Linear or Non-Linear for spiderweb's games

[Juan Carlo]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

You've mentioned "surprising" twice now. Why does an ending have to be surprising to be good? Can't a good ending also feel like an epic culmination that you've been seeking?

It doesn't necessarily have to be surprising to be good. There are lots of reasons why I play video games and my capacity to enjoy games with other wise terrible writing or uninspired mechanics is pretty large (there can be something comforting about playing a solid, familiar, genre game that does nothing new).

However, for something to really impress me, I think, it has to do something that I haven't seen before which makes me stand up and notice in some way, or challenge my expectations, or make me think seriously about a topic in a new light or, in the least, just do what it's trying to do really really well (and even though I've played scores of enjoyable video games in the past few yeas, I can probably count on one hand the number that have done this). Books often do this for me, movies sometimes (but less than books), but video games very, very, rarely do it (even though, as I said, I quite like playing video games regardless). Partly because, obviously, the goals of video games are often way different than the goals of books/film (i.e. games don't just have to tell stories. Some are more conceptual and others are just pure mechanics, which is all fine), but also just because (let's face it) as a storytelling or conceptual artform video games still just aren't that sophisticated (for a whole host of reasons that we could mull over for ages). I mean, early film wasn't very sophisticated as a medium either, but it only took film a decade or so to go from "Man washing a Donkey" to "Trip to the Moon" to "Passion of Joan of Arc", whereas games have kind of been stuck in a mire of simplicity for 30 years (which is a bit of an exaggeration, but still kind of true)--especially as far as narrative is concerned. Video game writing tends to not be very good, and even the best stuff usually isn't on the level of the writing in other mediums.

[Juan Carlo]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

I don't think there's anything particularly admirable about throwing the player for a loop for the sake of doing so. Consequences need to be predictable to some extent for choices to have any meaning at all: otherwise you're just choosing a path arbitrarily.

Well at least as far as ME3 was concerned I don't think it's ending was all that unpredictable. The games had been setting up the fact that the Reapers were an unstoppable force for 3 full games, so even if it might be a bit cruel to have the player go through the work of collecting all sorts of resources/factions in ME3, having all this be more or less pointless in defeating the repeaters isn't exactly surprising or unexpected. They were unstoppable after all.

It's only narrative convention which made players expect anything thing different. We are used to video game narratives which hype up the big evil as unstoppable yet ultimately allow the player to succeed against all odds anyway, so when a game finally followed through on the hype people got mad, eventhough there really was very little that was deceptive about this on the surface.

But as far as moral choices are concerned I don't think that it is always easily predictable either. The best of intentions often have horrible unintended side effects. You make the best decision you can given the available data, but that does not guarantee a particular outcome.

[Juan Carlo]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

Real choice requires meaningfully different options, with meaningfully different results. In G3, the "choice" of factions seemed meaningless because the two factions were competing so hard to outdo each other in brutality to each other. That's what was unsatisfying.

Yeah, but sometimes life is unsatisfying and you have to make terrible choices between the lesser of two evils. There isn't always a better choice. Why can't a game reflect that? Games rarely do, which is why I think Geneforge 3 was so refreshing.

Plus, deciding which faction to join wasn't a matter of total agreement as much as it was really breaking down various moral ideals and weighing their value against the potential costs. Which, to me, is when choices get interesting. You may value something like freedom for example, but at what point will you decide that the cost is too great? G3 doesn't explore these ambiguities perfectly, but it at least makes you think about this stuff which is more than most games do.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Juan Carlo

Yeah, but sometimes life is unsatisfying and you have to make terrible choices between the lesser of two evils. There isn't always a better choice. Why can't a game reflect that? Games rarely do, which is why I think Geneforge 3 was so refreshing.

probably because if we wanted a game that was like life we could just go outside

[Dintiradan]

Thoughts about ME3 ending (and again, the usual caveat: I have yet to play ME3):

Click to reveal..

I've got problems with the original endings, but the fact that the Reapers are ostensibly trying to preserve organic life by destroying organics isn't one of them. Sure, it could have been stated more clearly: the Reapers are 'culling' organics, and at the same time propagating and improving themselves by assimilating new species every cycle. And it's something that was foreshadowed: Harbinger made sure we didn't forget that the Reapers were our salvation through destruction yadda yadda yadda. Is it a bad idea? Well, yeah, preserving the collective for the long (looong) term by trampling individuals is a bad idea, but that doesn't stop people in Real Life from thinking so.

 

One problem I do have is making the Reapers slaves of the Catalyst; watching the ending videos is a lot more tolerable when you imagine it as an avatar of the Reapers, rather than their master.

 

Think

not

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Thoughts about ME3 ending (and again, the usual caveat: I have yet to play ME3):

Click to reveal..

