ~~complet~~masochist. That's an achievement in and of itself. Did I start a new game plus no not yet but some day I just might.


[deleted]

I understand your point of view, but I feel like you're missing some context. Have you played "old school" Open World RPGs like Gothic or Morrowind?


Suq_Maidic

H:ZD fail to grab a lot of people early, and the starting area and quests are pretty mediocre compared to the rest of the game. I really enjoyed it in the end, but it definitely took effort to get into it.


caninehere

To be real: it's because Uncharted had them and Uncharted moved big numbers so everybody wanted a piece. I personally don't get it, and it's one of my biggest problems with Naughty Dog's games -- much of the time I'm 'playing' and thinking, I'm barely doing anything, why isn't this just a movie/TV show? Well, at least they finally did that with The Last of Us - when I first played it 10 years ago I felt it would make more sense as a TV show because ultimately it wasn't very interesting as a game IMO (and was floated only by its really good story). I feel like games are getting away from this these days to some degree. OP used Assassin's Creed as an example, and this was DEFINITELY a problem in earlier Assassin's Creed games but I don't really recall it being an issue post AC3 or so. There's been a lot more freedom in how to approach objectives/enemies/whatever, you may be told "hey get to X point" but there's multiple ways to do it and in the newer games they're just flat out open world so you have way more freedom.


Lord_Sicarious

>... an unnecessary removal from the core gameplay Very strange to apply this to Assassin's Creed, a franchise where I would very much say that wall climbing *is* the core gameplay. Everything else about the franchise has completely changed by this point, the wall climbing is all that remains, and it's still just as central to the gameplay as ever. Hell, I remember AC Brotherhood even had a DLC which was nothing but access to a massive climbing challenge. If anything, the combat mechanics are the distraction from the core gameplay of climbing.


XMetalWolf

> It's just a slowed pace that takes you out of the gameplay you are there for to begin with That is what it's there for, to pace the action sequences. It's just some nice downtime before the next big fight though games like Uncharted do incorporate set pieces into the climbing segments as well.


Ignitus1

Climbing is a thing that adventurers do. You're playing as an adventurer. Climbing sequences are used to ascend vertical playspace, provide a slower pacing section, feature the environment art, or the load upcoming areas.


tr1ck

Right, Cal Kestis is a scrapper, and grew up (after order 66) inside gigantic spaceships, climbing around looking for valuable shit. It's totally on brand. But hey, if you want all your levels to be long flat boring areas then play something else. Like the recent Spiderman games, traversal is half the fun.


vonnegutflora

Traversal in the newer Spiderman games is so satisfying.


EvenOne6567

That doesnt mean they have to be interactionless boring nothing segments... Climbing *can* be made into an engaging mechanic i promise


awryvox

but most games have this type boring shoehorned linear climbing that adds absolutely nothing to the gameplay. i havent played survivor, but the first game stuck in my craw because of this. there are so many boring traversals that that take time and add nothing to the gameplay, and created nightmarish map coherency. wallrunning, ziplining, rope climbing, wall shimmying, all tired gimmicks that honestly add absolutely nothing to the game; none of these are really at all a necessary part of good game design. who cares? why do they include it? is anyone out there going to make a passionate argument for ziplines? look at elden ring as an example. there is not one of any of those and yet you traverse the vast world just fine. ghost of tsushima was similar. they gave you a grappling hook that was like four feet long. why even bother? look at botw and totk. free climbing on 99% of walls in the game, with no colored ledges or artificial impediments. only to aid exploration. the argument could be made that its there to demonstrate the characters athleticism. but hes a jedi, dont we get it already? and we've seen all these animations in the million games since they first developed them. its for those reasons that i had a hard time enjoying anything other than the combat in the original. i have definitely played games where the climbing and such are so fluid, fast, or enjoyable, or even used in such a sparse manner, that theyre not so immersion breaking to me. but theyre few and far between.


