Well, here we are, wrapping up 2010, and putting a close to a decade of rapid progress in gaming. While First Person Shooters have dominated the market in core games for the past few years, I've stayed true to my love for a good old fashioned RPG. This past year saw the release of quite a few, both in the mainstream and under the radar. However, I've discovered somewhat of an alarming view of Role Players in the maintream; it seems that any RPG that doesn't embrace an open world, opting instead to follow a more linear series of events, is graded down for it. Take, for example, Final Fantasy XIII and Fallout: New Vegas. While New Vegas was faulted for a slew of technical errors, it received almost universal praise for its gameplay, questing system, and the massive free world in which the player lives. Final Fantasy XIII, however, was criticized for choosing to provide more direction to the player, removing the marginally more open world of its predecessor and offering what some deemed "30 hours of tunnel." This struck me as odd. Yes, there exists a degree of personal preference in game reviews, so it was no problem for me to write off a few poor scores for the game. After all, those reviewers may be more accustomed to Open World games (OWGs). However, when it reached the point where almost all reviews and all popular conversation about the game spoke negatively of the level design, I had to wonder what was so awful, because, admittedly, I prefer linear games to OWGs.

Yes, I said it, and I'll admit it farther. I greatly preferred Final Fantasy XIII to Fallout 3, New Vegas, Morrowind, Oblivion, OWMMORPGs like World of Warcraft, and even Dragon Age, BECAUSE of the level design. I'm the type of person who doesn't have very much motivation, and who likes to sit back after a day at work and relax, to not have to think, but simply be wowed and enjoy myself. When playing OWGs, I too quickly become overwhelmed by the vast array of options, and soon thereafter am underwhelmed by how empty the world is and by how little the choices matter. What I enjoy about Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, and Demon's Souls is having a constant objective, a solid end result that I know I want, and am working toward. In games like Fallout, it only takes a moment to realize that the story means little, and that your purpose isn't more than that of a courier (no pun intended), taking quests, killing an enemy, and returning for unneeded rewards. There is so little structure in these types of games, so uninteresting a world and enemy that I don't know what I'm doing at any given moment or the reasons I am doing it. Giving absolute freedom to the player means taking away the structured, story-driven, cinematic experiences that I grew up with.

Certain games are functionally merging the two ideas, like Resonance of Fate, which give a concrete objective to be achieved, and doesn't leave too much room to become distracted, but does give you freedom in the way or the time you take the reach said objective. For instance, your next goal is to speak to the King. However, you can stop at the Arena first, level a bit, earn some money, buy better guns, and THEN continue on your way. With Oblivion and Fallout, I've never felt that there was anything I was honestly trying to achieve. From the beginning, no believable premise was set in place, no interesting antagonist established and no motivating treasure revealed to drive me to push onward. It's always felt to me that you are just plopped off into the middle of an open field, and nothing really happens; you just walk around and meet people.

Now, that's not to say that I don't have times where I enjoy an OWG, where I'll sit with New Vegas and play for a half hour or so and try to finish a quest, but it's just not enough. There's no direction to it at all; I complete one of my dozens of vague and unimportant objectives, only to be given a few bottle caps and sent on my way, with no other person in the world the wiser of my deeds. The issue lies therein: There is no sense of importance in OWGs. You exist as one person in an open world, among thousands of people, doing meaningless and trivial tasks and never being given a reason. In more linear RPGs, an evil is defined from the get-go, and you are given major plot points to advance the story, moving from exciting event to exciting plot event, ever knowing what you're doing and understanding the reasons why, as well as recognizing that your actions hold a significant weight and consequence.

For this, I've found absolute freedom in games to be counter-productive. I enjoy playing RPGs to be brought into a powerful fantasy world, with important characters and subtext, and am often disappointed by the seemingly limpwristed design of OWGs, which don't seem to care what you do or even if you do it.

I recognize that it is still a matter of personal preference, but I would hope that developers, reviewers, and gamers alike realize that linearity is not necessarily a bad thing, and can often be superior to a complete lackthereof.

The shotgun. The rocket-launcher.

Two weapons that have existed in shooters as long as shooters themselves. But how do we justify their inclusion? They are guns with very decent range that are exponentially more powerful than the rifles and machine guns in the same games. They are, by all means, overpowered for the purposes of lower-skilled players to score a few points. By now, though, I thought they might be extinct, as years of playing shooters allowed players to hone their skills.

How long has it been since Doom came out?

For how many years have FPSs ruled the market?

Over the past few years, it seems likely that people would have gained some ability to aim and shoot correctly, thus nullifying any need to use the shotgun. You'd also think that, with that experience, they'd find the shotgun to be both boring to use, and extremely OP, turning them off completely. I find it amazing that, no matter how far shooters have advanced, every one gets held back by the inclusion of shotguns and rockets.

Let me describe a hypothetical story (in a world where teleportation is fairly normal).

You're walking down the street. A few feet in front of you, you see a $20 bill on the ground. 10 meters or so past that, you see another guy who's just standing there. You run up to the $20, but he notices you as you're running, and teleports to the money, thereupon kicking you in the balls, taking it, and acting like teleportation requires skill. He didn't employ any impressive tactic, or run faster than you. He took the cheap and easy way out, and regardless of what the scoreboard (or, his wallet) says, he doesn't deserve that $20, and shouldn't feel like he earned it in any way.

The same goes for shotguns. Far too often do i see a guy who's a few meters off, not quite aware I'm there yet. I start shooting, but he turns before I can kill him and one shots me. Tthat's not skill. That's the cheap and easy "teleportation" way out of it. The "I have no skill, so I'll use a better gun."

This problem exists in EVERY shooter. Halo 2 was one of the most notable, but it's also there in CoD, Resistance, Uncharted, MAG, and near any other game you can think of. Imagine how much more balanced gaming would be if these shotguns were taken out, and players thereby needed to understand how to shoot, lead targets, burst fire, etc.

I submit this: an online FPS revolution. every FPS from here on out would be far better off without shotguns (and rockets), or at least a limited amount. For example, if only 10% of each team could use them, or one player from each; a designated Overkiller.

thoughts?