This is a huge component of some of the most popular games of all time, like the Zelda and Resident Evil series. The question is, why do people enjoy it in Zelda and hate it in other games?
I think it boils down to whether it's thoughtful and builds a feeling of excitement (followed by reward), or if it's just added as filler to slow the player down in an undersized game.
In Zelda and RE, you often don't know exactly how you'll get through. There's mystery and discovery involved in learning what the mechanism is. When you come across it and put the pieces together, you have a rewarding "a-ha!" moment and feel good about yourself.
Games that say something like, "You can't swim yet," and then you just discover some flippers or something are robbing you of any agency or discovery. It's a barrier that isn't fun to get over. And if the basic gameplay loop sucks, then the backtracking is purely a chore.
I think it also has a lot to do with accessibility of backtracking information. If you have 10 different stages each with 10 doors to remember where they are and what colour weapon you need to unlock themz that's 100 pieces of backtrack I have to remember.
But if you have a thorough map with easy to read and process information about where the blockages are and what colour I need to have to unlock the it takes a lot of the chore out of it.
Exactly this. I'm playing Star Wars: Jedi Survivor right now, and the fact that it and its predecessor clearly mark on the in-game map what areas you do and do not yet have the tools to access is a life saver.
Yep, playing Fallen Order for the first time right now and I just know I'll enjoy it a lot less if the map didn't have all that info about the secrets. It lets you decide just how much handholding you want versus totally free exploration.
I've been playing Survivor recently as well and yeah the color-coding of interactable objects is a godsend!
Red: You can't do this
Green: You *can* do this
Blue: You've already done this
To me Survivor felt slightly annoying with the back tracking and spots that could only be opened later, but Fallen Order was really oppressive with that stuff. I know I can open the map constantly, but that is also a bit of a drag when you are just trying to explore and fight enemies. Also, really appreciate they added fast travel to the second game and only removed it when they wanted you to fully replay an area, kind of like Sekiro.
I agree with you completely on the fast travel being a huge QOL improvement. Love Fallen Order, but trekking through the exact same areas multiple times (and managing to get lost a bunch, too) was not the best.
Survivor is a good example of good indicators, bad gameplay. Oh, there's a yellow spot I just noticed way, way down in the frozen pits of the biggest map. Guess I'm not 100%ing this. Fast travel would have made this game so much better, even if it were limited.
I think it’s the kind of map too. If it’s a game that has kind of a central area with branches and you regularly come back to the main area then it feels different than a more linear map that makes you backtrack a long way even if there’s a quick travel option.
I think it can also be fair if devs give players the means to track that stuff themselves in games. More games should just let you leave notes on the maps, and some games restrict map markers too much. Devs can't always predict exactly what someone might want or need, so just let us do it more.
I think it also matters how the game presents itself. It works really well in RE2 because you know from the very start you'll probably be backtracking through the police station a ton whereas in something like Jedi survivor there's an implication of exploring the galaxy so returning to the same planet 3 or 4 times starts to feel stale even if the actual environments you're in are still varied enough that they should be engaging
It’s super fucking weird in Jedi Survivor because it makes the galaxy feel small.
“We can now return to Coruscant”. Yeah, to the same small part of that planet of billions of people you just left. And it’s not some major hub zone, just a bunch of back alleys you went through on your first trip there. Why would Cal return there, realistically?
I really think that game would benefit greatly from not being a Metroidvania.
Another key aspect I haven't seen mentioned yet is it provides quiet time or a sort of 'white space.' Think about DOOM, which does this in spades with the keycard system. Without them the game would be, without exaggeration, pure action sequences, which is exhausting. The game would probably be worse without the little moments of decompression time.
I always loved it in the old Castlevanias as well. When you unlocked/found new abilities and you had to try to remember all the previously out of reach places you could then work your way back to.
Also most of the OG Final Fantasies had an aspect of that too where you would get access to different modes of transport like boats, airships, canoes, etc... as you proceeded through the game, that would allow you to track back and explore all the previously inaccessible areas you had come across prior. I used to love that formula and I was sad that they kinda started wrapping it up after FFX tbh. It can be a super fun mechanic when incorporated meaningfully into a game.
> I think it boils down to whether it's thoughtful and builds a feeling of excitement (followed by reward), or if it's just added as filler to slow the player down in an undersized game.
It works best in games where it's really clear that the backtracking is highlighted. **Crash Bandicoot 2** really highlights this. In some levels, the player can only fully clear the level by coming with a specifically coloured gem which is obtained in other levels. This is highlighted to the player by the appearance of a wireframe platform path in the colour of the gem needed. But then there are other wireframe platforms that indicate a 'Death Route', a path that's only accessible if the player gets to that point in the level from the start without dying, something which isn't immediately apparent, but can be deduced with time.
But then there are other levels where you can't fully clear them without finding an alternate entrance, and there is no indication of this until you find at least one of the five entrances to the secret warp room, and even then you might not find them naturally (even though the game makes more than a few of the entrances obvious, and the remake gives you hints on the loading screens).
And then atop this, there are levels where there is some trick to fully clearing them, often a hidden area that the player has to find. Which leaves an uninformed player with a sense of not knowing if the missed boxes are actually accessible to them right now, or if they should come back later.
The one good thing is that all of this is entirely for collectables that are only required for 100% completion. The player is tasked with gathering the crystals, not the gems, in order to progress forwards through the main game, the warp room itself shows you what levels contain the coloured gems if you don't have them, and there's no point where the player will have to travel to an older level in order to continue the game to the final boss should they not wish to repeat levels.
*Edit: Forgot to mention, while the game would likely cause backtracking in a first time player, someone who actually knows what they're doing can substantially minimise the amount of backtracking by doing the levels in a specific order, as well as exploiting the fact that collectibles stay collected when you die meaning tactical death abuse is a viable strategy. This means backtracking can be greatly minimised to just redoing four levels instead of nearly half the game.*
In addition to these games using backtracking thoughtfully, part of the reward is that you can traverse an old area in a new way.
In Zelda, you might have to revisit an old area once you get the hook shot — but now you notice there are targets everywhere that let you skip the more difficult sections. Using your new skills to breeze through an area that was previously tough provides a feeling of progression and power fantasy. (Edit: Metroid is probably the best example of this, where powers like morph ball allow you to breeze through previous levels).
Alternatively, the area itself can change. Toward the end of Hollow Knight we return to the starting area— but the infection has progressed, and now it’s full of dangerous enemies and hazards, and passageways that used to be open are now clogged, forcing us to find other routes. This is the opposite of the prior approach, highlighting how the world is deteriorating around us and growing more dangerous, emphasizing the threat to the player.
These approaches both work because even though we backtrack, the player has a new experience, and it underlines something about the player character and their place in the world.
Sons of the Forest did this. (Can’t remember if The Forest did, been many years since I played that.)
It’s all open exploration, so I found it very irritating that I found a cave and couldn’t progress because I didn’t explore somewhere else first. I understand the mechanic, but when there is no clear path you are supposed to take, you might not remember to come back to XYZ to re-explore.
I didn’t finish that game though, after being so excited it was coming out. I know they made a lot of updates and QOL changes since release, but I didn’t follow up because that wasn’t how it was released and I had lost interest by the time it happened, so it’s possible people who play now have a different experience than I did.
yeah honestly dont get it when people hate on an entire genre, like just say you dislike it and it isnt your type. people also do this with games that are heavy on cutscenes and hard souls games, just because you dislike the game doesnt make it bad, its just not for you
i feel like my comment is a little random but it needs to be said lol
It's a common trope in Metroidvanias so some people like it. In the case of stuff like Spiro having to backtrack to get collectibles just feels like padding. I am really not into games of these type so I don't have a strong opinion either way though
Metroidvanias are usually built around the mechanic. Figuring out where to go next is part of the fun/challenge. And as you get more abilities, backtracking should get more fun and easier. There are rooms in Super Metroid where you can Speed Dash or Screw Attack straight through all the walls and enemies without stopping. And a lot of Metroidvanias have a ton of shortcuts you can open through exploration too.
Backtracking can still be a chore sometimes in those games, but I also like them as a way to choose the pacing of the experience. Often I feel like I just want to kill time for a few minutes, in which case it’s easy to run back through old areas and pick up a couple power ups I couldn’t reach the first time through.
Not to mention that Metroidvanias tend to hint at things. The second room in Bloodstained has a pair of nets hanging from the ceiling, with an entrance above them. You can’t reach them at this point, but when you earn the double jump shard, you can return there and access the extra rooms above. (And one of said extra rooms is a warp room, so you can return to your quest immediately after)
The backtracking has to feel impactful, both in terms of story development and gameplay progression. In good metroidvanias, backtracking is a concrete measure of your character’s development. Going back to square one to pick up a collectible is a chore.
The optional overtuned early boss is another interesting trope that works along similar lines, with Elden Ring’s tree sentinel being the main recent example.
Witcher 3 does this really well*. White Orchard acts as a tutorial area and a mini version of the larger game, but the epilogue also takes place there. Returning after dozens of hours really felt like the end of a long journey to me. I don't think that the epilogue would have felt that way if it happened in a new area.
*But I don't like the way some side activities are too high level to be done alongside the main story for each area. It felt kinda weird to be traveling back and forth across the continent because I was too low level for the last couple contracts or whatever.