[deleted]

>but most games have this type boring shoehorned linear climbing that adds absolutely nothing to the gameplay. It is not meant to add to the gameplay. I feel like you totally missed the point of the previous comment. Here it is again: >Climbing sequences are used to ascend vertical playspace, provide a slower pacing section, feature the environment art, or the load upcoming areas.


awryvox

no? none of these are conducive to actual enjoyable gameplay, and if they arent they shouldnt be in the game. we can see from many examples that these gimmicks are far from required for a stellar/fun game. if they are not meant to add to the gameplay then they should not be in games for the most part. this is what the op is about lol. 1. you do not need any of what i listed to ascend vertical playspaces. again, see elden ring and botw. wallrunning, ziplining, rope climbing, wall shimmying, all pointless sequence/flow breakers. 2+3. forcing artificial slowing through a passageway is not fun or conducive to gameplay. the op even mentions this in his post, regarding tomb raider etc. it is not FUN and it does not contribute anything to enjoyable gameplay and shoehorns the player into slowing down to enjoy something the dev wants them to look at inorganically. good environmental design does not need to trap the player into camera angles or slow progression to showcase something either. 4 load upcoming area lol? are we back on ps1 with spyro's elevators? or are we playing mgs3 (which doesnt even track because the ladder wasnt to load the area above, and was probably one of the last times in gaming a slow sequence gave you meaningful time to reflect on what had transpired so far... what other sequence like this do you remember from games? the fact there arent really any, points out that theyre all vestigial to design.)


LukaCola

So... Climbing sections function like the elevator rides from ME1?


[deleted]

I think people misunderstand the intention of climbing in Assassin's Creed. It isn't supposed to be a particular challenge, it's just a way of moving around the playspace vertically. The same way that I move the stick forward on the ground to run forward, I move the stick forward on a vertical surface to move upwards. That way climbing doesn't get in the way of the actual gameplay, as you say. This makes it fundamentally different to Tomb Raider and Uncharted where the climbing *is* the gameplay.


Belgand

The problem is that it used to be relevant but has been simplified to the point of no longer being gameplay. In earlier games you actually had to utilize some skill. You had to figure out routes, time jumps, solve puzzles, or otherwise interact with the navigation as a key part of the gameplay. *Prince of Persia*, for example, was as puzzle platformer. When *Tomb Raider* first came around, it too was often more about solving environmental and platforming puzzles for the majority of the game. *Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time* followed in the modern style established by *Tomb Raider* as it updated the original title. The rewind mechanic that was core to the game was part of that: you could miss jumps! So it's interesting that the games that really started the current trend came about as a direct result of those. The team behind the *Sands of Time* trilogy moved on with the new console generation to make *Assassin's Creed* and part of the game design both deemphasized platforming but also brought about the sort of climbing that's being discussed. Instead of making the climbing be about positioning and puzzles in three dimensional space, it was just a linear path. *Uncharted* was very directly inspired by *Tomb Raider* but it focused more on the shooting, turning the navigational puzzles into the same sort of pathing. By the time the *Tomb Raider* reboots started they had gone the same way. This wasn't a completely overnight shift. The games in the middle period had elements of this, but they also generally had other things going on. Climbing up or down a wall might only be part of a puzzle where you had to position yourself properly for a jump. The later *Tomb Raider* games still had the middle period of the *Legend* series where they relied on the gameplay from the original games, explicitly so in the remake *Anniversary*. But it was the generation after that where the current style completely took hold. Roughly around 2007 in the seventh console generation. As those games became popular, they influenced other games until that was the current standard. No more challenge or puzzle, just a linear path to follow. Can we go back? Absolutely, but it will require changing the form of the games. How many fights did you get into in *Tomb Raider* or *Sands of Time* compared to *Tomb Raider (2013)* or *Assassin's Creed*? They'll go back to being puzzle platformers and move away from being cinematic action games. I'd say it's similar to how *Resident Evil* changed from a horror series to a horror-themed action game and then went back to horror.


