Linear Vs. Interactive!

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. =(

Good argument, Landfish. I''ve spent way too many hours considering this myself (what else do you do on busses...when there are no cute women to look at?). If you liked that Letter From A Dungeon article, you''ll like this one too: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/designers_notebook/19991229.htm
It''s by the same guy (Ernest Adams). Same idea you brought up: are ''interactive'' stories such a good idea? I have to agree with both you and Ernest: no.
Stories have to be carefully constructed in order to have the right balance of suspense, tension building, and character development, that are used to create a climax (no jokes from the peanut gallery). Allowing the player to wander through the world freely with no regard for any plot elements will either make a very boring game, or a very lame story. I say, if you want to make your game story-centric, make it a good story and make the player follow it. Otherwise, take the emphasis off the story and shift it to gameplay, or some other element.
Make good stories, and they will like it (or some cheesy line like that).

Morbo

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

Thanks, Minister, I was hoping I made some sense

You have described the one problem (well, whether it's a problem depends on how you look at it) about my idea. There would be no real story thoughout the game. It would be events that happen that sort of create the story as the player makes decisions. I think that this is closer to real life in a way. You wake up in the morning, go about your business, and make decisions based upon what you feel the character should do.

I honestly don't know what the the hell to do about an ending. How do you end a story that isn't really a story? I still think a game like this would be interesting...

Also, I would include mini-plots that have a little more longevity as well as the single events and occurances I've described. I guess the only solution to my ending problem is to have an overall story that runs throughout the game that the player can explore at his/her liesure with other mini-plots and occurances along the way. Kind of like Daggerfall...



Edited by - Nazrix on June 10, 2000 12:50:33 PM

Non-linear plots can work IF you define some critical story points that occur no matter what path you take. This way, you give the player the illusion that the events are caused by his/her actions (and to a point, they are), while still allowing you to weave an intricate story.

To elaborate, say part of the story demands that you rescue a princess from an evil dragon. Of course, if anyone decided to actually make this plot, I'd have to slap them with a fish of land, but lets just use this as an example . Anyway, you could decide to fight the dragon directly to rescue the princess, or maybe you could instead find a way to sneak in to rescue the princess without the dragon noticing. These both present some interesting choices for the player, but in the end the critical story point is the same: you must rescue the princess.

So when it comes down to it, I guess my point is this: a non-linear game should set goals for you to achieve, then allow you to figure out how to acheive these goals on your own. In any case, we've come to a point IMHO where we should start taking advantage of the fact that this *is* an interactive medium. We should re-evalute our current method of trying to replicate books and movies.

--TheGoop




Edited by - TheGoop on June 10, 2000 1:06:46 PM

I like games where you can play your character as you want, like elite where you can be a merchant, a space-killer or an asteroid digger. I also like a really well written story where you fell involded in the story.
So is it possible to mix both aspects, allowing the player to follow one ( or more ) main plot(s) or to get sidetracked a while doing what he thinks his character likes best ?
If he does not like the main plot he could even abandon it.

This way everybody find what he likes ...

BWAH! I got to bed at 4 am last night and I get to wake up to this! Cool! I guess everybody was just really non-confrontational, and in keeping with my general style I was when nobody else was. Enough about that. Good arguements on both sides, but as Nazrix predicted, I shall attempt to debunk:

Atypical: (Thanks, btw) All stories need an underlying theme. A good story really needs to be ABOUT something, and this theme must be supported by the ending of the story. Think about it: when you see a "film" and the ending just doesn''t fit with the theme, what do you say? "The ending sucked." Case in point: The Ninth Gate.

I think that Sympathy (as previously discussed ) alone is a powerful enough tool to justify interactivity in story. I mean, if you saw FFVII as a straight out move, you''d probably be disgusted with the shallow characters, convoluted plot, and general confusion. But sympathy alone made that, and most RPGs, worth playing! That''s power.

But in addition to Sympathy, Interactivity brings with it ANOTHER powerful tool that has no direct relation to the outcome of a story: Interactivity. Yes, allowing the player to interact with the story WITHOUT CHANGING THE PLOT AT ALL is a very powerful too. Cul de Sacs, secret characters... things that ADD to the plot but are still created entirely to support the theme. You will want to go back and play it again, knowing you don''t have the WHOLE story.