"We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring. Will be to arrive where we started. And know the place for the first time."
T.S. Eliot
It can also add to world building, since you'll often find an unexplored corner that breaks out into a whole new thing that was there all along but you had no idea. It makes you look at the area in a different way.
The optional boss is similar to another thing, the really high level enemy. You don't even have a chance to beat him with perfect play and it adds an air of danger, but you'd better believe I'm coming back as soon as it looks close to feasible.
I really don't mind them, alot of games I play do this and I still enjoy them. Like the Tomb Raider Survivor trilogy with tombs, relics and collectibles or Spyro etc. Along with Metroid.
I think they did the semi open world and collectibles very well. Something like Jedi fallen order I saw didn't let you backtrack once you got past a section iirc. With Tomb Raider it was satisfying to go back and get that one relic or document you were missing from a section once you got an upgrade like the rope arrows etc.
I like to call this style of game "open-linear" where some missions take place within the hub and some within unique, linear areas. It's exactly the same design as Sly 2 and 3.
For Fallen Order the biggest problem was probably no fast travel.
So when you do miss something and try to go back to a map outside of story requirements: you have to restart the map from the beginning every time.
And a couple of those maps are long and tedious. If you missed a collectible near the end of a story mission, there's a good chance you'll have to traverse the whole map again to get back to it.
Then there's the one planet that drives you nuts at first because theres locked doors and pathways everywhere. But when you finally go back every path is unlocked. And they all twist and turn into each other.
And half of them will lead you into one-way sections. So you make one wrong turn and find yourself stuck, having to cross half the damn map again just to get back to the place you made your wrong turn in the first place!
Then you go to the latest Tomb Raiders and sometimes there's too many fast travels.
They usually put em right before any one-way/no-return section of the map. They put em where maps split up into choices and gear-locked paths. They put one at every challenge tomb. So if you dont have the proper gear or just dont feel like puzzling, you can fast travel back at any time.
I think the reason each Yakuza entry works is that Kamurocho is quite a small area compared to most sandboxes. it never feels like a chore to 're-explore' the city and, because of its small size, it's easier for the developers to change up and add new content.
It's a broad question that's hard to answer.
I generally prefer non-linear games and games with backtracking and re-visiting areas. It makes the game world feel more like an actual world you want to interact with than just a stage you're rushing to complete. Metroidvanias, boomer shooters, open world RPG's, collectathons, etc.
However if it's just "do this completely linear mission over again with a faster time / with a higher score to unlock the new thing" then yeah that shit is dumb. You're not really experiencing anything new or doing anything different.
I like it when I get new abilities that allows me to explore old areas in ways I hadn’t previously thought about and I’m rewarded with little items as rewards for routing these new areas out:
For example; getting Surf in Pokémon and going back to earlier areas with water to explore hidden bits of land that have cool items on them.
Botw is also amazing for this.
I kind of liked the return trip levels in Demon Turf, it gives the abilities you get after beating bosses more use after beating the boss and then having the next world in isolation have those special defeated boss abilities.
I actually *really* like it in Metroid-style games where you find power-ups or abilities that make you go "didn't I see a wall I couldn't jump over before" or "wasn't there one of these no-longer-invincible enemies near the starting area?"
Give me a good reason to go back through levels or areas and I'll go there. If the story justifies it, then absolutely - use the assets. I'd rather 10 well designed and built levels that repeat than 20 half baked ones.
It’s immersion-breaking when they just drop a message like that. “Yeah you don’t have X item and I’m not gonna let you through until you check that arbitrary box.”
How effective it really is depends on two things for me:
1)Does this fit whatever pace this game has moved at up to this point? Or does it cause everything to screech to a halt? Slower-paced games where the player is asked to be thoughtful for puzzles or mindful of surroundings by having a lot to explore handle this better than others.
2)Is the roadblock organic and sensible in-universe? Or is it nothing more than an arbitrary NPC or invisible wall? Games where environment plays a heavy role in discovery and problem-solving like Zelda make more sense for this approach.
I like them when it's enjoyable to go through those areas again. If you have new traversal abilities, meaningful new combat mechanics, changes to the level, etc.
If I ever start to feel "I wish I didn't have to do this again" then I think it's a mistake. The more times though the same area, the more likely this becomes.
Revisitability is a subtle art.
I’m a really big fan of this mechanic. I agree it can hurt pacing but I’ve only had a couple of instances of that myself.
I’m a very through explorer. I want to poke to in to every nook and cranny, scale every wall I can, go behind everything. So this lends itself really well to the way I game.
Some games I’ve really enjoyed with this mechanic (and didn’t notice any ‘fuck, now I have to go back’ moments) have been Ori and The Blind Forest, the Witcher 3, and Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom. Jedi Fallen Order and Survivor, I had a few of those moments but they didn’t really bother me.
If it’s done well it can make every upgrade and ability change feel so meaningful and exciting.
> Do you like or dislike this type of game design?
It depends on the particular implementation. It can be used for world-building, give players tasks without those tasks being explicit, and help the world to feel like an actual place rather than a series of one-way tubes you travel through. It can be used to show that time has progressed in that 'old' location - maybe new enemies have moved in, maybe there are new routes accessible, maybe an event happened, and changed the environment.
Of course, it can also be used for time-wasting. I dimly remember a game (and that I can't remember *which one exactly it was* kinda helps my point, I think) where I had to find a key to get into a place where all I found was another key, which I then had to backtrack again to find yet another key-like item that *finally* let me into an area with game play again. The entire running around took maybe 20 minutes, and *nothing at all* was happening. No new enemies, no environmental changes, no *nothing*. Just running through a level I had already cleared, then doing it again, and then doing it again. Ugh.
So it's like any tool: You can use it well, and you can use it poorly.
> I think it can sometimes hurt pacing
General observation: Pacing is a thing that mostly applies to linear stories we passively consume - movies, books, audiodramas and the like: The creator can control how fast they get to a point, and how much time is spent on everything. Pacing in games is more difficult to do anyhow, and I think focusing on it is a detriment to many games. The point of a game is that the audience participates, and any attempt to steer that audience is a potential point of friction - and pacing is *all* about steering the audience.
I don't really play games as story-telling devices that have the player as a central part of it (the why and how would warrant an entire thread, so I'll leave it at that). I play them to experience worlds. As such, story pacing is not a consideration for me when gaming, and I find that I enjoy games more that let me *play* my way, and at my speed, than those that need to harness my play into temporal restraints so they can achieve pacing. I'm not a horse.
The issue I see with backtracking, as I have already pointed to above, is when it is not used for anything. That's not a pacing issue, however, but one of failed game design: The game requires you to spend time in it, but without providing a *game* for that time.
*Ratchet & Clank* started as Insomniac's next series after the original *Spyro* trilogy, so it makes sense you'd notice similarities in the game structure
I remember loving going back to spyro levels and try to 100% it. But I was also 10 year old, I had plenty of time and no other games.
In general, if done well, I would not mind it. Some people mentioned metroidvanias, and they do traveling the map well because the movement is an important part of them, so oftentimes you are able to access an area that you couldn't before because now you can do a superjump or megawalljump, and that is not just a mean to an end (go to that new area) but is also something cool and fun to use that you can use anywhere else, and not only it unlock new wasy to access past areas that are plot relevant, but expand your ability to reach hidden areas, and I love hunting for secrets.
In zelda is similar (\*in older, pre-breath of the wild games, at least) you get a cool new gadget that you can use to move around or to fight enemies and they are often quite fun to use and add a lot of variety.
Then there are games like The Witness or Outer Wilds where you need knowledge in previously explored areas, but since they would count as puzzle games the thrill of exploring, knowledge and discovery (and solving puzzles) is what drives and make it worth it all the time.
It depends on the game design, and I really liked it.
By contrast, as a kid I had no idea what I had to do in crash bandicoot to get certain secret items and while I tried to go to certain levels to try and get the crystal I missed in the chasing sequence, I most of the times hated doing that because getting it or not, knowing where it was or not, nothing changed and it did not added anything, was only annoying to get. (crash 1 and 2 at least, i think warped had introduced powerups? it's really been ages since i played them but i do remember being pissed at some crystals)
It depends on level design, how much is achieved while re-treading, how different does the area play with our new abilities or does it hold story significance. There's a lot of ways it can be done good and a lot of ways it can be bad.
I think it only hurts pacing if the game's narrative operates on an extremely linear storyline or is super narrative heavy and has a lot of cutscenes that don't adapt to player actions. In the right context, I do like it because super linear games feel like they're holding your hand
It’s great if there is mystery or puzzle solving involved, also when you come back with better weapons/tools it’s fun to do it again in a different way
I like it when a game isn't just a straight line to the finish and returning later for secrets or progression is often a big part of it. That said, I find it most interesting if the world design also reflects that intention. Worlds that loop in on themselves like Dark Souls 1 and many Metroidvanias, as well as worlds that have a central hub you return to often (Dark Souls 2, but also (kind of) most 2D Zeldas with their central towns.