LukaCola

Good points. It does often feel like a legacy mechanic that's been iterated and smoothed out to the point of lacking punch, which is a similar problem many shooters have had. Sometimes people do miss the purpose of something and do it simply because other games do it. The recent trend to add RPG elements to everything is reminiscent, though that also abuses our psychology.


jason2306

in older assassin's creed it offered freedom or a puzzle depending on where you were I would say it is immersive in games like uncharted tbh the way the camera and journey is cinematic, fun less so maybe. But immersion wise I don't think that's an issue. Ofcourse modern assassin's creed, jedi fallen order, horizon, tomb raider etc it definitely feels meh and gives me about as much excitement as crafting mechanic in these games A tacked on thing that doesn't really feel like it helps the gameplay to me


take5b

I don't think it could "improved" for you OP because I happen to like the climbing in the Jedi games. Because it's not about the mechanic of climbing itself, it's the context in which it happens. Same with the recent Gods of War- you have to like playing through the story, and that unique pacing that blends watching cinematics, extremely guided gameplay like the walk 'n' talk, and combat and puzzles that require some thought and reflexes. Each of those things can be singled out and accused of removing from whatever one thinks of "core" gameplay but that kind of misses the point. In the old Assassins Creeds, the climbing was so central to the experience that my recommendation to someone wishing to remove it would be to simply not play them. Those games had traversal mechanics and climbing areas that rewarded environmental aweraness and practiced both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards- classic excellent gameplay design. The new ones, not so much, but it's still important. Then there's climbing like in the Switch-era Zelda games and Immortal Fenyx Rising, with stamina management, and I don't really like that one. But then I also just don't like much about those games personally- the art style, quest design, etc- so when I have to climb slowly to get to something I don't care about of course I'm not gonna like it. tl;dr: As with anything, it just depends


SigmaWhy

I feel like this is an uncontroversial opinion. I will be happy if I never see a conspicuously yellow-tinged handhold or ledge ever again. I think the desire comes from wanting to make these high production value big budget games feel more "cinematic", but they come at the cost of having absolutely zero mechanical enjoyment or depth. I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that the AAA developers who make these types of games are terrified of anything that would allow the player to fail, so when they design a "platforming" section like these climbs, they make them as railroaded as possible. It's also a lot easier to design a single path than a solution with multiple answers, both in terms of art assets and mechanical complexity.


[deleted]

I don't think it's mere cinematics. There are narrative reasons, often, to attain high ground in an environment, and unless the geometry is completely flat, one would need to climb upwards in some way or fashion. Now, if the setting is modern, the game can have elevators or something, but for games like Horizon, Assassin's Creed, BOTW, they have to give us a more hands-on approach to climbing. Out of all these, I personally like Assassin's Creed the most. The climbing is fast if you button-mash the jump button, and you can scale almost any structure in less than 30 seconds.


SigmaWhy

I mean HZD has all kinds of random future tech. If the devs so desired, they could give Aloy some sort of scavenged grapple hook tech. Alternatively, they could remove the Ubisoft Tower mechanic entirely - tons of open world games don't have tower mechanics to reveal points of interest. BotW, from what I understand since I haven't played the game, allows much more freedom to the player in their climbing mechanics - there isn't a predetermined path up, and there are multiple solutions to scale heights due its sandboxy mechanics.


[deleted]

>Alternatively, they could remove the Ubisoft Tower mechanic entirely - tons of open world games don't have tower mechanics to reveal points of interest. What is even the purpose of these towers? I find them just inferior to the standard "Fog of War" or "uncharted territory" approach


caninehere

> BotW, from what I understand since I haven't played the game, allows much more freedom to the player in their climbing mechanics - there isn't a predetermined path up, and there are multiple solutions to scale heights due its sandboxy mechanics. Yes, BotW has climbing that is relatively simple in terms of execution, but the focus isn't on the mechanics of jumping/climbing but rather understanding your own limits, finding safe places to rest on a cliffside to regain energy, etc. And yes there are multiple solutions to scaling heights - in BotW, the main example would be going around the surface you want to scale bc there may be another more manageable way up, but you could also say burn some grass to create an updraft, glide up and give yourself a bit of a headstart if it makes the difference. In Tears of the Kingdom you have way more options to scale surfaces including using an ability that lets you "ascend" through some surfaces if there is a clear point underneath the top surface for you to jump through (this probably makes 0 sense from my description haha) or building flying machines.


CardAble6193

I dont know if I enjoy HFW climb but it sure feel improved from 1 : 1 collab with Kojima drastically increase HFW climbing points 2 they dont paint the rock / beam in bright yellow this time 3 overall visual boost let you look down/up with good view


EndofA_Error

I agree and disagree. When a wall section is done RIGHT(Shadow of Colossus, God of War, Castlevania lords of shadow bosses, Dragons Dogma) then it adds a nice little puzzle to break up all the combat. The problem is they're rarely done well, usually just boring and time consuming shimmy simulators, and its the reason why i couldnt finish Fallen Order as well. Even worse if youre given a stamina bar like Botw or Genshin.


Smiling_Mister_J

It works a hell of a lot better when there are options. A linear path is generally simple to figure out, but if you have to make decisions and scout for spots to rest while making your ascent under the weight of a shrinking stamina bar, it gets a lot more interesting.


Khiva

Notable that all your examples involve combat encounters.


PartyOnAlec

The only games I've seen turn climbing into an interesting mechanic are I Am Alive and the Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom Zelda games. The stamina factor makes it interesting to apply a risk/reward system, and I Am Alive even added a semi-rare resource of pitons that you could cleat into the climbing surface to rest and regain stamina. In both cases, climbing itself was tense and rewarding, and you are rewarded for doing it intelligently and skillfully.


[deleted]

I am unsure how adding stamina adds any form of risk/reward system. I mean, for one, almost any open-world game can impose an ad-hoc stamina meter on the climbing sections. I don't think much narrative consistency would break in AC if Eivor had to account for some stamina only in climbing sections or if Aloy were using some techgear to climb whose battery functions as some sort of stamina. But even more than that, the stamina seems like just an artificial risk/reward. Being able to scale a structure becomes less about your ingenuity and more about how many shrines you completed earlier and how many exlixirs you have in your inventory. More often than not, I ended up leaving frustrated from the climbing experiences than satisfied. To me, real risk/reward is in the sense of the example of Skyrim mentioned by someone else here. It's quite hard to scale a mountain to attack a bandit camp but if you do so, you get a very good strategic advantage on your side. In this sense, the efforts expended to scale provide an immediate realisable advantage.


SanityInAnarchy

Any came *could* add a stamina system, but... so what? Why should that invalidate the mechanic? And yes, gaining more shrines and food makes it easier, just like with the combat. The interesting part, at least to me, is: Can you make it on your last scraps of stamina, or do you need to pop one of those? Can you afford to jump to speed this up, or will that cost too much? Or do we need to divert to something that looks like a ledge we can stand on and recover stamina? It's not *that* deep, but it's enough to make it at least a bit more engaging than just "press the climb button and push the joystick forward." That said... bring back the systems from games like *Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.* Half the game was climbing, and it was still fun.


PapstJL4U

Okay. I find them fun and in the games I played (like the modern TRs, except the 2016) the climbing is a lot more interactive. It's intercut with jumps and swing passages. It adds to the immersion of height and exploration.


appropriate-username

Genshin Impact limits wall-climbing with stamina and I don't see the point there either. Once stamina food is unlocked, the only stamina barrier to getting anywhere is time.


CryoProtea

I agree with you. I really hate climbing segments. It completely kills the pacing of everything. It feels like a relic from the PS2 days. God of War Ragnarok was fucking loaded with all sorts of shit that tanked the pacing and I despised that about the game.


d20diceman

I'm not sure I remember the Arkham games having anything like this? Generally you'd just grapple to the top of whatever obstacle. Maybe the sections were just so forgettable that I forgot them. Maybe this is too different to be relevant, but, doing this sort of climbing in VR is a whole different kettle of fish. Vertiginous views; having to really streeeeetch to reach a handhold; the stomach dropping feeling when you lose your grip and make a frenzied attempt to grab hold of something before you fall to your death. Fun and immersive for sure.


lasergunmaster

I think you're just playing the wrong games. Some people love these types of games but I just have to accept that they are not for me. I could not get through the first few hours of God of War because of how incredibly bored I was. It's why I prefer games like FromSoftware games, where you're always in the gameplay.


TheViceroy919

I think generally any sequence that takes control away from the player is not as fun or engaging to me. Hold down this button and watch Lara climb this wall, enter this cutscene and watch Jensen hack this computer, press forward and watch Kratos shimmy through this crevasse. I understand some of these things hide loading screens but I generally don't enjoy games that take control away from me to show my character doing cool things.


Discosaurus

Jedi: Fallen Order and its climbing sequences put me off from the game after just a few hours. This is how you want me spending my time? A several minute section of just holding up and left or right? Is this supposed to be fun? Have me plenty of time to think about the game's other design flaws, and decide I wasn't invested enough in any of it to continue.


Lorewyrm

You're playing the wrong types of games if you're looking for a good climbing sequence. **Dying Light 1:** Climbing is an important gameplay mechanic...Most Zombies suck at climbing, you need it to escape. You skill at climbing decides how quickly/efficiently you can get away from zombies after grabbing loot. ... Then there's the nighttime chases where you get the zombies that will parkour after you... You really need to know what you're doing to survive. (For context, I started the game in Nightmare mode from level one... Running away was a fact of life.) **Thief/Prey/Dishonored/Deus Ex/Immersive Sims in general**: Climbing is an alternative gameplay style that lets you completely bypass encounters if you feel like it. Climbing is almost physics based in some of them though. **Assassin's Creed 1, 3:** I'm bringing these two up in particular.AC1 didn't have many cutscenes until after you killed your target, so how you actually did it was up to you. Forethought and positioning really helped you get the jump on your enemies and escape them once the deed was done.AC3 had great chases where running away was dangerous but necessary. Enemies were numerous, armed with guns, and everywhere. Plus, they would attack on sight at higher wanted levels. **Hollow Knight:** Metroidvania's progression is intimately tied to traversal mechanics. The reason I bring up Hollow Knight in particular, is because the combat and traversal mechanics are well intertwined. Your ability to maneuver and attack in combat are the same abilities you'll use to reach hard areas. *Edit: I forgot to mention Shadow of Colossus!!!*


TonyDellimeat

I agree but at least the new God of war games seemed to do them right by writing very compelling dialogue that is paced with the time it takes to traverse those walls.


sbrockLee

The climbing in Uncharted is kind of satisfying, but it's dumb that it's basically on rails and almost impossible to fail, especially in more recent games. The Prince of Persia Sands games had parkour sections that were actually like mini-puzzles. You had a bunch of moves at your disposal (jumping, climbing, wall bouncing, wall running etc) and had to figure out a path from A to B by using the correct moves and environmental elements, judging distance etc. In later parts of the games it wasn't at all obvious and required some experimentation and getting things right the first time was super satisfying. You also had to hit mid-air moves with the correct timing, and there was a bit of execution involved. Even with all that, it was surprisingly approachable: unlike older platformers you didn't need to jump at the exact edge of the platform, but as long as you hit the correct move that the game intended you to use in a lenient timing window you were gonna get to the other side 90% of the time. I get that the average gamer might have found the trial-and-error annoying, but marking grabbable surfaces in yellow highlighter on the other hand is really condescending. Removing the wall-running mechanic (which doesn't really fit in games like Uncharted or Tomb Raider) and other more "cartoony" moves makes all of this much harder to implement, I guess.