I've got problems with the original endings, but the fact that the Reapers are ostensibly trying to preserve organic life by destroying organics isn't one of them. Sure, it could have been stated more clearly: the Reapers are 'culling' organics, and at the same time propagating and improving themselves by assimilating new species every cycle. And it's something that was foreshadowed: Harbinger made sure we didn't forget that the Reapers were our salvation through destruction yadda yadda yadda. Is it a bad idea? Well, yeah, preserving the collective for the long (looong) term by trampling individuals is a bad idea, but that doesn't stop people in Real Life from thinking so.

One problem I do have is making the Reapers slaves of the Catalyst; watching the ending videos is a lot more tolerable when you imagine it as an avatar of the Reapers, rather than their master.

Think

not

I, for one, see no reason why the Reapers can't be represented by a giant Colonel Sanders. That would be awesome.

[Drayk Armitage]

It sounds like you are basically a "single issue voter" when it comes to story: you want to be surprised, you want conventional expectations to be shattered, and that's more important than anything else. Which is fine, but there's more to story than just that one possible aspect.

 

Personally, I often find it less enjoyable to read a new book than to reread one I've already read 10 times, and find more to squeeze out of it, that immediately steps into a network of meaning involving all the other things I've squeezed out of that book over the years. Of course you can't do this with all books, but I guess I'm on the other end of the spectrum when it comes to desire for novelty.

[Sudanna]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Thoughts about ME3 ending (and again, the usual caveat: I have yet to play ME3):

Click to reveal..

I've got problems with the original endings, but the fact that the Reapers are ostensibly trying to preserve organic life by destroying organics isn't one of them. Sure, it could have been stated more clearly: the Reapers are 'culling' organics, and at the same time propagating and improving themselves by assimilating new species every cycle. And it's something that was foreshadowed: Harbinger made sure we didn't forget that the Reapers were our salvation through destruction yadda yadda yadda. Is it a bad idea? Well, yeah, preserving the collective for the long (looong) term by trampling individuals is a bad idea, but that doesn't stop people in Real Life from thinking so.

One problem I do have is making the Reapers slaves of the Catalyst; watching the ending videos is a lot more tolerable when you imagine it as an avatar of the Reapers, rather than their master.

Think

not

Unless the Reapers created themselves, that stupid kid directly contradicts that view of things.

[Avadon]

@TS

 

Both. Do what Bethesda did with Oblivion and Fallout 3 where there's the linear main plot with tonnes of non linear content to play with.

[Dire Hobbit]

God no. Please.

 

FO3/Oblivion were a very retrograde step after Morrowind which has a non-linear/multifaction main quest.

 

The absolute last thing I'd want to see is the faux-urgency of Oblivion/FO3 main quest which doesn't integrate at all with the open world design.

[Galactic Maiden]

At first the linear-ness of Avadon frustrated me, but on a second playthrough I appreciated it more. I wouldn't mind seeing more linear games as long as they don't forsake non-linear ones for them. Which I doubt they will.

[JamesMighty]

I enjoy non linear games because it feels more like your actually on the game and you can go where you wish

[keira]

[Galactic Maiden]

Yeah, that's what drew me into Avernum 3 years ago. If I got a bit tired of the main plot, I could ride off into the wilderness for a while, do a bunch of quests, and then re-focus on the big issue at hand. Although, I did always feel bad seeing towns get ruined over time when I didn't solve the big problems right away.

[JamesMighty]

Originally Posted By: Homage

Oh sorry

[Death Knight]

Originally Posted By: Peachie Pie

At first the linear-ness of Avadon frustrated me, but on a second playthrough I appreciated it more. I wouldn't mind seeing more linear games as long as they don't forsake non-linear ones for them. Which I doubt they will.

Thats kinda the category I'm in. The reason i don't mind when jeff does linear is because your getting such a great story regardless. However, a lot of the nonlinear games are really fun too. Most fun i had with avernum escape from the pit was just sneaking and evading groups of monsters to get to places like that would normally destroy a lvl 5 group of adventurers.

Geneforge handled the stealth system the best i think out of jeffs games though with avadon coming in a close second.

[Galactic Maiden]

I couldn't really get the best of Avadon's stealth system because my iPad likes to lag precisely when I don't want it to, haha.

 

Having such restricted classes threw me for a loop at first, before the story unfolded, since I was used to being able to cobble together my own group nearly from scratch. Now, whenever I talk to my friends about Spiderweb, I like to recommend Avadon to the newbies because the character creation isn't as overwhelming to them

[VCH]

Linear = Jeff can try to tell a good story.

 

Non-linear = Jeff tries to make everything fit = bad story

 

Linear is clearly better.

[Juan Carlo]

Originally Posted By: Dire Hobbit

God no. Please.

FO3/Oblivion were a very retrograde step after Morrowind which has a non-linear/multifaction main quest.

The absolute last thing I'd want to see is the faux-urgency of Oblivion/FO3 main quest which doesn't integrate at all with the open world design.

I also didn't like Oblivion/FO3, but I'd say that Fallout: New Vegas is a good example of how to do storyline correctly within an open world.

FO:NV is awesome, I think. In terms of the world it builds it's almost as good as Fallout 2 (even if the combat will never be as good), which is high praise from me as FO2 is one of my favorite RPGs ever. FO:NV keeps you to a general overall storyline, but there are several ways to conclude that storyline and there is lots of random non-story quests to do along the way so you never feel bottled in. Plus, it restores all the interesting NPC companions that FO3 cut out.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: VCH

Linear = Jeff can try to tell a good story.

Non-linear = Jeff tries to make everything fit = bad story

Linear is clearly better.

Yes, because when I think of Jeff's worst stories, Geneforge 1, Exile 2, and Nethergate spring to mind first of all.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: VCH

Linear = Jeff can try to tell a good story.

Non-linear = Jeff tries to make everything fit = bad story

Linear is clearly better.

Yes, because when I think of Jeff's worst stories, Geneforge 1, Exile 2, and Nethergate spring to mind first of all.

Dantius wins this thread. Well done, sir.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: VCH

Linear = Jeff can try to tell a good story.

Non-linear = Jeff tries to make everything fit = bad story

Linear is clearly better.

Yes, because when I think of Jeff's worst stories...Exile 2,... spring to mind first of all.

Shun the non believer

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: VCH

Linear = Jeff can try to tell a good story.

Non-linear = Jeff tries to make everything fit = bad story

Linear is clearly better.

Yes, because when I think of Jeff's worst stories...Exile 2,... spring to mind first of all.

Shun the non believer

Dantius was being sarcastic. Exile 2 and Nethergate are easily Jeff's best stories (and apparently, Dantius got confused and thought G1 was included in that list. It comes close, sure, but not quite).

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Parasact

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: VCH

Linear = Jeff can try to tell a good story.

Non-linear = Jeff tries to make everything fit = bad story

Linear is clearly better.

Yes, because when I think of Jeff's worst stories...Exile 2,... spring to mind first of all.

Shun the non believer

Dantius was being sarcastic. Exile 2 and Nethergate are easily Jeff's best stories (and apparently, Dantius got confused and thought G1 was included in that list. It comes close, sure, but not quite).

We just had a poll on this. G1 won the title of Spiderweb's best game. You are clearly misinformed.

[Cairo Jim]

Didn't you also mention G1?

[VCH]

How is E2 non-linear? It seems pretty regimented to me. Aren't there chapters in the game?

 

Also, I wouldn't say that G1 has the best story, but it does have amazing atmosphere. The poll question asked for best game not best story.

 

Edit:

 

Nevermind: I though this thread was about how linearity effects game story, not overall game quality. My mistake.

[Sudanna]

Geneforge certainly has one of the best stories. Better than Nethergate's. Never played A/E2, so can't compare to that one.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

We just had a poll on this. G1 won the title of Spiderweb's best game. You are clearly misinformed.

Well, it could've been that it was actually everybody's third favourite game, so it got a vote from everybody, whilst people's favourites were more split.

Anyway, having the largest number of votes doesn't make you the best at whatever is being voted for; see the Conservative party.

[Student of Trinity]

I'm becoming skeptical of this whole linear-versus-nonlinear dichotomy. What the heck does it even really mean? With the Geneforge series, one might actually be able to quantify it, in terms of the number of accessible zones at any given time. I'm pretty sure that none of them really offer you more than a couple of different major choices at any time, with a 'major choice' meaning only that there's a couple of different blocks, of half-a-dozen connected zones each, that you could enter. And in some cases there are options that don't really count as options, because there's an abrupt difficulty spike that effectively prevents you from going that way until much later in the game.

[Tridon]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

And in some cases there are options that don't really count as options, because there's an abrupt difficulty spike that effectively prevents you from going that way until much later in the game.

Good point. It's easy to forget that many things concealed as choices are really only calculations, i.e. there is a right answer you can reason your way to. (You can go to a new area if you wish to, but you can under no circumstance survive beyond the 10 first meters of the area due to lacking skills, so there is not much point going there yet.)

[Drayk Armitage]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

I'm becoming skeptical of this whole linear-versus-nonlinear dichotomy. What the heck does it even really mean?

This is a sign that you need to reread Lilith's article.

Rollick and grit and not exactly the same thing as non-linearity and linearity, but they tend to be closely related.

