Linearity vs Non-Linearity in Open World Games

[animalfather]

So this guy made probably the best video I've seen about why Red 2 is not as good as most people think it is. I think good lessons can be learned and applied to CP77.

I'm really hoping this is something CDPR can avoid and allow the player full freedom in solving missions without the hand holding.

 

[lelxrv]

"Full freedom" is too abstract for computer games. But modern games could use a bit less hand-holding and singular solutions to ingame situations.

 

[Rawls]

It is an interesting video with some solid points. One of my least favorite things about Rockstar games generally is how linear the missions are. The point about allowing multiple ways for a mission to be successfully completed is well taken. Also remember that RDR2 doesn't really offer any branching narrative or options for multiple ways for the story to be completed. Once you're in the quest, you're on the rails and will do it how they want you to.

As far as CP2077 is concerned, I think they're going for a more non-linear approach to quest design, which is really what this specific concern is about. Some Quotes:

There’s more choice to what we’ve just seen than is usually available in videogame quests: for instance, you could take DeShawn’s money and run at the very beginning, eschewing his mission but having to deal with the consequences later. You could make off with Stout’s eddies, too, although we presume you’d have to get the virus on the chip scrubbed off somewhere. “We don’t artificially limit ourselves,” Mills says. “Our philosophy for quest design is, ‘If the player can logically do it, then they can’. And if they can’t, then we have to come up with a damn good reason why.”

https://wccftech.com/cyberpunk-2077-quest-cyberpsychosis/ (quoting EDGE Magazine Article)

If players want to play Cyberpunk 2077 with a completely stealth-based approach, does the game allow for that?

A big part of what lets players immerse themselves in our game is allowing them to play it the way they want to. This means providing them with options to navigate locations, solve or even bypass problems, etc. We never force players to adopt any particular playstyle and we certainly won’t do it in Cyberpunk 2077.

https://gamingbolt.com/cyberpunk-20...etting-freedom-of-choice-side-quests-and-more

So I think they're more on board with non-linear gameplay within quests than Rockstar is generally.

 

[Harthwain]

"Full freedom" is too abstract for computer games.

That's not true.

With good systems in place you can have a lot of freedom when it comes to decisions and how they impact the game. Space Rangers 2 is a really good example of this. Just read this.

 

[lelxrv]

That's not true.

With good systems in place you can have a lot of freedom when it comes to decisions and how they impact the game. Space Rangers 2 is a really good example of this. Just read this.

You're already using a term "a lot of freedom". Thus changing the subject.

 

[animalfather]

I thought the freedom in MGSV was great but the world and story was complete shait. Good gameplay is like chess. U know the rules u know how the pieces move now all u need to do is put these elements in an interesting story and world.

 

[Harthwain]

You're already using a term "a lot of freedom". Thus changing the subject.

Am I? Or perhaps it's you who is trying to avoid the subject by trying to delve into ultimately useless semantics?

 

[lelxrv]

I thought the freedom in MGSV was great but the world and story was complete shait. Good gameplay is like chess. U know the rules u know how the pieces move now all u need to do is put these elements in an interesting story and world.

MGSV is a prime example that freedom isn't everything. You need to create interesting scenarios for players to be motivated enough to try various solutions.

Post automatically merged: Dec 18, 2018

Am I? Or perhaps it's you who is trying to avoid the subject by trying to delve into ultimately useless semantics?

You are. I clearly didn't start a discussion about a lot of freedom. If that's what OP meant, go talk to him about it. Don't bother me.

 

[animalfather]

MGSV is a prime example that freedom isn't everything. You need to create interesting scenarios for players to be motivated enough to try various solutions.

yes the rules of gameplay were great. the scenarios u could use them in were not. every missions was infiltrate this camp either kill or extract someone or something. And because of how the game worked you always extracted them. rinse and repeat and by the end of it you had infiltrated the same camp atleast 2-3 times. But knowing the dev history of that game is not fair to criticize it too much.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

Well, there are some way to give liberties without too much scripting, like real liberty of movement (like escalating a building from the outside, with mantis blades for example) and avoiding artificial "No!"/roadblocks.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

One way to reach as much non-linearity as possible is to design critical path of the main quest and story as loose as possible, so that where you normally reach a number of storycritical spots, there'd now only be a couple of very loose ones.

For a simplified example:
Let's say the main story of V is to reach a status (like it seems to be). Set the first goal for the player to be to gather a certain amount streetcred. How he does it, is completely up to the player. No essential NPC's, no scripted "must-follow" story points, but each NPC and questline is written and designed to the best of the developers ability to offer as much variety and nuance as possible. The player is set loose in the world without telling him what to do, except for few gentle nudges to get started, and then it's all up to him. And the game reacts to what the player does, opens some doors closes others, and before he knows it, the player has created an arc for himself to follow where there are neutrals, adversaries and friends.

The second goal could be gathering wealth. You've proved to be a workhorse, but that's not enough. You need something to show to get inside the big circles. Again, the world is open for the player to reach the goal as he pleases (taking previous choices in account). No essentials, not much scirpting on what "has" to be done.

And most importantly... The player should be allowed to fail (by other means than dying). He should be allowed to simply fuck things up and break all the paths to the goal. That's a valid ending, and it gives reaching the goals much, much more value as you have to keep in mind that victory is not certain.

It doesn't need to be like the above example of gaining credibility and money to reach a bottle neck after which things open up again. It could well be a set of goals that all lead towards the next, but from a different angle.

Simple and ambiguous "generalist" goal-points. "As the player chooses" approach to reaching them (as per the character the player chooses to play) with no A-B-C-D path nor essential characters. Reactive and persistent world so that the players' approaches count for something and have consequences. Ability to fuck it up.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

As I always say "open-world =/= sandbox".

open world is just a map, sandbox is "do whatever you want in the map"

RDR2 = GTA 4 = TW3 =/= skyrim = Zelda BotW = minecraft

I personally don't see the point in saying that RDR2 lacks of freedom, it's not its purpose.

Post automatically merged: Dec 18, 2018

One way to reach as much non-linearity as possible is to design critical path of the main quest and story as loose as possible, so that where you normally reach a number of storycritical spots, there'd now only be a couple of very loose ones.

For a simplified example:
Let's say the main story of V is to reach a status (like it seems to be). Set the first goal for the player to be to gather a certain amount streetcred. How he does it, is completely up to the player. No essential NPC's, no scripted "must-follow" story points, but each NPC and questline is written and designed to the best of the developers ability to offer as much variety and nuance as possible. The player is set loose in the world without telling him what to do, except for few gentle nudges to get started, and then it's all up to him. And the game reacts to what the player does, opens some doors closes others, and before he knows it, the player has created an arc for himself to follow where there are neutrals, adversaries and friends.

The second goal could be gathering wealth. You've proved to be a workhorse, but that's not enough. You need something to show to get inside the big circles. Again, the world is open for the player to reach the goal as he pleases (taking previous choices in account). No essentials, not much scirpting on what "has" to be done.

And most importantly... The player should be allowed to fail (by other means than dying). He should be allowed to simply fuck things up and break all the paths to the goal. That's a valid ending, and it gives reaching the goals much, much more value as you have to keep in mind that victory is not certain.

It doesn't need to be like the above example of gaining credibility and money to reach a bottle neck after which things open up again. It could well be a set of goals that all lead towards the next, but from a different angle.

Simple and ambiguous "generalist" goal-points. "As the player chooses" approach to reaching them (as per the character the player chooses to play) with no A-B-C-D path nor essential characters. Reactive and persistent world so that the players' approaches count for something and have consequences. Ability to fuck it up.

I'd love this.