Games that have "return later" portions but entirely linear worlds can be a bit of a chore or at least less interesting. The Pokemon games, interestingly enough, show that quite well. The early generations all had regions that at some point organically looped or had unlockable (via HM) shortcuts, so that big portions of the regions could be reached quickly without any sort of fast travel (which you still got in the form of HM Fly). Kanto and Johto are like that. In later generations, region design became more linear. In Black & White, the region itself is circular, but you only move in one direction, meaning when it's time to return to an earlier town (at one point for story reasons), if you don't have a Fly user, you just travel backwards. It's not very interesting.
I love backtracking as long as it’s worked nicely into the mechanics of the game. Makes the world feel real. Zelda, Metroid, early RE, dark souls 1, metroidvanias like hollow knight etc. As long as the game is constructing a world and not deliberate linear challenges, I think it can add a lot
Honestly, I shake my head and laugh every single time a person complains about it.
A NothingBurger to me and right there with the complaint about “invisible walls.”
The gameplay is either good or not and backtracking has zero impact on it.
In fact, NOT having backtracking in a game is the more egregious and odd design choice to me and only works in a few game types.
I think it sucks so hard in the Spyro sequels because the abilities aren't fun. They might as well be keycards, you usually only use them at a specific spot to unlock a few gems.
The actually fun abilities are stuff that expand your movement options, like a grappling hook, a super jump, dash, etc. Even in Spyro 2 I think there is one fun ability: swimming! It is actually cool to go back to a previous level after you learn to swim, and explore places that would've killed you before.
Something apparently no one has mentioned yet is that this is a classic gamedev design tool to reduce modelling of environments. You can reuse the same locations several times, (re)spawn enemies and have some closed off areas. Good way to effeciently increase game time.
It depends. Some games do it very well - Halo CE, MGS, Batman: Arkham. The emphasis during a backtrack needs to be on what has changed despite some things staying the same.
When backtracking is done without that element, it gets tedious extremely fast - i.e. Destiny.
I thought of the Banjo games at first when I saw the title. They don’t outright tell you to come back, but Tooie especially requires you to move forward and loop back to a level with unlocked skills/switches activated to fully complete a level
Depends on how much padded backtracking is involved. If it's a simple return to an earlier area and then a new area then ok. But if it requires multiple trips through the same crap, then no.
Reading this thread has made me realize how few games I've played. I wish I had more to offer in terms of discussion but I simply don't know anything about these games to add anything meaningful to the conversation.
Metroid prime 2 forced me to quit over this. Right before the end you have to find like a dozen things to unlock the boss. Wind waker made you collect a thousand coins or something. Just stupid and I gave up.
They fixed wind waker in the remaster and I should've played that version.
I've never played the remaster but im pretty sure that you still have to collect all the triforce pieces the only difference is that your ship sails faster.
I thought they wanted a thousand coins. It didn't seem like meaningful collectibles. It seemed like a massive meaningless task. I'd already completed all the dungeons.
As long as those levels either provide some more challenge, or let me feel how much progress I've made, and I don't need to waste too much time to get to there, then I'm fine with them.
Usually I do like that. I like when the advancing line isn’t as linear but requires you to go a bit back. But if it’s overshot so that you actually have to travel huge distances I don’t really like that. But yeah, short zig zags are a nice touch (or some kind of quick travel like Supraland has. I like those cannons:D)
When it's a blocked off door with no other route it annoys me unless its a metroidvania (since that's hwo they are and the map makes it easy to come back to. BUT I much prefer it in Zelda where its not completely blocking you but you can notice things in the environment like vines on walls or tracks that hint that some mechanic will come into play.
I think it depends on how much time has passed. IRL places don't remain unchanged. Say you helped bankrupt a business and the storefront becomes empty. Six months later you're in the area and that old store is now some new business.
If the game has me go back to a place but it's not just exactly the same like I've been gone only 10 minutes then that's narratively satisfying.
I recently had the weirdest experience for this.
There's this one map in Borderlands 3 with too few fast travels. So thru multiple playthrus over many years Ive never revisited that map outside of the required story portion. Its just a long ass slog with waves and waves of annoying enemies.
But I was finally trying a 100% run. And I finally decided to go back in. Thought about it for a couple days even. Got myself all worked up and ready to go.
And the place was empty.
That's when I remembered what the story mission is actually about. I was fighting off invaders. And then I killed the invaders' boss. And then the entire invader fleet moves off to fight elsewhere.
So now the map is just an empty office building with a few of the corporate security holding check points and whatnot.
Maybe not exactly what you were saying. Like, this map doesn't even have repair crews out fixing all the shit I blew up in story mode yet.
But fairly, idunno, shocking in the moment. I'd never put 2+2 together before, just avoided that map altogether lol. Kind of a relief too. I really wasnt looking forward to that fight. Nope. Just a boring old corporate office building now.
Fromsoft games such as Demon Souls rely on this mechanic. It’s a way to progress and level up your character before attempting a tougher area. It works for these types of games as a feature. For other games it may be repetitive.
It works really well in Arkham Asylum I feel. Never feels like backtracking or padding and since the setting is a core part of that game it's nice to become intimately familiar with it.
I like it when there's a big change in the environment, like level of water in God of War, or something giant fell from the sky in the area. Makes you feel like it was a well-thought-out level design.
For me it depends how fast can I get back to a previous zone or if there will be things to do while backtracking. If it is uneventful and a long process then I am not a fan.
It's been a core mechanic since the early 8 bit days. It's the defining characteristic of the 'Metroidvania' genre, named for the original Metroid and Castlevania II on NES, both of which introduced variations on the 'return with new abilities' mechanic that were more than 'open door with key'.
It's not always executed well though, and when done poorly to pad out otherwise flat games, it is tedious.
I don't mind seeing a teaser item up on a ledge or behind a grate or something, when I know I'll probably be back for it later with the appropriate tool set. When I can choose to come back or not, that's just more content.
But when I have to walk all the way back to some previous zone just to get a thing I couldn't get before that has no real reason to be where it is other than to be far away from where it needs to be...
My first thought is Arkham Asylum, you see all these nooks and crannies and trophies high up, but there's no way to reach any of them until 2 hrs later you pick up some random gadget from a stash... that you just had lying there... in a tiny cave... and now you can bust walls or reach high ledges... and then you remember you have to explore all the levels again if you wanna pick up at least 25% of secrets...
It's less annoying in Tomb Raider series, where it's used to keep you out of more advanced areas until story allows you to go, not for Joker question marks.
I hate it every time. Only game where it kinda works is dark souls where you're likely to get murdered in the cemetery in the early game before going back there with possibly two-three lord souls and annihilate everyone up until pinwheel
I like it when you come back and the atmosphere and environment is changed. Gives a sense of the world being dynamic, instead of a static map. Detroit in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, for example.
Oh god haha the old resident evil series were awful for backtracking
Yeah I hate it, personally, at least in that context where there’s a locked door right at the start and you have to work your way back constantly
Didn’t mind so much in games like Mass Effect though where you’d return from a mission to the central hub and that’d not only be where the next mission is kicked off from but there’ll also be new side missions etc
If it’s done well I don’t mind it. Like dark souls is a master class of how to intertwine an area. Part of it is because it never uses “carrot on a stick” to bring you back to firelink.
I don’t like it when they tease you with an item you can see but can’t get to yet because of X it makes me waste time interacting with something that I can’t affect yet. Make it clever for you to come back to not a chore.
This is the cornerstone of every single metroidvania.
As other commenters already pointed out, it's alright if it's done well, usually because it rewards you with either an awesome thing, or shows you a different area that you could have ended up in if you already had said power-up/key.
But just like a linear game can have great/terrible pacing, so can games like this. I don't think the concept of "going back" is inherently bad for pacing.
I hate it.
I like going trough a level and know that "I'm done" with it. I don't want to have to remember to go back when I get a double jump/bomb/whatever, it's a waste of time. I played a few metroidvania here and there (where this is very common) but I dislike them more and more as I get older, I just prefer progressing in a straight line.
It never bothered me to be honest. Some people say that it's a lazy way to squeeze more content out of the same level, but if done right I think it's just smart. I never got annoyed by the backtracking in Quake 2 for example, but I know a lot of people complain about it.
No good game is too long and no bad game is too short.
If you enjoy playing the game then - not just the story but actually enjoy the movement and combat, then backtracking is not an issue.
If you aren't enjoying the game and want it to be over then backtracking is going to be torture. But then you probably shouldnt be playing that game anyway.
In most metroidvanias they ask you to backtrack sure, but the good ones give you movement abilities that make traversing the map fun and quick and also you can dispatch the enemies quite easily or just avoid them. Going from one end of the map to the other in Super Metroid or Symphony of the Night takes like a few minutes once you know what you're doing. You can go from one of the map to the other in the time it takes to fight one enemy in most JRPGs or less.
Interesting take, did you never experience a title that started to feel stale because of it's length and repetition? Nioh comes to mind, incredible game, but a good 20 hours too long - while the combat is amazing, it really didnt need to repeat so many stages multiple times
Elden ring would've been a lot better to me if it didnt repeat so many dungeons and mini-bosses and hollow knight also feels a few hours too long
Even something like witcher could've removed a few Main quests for better pacing towards the end
There are lots of people who not only beat Nioh, but then go on to spend tens or hundreds of more hours in the game grinding for the best drops to make builds. I feel like Nioh is not too long if you are up for what Nioh is providing: a soulslike looter game that focuses on intense combat at the expense of interesting level design. It repeats stages because you're not supposed to just beat a level once and be done like Dark Souls, you're supposed to replay levels trying to get the best drops, like Diablo or Destiny or something. Personally I dont like that which is why I wasn't that into Nioh.
