Psycology: I love it. :-)
Both methods work well, with the proper stories, but I prefer multiple endings.
A non-linear game, as previously stated, does need to have a central storyline to work. Take the [ancient] SNES game Chrono Trigger; I'm sure most of us have played it. You start off as Chrono and venture forth. Throughout the game you make choices and meet people that can effect the storyline and change the ending but no matter what you did, whatever twists you take, the overall plot stayed the same: save the future by changing the past and present. Depending on who you choose to defeat Lavos, the ending changes.
The good things with multiple endings are the replay value they add. Most people will make different choices the second time around. Who wants to do the same thing over and over? Multiple endings with different characters also attracts a larger audience. While I was able to associate better with Chrono, my brother preferred Magus and a friend chose Glenn. If they all had the same ending the game would be disappointing, IMO.
A linear game usually has the same storyline no matter what. No matter what you do, the ending stays the same. You have to complete task A before getting item B, the game does not care whether you play the Hero or a Drag Queen from Bourbun Street. To me, that is corny.
Does anyone remember the Choose Your Own Adventure books?
Letting the players control the plot will work best with MMORPGs that are "updated" every so often, like Asheron's Call. The creators should have a general, loose outline of the way the story goes but should watch the ongoing game to determine plot elements to add, change, or delete based on what the players do.
Edited by - Steven Edwards on June 10, 2000 7:06:15 PM
Linear Vs. Interactive!
Author
Unless I''m mistaken, Chronotrigger was Modular, not non-linear. You were still very limited in what you could do, but you chose the order in which you do it. Kinda like (gasp) myst.
The ending thing is true though. So long as the ending still supports the theme of the game (or in the case of CT the character''s theme) it''s still technically a linear ending. The story remains almost completely in tact! So you are right, but so am I (nya nya ni poo poo)
This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"
The ending thing is true though. So long as the ending still supports the theme of the game (or in the case of CT the character''s theme) it''s still technically a linear ending. The story remains almost completely in tact! So you are right, but so am I (nya nya ni poo poo)
This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"
CT might have been modular, I''ll give you that. :-)
But it did do a good job of making you feel that your choices effected the outcome -- it is one of my favorites of all time.
But it did do a good job of making you feel that your choices effected the outcome -- it is one of my favorites of all time.
Author
Yeah! So we can add that to our little list of semi-linearities that can be used to enhance a game...
1)Sympathetic Resonanace (Isn''t that a neat way to put it?)
2)Passive interactivity
3)Modular timeline
I''ve never written anything with a modular timeline. Now I will have to! =) Thanks!
This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"
1)Sympathetic Resonanace (Isn''t that a neat way to put it?)
2)Passive interactivity
3)Modular timeline
I''ve never written anything with a modular timeline. Now I will have to! =) Thanks!
This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"
I just have to say i love linear games such as Grim Fandango, Relentless and Twinsen''s Odessey. SOOOOO many game mag''s mark down games such as these because of their linearity, but (IMHO) a linear game with a well thought out story/plot is much better than a non-linear game of the same standard...
Linear games are only bad when you get stuck, which is really really annoying. Alot of people get turned off your game when this happens.
-----------------------------
-cow_in_the_well
http://cowswell.gda.ods.org/
Linear games are only bad when you get stuck, which is really really annoying. Alot of people get turned off your game when this happens.
-----------------------------
-cow_in_the_well
http://cowswell.gda.ods.org/
I''ve got a chrono trigger ROM if anyone wants to play it 
First off, you should be aware that any game with the same outcome, no matter the ending.. is linear. Even Mortal Kombat is linear. You beat a set number of opponents (although the order is random up until the last two or so..) and you win, or lose. Should you win.. you''re presented with your character''s "ending". All the characters had a different ending, yet.. they all had the same result. You Won! There was no grey area, you won, you lost. Multiple-endings of the same ending I guess i should call it multiple ways of having the same ending. Killer Instinct took this up a notch. If, as Orchid, you did not kill Jago and knock him off the bridge to a fatal death.. the ending is different. He joins you in the end to help you win.. but that''s only according to the story you''re presented with at the end. Without his help, it presents a "you killed your own brother, but still kicked the bad guy''s butt" kind of ending. It made you want to go back and keep him alive 
This multiple-ending based on previous actions, yet still following the same plot-ending, is the best way to make something. If you, for example, keep your dog alive in the game, perhaps he can do something much easier than you could have. Say he takes a bullet for you, and allows you to win.. whereas you wouldn''t have this is the case of taking a wrong turn, but having the right tools to still win. This way, you''re not in the best win scenerio, but you still win.