[Lilith]

i'm pretty sure he gets that, but this is not the rollick vs. grit thread

[Student of Trinity]

Yeah, I'm actually clearer about rollick and grit, though I probably should re-read the article. But R/G is admittedly a distinction about how the game feels to play, while L/N seems to pretend to be more objective. I'm beginning to suspect that L/N is in fact just a poorly articulated proxy for R/G, with a few other incoherent ideas tacked on for camouflage.

[Drayk Armitage]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at.

[Student of Trinity]

But then we should stop all this nonsense about linear versus nonlinear, if that isn't what we really mean, and compare Jeff's games for rollick vs. grit. That seems more meaningful.

 

Among the Geneforges, it seems pretty clear that G2 is pretty rollicking while G3 is comparatively gritty. So is G4. G5 shifts a fair bit back to rollicking. G1 is a little funny, since it seems hard to call it rollicking when Sucia Island feels so much like a silent tomb, but there's so little momentum to the story that it feels weird calling it gritty. You're pretty much left to just wander around, and it's clear that if you don't do anything at all, nothing at all will happen. I dunno where I'd place it.

 

I gather the first three Averna were pretty rollicking, but the second trilogy seems distinctly more gritty to me, especially A5, though A6 slightly less.

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

B G1 is a little funny, since it seems hard to call it rollicking when Sucia Island feels so much like a silent tomb, but there's so little momentum to the story that it feels weird calling it gritty. You're pretty much left to just wander around, and it's clear that if you don't do anything at all, nothing at all will happen.

This is exactly why G1 does not have the best story. It was a good game, perhaps the best game overall, but definitely not the best story-wise.

Amazing atmosphere though, like I said earlier.

[Drayk Armitage]

I still maintain that "story" does not just mean "plot." Atmosphere, the world of the story, is also an essential component of any story.

 

Even when talking about plot alone, having the best plot is not the same thing as having the most plot. Bad plot is worse than no plot at all. G1 has probably the least plot of the Geneforge games, but I'd still rank its plot above that of G3 and G5.

[Alorael at Large]

I'll second Slarty's opinion. G1 has plenty of story, but much of it isn't so much acting as uncovering. You figure out who the servile factions are and why they're there, work out what happened to the Shapers on Sucia, and encounter the Sholai. Only the end is really proactive in any way, but the story doesn't start at the end!

 

—Alorael, who doesn't love rollick and grit as terminology. Drop those particular words and it's much easier to just look at whether there's a linear or branching path through the story, from A to (B or C) to (D or E), or an opportunity to roam from A to B and then to any of C, D, or E in whatever order you'd like. G1 leans much more towards the latter, and the simple geography of what you have to walk through to get across the map is the greatest constraint.

[Triumph]

G1 reminds me of a good mystery story. No one claims that a murder mystery has no plot, even though the bulk of the novel may focus on learning about something that already happened (a murder). That's the kind of thing I see going on G1.

[Cpt. Charles]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Bad plot is worse than no plot at all.

A prime example of this is Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It has almost no plot, yet is one of the greatest stories of all time.

Yes, I know, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is not an rpg. It should be though...

[Drayk Armitage]

I'm now picturing skill trees built around improbability, levitation, paranoia, terraforming, and towels.

 

I want this. Badly.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Whispered plea for outrage

—Alorael, who doesn't love rollick and grit as terminology. Drop those particular words and it's much easier to just look at whether there's a linear or branching path through the story, from A to (B or C) to (D or E), or an opportunity to roam from A to B and then to any of C, D, or E in whatever order you'd like. G1 leans much more towards the latter, and the simple geography of what you have to walk through to get across the map is the greatest constraint.

Part of the purpose of the rollick vs. grit axis was to create a framework for analysis of certain edge cases like the BoE scenario Falling Stars. FS is highly non-linear -- you can play through it twice and do completely different things in a completely different order -- but it actually has relatively little rollick, because the scenario's severe time constraints mean that you're not free to explore at your own pace, even though you're also not forced to get on with the main plot. The severity of the time constraint is important: Exile 3, by contrast, is significantly more rollicking (although not as rollicking as it would be with no time constraints at all), because the time constraint is permissive enough that you can work quite slowly, do all the quests and explore all the areas you find as you find them, and not have too many things closed off to you as a result.

Geneforge 1 is fairly high in rollick, since there are few external pressures limiting the PC's actions. Its main gritty element is the reputation system, which creates a lasting consequence for your actions and therefore has the potential to cut off opportunities for you as you act. (I'd argue that a hypothetical 100% rollicking game is one in which you can see as much or as little of the game's content as you want in a single complete playthrough, regardless of how you play. Such a game wouldn't necessarily have a win condition at all, or even an overarching plot; the exploration would be its own reward.)

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Cpt Charles

Yes, I know, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is not an rpg. It should be though...

Au contraire

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus

Originally Posted By: Cpt Charles

Yes, I know, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is not an rpg. It should be though...

Au contraire

that's not an rpg