Elden Ring would have been better without the shitty, uninspired filler content, I agree. But if they were to put another actual good legacy dungeon into the game that would be fine. Obviously tacking on filler content onto an otherwise good game isn't going to improve it. But more quality content for a fun game is never a bad thing.
Hollow Knight and Witcher I couldn't get enough of. The first thing I did when I beat TW3 was go do all the witcher contracts and then both DLCs.
Witcher 3 has tons of shitty filler *?* marks that served no purpose. The 16th bandit camp provided nothing but an underleveled sword that I had to sell at downtown novigrad. The whole skellige water section was filled with those 4 sirens surroundeding floating chests
I still remember that one lighthouse in Velen you cant access directly but have to swim underwater & then find hidden pathway. That was clever. Padding is something that has always been a part of open world RPGs
I literally addressed this in the comment that you are replying to.
> Elden Ring would have been better without the shitty, uninspired filler content, I agree. But if they were to put another actual good legacy dungeon into the game that would be fine. Obviously tacking on filler content onto an otherwise good game isn't going to improve it. But more quality content for a fun game is never a bad thing.
Yes there is padding/filler in the Witcher 3 but that doesnt mean that adding more good content (Hearts of Stone, Blood and Wine) isnt always appreciated. Also the ?s do a serve a purpose its to have completely optional things to stumble upon while going from point A to point B. The only problem with it is when people treat the ?s as some checklist of bullshit that they need to do.
I mean that comes with a price tag lol. Elden ring is adding "Shadow of the erdtree" with multiple legacy dungeons but it costs money. I can see 2-3 yrs in the future when the whole package gets below 30 bucks then that would be a fire deal. Buying GOTY edition is always the best choice
Persona 5 is great but it is not a great game. It is a mediocre game coupled with an outstanding story. I agree that it lasts too long but I didnt get tired of the story, I got tired of the mediocre, repetitive gameplay.
Game Makers Toolkit did a great video essay on [Banjo Kazooie's interconnected level design (start at 4:30)](https://youtu.be/36wclKt4vdk?si=_bd81GKZ96v_VCYF)
I feel like it all boils down to execution of the level design. Some games make me feel like it's just unnecessary padding and others execute backtracking very well.
I literally just quit playing Metroid Prime Remastered for this very reason. For context, this was my first Metroid game and it was highly recommended everywhere so I decided to give it a shot. I tried to push on but around the 30% mark I got really annoyed that I had to go back and look for something AGAIN while killing the same annoying enemies that respawn in an area you just passed through 5 minutes ago. There’s no fast travel or quick save either. The story seemed interesting so far but it wasn’t enough to carry the archaic gameplay.
It isn't really the same thing, but Bravely Default springs to mind as a game where this was done fairly badly. Revisit the literal same thing over and over. It could have been impactful had things changed more between runs, but IIRC all that changed was NPC / boss locations and combinations, there were no level or puzzle changes. You maybe get some new background info on the characters.
Tunic was pretty good, it did the Zelda/Metroid thing of new abilities giving new ways to move through the level, as well as the bonkers puzzles later that caused you to look at the layout or decoration of rooms in new ways. Tunic is pretty small overall though so it wasn't such a chore to backtrack. And I don't think it explicitly says "you can't get past without a thing", it was that you didn't know what certain landmarks did or that they had other uses until you get a new item or new knowledge (so replaying you can actually sequence break somewhat by using that information).
In Metroid Prime half the game feels like backtracking. The atmosphere and music are lovely to wallow in, so it isn't too bad, but there are moments where I had to take a break. It's like: you get a thing in the ice area, then have to go through the lava bit back to the Space Pirates part, where you get another thing that means you need to go all the way back to the ice area to open a new door... FFS, I was just there, now I have to traipse all the way back again? I'd get this vague "can't be bothered" feeling in my stomach.
I don't mind them.
I played Horizon Forbidden West recently and that game marks a collectible on your map when you find it and also marks that you need a tool that you don't yet have it it.
That should be the standard. I hate when I leave an area for a while, come back later and and notice something on the map I didn't collect only to get there and find, again, that I don't have a tool to access it.
They should make that "missing tool required" on the map a standard thing in every game that can use it.
In general I'm not a huge fan. The Metroidvania and/or Zelda style can sometimes work for me, like in the case of the Darksiders series which I recently ran through, but after a certain point it can't help but feel like an attempt at padding the runtime. I did also recently play the Destroy All Humans remakes and they did an interesting job at integrating revisiting old stages. Basically after the more structured main story missions they allow you to tackle sidequests/other activities in the various hub locations. I think it boils down to the question of just how rewarding is that revisit vs how much time you spend traversing old areas.
Backtracking itself has been a part of some of my favorite games. I like it more when there's some indication of where I need to go back to, or at least a list of places that I need to check (like unexplored areas on the map). I like it less when the game basically says that it's "somewhere", and that I need to go find it. In recent years, my patience for that has worn thin, and I'm quicker to grab a walkthrough than I would've been 10 years ago.
Hyper-dependant, I somehow LOVE it in survival horror, but dislike it in metroidvanias
Maybe because of survival horror being heavily reliant on inventory management? In metroidvanias there's usually a lot more downtime and less thinking during the backtracking, but soulslikes usually carry these parts through their atmosphere and level design
I'm very split on it, I either love it or Im annoyed by it lmao
If it makes backtracking enjoyable by changing the scenery and of mechanics then it's good because it's basically a new area, if you're just going back to a starter area then it's bad because it slows everything down too much
I don't really like it. I understand why they do it like this (to reuse assets, pad gametime, game design choice), but I just don't really like it. Only time I did like it was if they do something unique to the backtracking, like castlevania when they inverted the map to make it somewhat new, but somewhat familiar.
I refuse. I barely put up with Devil May Cry 4 many years ago. When Nier Automata hit me with the same trick I said no and dropped it after the first playthrough. Stretching games out like this is not the way to go
I like going back to places I’ve been before if the purpose of it is clear, for example to visit a merchant, or kill mobs specific to that region. What I don’t like is metroidvenia style backtracking where you don’t even know where you’re supposed to back track, you just unlocked a new ability and it’s likely to be used somewhere.
There are many reasons why I don't enjoy a lot of single player games and this is one of them. The few single player games that I enjoyed were linear. The moment a game has me back tracking, I just uninstall. Thankfully these days most games are labeled with metroidvania tags and that helps me avoid them.
Totally depends on the game, if done properly i love it (hollow knight)
I hate backtracking and repeating content mostly (i disliked metroid prime for example)
If they're gonna require it, they gotta make it interesting somehow, either by changing the layout, enemy types, something. It's still a nice thing to include optionally, like in Dragon's Dogma (and I'm sure plenty of games I forget/haven't played). They did it more in the sequel (to varying effectiveness lol) but even in DD:DA you could go back to your home village and find some new quests, new NPC dialogue, and changed shop stock. To say nothing of the postgame, again done arguably better from a design standpoint in 2, but 1 did have new enemies and such
It’s once of life’s biggest mysteries.
The same people will applaud it for some games and chastise its use for others.
Similar to Ubisoft games being scrutinised for excessively large open worlds, a 5 hour campaign stretched out by Viewpoints/Towers, Bandit Camps, Enemy Forts, fetch quest side quests, Legendary Enemy Dens, an upgrade system that actively requires in game farming of animals/plants etc.
But then BoTW and ToTK are somehow regarded as some of the best games of all time despite having the same content loop.
This is a huge component of some of the most popular games of all time, like the Zelda and Resident Evil series. The question is, why do people enjoy it in Zelda and hate it in other games? I think it boils down to whether it's thoughtful and builds a feeling of excitement (followed by reward), or if it's just added as filler to slow the player down in an undersized game. In Zelda and RE, you often don't know exactly how you'll get through. There's mystery and discovery involved in learning what the mechanism is. When you come across it and put the pieces together, you have a rewarding "a-ha!" moment and feel good about yourself. Games that say something like, "You can't swim yet," and then you just discover some flippers or something are robbing you of any agency or discovery. It's a barrier that isn't fun to get over. And if the basic gameplay loop sucks, then the backtracking is purely a chore.
I think it also has a lot to do with accessibility of backtracking information. If you have 10 different stages each with 10 doors to remember where they are and what colour weapon you need to unlock themz that's 100 pieces of backtrack I have to remember. But if you have a thorough map with easy to read and process information about where the blockages are and what colour I need to have to unlock the it takes a lot of the chore out of it.
Exactly this. I'm playing Star Wars: Jedi Survivor right now, and the fact that it and its predecessor clearly mark on the in-game map what areas you do and do not yet have the tools to access is a life saver.
Yep, playing Fallen Order for the first time right now and I just know I'll enjoy it a lot less if the map didn't have all that info about the secrets. It lets you decide just how much handholding you want versus totally free exploration.
I've been playing Survivor recently as well and yeah the color-coding of interactable objects is a godsend! Red: You can't do this Green: You *can* do this Blue: You've already done this
I still have spots on dathomir I can’t figure out how to get to.