A set begining and a set ending are a deffinate need. If you don''t have that, you might as well give up now A different ending for each character is a plus! but it''s still the same ending. Also having multiple endings is nice. The ending for the best screw up, to the worst screw up. And even screw ups along the way. I mean, if you die.. you get an ending, but die at the begining or end of most games and you get the exact same ending.. regardless of what had happened in the world. That''s wrong, poor design
J
First off, you should be aware that any game with the same outcome, no matter the ending.. is linear. Even Mortal Kombat is linear. You beat a set number of opponents (although the order is random up until the last two or so..) and you win, or lose. Should you win.. you''re presented with your character''s "ending". All the characters had a different ending, yet.. they all had the same result. You Won! There was no grey area, you won, you lost. Multiple-endings of the same ending
I guess i should call it multiple ways of having the same ending. Killer Instinct took this up a notch. If, as Orchid, you did not kill Jago and knock him off the bridge to a fatal death.. the ending is different. He joins you in the end to help you win.. but that''s only according to the story you''re presented with at the end. Without his help, it presents a "you killed your own brother, but still kicked the bad guy''s butt" kind of ending. It made you want to go back and keep him alive This multiple-ending based on previous actions, yet still following the same plot-ending, is the best way to make something. If you, for example, keep your dog alive in the game, perhaps he can do something much easier than you could have. Say he takes a bullet for you, and allows you to win.. whereas you wouldn''t have this is the case of taking a wrong turn, but having the right tools to still win. This way, you''re not in the best win scenerio, but you still win.A set begining and a set ending are a deffinate need. If you don''t have that, you might as well give up now
A different ending for each character is a plus! but it''s still the same ending. Also having multiple endings is nice. The ending for the best screw up, to the worst screw up. And even screw ups along the way. I mean, if you die.. you get an ending, but die at the begining or end of most games and you get the exact same ending.. regardless of what had happened in the world. That''s wrong, poor design J
Author
I think you might be abstracting it a little more than is useful, Niphty.
Anyway, about the Failure Ending being the same, that''s not bad at all so long as it''s just watching the character die and trying again. Why do you need anymore? The story effectively ends right there. So why would you need variation?
Anyway, about the Failure Ending being the same, that''s not bad at all so long as it''s just watching the character die and trying again. Why do you need anymore? The story effectively ends right there. So why would you need variation?
Why not make death a part of the game ala Torment (most cases) ?
You can not die Highlander... (scottish brogue)
You can not die Highlander... (scottish brogue)
I'm still at odds w/ you, chicken of the sea...err...fish of the land. I really don't think it would be so very hard to incorporate the situations I described with something of a story that can be completed. A plot could be presented early in the game (not nessessarily at the very beginning of the game). A player could choose to just explorer that plot. That plot could be fairly linear...perhaps offering a few differnt ways to complete that plot. I think most players, however, would be very curious to explore the various other situations and plots.
Landfish, you are always ranting about how real life can potentially make for a good game. I think non-linearity models life best.
Also, I think it would wonderful giving the player info about a situation, and letting the player take the inititive of reacting to it. Like, if info leaks out to the player that the king is going to be assassinated. The player could choose to go to the king to tell him w/ consequences of perhaps the assassins coming after the player. The player could choose to speak to the assassins and help them along w/ other possibilites. The important point of this is that there would not nessessarily be someone telling the player to go protect the king, the player could make decisions based on the info.
Also, I think that emotion could be illustrated through a non-linear game of this type every bit as much if not more than a linear game. Imagine if the player meets an NPC that becomes a dear friend. The player receives news of that NPC being murdered. The player would probably want to avenge the death of the NPC, hence providing a pretty powerful emotion. The player would not be required to avenge the death, but probably would want to.
In regards to this being like an online RPG, I really have not seen an online RPG that is really like this. The only non-linearity in an online RPG is created with the inclusion of real-life players that spend most of their time talking about what they do for a living in real life or how much exp. they need for the next level, not any dynamic non-linear plots.
I know that Landfish has explained why this is not the case, but I think that a purely linear game is much like a book or movie. When a person watches a movie or reads a book it is natural to identify w/ the main character just like in a linear game. In a linear game, you may die which makes you want to keep playing again to see how it all ends, but eventually it does end and that's it. I really think you might as well use the medium of a book or movie or play.
I agree w/ Niphty: It is definition that you can tell a more gripping story when it's linear. You can control the flow a lot better, but when it comes to which one is more interesting to me..I pick non-linearity.......
Damn, my hands are tired...I'll come up w/ more later
PS you're pretty spiffy too, Landifsh even if you are a bit off on this one hehe...