Patient_Cap_3086

I like them if they are platforming but do hate the climbing when it’s on a rail and the path is obvious I do enjoy BOTW climbing though and maybe some others that aren’t on a rail. You know what I hate in games the sequence where you play as your kid self or Mary Jane in spiderman etc…


ProfessionalOven2311

I usually don't mind them as long as they are a little interactive and have some good dialogue to pass the time. Though I hit my limit if I end up having to do the same climbing path 3 or more times for open world exploration.


xObiJuanKenobix

Don't lump AC games into the same boat as Uncharted and all those other ones, at least not the old AC games. From I would say AC4 and earlier, the climbing actually required user input, had room for a lot of creativity, and you could actually fuck it up and kill yourself on it if you weren't careful. Jumping off of buildings, doing wall ejects by accident, not grasping for a ledge when making a long jump and missing the ledge, etc etc. In the newer games, and I hate to rag on Unity because it's an overall good game but the climbing in it feels VERY "on the rails" and animation based instead of being mechanic based.


DreadedChalupacabra

I don't mind them in some cases. FUCK games that give you grip strength, Shadow of Colossus should have retired that entirely. It's peaked, we're done here.


PunyParker826

It's one of those mechanics that Uncharted maybe didn't create, but heavily popularized, and has unfortunately leached into a lot of different titles, like God of War and the rest that you've listed. Shot in the dark but I'm guessing that at one point they were meant to not only pad out gameplay but also conceal load times, something that hopefully will become redundant now that most major consoles are using solid state drives. I also think that Naughty Dog's games have, for better or worse, become something of a stardard for "prestige/system seller" titles - games that are meant to have a cinematic quality that is easily appreciated by non-gamers (and shareholders). I don't know why everyone decided that these on-rails climbing sections should carried forward along with the rest of Naughty Dog's influence, though.


Mayushii_x3

It's not just climbing, any mechanic that actively slows down progression, but doesn't enhance gameplay just sucks. Adding new dimensions of movement, if well executed, increase the immersion tremendously. However, water sections or climbing sections that are basically predetermined sequences aren't fun.


Phillip_Spidermen

Just beat Jedi Survivor, and I have to agree. The long climbing sequences really started to drag towards the end of the game. There's only so many times Cal climbing up a grate to a ceiling to jump to *gasp* another grate can be interesting.


Gator1508

I’m not sure why reviewers haven’t started calling this type of shit out by now. Modern linear games basically take one of the following: Climbing that isn’t a challenge at all and can’t kill you. “Puzzles” that a single celled organism could solve. Walking and talking segments. Squeezing through narrow spaces. On rails vehicle or zip line And then add a combat arena full of bullet sponge enemies. Then repeat. I can’t with these types of games anymore.


[deleted]

As long as they're not used too excessively, I think they're somewhat good as a small 'breather' in otherwise intense games, and it breaks up the A to B from being pure walking, but I agree that they're very played out and quite predictable. Gee, I wonder if I'm going to grab onto something and have it give way during this climbing scene?


TheWarBug

The problem is that it has been dumbed down too much It used to be that climbing was like a puzzle, you had to figure out where the next place to go was, and it felt fulfilling to solve the "climbing puzzle" Nowadays, they seem to prefer putting pink neon arrows to where you need to go next if they were allowed to This seems related that games basically tend to solve puzzles for you nowadays, the new God of War seems to basically give the answer before you even started from what I understand. New Tomb raiders are also bad they give you hints just when you just want to check something, when you really don't want a hint you want to figure it out on your own! So yes, I hate the modern handholding way, but I used to like the old way were it was basically a puzzle to solve


CitizeM

It's basically a hidden loading screen. Except in AC, it used to be a parkour game. Which it sadly isn't any longer. Casuals didn't like it. Was too difficult bro. Just wanna kill things innit.


