FPS games that are "on rails" or "interactive movies" Since signing up for GameFly, I've taken the opportunity to play some of the older FPS shooters that I didn't feel were worth a $60 purchase back when they came out. I'm a big FPS guy, I'm big into single player campaigns, and generally I wish they'd just make the single player better rather than tack on multiplayer (unless there's some interesting mechanic you'd like to do online, like FEAR's slow-mo). I just played FEAR 2 and Resistance 2, immediately after spending months playing Fallout 3 (78 hours!). Initially, I was frustrated by how "on-rails" these games were. One path through the game, one way to solve puzzles, no variation in how events unfold. I've heard that frustration echoed by other people saying that it's just an "interactive movie" and that the lack of open-world-ness makes it boring. After putting some thought into it, I changed my opinion for two reasons: (1) the open world thing can actually make things weirder than reality. in Fallout, i'd start a quest that was "urgent" (the Super Mutants took my friends!), but it didn't matter if i went and dicked around the Capital Wasteland for a week before taking care of things. that's not really more "realistic," it's just "open." (2) the lack of options guaranteed a specific and consistent experience, and didn't allow me to ruin it by bugging out and running to the other side of the map whenever a big enemy force showed up. it made sure that i took the *interesting* path, rather than the *chosen* path (plenty of times in Fallout i'd hang way back and leisurely snipe people rather than battling up close). It's closer to a "movie" in that the tension is controlled by the director. i guess the trick is to leave the world open enough that the player can explore a bit, keep it on rails to control the experience, but make the player feel like HE chose the path, even though he really didn't what do you think?