What I''m on about is this: Changing the outcome of the story cheapens the story. In life, and literature, you don''t live a better life based on merit, you don''t get a better ending. Games CAN be like literature, in fact, are at their best when they are most like literature. There''s more to this, for later. Next...

Padrino: My main gripe with interactivity is about changing the outcome. What you suggest in your post is Multiple success pathways, where the player can choose a route based on his/her own strengths and weaknesses. I use this myself; see my response to AtypicalAlex about this kind of interactivity, which I consider holy. We should really find another term for one of them. Any ideas?

Those games you spoke of were simply poor design. There are techniques that could have been implemented to make them better, OR a stunning plot with professional quality writing and acting, and top-notch cinematography; and you wouldn''t have cared if it were goddamn Night Trap, am I right? It''s too bad that when we do see a game with that kind of money behind it, it''ll probably be Square or microsoft.

Anonymous Poster: Good point. However I would argue that (drumroll) nonlinearity has completely the reverse effect of what you wrote. The more multiple endings you have, the less it becomes that you beat it at all! If you view (as most do) the end as the goal of the game, then knowing that there are six more endings will take emphasis off of that.

All games by default have two endings. One ending is a CONCLUSION, the other is one or more failure endings. We''re really talking about conclusions here. The conclusion is the completion of the story, you want your player to be relfecting on it''s signifigance. If you cheapen it down to a "did I get the good ending", you''ve trivialized the entire journey.

Nazrix: Come to the dark side, Nazrix... If done correctly, huh? Think for a moment what that would be like. "Fate" sits up and begs for your input, and transmutes it into a story based on where you are guiding it. Sure. it''d be fun, but soon it would become trivial. You would probably not play such a game through to it''s "conclusion", but instead let it wither away like an online rpg. Even if you did beat it, the ending would be so contrived and molded to the results that you put forth. Ask a writer (a real one, not your DM on thursday night) if it is possible to make such a story good. He''ll say, "Yes, but I need 1000 years and a personal muse. Plus I will need to give up sleep, and food consumption to meet the thousand year deadline."

As for your example, I think that kind of game would be kindof fun. BUT, You aren''t looking at the big picture. What is the signifigance of the character''s actions, of his choice; beyond it''s immediate consequences on the dezinens of NPCdom and collateral damage on polygonal terrain. I''m asking, "What will it mean to the player? And what are you, the Author trying to say with this game? What''s the point?"

Essentially all you''ve done with this scenario is create an online RPG without needing to go online. Since we''re all gonna have broadband someday, I ask you: "Why bother?"

Did I live up to your expectations? Who''s next...

The_minister: Guess what? My first post wasn''t very clear on what I meant about interactivity. I am in complete agreement with you, kindof. The more you can give the player the ILLUSION of control, the better. This may even mean giving them semi-control over subplots and cul de sacs, easter eggs of all variety. But again, I think I noted this in another reply...

You want True interactivity, go play everquest. Soon, MMORPGs will allow you to grope and manipulate everything. Have fun, I''m gonna stay here and search for metaphysical implications in the medium. And the result will hopefully be video games that change your life! (Heh, imagine that.)

In conclusion (for this post, anyway)
I would like to note that I''m thinking of a kind of game you have probably never player. A story, acting, and othersuch aspects of production that you would see in anything of quality in other media ("films", literature) with the added aspects of Sympathy and passive interactivity. Oooh! There''s the definition! Anyway, think about what you accept as quality. Even the best game you''ve ever player could be vastly improved from a storytelling stand point. Whether or not you need to improve it is a matter of opinion.

I think we''ll eventually start making VERY actively interactive games... and we''ll stop and say "Hey, I feel kind of empty. Is this what I asked for?"



This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"

Well, I like non-linear and linear. My game has a linear beginning and ending, but the path is different. Say, if you bring your mother with you in the game, she gets killed near the end. If you don''t bring her, she is killed by goblins. At the end, the hero kills the bad guy because he caused the death of his mother. See, it works both ways. And, in my game, if you bring other people with you, they help get you through the game faster, or slower depending on who they are. Hope I helped at all!