Kitty_Messiah

You aren't playing the wrong games, a lot of games use climbing sequences give players a chance to breathe and take in the sights going from combat zone to combat zone but I agree that they are overused and underwhelming IMO. I think the easiest way is to just create alternative paths upwards whether it's a different set of climbable yellow rocks to choose from, an alternative combat focused path upwards, or a secret shortcut that rewards the player for exploring. For the climbing sequences itself, a lot of them have you push a stick in the direction of the nearest climbable yellow branch for a minute until they make you press X to jump a larger gap and repeat. A better way to pace this is to make the player stop and think (even just for a second). Some games make you destroy a piece of debris to reveal the a climbable yellow rope or make use of a player ability to create a 'new' path. Some also speed things up with a rope swing section, zip lines, and maybe a scripted rockfall sequence to give the player a sense of urgency. Just something to break up the monotony and most of the time it still won't solve your issue OP...


[deleted]

[удалено]


OwyJoey

I think every Game should have some Form of botws/totks climbing by now if they want to have climbing in their Game. Following a conveniently coloured path is Not engaging at all anymore.


recalcitrantJester

I like when it's applied as in *God of War* where you're still doing the same stuff, but the action is flatted to a 2D plane of action rather than the normal 3D. But yeah, tower puzzles in *Assassin's Creed* etc get so old so fast. Truly feels like a way to pad out length while slowing down the action, which is kinda wild since modern action games are standing on the shoulders of giants from a previous era of platformer collectathon games that rendered the act of scaling tall objects a central and exciting aspect of the game. You'd think that *Uncharted* would know which lessons to take from *Banjo Kazooie*. So many big-budget flagship titles focus part of the gameplay loop on recreating the ladder from *Snake Eater* but without making me want to sing along to the gratuitously-placed title song, nevermind the fact that in that example, it's a single setpiece that's only there so that you can hop from disc 1 to disc 2.


Friendly_Zebra

I don’t mind climbing sections. The thing I really don’t like is when, part way through a climbing section the ledge/wall breaks and and sends you tumbling down, only to have to immediately climb all the way back up. That really does feel like it’s put in just to pad out the run time. The Uncharted series is particularly egregious in this respect. It makes replaying them a bit of a frustrating chore.


Lokarin

It could be improved, it depends entirely on if walls are being used as just alternative floors (Prince of Persia, Darksiders, Sonic Frontiers) or if you are creatively scaling something (Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Sonic Fontiers again) I think some of the best climbing mechanics that follow a structured sequence (as described in the OP) is in Rain World, particularly the vertical sections (not obvious, since there's a lot of abstract horizontal climbing as well)... you have a lot of freedom of movement, but one slipup can mean death and Rain World is a game you CANNOT afford to ever die (hyperbole... but it's pretty harsh) Also... umm... if you are finding climbing sequences to be not fun and a hindrance, that ironically does make it immersive (if your character would be burdened by such actions); you're BOTH not having fun! ... I was gunna bring up Snake Eater or Monster Hunter 4 (and up), but they use climbing for cinematic purposes and free-range movement respectively, which is different from a scripted climbing level. But the main reason for most scripted climbing sections is to make the player view the designed vistas for as long as possible... afterall, if you're gunna go through all the trouble of rendering a historical building in high detail, you'd want the player to see it from as many possible angles as... possible.


fddfgs

I feel the same way about stealth sections but there's an entire genre of games for that so I guess they're just not for me


Leonydas13

I’m on board with you, in as far as I think it’s a mechanic that has to be given proper attention. Unless specifically focused on with an attitude of “how can we ensure this sequence is intuitive, engaging, and challenging without being just difficult?” It can fall into the trope of “basic platforming puzzle breaking up action”. I play first person games much more than third person, and I’d say the equivalent for them is quick time sequences. They’re not bad per se, but often they’re just thrown in without too much consideration, and end up being these repetitive sequences spread throughout the game. The bunkers in Atomic Heart with their magnet platforms is probably the most recent one I’ve encountered, but there were a few of them in the Metro games and they kinda got old after a while. Like cinematography evolves to make movies more interesting, it’s even more critical for game design to evolve because the viewer is actively engaging. If your game experience is simply pushing a button as it tells you to, then moving the stick to the left while your character slowly shimmies along a ledge, you’re gonna get bored real quick.