Edited by - Nazrix on June 11, 2000 8:08:55 PM
Landfish, you are always ranting about how real life can potentially make for a good game. I think non-linearity models life best.
Also, I think it would wonderful giving the player info about a situation, and letting the player take the inititive of reacting to it. Like, if info leaks out to the player that the king is going to be assassinated. The player could choose to go to the king to tell him w/ consequences of perhaps the assassins coming after the player. The player could choose to speak to the assassins and help them along w/ other possibilites. The important point of this is that there would not nessessarily be someone telling the player to go protect the king, the player could make decisions based on the info.
Also, I think that emotion could be illustrated through a non-linear game of this type every bit as much if not more than a linear game. Imagine if the player meets an NPC that becomes a dear friend. The player receives news of that NPC being murdered. The player would probably want to avenge the death of the NPC, hence providing a pretty powerful emotion. The player would not be required to avenge the death, but probably would want to.
In regards to this being like an online RPG, I really have not seen an online RPG that is really like this. The only non-linearity in an online RPG is created with the inclusion of real-life players that spend most of their time talking about what they do for a living in real life or how much exp. they need for the next level, not any dynamic non-linear plots.
I know that Landfish has explained why this is not the case, but I think that a purely linear game is much like a book or movie. When a person watches a movie or reads a book it is natural to identify w/ the main character just like in a linear game. In a linear game, you may die which makes you want to keep playing again to see how it all ends, but eventually it does end and that's it. I really think you might as well use the medium of a book or movie or play.
I agree w/ Niphty: It is definition that you can tell a more gripping story when it's linear. You can control the flow a lot better, but when it comes to which one is more interesting to me..I pick non-linearity.......
Damn, my hands are tired...I'll come up w/ more later
PS you're pretty spiffy too, Landifsh even if you are a bit off on this one hehe...
Edited by - Nazrix on June 11, 2000 8:08:55 PM
Author
In a way, it all comes down to preference. Perhaps I wasviewing it as a little more black-and-white than it really is, but hey; I was trying to start a fight, was I not? =)
Point #1- Linear games will always make for more coherant stories and more signifigant literary experiences, because it is the vision of one or more people being given to a viewer. In this sense, it is much like film, only with the added techniques as listed above. This is by no means a bad thing.
Point #2- Non-linear games will provide more extensive, open-ended experiences. They will be an escapist (as opposed to literary) medium. This doesn''t mean they are without moral or theme, just that the morals and themes are open-ended, like everything else. As our society becomes more interconnected virtually, almost all non-linear games will be online, because unlike Linear games, they can be.
Point #3- Online games at present suffer from many weaknesses, most of which have been addressed in other posts in this forum. If any of the GDNet members who have been screwed up by me go on to become anythingt, we may just set a precedent. That would please me greatly. This would allow Online gaming to become exactly what Nazrix has detailed in earlier posts.. in other words, actually worth my time.
Point #4- I think I only mentioned obliquely that I was talking about single-player games here. I think that if you are going to make a non-linear game, you may as well make it online. Am I wrong? With the new systems we have detailed (economic, advancement, combat and philosophy) online games would become very different. Perhaps I should start on a "Unified Theory" of all my idealist principles. Niphty, expect an email on this.
IMPORTANT: I don''t always know, and I am only human.
Sometimes I forget that... =)
Point #1- Linear games will always make for more coherant stories and more signifigant literary experiences, because it is the vision of one or more people being given to a viewer. In this sense, it is much like film, only with the added techniques as listed above. This is by no means a bad thing.
Point #2- Non-linear games will provide more extensive, open-ended experiences. They will be an escapist (as opposed to literary) medium. This doesn''t mean they are without moral or theme, just that the morals and themes are open-ended, like everything else. As our society becomes more interconnected virtually, almost all non-linear games will be online, because unlike Linear games, they can be.
Point #3- Online games at present suffer from many weaknesses, most of which have been addressed in other posts in this forum. If any of the GDNet members who have been screwed up by me go on to become anythingt, we may just set a precedent. That would please me greatly. This would allow Online gaming to become exactly what Nazrix has detailed in earlier posts.. in other words, actually worth my time.
Point #4- I think I only mentioned obliquely that I was talking about single-player games here. I think that if you are going to make a non-linear game, you may as well make it online. Am I wrong? With the new systems we have detailed (economic, advancement, combat and philosophy) online games would become very different. Perhaps I should start on a "Unified Theory" of all my idealist principles. Niphty, expect an email on this.
IMPORTANT: I don''t always know, and I am only human.
Sometimes I forget that... =)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