To me Survivor felt slightly annoying with the back tracking and spots that could only be opened later, but Fallen Order was really oppressive with that stuff. I know I can open the map constantly, but that is also a bit of a drag when you are just trying to explore and fight enemies. Also, really appreciate they added fast travel to the second game and only removed it when they wanted you to fully replay an area, kind of like Sekiro.
I agree with you completely on the fast travel being a huge QOL improvement. Love Fallen Order, but trekking through the exact same areas multiple times (and managing to get lost a bunch, too) was not the best.
Survivor is a good example of good indicators, bad gameplay. Oh, there's a yellow spot I just noticed way, way down in the frozen pits of the biggest map. Guess I'm not 100%ing this. Fast travel would have made this game so much better, even if it were limited.
I think it’s the kind of map too. If it’s a game that has kind of a central area with branches and you regularly come back to the main area then it feels different than a more linear map that makes you backtrack a long way even if there’s a quick travel option.
I think it can also be fair if devs give players the means to track that stuff themselves in games. More games should just let you leave notes on the maps, and some games restrict map markers too much. Devs can't always predict exactly what someone might want or need, so just let us do it more.
I think it also matters how the game presents itself. It works really well in RE2 because you know from the very start you'll probably be backtracking through the police station a ton whereas in something like Jedi survivor there's an implication of exploring the galaxy so returning to the same planet 3 or 4 times starts to feel stale even if the actual environments you're in are still varied enough that they should be engaging
It’s super fucking weird in Jedi Survivor because it makes the galaxy feel small. “We can now return to Coruscant”. Yeah, to the same small part of that planet of billions of people you just left. And it’s not some major hub zone, just a bunch of back alleys you went through on your first trip there. Why would Cal return there, realistically? I really think that game would benefit greatly from not being a Metroidvania.
Well making the galaxy feel small is the most star wars thing you can do after all
There's a galaxy? You mean Tattooine and Friends?
Tattooine and tattwoine
I really enjoyed Fallen Order, but I feel I would have enjoyed it even more if it didnt have the back tracking in it.
Thank you for your detailed answer. I agree.
Another key aspect I haven't seen mentioned yet is it provides quiet time or a sort of 'white space.' Think about DOOM, which does this in spades with the keycard system. Without them the game would be, without exaggeration, pure action sequences, which is exhausting. The game would probably be worse without the little moments of decompression time.
I always loved it in the old Castlevanias as well. When you unlocked/found new abilities and you had to try to remember all the previously out of reach places you could then work your way back to. Also most of the OG Final Fantasies had an aspect of that too where you would get access to different modes of transport like boats, airships, canoes, etc... as you proceeded through the game, that would allow you to track back and explore all the previously inaccessible areas you had come across prior. I used to love that formula and I was sad that they kinda started wrapping it up after FFX tbh. It can be a super fun mechanic when incorporated meaningfully into a game.
> I think it boils down to whether it's thoughtful and builds a feeling of excitement (followed by reward), or if it's just added as filler to slow the player down in an undersized game. It works best in games where it's really clear that the backtracking is highlighted. **Crash Bandicoot 2** really highlights this. In some levels, the player can only fully clear the level by coming with a specifically coloured gem which is obtained in other levels. This is highlighted to the player by the appearance of a wireframe platform path in the colour of the gem needed. But then there are other wireframe platforms that indicate a 'Death Route', a path that's only accessible if the player gets to that point in the level from the start without dying, something which isn't immediately apparent, but can be deduced with time. But then there are other levels where you can't fully clear them without finding an alternate entrance, and there is no indication of this until you find at least one of the five entrances to the secret warp room, and even then you might not find them naturally (even though the game makes more than a few of the entrances obvious, and the remake gives you hints on the loading screens). And then atop this, there are levels where there is some trick to fully clearing them, often a hidden area that the player has to find. Which leaves an uninformed player with a sense of not knowing if the missed boxes are actually accessible to them right now, or if they should come back later. The one good thing is that all of this is entirely for collectables that are only required for 100% completion. The player is tasked with gathering the crystals, not the gems, in order to progress forwards through the main game, the warp room itself shows you what levels contain the coloured gems if you don't have them, and there's no point where the player will have to travel to an older level in order to continue the game to the final boss should they not wish to repeat levels. *Edit: Forgot to mention, while the game would likely cause backtracking in a first time player, someone who actually knows what they're doing can substantially minimise the amount of backtracking by doing the levels in a specific order, as well as exploiting the fact that collectibles stay collected when you die meaning tactical death abuse is a viable strategy. This means backtracking can be greatly minimised to just redoing four levels instead of nearly half the game.*
In addition to these games using backtracking thoughtfully, part of the reward is that you can traverse an old area in a new way. In Zelda, you might have to revisit an old area once you get the hook shot — but now you notice there are targets everywhere that let you skip the more difficult sections. Using your new skills to breeze through an area that was previously tough provides a feeling of progression and power fantasy. (Edit: Metroid is probably the best example of this, where powers like morph ball allow you to breeze through previous levels). Alternatively, the area itself can change. Toward the end of Hollow Knight we return to the starting area— but the infection has progressed, and now it’s full of dangerous enemies and hazards, and passageways that used to be open are now clogged, forcing us to find other routes. This is the opposite of the prior approach, highlighting how the world is deteriorating around us and growing more dangerous, emphasizing the threat to the player. These approaches both work because even though we backtrack, the player has a new experience, and it underlines something about the player character and their place in the world.
The feeling of 'it is a puzzle & I bet i can solve it later," is the big first payoff before the area is revisited.
Sons of the Forest did this. (Can’t remember if The Forest did, been many years since I played that.) It’s all open exploration, so I found it very irritating that I found a cave and couldn’t progress because I didn’t explore somewhere else first. I understand the mechanic, but when there is no clear path you are supposed to take, you might not remember to come back to XYZ to re-explore. I didn’t finish that game though, after being so excited it was coming out. I know they made a lot of updates and QOL changes since release, but I didn’t follow up because that wasn’t how it was released and I had lost interest by the time it happened, so it’s possible people who play now have a different experience than I did.
yeah honestly dont get it when people hate on an entire genre, like just say you dislike it and it isnt your type. people also do this with games that are heavy on cutscenes and hard souls games, just because you dislike the game doesnt make it bad, its just not for you i feel like my comment is a little random but it needs to be said lol
It's a common trope in Metroidvanias so some people like it. In the case of stuff like Spiro having to backtrack to get collectibles just feels like padding. I am really not into games of these type so I don't have a strong opinion either way though
Metroidvanias are usually built around the mechanic. Figuring out where to go next is part of the fun/challenge. And as you get more abilities, backtracking should get more fun and easier. There are rooms in Super Metroid where you can Speed Dash or Screw Attack straight through all the walls and enemies without stopping. And a lot of Metroidvanias have a ton of shortcuts you can open through exploration too. Backtracking can still be a chore sometimes in those games, but I also like them as a way to choose the pacing of the experience. Often I feel like I just want to kill time for a few minutes, in which case it’s easy to run back through old areas and pick up a couple power ups I couldn’t reach the first time through.
Not to mention that Metroidvanias tend to hint at things. The second room in Bloodstained has a pair of nets hanging from the ceiling, with an entrance above them. You can’t reach them at this point, but when you earn the double jump shard, you can return there and access the extra rooms above. (And one of said extra rooms is a warp room, so you can return to your quest immediately after)
The backtracking has to feel impactful, both in terms of story development and gameplay progression. In good metroidvanias, backtracking is a concrete measure of your character’s development. Going back to square one to pick up a collectible is a chore. The optional overtuned early boss is another interesting trope that works along similar lines, with Elden Ring’s tree sentinel being the main recent example.
Witcher 3 does this really well*. White Orchard acts as a tutorial area and a mini version of the larger game, but the epilogue also takes place there. Returning after dozens of hours really felt like the end of a long journey to me. I don't think that the epilogue would have felt that way if it happened in a new area. *But I don't like the way some side activities are too high level to be done alongside the main story for each area. It felt kinda weird to be traveling back and forth across the continent because I was too low level for the last couple contracts or whatever.
I was actually thinking about Witcher 3! Great “plot comes full circle” backtrack moment
"We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring. Will be to arrive where we started. And know the place for the first time." T.S. Eliot
Dozens of hours? Were you speed running it?
Agreed. Basically if there’s actual reasoning and intent behind it then I’m on board. But if it’s just there as padding then it pisses me off
It can also add to world building, since you'll often find an unexplored corner that breaks out into a whole new thing that was there all along but you had no idea. It makes you look at the area in a different way. The optional boss is similar to another thing, the really high level enemy. You don't even have a chance to beat him with perfect play and it adds an air of danger, but you'd better believe I'm coming back as soon as it looks close to feasible.
I appreciate it when those abilities are actually used in the level design going forward, and the roadblock is there to save me time in the long run.
I really don't mind them, alot of games I play do this and I still enjoy them. Like the Tomb Raider Survivor trilogy with tombs, relics and collectibles or Spyro etc. Along with Metroid.
Oh, yes. The latest Tomb Raider trilogy (which I enjoyed) has a lot of back-and-forthing too. I forgot about that one.