Sure, Lynck! Blame it all on the goblins why don''t you?! Man, what''d they ever do to you?!

=)

This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"

Honestly Landfish.. I believe you''re messedup in the head

But.. if you want to argue.. first I''ll list things good to your side:
Privateer: Wonderfully done game of the Wing Commander universe. Totally linear plot with non-linear gameplay. You could fly around for years and nothing would happen with the plot so long as you didn''t show up at a certain point.
Fallout 1 & 2: Same as privateer, linear plot.. non-linear game play. These games had an awesome theme and plot to them, which made them so much FUN!

I believe these are the games you would like to follow along with. True.. they''re totally linear, but they allow the player free-roaming. If something is set to happen in 10 days, and the player ignores it.. they''re likely to not be able to continue in most games. Fallout handled this well. If you failed to save the ghoul town, you could still finish everything, but it was harder in the end. You could sidestep some plot elements, and still finish the game.. but you had a harder time doing it.

Linear plot is the only kind of plot. Linear begining, linear end. Semi-linear middle. The player can wonder, explore, and adventure all they want.. and ignore the plot. Other games like the quest for glory series had much the same linearity. I loved these games for their deep plot elements. Today''s games LACK the plot though.
A non-linear game with a plot is near impossible. It''s life.. life has no plot or linearity to it. True, the character could try being a policeman, or a fireman.. but there''s no gaurentee. SimCity is non-linear. You have a role, and a task you should do that never stops. MMORPGs are non-linear for the individual gamer, while as a whole the designer tries to make it have a linear plot.

So landfish.. you want to argue.. come up with something that can be argued! A totally linear plot needs the perfect story. But a non-linear plot needs no story. What you should try to think about is that multiple-ending thing. That''s a good arguement point. Multiple-endings can be done well.. but only if they''re multiple endings of the same ending. Meaning: Quest for glory 2, you could play as a theif, mage, or fighter. As a mage, you won by casting a spell, as a fighter, by strength, and as a theif by dagger. They all resulted in the same thing.. but had multiple-endings of the same ending Customization of the game to character class is essential in RPG games. Afterall, you''re playing a role, and the game should seem like it was designed for someone with your role.. otherwise.. why have that role there? That to me is good use of plot around different player options. The same events should happen, but not in the same ways.
Think of something better to argue about, this topic has no arguement, it''s all factual!!!

J

Grrr... Niphty, you aren''t ever playing a role in computer games. You just aren''t! You play tabletop, right? When you are PLAYING A ROLE, you are often called upon to do things that might be detrimental to the health or safety of the character. Unless it''s D&D, which is (often) basically a video game on paper.

SOME MMORPGs actually have the right to be called RPGs, but for most, it''s a complete misnomer. Despite this, your post is still entirely true. Sorry for the nitpicking.

Anyway, those three endings all support the theme of the game in the exact same way! They have merely accounted for some minor cosmetic differences between possible characters. That''s all cool. It''s major plot differences that I think are stupid and self-destructive to a story.

This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"

Agh! Landfish, you''re messing with my head!! Now I think that I SHOULDN''T have multiple endings in my game!

But, in truth, I never really had multiple ENDINGS. Really how it worked was that you could get killed first. I treated this death as the "bad" ending, but really it was just a failed attempt (what I mean is, after dying, the player would not start a new game, but rather "try again," because the game wasn''t over, they just lost).

How''s that sound to you?

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

Alex-san, you have no idea how happy that makes me! That''s what I''m here for... So now that you''ve come to the dark side, I suggest the following:

-Come up with a thematic statement IMMEDIATELY if you do not have one already.

-Make your conclusion a resolution of that thematic statement.

-Make your failure endings as unresolved and unsettling as possible. Make the player realize the story did not turn out the way it should have thematically, and they should play again.

By "Failure ending" is do not mean a conclusion to the story that is less preferable. I mean when you die in combat or make poor choices and never reach the end of a story. All games usually have these.

This post was brought to you by the letter "Land", and the number "Fish!"

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