Gojira Tai Mosura! All games today are either Linear or Semi-Linear. I'm am sick of people using "Linear Plot" like a dirty word. Guess what? When it comes to single player games, it will be a sad sad day when you can affect a game's story in any drastic manner. Case in point: Multiple Endings. Multiple endings kill stories. The ending is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF A STORY, no contest! To dilute the theme of a story by adding alternate endings is entirely detrimental to the meaning of the story you have constructed. Take Hamlet: If you were in control of Hamlet in that last scene with the sword fight... Let's say there were alternate endings. If you fought well enough, you'd never be hit, and thus never poisoned. You wouldn't die, and thus there would be a "happy" ending. Hence, the ENTIRE MESSAGE of sacrifice and desparation is lost! C'mon. Linear plots RULE! I sit down, and I want to recieve a well thought out, entertaining story. Even better if it gives me the ILLUSION of control (well), but the story MUST BE IN TACT! I know, I know. Why play a video game at all? Why not just watch a movie if you have no control over the outcome? There is a sympathetic reaction that you aren't usually aware of when playing a game. Especially in Linear plots. The character's adversity is your adversity, the character's failure is your failure. The story WILL NOT conitnue if you aren't involved. Most Square games have confusing, convoluted, downright shallow plots. Why do people love them? Because this Sympathetic reaction can get us obsessed with even the most shallow and cliched stories. What happens when you apply that technique to a carefully laid out, linear story? A really good one? I'll tell you. You die. When the game is over, you feel like you have lived another life, it is the single greatest thing I have ever felt (short of well, y'know). But if people continue to gravitate towards interactivity (in the sense that the user directly changes the outcome) then there will be no more games like that! Urp! Bim Bim Bim! So I say F*ck all this "You decide your Fate" crap. Give me a story in steps, where I have to get in there and make things happen to see how it ends! Flame away! I'm ready. This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!" Edited by - Landfish on 6/9/00 5:35:16 PM

PS- I would rather have titled this post "Linear Heresy", because I hate the Vs. thing. But I didn''t think of it till after I posted. =(

I must confess I was really hoping for someone to argue with me. Oh well. I'm off to read that gamasutra article. I'll edit this when I get back.

As promised, I'm back. The article kicked so much ass, I wrote emailed the guy who wrote it. EVERYONE GO READ IT NOW!

Edited by - Landfish on June 10, 2000 3:30:41 PM

This is a very well thought-out rant, Landfish I''d be glad to offer a little adversity:

First of all, is it entirely inconcievable for a plot to go in two directions and still hold up? I believe so, at least under the condition that most games do not present as story as deep and meaningful as that of Hamlet.

I will use my upcoming game, Enigma, as an example. For most of the game the plot is "semi-linear," meaning the player can alter what paths they go down, but in the end they reach the crucial plot points, and everything holds together quite nicely no matter what. There are, however, multiple endings. Each one is tastefully done, to illustrate a certain theme of the game. The "bad" ending plays more off of the feeling of helplessness and insignifance in the game, but the "good" ending aims more for the idea that "every plan has a flaw." Neither are weak, in fact both are quite strong (if I may say so myself ), but they allow the player to actually manipulate the outcome of the game. Surely there is some sort of justification for that? Isn''t that, in some way, the POINT of interactive entertainment?

I do agree with you on the Sympathy point. Games that have multiple endings, the "bad" one being bad because the evil man wins, and the "good" one being good cause you kicked the evil man''s ass ... this is all very contrived and simplistic, and often shows in games where the plot was an afterthought, like first-person shooters.

Basically I think I can sum this up in one sentence: There is definitely something to be said for a player controlling their destiny by having the plot act according to the player''s actions.

Please respond, Landfish! This is a very interesting topic!



------------------------------
Changing the face of adventure gaming...
Atypical Interactive

I must agree with AtypicalAlex here. The player should be in control of how the story unfolds. There is nothing wrong with linear stories, but after all it is a game, so I beleive it should offer more then just one way to save the princess, or now whatever the game is about.

Remember those cursed Interactive Multimedia Games in the middle of the 90th? That is what I call a perfect linear story, however, I must say that the games were crap though. Anyway, maybe they should have been called Interactive Film (or Movies for all the American people). In these films, or games, one false move (when you actually could decide what to do) ment death, there was only one correct answer to each decision. This is linear at it''s best (worse?).

So games should offer more then this, ok, I know you can design a game using a linear story, look at Grim Fandango, Monkey Island, very good games. However, with a totally linear story, a game is not that appealing to play again after you finished it. With more multiple ways to achive the goals the game will be more fun to play a second time.

Just my thoughts my friends.

-------
Padrino
-------

If it''s fun and entertaining, I don''t care which. But my bet is on passive entertainment to be more mainstream (passive = linearity). Although there will always be room for interactive entertainment.

I am afraid I will have to disagree with the walking fish this time. If done correctly, I think non-linearity would be a better gaming experience (at least for me). I've heard people say that Baulder's Gate is non-linear. I've even heard it's too non-linear. IMO, it is still too linear, or at least too structured and stiff. Every time you go to a certain point on a map there's the same guy there asking you to do the same thing for him every time you play the game. The way that I think a non-linear game should be (and the way I plan to develop my own) is there should be NPCs that have agendas. If you happen to coincide with these agendas then you are part of that story. Like, there could be a plan for a group of thieves to raid some nobleman's house. If the player has made friends w/ these thieves they may have the player help them. If the player is hired by the nobleman to guard his property, the player may have to protect the house from those thieves. Hence, the player may play the game two seperate times and have two totally different experiences even though the same exact situation had occured. Futhermore, I'd probably make it so that the situation of the thieves raiding the house be set to occur on a random day each time the game is run, so it does not happen the same exact time every time. And, there could be other situations the player may be in that could affect this occurance. This is not the greatest example, but I think my point is evident.

I think that non-linearity is what I am describing here. IMHO, I would like to see a game that is not so much a story that plays throughout the game where the player has options and control of the situations. I have never really seen a game that I think did it quite right.

Basically, I think a well-developed linear story has it's place, but I persoanlly would rather play a well-designed non-linear story where there's a loose story of events rather than a very structured story where it's this big epic adventure. I think that a loose story of events is more realistic too. I know that you are going to debate my sorry ass into the ground, Landfish, but I thought I'd voice my opinion anyway.


Edited by - Nazrix on June 10, 2000 11:41:36 AM

Nazrix, well said and good example I think. Just one thing: is there any story at all in that situation? I mean, if everything could happen two or more different ways and times, would there be any cohherent plot? I think not. Yet, what you have stated is by far the best way to let the player participate in the game, because he gets to chose if he wants to rob this dude or not. I think this would fall into a simulated universe category than a game-with-a-plot category, eg most games.

On the left: Complete freedom of choice, with no plot unless the player accidently creates one himself.
On the right: A linear experience, with an amazing story.

The virtual pet freaks will probably lean to the left, I myself will take the right any day. The lucky thing is, we can mold our game into any mixture between the two.
I think that the ideal game would lie 3/4 to the right. A game needs a story, even if it does take away from the complete freedom. But the player must still be able to play some part, and multiple endings that don''t detract from the story can''t be a bad thing.

Just my humble opinion.

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive