White Water Rafting vs. The Amusement Park

Posted by Rampant Coyote on November 26, 2013

As a teenager one summer, I went whitewater rafting down the lower New River in West Virginia. Several class 4+ rapids, and tons of lower ranking rapids in about a 14 mile stretch. It remains one of the the coolest memories ever.

It was exhilarating and exhausting. There were times where the water felt like stone, and I couldn’t get my paddle to “bite” more than a couple of inches. There were times where we were we had to navigate three sets of rapids in a row – where very precise turns were absolutely necessary, yet our muscles were giving out. And there was the famous “swimmer’s hole” which I took the “hard way” – right down the middle, not realizing that the “dip” was actually a whirlpool that sucked me down several feet – life preserver and all (or “flushed” as the tour guides call it – with the obvious metaphor). There was absolutely nothing I could do to escape until it decided to let me go. It was only a few seconds – too quick for me to even get frightened – but it taught me a lesson about the power of nature.

My cousin was our tour guide. The following year, they had an accident, and one of the people on his tour died. Even with experienced guides, these rapids were not “safe.” You would do everything you could to be safe, but the danger was always there.

Would I do it again? In a heartbeat. I highly recommend the experience. I’d just say – listen and obey the tour guide, and make sure you are in halfway decent shape, physically.

That same summer, we went to Hershey Park, Pennsylvania. It’s a big amusement park. By most measurable standards, it should have been far, far more extreme and exciting than the rafting trip. They certainly looked more exciting. But as much as I enjoyed the rides, in the back of my teenaged mind, I was comparing it to the rafting trip, and it came up wanting. I enjoyed myself, sure, but it wasn’t nearly as fun.

Why? It wasn’t just because it was “safe.” Failing to listen to the tour guide would have been like failing to obey the “do not stand up on the roller coaster” rule – stupid and possibly deadly.

Part of it came down to interactive vs. passive participation, and to unscripted vs. scripted experiences. At the amusement park, everything was designed to force me through a very safe, pre-defined, scripted experience. You are an audience, not a participant. The rafting, on the other hand… well, that river had been there for a long time before people ever thought of sticking inflatable rafts in it and going down it for a fun day-trip. The rafting was a real adventure. The rapids changed based on the water level. The tour guides did their best to keep us on a designated path, but every trip was a little different. Our success – and possibly even our survival – was dependent upon the combined effort of the few people in my raft. Sure, there were times you could sit back and just enjoy the scenery. But when you hit the class 3 or class 4 rapids, there was no such thing as “keeping your hands and feet inside the vehicle at all times.”  There was no room for passive observers. You were fighting the water.

The amusement park was a fun little experience. But white water rafting was a legitimate adventure.

I think a lot of modern game designs look more to an amusement park (or, of course, movies) for inspiration that actual adventures like white water rafting. They are slick, polished, and graphically just ooze everything that an adventure should be. But in the end, they feel like very scripted experiences. Your path is linear. While you do need to participate to keep going, and there is often some leeway in how you do things (in what order you kill the attacking hordes, for example), things are still going to be very similar from player to player. They just need to follow along and aim correctly.

Because the player is not allowed to deviate more than a few feet from the correct path, the world is actually really small regardless of how large it may appear. This allows the artists to really pile on the lush details. Because of the limited interactivity, there isn’t a lot of room for bugs to hide. Everything can be polished to a fine sheen. It’s the ultimate amusement park.

But I find myself feeling the same way. There’s a huge difference in feeling and gameplay from something like ARMA 2 (which is still nothing like a “sandbox game”) to a Modern Warfare, even though both are dealing with… uh, modern warfare. It’s like the difference between white water rafting and an amusement park. Likewise, this is traditionally the difference between JRPGs and Western RPGs – although the lines have been blurred and crossed now on both sides to the point that I don’t see much difference anymore.

But again, that doesn’t mean a game has to go all-out “sandbox.” Just – not so linear and scripted. Not so tightly constrained. Yeah, that means that the player might be tying their shoe when the T-Rex appears in all his glory, but while that might make for a crappier “Let’s Play” video, it makes for a more involving game. Just make the player a more active participant, with real choices besides the order in which he takes out ambushers. While it’s fine to still act like a virtual tour guide giving the player assistance and direction where necessary, that’s not the same as holding the player’s hand and forcing them along a linear track.

If that’s the kind of game you want to play, then as a player or reviewer, you are going to need to be more tolerant of the compromises that must take place to make the world more open, and for the player to have more choice in his adventures. If the developers have to design an entire city block instead of the five rooms in two buildings that you are intended to go through, they are going to have to skimp on some details. It’s just how things work sometimes.

While I can play both styles of games (and the various shades in between), in general,  I’d rather have the adventure.

Filed Under: Design - Comments: 6 Comments to Read



top