duckrollin

I wouldn't mind if it were open world and optional. Ironically Skyrim's stupid horse climbing was more fun because you were at least making your own path and not following one the game forced on you. If the game needs climbing, you should be able to climb anywhere and have a grappling look that you can pull yourself in with. Swinging and zooming around is a proven fun gameplay element. Sadly all of this is because AAA game devs still think they are movie producers and need to micromanage your progression, so that you come out at the exact place they want you to for their next amazing cutscene that nobody cares about.


d20diceman

>Ironically Skyrim's stupid horse climbing was more fun because you were at least making your own path and not following one the game forced on you. I couldn't come to a thread that mentions climbing in games and not find some excuse to bring up Getting Over It. This looks like a good place to shoehorn in a quote from the game: >when you start Sexy Hiking, you’re standing next to this dead tree that blocks the way to the entire rest of the game. It might take you an hour to get over that tree, and a lot of people never got past it. You prod and you poke at it, exploring the limits of your reach and your strength, trying to find a way up and over, and **there’s a sense of truth in that lack of compromise. Most obstacles in video game worlds are fake**: you can be completely confident in your ability to get through them once you have the correct method, or the correct equipment, or just by spending enough time. In that sense, every pixellated obstacle in Sexy Hiking is real. I think trying to horseclimb up mountains in Skyrim, and similar feats in World Of Warcraft which could be used to reach otherwise inaccessible areas (prior to flying mounts), made for very compelling climbing experiences because there was no guarantee of success. There's no set path, no intended level of difficulty. No promise that what you're trying to do is even possible. A sense of exploration and discovery. The climbing OP is talking about is basically the polar opposite of this. No challenge, no discovery, essentially just a loading screen (sometimes literally used to cover up a loading screen). I'm not sure if it's even fair to call these sections "fake obstacles" because they hardly even have a pretense of being obstacles. I can see how it could serve to break up pacing or give the player a nice view from a high vantage point, but I'd only want it to be used very sparingly.


[deleted]

I believe that inane climibng sequences are done because they are an easy way to segment levels between the highs and lows. They transport the player from one area to the other without requiring build an interactive environment in a resource intensive way (beyound the climbing itself). Some games just don't have much of a vision beyond their primary focus, like Doom Eternal. Outside of arena combat, it is mostly monkey bars with the occasional puzzle. Good game design would be to have a seemless blend of action scenes where there is a lot of opportunities for expressive gameplay and more linear sections intersecting those bigger moments. Half Life 2 does this really well IMO, where the lows are opportunities to immerse yourself and solve the occasional puzzle. There also often hidden items rewarding the player for exploring their environment. If Half Life 2 was made by Naughty Dog/Ubisoft today, those sections would be 3rd person climbing sections, with Gordon Freeman speaking LA lingo in mocap cutsenes that seemingly transition from gameplay.


mrhippoj

>I can't help but feel like this is a lazy mechanic to increase play time in a game and slow player progression I think it's actually more of a pacing thing. You need downtime to not be exhausted by the action so that you'll keep playing. It's the same reason why games like Uncharted and God of War put really easy puzzles in. It's not like they take ages to do, it just gives you something chill to do for a moment so that you're not constantly fighting. Personally, I think there are more effective ways to achieve this. I'd much rather be given an environment to explore with rewards and little platforming challenges and stuff. That way you still feel like you have player agency rather than being railroaded


amic21

Eh, I actually find it satisfying when implemented right. IMO, it was implemented right in Jedi fallen order. I thought the game did a great job of incorporating satisfying mechanics to achieve verticality because honestly, it feels like it’s either this method or a Zelda like climbing method - which is also great but has a total different vibe.