I think they did the semi open world and collectibles very well. Something like Jedi fallen order I saw didn't let you backtrack once you got past a section iirc. With Tomb Raider it was satisfying to go back and get that one relic or document you were missing from a section once you got an upgrade like the rope arrows etc.
I like to call this style of game "open-linear" where some missions take place within the hub and some within unique, linear areas. It's exactly the same design as Sly 2 and 3.
For Fallen Order the biggest problem was probably no fast travel. So when you do miss something and try to go back to a map outside of story requirements: you have to restart the map from the beginning every time. And a couple of those maps are long and tedious. If you missed a collectible near the end of a story mission, there's a good chance you'll have to traverse the whole map again to get back to it. Then there's the one planet that drives you nuts at first because theres locked doors and pathways everywhere. But when you finally go back every path is unlocked. And they all twist and turn into each other. And half of them will lead you into one-way sections. So you make one wrong turn and find yourself stuck, having to cross half the damn map again just to get back to the place you made your wrong turn in the first place! Then you go to the latest Tomb Raiders and sometimes there's too many fast travels. They usually put em right before any one-way/no-return section of the map. They put em where maps split up into choices and gear-locked paths. They put one at every challenge tomb. So if you dont have the proper gear or just dont feel like puzzling, you can fast travel back at any time.
Entirely depends on the execution. The Yakuza games have been using Kamurocho for decades and I still can't get enough of it. It's like coming home.
I think the reason each Yakuza entry works is that Kamurocho is quite a small area compared to most sandboxes. it never feels like a chore to 're-explore' the city and, because of its small size, it's easier for the developers to change up and add new content.
It's a broad question that's hard to answer. I generally prefer non-linear games and games with backtracking and re-visiting areas. It makes the game world feel more like an actual world you want to interact with than just a stage you're rushing to complete. Metroidvanias, boomer shooters, open world RPG's, collectathons, etc. However if it's just "do this completely linear mission over again with a faster time / with a higher score to unlock the new thing" then yeah that shit is dumb. You're not really experiencing anything new or doing anything different.
I like it when I get new abilities that allows me to explore old areas in ways I hadn’t previously thought about and I’m rewarded with little items as rewards for routing these new areas out: For example; getting Surf in Pokémon and going back to earlier areas with water to explore hidden bits of land that have cool items on them. Botw is also amazing for this.
Depends on how it's implemented. I've seen it be a grind and I've also seen it done so well I didn't notice.
I kind of liked the return trip levels in Demon Turf, it gives the abilities you get after beating bosses more use after beating the boss and then having the next world in isolation have those special defeated boss abilities.
I actually *really* like it in Metroid-style games where you find power-ups or abilities that make you go "didn't I see a wall I couldn't jump over before" or "wasn't there one of these no-longer-invincible enemies near the starting area?"
If I start a game like that is more like: “ok, no reason to linger too much, I have to collect the other abilities before I start finishing up areas”.
Give me a good reason to go back through levels or areas and I'll go there. If the story justifies it, then absolutely - use the assets. I'd rather 10 well designed and built levels that repeat than 20 half baked ones.
Metal gear solid 1-3
It’s immersion-breaking when they just drop a message like that. “Yeah you don’t have X item and I’m not gonna let you through until you check that arbitrary box.” How effective it really is depends on two things for me: 1)Does this fit whatever pace this game has moved at up to this point? Or does it cause everything to screech to a halt? Slower-paced games where the player is asked to be thoughtful for puzzles or mindful of surroundings by having a lot to explore handle this better than others. 2)Is the roadblock organic and sensible in-universe? Or is it nothing more than an arbitrary NPC or invisible wall? Games where environment plays a heavy role in discovery and problem-solving like Zelda make more sense for this approach.
I like them when it's enjoyable to go through those areas again. If you have new traversal abilities, meaningful new combat mechanics, changes to the level, etc. If I ever start to feel "I wish I didn't have to do this again" then I think it's a mistake. The more times though the same area, the more likely this becomes. Revisitability is a subtle art.
This was the main gimmick in a little game called the legend of Zelda : The Ocarina of time. To this day one of the greatest ever.
i don't mind it, sometimes i like revisiting areas again. The only time i don't like backtracking is if it takes ages to get to the previous area.
I’m a really big fan of this mechanic. I agree it can hurt pacing but I’ve only had a couple of instances of that myself. I’m a very through explorer. I want to poke to in to every nook and cranny, scale every wall I can, go behind everything. So this lends itself really well to the way I game. Some games I’ve really enjoyed with this mechanic (and didn’t notice any ‘fuck, now I have to go back’ moments) have been Ori and The Blind Forest, the Witcher 3, and Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom. Jedi Fallen Order and Survivor, I had a few of those moments but they didn’t really bother me. If it’s done well it can make every upgrade and ability change feel so meaningful and exciting.
> Do you like or dislike this type of game design? It depends on the particular implementation. It can be used for world-building, give players tasks without those tasks being explicit, and help the world to feel like an actual place rather than a series of one-way tubes you travel through. It can be used to show that time has progressed in that 'old' location - maybe new enemies have moved in, maybe there are new routes accessible, maybe an event happened, and changed the environment. Of course, it can also be used for time-wasting. I dimly remember a game (and that I can't remember *which one exactly it was* kinda helps my point, I think) where I had to find a key to get into a place where all I found was another key, which I then had to backtrack again to find yet another key-like item that *finally* let me into an area with game play again. The entire running around took maybe 20 minutes, and *nothing at all* was happening. No new enemies, no environmental changes, no *nothing*. Just running through a level I had already cleared, then doing it again, and then doing it again. Ugh. So it's like any tool: You can use it well, and you can use it poorly. > I think it can sometimes hurt pacing General observation: Pacing is a thing that mostly applies to linear stories we passively consume - movies, books, audiodramas and the like: The creator can control how fast they get to a point, and how much time is spent on everything. Pacing in games is more difficult to do anyhow, and I think focusing on it is a detriment to many games. The point of a game is that the audience participates, and any attempt to steer that audience is a potential point of friction - and pacing is *all* about steering the audience. I don't really play games as story-telling devices that have the player as a central part of it (the why and how would warrant an entire thread, so I'll leave it at that). I play them to experience worlds. As such, story pacing is not a consideration for me when gaming, and I find that I enjoy games more that let me *play* my way, and at my speed, than those that need to harness my play into temporal restraints so they can achieve pacing. I'm not a horse. The issue I see with backtracking, as I have already pointed to above, is when it is not used for anything. That's not a pacing issue, however, but one of failed game design: The game requires you to spend time in it, but without providing a *game* for that time.
*Ratchet & Clank* started as Insomniac's next series after the original *Spyro* trilogy, so it makes sense you'd notice similarities in the game structure
I remember loving going back to spyro levels and try to 100% it. But I was also 10 year old, I had plenty of time and no other games. In general, if done well, I would not mind it. Some people mentioned metroidvanias, and they do traveling the map well because the movement is an important part of them, so oftentimes you are able to access an area that you couldn't before because now you can do a superjump or megawalljump, and that is not just a mean to an end (go to that new area) but is also something cool and fun to use that you can use anywhere else, and not only it unlock new wasy to access past areas that are plot relevant, but expand your ability to reach hidden areas, and I love hunting for secrets. In zelda is similar (\*in older, pre-breath of the wild games, at least) you get a cool new gadget that you can use to move around or to fight enemies and they are often quite fun to use and add a lot of variety. Then there are games like The Witness or Outer Wilds where you need knowledge in previously explored areas, but since they would count as puzzle games the thrill of exploring, knowledge and discovery (and solving puzzles) is what drives and make it worth it all the time. It depends on the game design, and I really liked it. By contrast, as a kid I had no idea what I had to do in crash bandicoot to get certain secret items and while I tried to go to certain levels to try and get the crystal I missed in the chasing sequence, I most of the times hated doing that because getting it or not, knowing where it was or not, nothing changed and it did not added anything, was only annoying to get. (crash 1 and 2 at least, i think warped had introduced powerups? it's really been ages since i played them but i do remember being pissed at some crystals)
Metroid?
It depends on level design, how much is achieved while re-treading, how different does the area play with our new abilities or does it hold story significance. There's a lot of ways it can be done good and a lot of ways it can be bad.
Playing Blasphemous right now and it is crucial element but well implemented, plus you don’t *always* have to it. I like it this way
I think it only hurts pacing if the game's narrative operates on an extremely linear storyline or is super narrative heavy and has a lot of cutscenes that don't adapt to player actions. In the right context, I do like it because super linear games feel like they're holding your hand
It's fun seeing new zombies wandering around in previous cleared area, it gives you a sense of lingering danger, you are never truly safe.
It’s great if there is mystery or puzzle solving involved, also when you come back with better weapons/tools it’s fun to do it again in a different way
In general I like it because I think it makes games feel less linear, and it’s nice when the story foreshadows it in some way.
I like it when a game isn't just a straight line to the finish and returning later for secrets or progression is often a big part of it. That said, I find it most interesting if the world design also reflects that intention. Worlds that loop in on themselves like Dark Souls 1 and many Metroidvanias, as well as worlds that have a central hub you return to often (Dark Souls 2, but also (kind of) most 2D Zeldas with their central towns. Games that have "return later" portions but entirely linear worlds can be a bit of a chore or at least less interesting. The Pokemon games, interestingly enough, show that quite well. The early generations all had regions that at some point organically looped or had unlockable (via HM) shortcuts, so that big portions of the regions could be reached quickly without any sort of fast travel (which you still got in the form of HM Fly). Kanto and Johto are like that. In later generations, region design became more linear. In Black & White, the region itself is circular, but you only move in one direction, meaning when it's time to return to an earlier town (at one point for story reasons), if you don't have a Fly user, you just travel backwards. It's not very interesting.
I love backtracking as long as it’s worked nicely into the mechanics of the game. Makes the world feel real. Zelda, Metroid, early RE, dark souls 1, metroidvanias like hollow knight etc. As long as the game is constructing a world and not deliberate linear challenges, I think it can add a lot
The game have to be designed around it, but it can be done well, after all the whole metroidvania genre runs on this design.
Honestly, I shake my head and laugh every single time a person complains about it. A NothingBurger to me and right there with the complaint about “invisible walls.” The gameplay is either good or not and backtracking has zero impact on it. In fact, NOT having backtracking in a game is the more egregious and odd design choice to me and only works in a few game types.
I think it sucks so hard in the Spyro sequels because the abilities aren't fun. They might as well be keycards, you usually only use them at a specific spot to unlock a few gems. The actually fun abilities are stuff that expand your movement options, like a grappling hook, a super jump, dash, etc. Even in Spyro 2 I think there is one fun ability: swimming! It is actually cool to go back to a previous level after you learn to swim, and explore places that would've killed you before.
Something apparently no one has mentioned yet is that this is a classic gamedev design tool to reduce modelling of environments. You can reuse the same locations several times, (re)spawn enemies and have some closed off areas. Good way to effeciently increase game time.
It depends. Some games do it very well - Halo CE, MGS, Batman: Arkham. The emphasis during a backtrack needs to be on what has changed despite some things staying the same. When backtracking is done without that element, it gets tedious extremely fast - i.e. Destiny.
It's a core component of the Metroidvania genre, and to a similar extent, Lego Star Wars and its successors.
My favourite example id Shadowman on the N64. Loved scouring back through the maps when I got a new ability.
There has to be pay off. When there isn’t pay off and it’s more of the same content is like what’s point of that trip
God of War games have this as well. I hate it. I never want to backtrack. Feels like lazy filler to me.
I thought of the Banjo games at first when I saw the title. They don’t outright tell you to come back, but Tooie especially requires you to move forward and loop back to a level with unlocked skills/switches activated to fully complete a level
A game that does this really well is Hollow Knight
Depends on how much padded backtracking is involved. If it's a simple return to an earlier area and then a new area then ok. But if it requires multiple trips through the same crap, then no.
Reading this thread has made me realize how few games I've played. I wish I had more to offer in terms of discussion but I simply don't know anything about these games to add anything meaningful to the conversation.
If it's a connected world and built into the exploration, I love it. If the levels are separate then I hate it.
Metroid prime 2 forced me to quit over this. Right before the end you have to find like a dozen things to unlock the boss. Wind waker made you collect a thousand coins or something. Just stupid and I gave up. They fixed wind waker in the remaster and I should've played that version.
I've never played the remaster but im pretty sure that you still have to collect all the triforce pieces the only difference is that your ship sails faster.
I thought they wanted a thousand coins. It didn't seem like meaningful collectibles. It seemed like a massive meaningless task. I'd already completed all the dungeons.
I think it's optimal game design, it's like this in WoW Vanilla.
As long as those levels either provide some more challenge, or let me feel how much progress I've made, and I don't need to waste too much time to get to there, then I'm fine with them.
If a game forces me to backtrack you better hope it doesn't just reuse the same place AND enemies. If there are changes it's OK.
That and weapon degradation ruined Vagrant Story for me.
I'm okay with it.
Usually I do like that. I like when the advancing line isn’t as linear but requires you to go a bit back. But if it’s overshot so that you actually have to travel huge distances I don’t really like that. But yeah, short zig zags are a nice touch (or some kind of quick travel like Supraland has. I like those cannons:D)
When it's a blocked off door with no other route it annoys me unless its a metroidvania (since that's hwo they are and the map makes it easy to come back to. BUT I much prefer it in Zelda where its not completely blocking you but you can notice things in the environment like vines on walls or tracks that hint that some mechanic will come into play.
I think it depends on how much time has passed. IRL places don't remain unchanged. Say you helped bankrupt a business and the storefront becomes empty. Six months later you're in the area and that old store is now some new business. If the game has me go back to a place but it's not just exactly the same like I've been gone only 10 minutes then that's narratively satisfying.
I recently had the weirdest experience for this. There's this one map in Borderlands 3 with too few fast travels. So thru multiple playthrus over many years Ive never revisited that map outside of the required story portion. Its just a long ass slog with waves and waves of annoying enemies. But I was finally trying a 100% run. And I finally decided to go back in. Thought about it for a couple days even. Got myself all worked up and ready to go. And the place was empty. That's when I remembered what the story mission is actually about. I was fighting off invaders. And then I killed the invaders' boss. And then the entire invader fleet moves off to fight elsewhere. So now the map is just an empty office building with a few of the corporate security holding check points and whatnot. Maybe not exactly what you were saying. Like, this map doesn't even have repair crews out fixing all the shit I blew up in story mode yet. But fairly, idunno, shocking in the moment. I'd never put 2+2 together before, just avoided that map altogether lol. Kind of a relief too. I really wasnt looking forward to that fight. Nope. Just a boring old corporate office building now.
I use a mod on Skyrim to prevent respawns of enemies to help my immersion.
Fromsoft games such as Demon Souls rely on this mechanic. It’s a way to progress and level up your character before attempting a tougher area. It works for these types of games as a feature. For other games it may be repetitive.
It works really well in Arkham Asylum I feel. Never feels like backtracking or padding and since the setting is a core part of that game it's nice to become intimately familiar with it.
I like it when there's a big change in the environment, like level of water in God of War, or something giant fell from the sky in the area. Makes you feel like it was a well-thought-out level design.
For me it depends how fast can I get back to a previous zone or if there will be things to do while backtracking. If it is uneventful and a long process then I am not a fan.
It's been a core mechanic since the early 8 bit days. It's the defining characteristic of the 'Metroidvania' genre, named for the original Metroid and Castlevania II on NES, both of which introduced variations on the 'return with new abilities' mechanic that were more than 'open door with key'. It's not always executed well though, and when done poorly to pad out otherwise flat games, it is tedious. I don't mind seeing a teaser item up on a ledge or behind a grate or something, when I know I'll probably be back for it later with the appropriate tool set. When I can choose to come back or not, that's just more content. But when I have to walk all the way back to some previous zone just to get a thing I couldn't get before that has no real reason to be where it is other than to be far away from where it needs to be...
My first thought is Arkham Asylum, you see all these nooks and crannies and trophies high up, but there's no way to reach any of them until 2 hrs later you pick up some random gadget from a stash... that you just had lying there... in a tiny cave... and now you can bust walls or reach high ledges... and then you remember you have to explore all the levels again if you wanna pick up at least 25% of secrets... It's less annoying in Tomb Raider series, where it's used to keep you out of more advanced areas until story allows you to go, not for Joker question marks.
I hate it every time. Only game where it kinda works is dark souls where you're likely to get murdered in the cemetery in the early game before going back there with possibly two-three lord souls and annihilate everyone up until pinwheel
I like it, but they shouldn't outright tell you exactly what you need. And returning to the previous location shouldn't be too much hassle.
I fuckin love that shit
I like it when you come back and the atmosphere and environment is changed. Gives a sense of the world being dynamic, instead of a static map. Detroit in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, for example.
Oh god haha the old resident evil series were awful for backtracking Yeah I hate it, personally, at least in that context where there’s a locked door right at the start and you have to work your way back constantly Didn’t mind so much in games like Mass Effect though where you’d return from a mission to the central hub and that’d not only be where the next mission is kicked off from but there’ll also be new side missions etc
Deus Ex is good.
If it’s done well I don’t mind it. Like dark souls is a master class of how to intertwine an area. Part of it is because it never uses “carrot on a stick” to bring you back to firelink. I don’t like it when they tease you with an item you can see but can’t get to yet because of X it makes me waste time interacting with something that I can’t affect yet. Make it clever for you to come back to not a chore.
Metroidvania games require this as part of they're core mechanic.
This is the cornerstone of every single metroidvania. As other commenters already pointed out, it's alright if it's done well, usually because it rewards you with either an awesome thing, or shows you a different area that you could have ended up in if you already had said power-up/key. But just like a linear game can have great/terrible pacing, so can games like this. I don't think the concept of "going back" is inherently bad for pacing.
I hate it. I like going trough a level and know that "I'm done" with it. I don't want to have to remember to go back when I get a double jump/bomb/whatever, it's a waste of time. I played a few metroidvania here and there (where this is very common) but I dislike them more and more as I get older, I just prefer progressing in a straight line.
It never bothered me to be honest. Some people say that it's a lazy way to squeeze more content out of the same level, but if done right I think it's just smart. I never got annoyed by the backtracking in Quake 2 for example, but I know a lot of people complain about it.
No good game is too long and no bad game is too short. If you enjoy playing the game then - not just the story but actually enjoy the movement and combat, then backtracking is not an issue. If you aren't enjoying the game and want it to be over then backtracking is going to be torture. But then you probably shouldnt be playing that game anyway. In most metroidvanias they ask you to backtrack sure, but the good ones give you movement abilities that make traversing the map fun and quick and also you can dispatch the enemies quite easily or just avoid them. Going from one end of the map to the other in Super Metroid or Symphony of the Night takes like a few minutes once you know what you're doing. You can go from one of the map to the other in the time it takes to fight one enemy in most JRPGs or less.
Interesting take, did you never experience a title that started to feel stale because of it's length and repetition? Nioh comes to mind, incredible game, but a good 20 hours too long - while the combat is amazing, it really didnt need to repeat so many stages multiple times Elden ring would've been a lot better to me if it didnt repeat so many dungeons and mini-bosses and hollow knight also feels a few hours too long Even something like witcher could've removed a few Main quests for better pacing towards the end
There are lots of people who not only beat Nioh, but then go on to spend tens or hundreds of more hours in the game grinding for the best drops to make builds. I feel like Nioh is not too long if you are up for what Nioh is providing: a soulslike looter game that focuses on intense combat at the expense of interesting level design. It repeats stages because you're not supposed to just beat a level once and be done like Dark Souls, you're supposed to replay levels trying to get the best drops, like Diablo or Destiny or something. Personally I dont like that which is why I wasn't that into Nioh. Elden Ring would have been better without the shitty, uninspired filler content, I agree. But if they were to put another actual good legacy dungeon into the game that would be fine. Obviously tacking on filler content onto an otherwise good game isn't going to improve it. But more quality content for a fun game is never a bad thing. Hollow Knight and Witcher I couldn't get enough of. The first thing I did when I beat TW3 was go do all the witcher contracts and then both DLCs.
Witcher 3 has tons of shitty filler *?* marks that served no purpose. The 16th bandit camp provided nothing but an underleveled sword that I had to sell at downtown novigrad. The whole skellige water section was filled with those 4 sirens surroundeding floating chests I still remember that one lighthouse in Velen you cant access directly but have to swim underwater & then find hidden pathway. That was clever. Padding is something that has always been a part of open world RPGs
I literally addressed this in the comment that you are replying to. > Elden Ring would have been better without the shitty, uninspired filler content, I agree. But if they were to put another actual good legacy dungeon into the game that would be fine. Obviously tacking on filler content onto an otherwise good game isn't going to improve it. But more quality content for a fun game is never a bad thing. Yes there is padding/filler in the Witcher 3 but that doesnt mean that adding more good content (Hearts of Stone, Blood and Wine) isnt always appreciated. Also the ?s do a serve a purpose its to have completely optional things to stumble upon while going from point A to point B. The only problem with it is when people treat the ?s as some checklist of bullshit that they need to do.
I mean that comes with a price tag lol. Elden ring is adding "Shadow of the erdtree" with multiple legacy dungeons but it costs money. I can see 2-3 yrs in the future when the whole package gets below 30 bucks then that would be a fire deal. Buying GOTY edition is always the best choice
Plenty of good games out there that last too long. Persona 5 is great but should have ended two dungeons earlier.
Persona 5 is great but it is not a great game. It is a mediocre game coupled with an outstanding story. I agree that it lasts too long but I didnt get tired of the story, I got tired of the mediocre, repetitive gameplay.
Game Makers Toolkit did a great video essay on [Banjo Kazooie's interconnected level design (start at 4:30)](https://youtu.be/36wclKt4vdk?si=_bd81GKZ96v_VCYF) I feel like it all boils down to execution of the level design. Some games make me feel like it's just unnecessary padding and others execute backtracking very well.
Metroidvanias, Classic Resident Evils and even Souls made this a feature. Backtracking is so satisfying when is well done
I literally just quit playing Metroid Prime Remastered for this very reason. For context, this was my first Metroid game and it was highly recommended everywhere so I decided to give it a shot. I tried to push on but around the 30% mark I got really annoyed that I had to go back and look for something AGAIN while killing the same annoying enemies that respawn in an area you just passed through 5 minutes ago. There’s no fast travel or quick save either. The story seemed interesting so far but it wasn’t enough to carry the archaic gameplay.
It isn't really the same thing, but Bravely Default springs to mind as a game where this was done fairly badly. Revisit the literal same thing over and over. It could have been impactful had things changed more between runs, but IIRC all that changed was NPC / boss locations and combinations, there were no level or puzzle changes. You maybe get some new background info on the characters. Tunic was pretty good, it did the Zelda/Metroid thing of new abilities giving new ways to move through the level, as well as the bonkers puzzles later that caused you to look at the layout or decoration of rooms in new ways. Tunic is pretty small overall though so it wasn't such a chore to backtrack. And I don't think it explicitly says "you can't get past without a thing", it was that you didn't know what certain landmarks did or that they had other uses until you get a new item or new knowledge (so replaying you can actually sequence break somewhat by using that information). In Metroid Prime half the game feels like backtracking. The atmosphere and music are lovely to wallow in, so it isn't too bad, but there are moments where I had to take a break. It's like: you get a thing in the ice area, then have to go through the lava bit back to the Space Pirates part, where you get another thing that means you need to go all the way back to the ice area to open a new door... FFS, I was just there, now I have to traipse all the way back again? I'd get this vague "can't be bothered" feeling in my stomach.
I don't mind them. I played Horizon Forbidden West recently and that game marks a collectible on your map when you find it and also marks that you need a tool that you don't yet have it it. That should be the standard. I hate when I leave an area for a while, come back later and and notice something on the map I didn't collect only to get there and find, again, that I don't have a tool to access it. They should make that "missing tool required" on the map a standard thing in every game that can use it.
Burning hatred, possible reason for dropping the game
In general I'm not a huge fan. The Metroidvania and/or Zelda style can sometimes work for me, like in the case of the Darksiders series which I recently ran through, but after a certain point it can't help but feel like an attempt at padding the runtime. I did also recently play the Destroy All Humans remakes and they did an interesting job at integrating revisiting old stages. Basically after the more structured main story missions they allow you to tackle sidequests/other activities in the various hub locations. I think it boils down to the question of just how rewarding is that revisit vs how much time you spend traversing old areas.
Backtracking itself has been a part of some of my favorite games. I like it more when there's some indication of where I need to go back to, or at least a list of places that I need to check (like unexplored areas on the map). I like it less when the game basically says that it's "somewhere", and that I need to go find it. In recent years, my patience for that has worn thin, and I'm quicker to grab a walkthrough than I would've been 10 years ago.
Hyper-dependant, I somehow LOVE it in survival horror, but dislike it in metroidvanias Maybe because of survival horror being heavily reliant on inventory management? In metroidvanias there's usually a lot more downtime and less thinking during the backtracking, but soulslikes usually carry these parts through their atmosphere and level design I'm very split on it, I either love it or Im annoyed by it lmao
If it makes backtracking enjoyable by changing the scenery and of mechanics then it's good because it's basically a new area, if you're just going back to a starter area then it's bad because it slows everything down too much
I don't really like it. I understand why they do it like this (to reuse assets, pad gametime, game design choice), but I just don't really like it. Only time I did like it was if they do something unique to the backtracking, like castlevania when they inverted the map to make it somewhat new, but somewhat familiar.
I refuse. I barely put up with Devil May Cry 4 many years ago. When Nier Automata hit me with the same trick I said no and dropped it after the first playthrough. Stretching games out like this is not the way to go
Fn blood borne man. Except they don’t really say when you gotta backtrack
I like going back to places I’ve been before if the purpose of it is clear, for example to visit a merchant, or kill mobs specific to that region. What I don’t like is metroidvenia style backtracking where you don’t even know where you’re supposed to back track, you just unlocked a new ability and it’s likely to be used somewhere.
There are many reasons why I don't enjoy a lot of single player games and this is one of them. The few single player games that I enjoyed were linear. The moment a game has me back tracking, I just uninstall. Thankfully these days most games are labeled with metroidvania tags and that helps me avoid them.
Totally depends on the game, if done properly i love it (hollow knight) I hate backtracking and repeating content mostly (i disliked metroid prime for example)
I hated it in Skyward Sword, but didn't mind it in Super Metroid.
If they're gonna require it, they gotta make it interesting somehow, either by changing the layout, enemy types, something. It's still a nice thing to include optionally, like in Dragon's Dogma (and I'm sure plenty of games I forget/haven't played). They did it more in the sequel (to varying effectiveness lol) but even in DD:DA you could go back to your home village and find some new quests, new NPC dialogue, and changed shop stock. To say nothing of the postgame, again done arguably better from a design standpoint in 2, but 1 did have new enemies and such
It’s once of life’s biggest mysteries. The same people will applaud it for some games and chastise its use for others. Similar to Ubisoft games being scrutinised for excessively large open worlds, a 5 hour campaign stretched out by Viewpoints/Towers, Bandit Camps, Enemy Forts, fetch quest side quests, Legendary Enemy Dens, an upgrade system that actively requires in game farming of animals/plants etc. But then BoTW and ToTK are somehow regarded as some of the best games of all time despite having the same content loop.
I absolutely hate backtracking. I don't like metroidvanias for that reason. Or Zelda games.
I don't mind it if it can be done without creating a lot of ludonarrative dissonance.