 

[Suhiira]

One way to reach as much non-linearity as possible is to design critical path of the main quest and story as loose as possible, so that where you normally reach a number of storycritical spots, there'd now only be a couple of very loose ones.

For a simplified example:
Let's say the main story of V is to reach a status (like it seems to be). Set the first goal for the player to be to gather a certain amount streetcred. How he does it, is completely up to the player. No essential NPC's, no scripted "must-follow" story points, but each NPC and questline is written and designed to the best of the developers ability to offer as much variety and nuance as possible. The player is set loose in the world without telling him what to do, except for few gentle nudges to get started, and then it's all up to him. And the game reacts to what the player does, opens some doors closes others, and before he knows it, the player has created an arc for himself to follow where there are neutrals, adversaries and friends.

The second goal could be gathering wealth. You've proved to be a workhorse, but that's not enough. You need something to show to get inside the big circles. Again, the world is open for the player to reach the goal as he pleases (taking previous choices in account). No essentials, not much scirpting on what "has" to be done.

And most importantly... The player should be allowed to fail (by other means than dying). He should be allowed to simply fuck things up and break all the paths to the goal. That's a valid ending, and it gives reaching the goals much, much more value as you have to keep in mind that victory is not certain.

EXCELLENT suggestions here!

This sort of thing makes a world, and the characters actions "matter" yet you're not herded down your typical linear game path. The "Main Quest" is a goal, Street Cred, money, not a specific event. Thus the "Side Missions" ARE the important.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

Actually, I don't like when a open world game fixes a goal for me, I prefer when things happens to my character then it's at me to choose to react to it.
So basically I prefer to have a real story than just a goal.

 

[lelxrv]

One way to reach as much non-linearity as possible is to design critical path of the main quest and story as loose as possible, so that where you normally reach a number of storycritical spots, there'd now only be a couple of very loose ones.

For a simplified example:
Let's say the main story of V is to reach a status (like it seems to be). Set the first goal for the player to be to gather a certain amount streetcred. How he does it, is completely up to the player. No essential NPC's, no scripted "must-follow" story points, but each NPC and questline is written and designed to the best of the developers ability to offer as much variety and nuance as possible. The player is set loose in the world without telling him what to do, except for few gentle nudges to get started, and then it's all up to him. And the game reacts to what the player does, opens some doors closes others, and before he knows it, the player has created an arc for himself to follow where there are neutrals, adversaries and friends.

The second goal could be gathering wealth. You've proved to be a workhorse, but that's not enough. You need something to show to get inside the big circles. Again, the world is open for the player to reach the goal as he pleases (taking previous choices in account). No essentials, not much scirpting on what "has" to be done.

And most importantly... The player should be allowed to fail (by other means than dying). He should be allowed to simply fuck things up and break all the paths to the goal. That's a valid ending, and it gives reaching the goals much, much more value as you have to keep in mind that victory is not certain.

It doesn't need to be like the above example of gaining credibility and money to reach a bottle neck after which things open up again. It could well be a set of goals that all lead towards the next, but from a different angle.

Simple and ambiguous "generalist" goal-points. "As the player chooses" approach to reaching them (as per the character the player chooses to play) with no A-B-C-D path nor essential characters. Reactive and persistent world so that the players' approaches count for something and have consequences. Ability to fuck it up.

It sounds like Bethesda games. I'd rather take a story. That's where CDPR are actually great at. Depriving them of their strongest feat?

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

It sounds like Bethesda games.

What Bethesda does is they try to force an ”urgent” hardcoded storyline into a ”do what you want” design where nothing matters or makes a difference.

They are trying to force a square peg through a round hole.

That’s not at all what I’m trying to suggest. My idea is closer (but not the same) to Fallout (the original two, not Bethesda’s crap).

Actually, I don't like when a open world game fixes a goal for me

You’ll have a goal whether you wanted one or not either way. What I’m trying to push for is for those goals to be as unintrusive and herding as possible without sacrificing quality (player driven) storytelling.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

You’ll have a goal whether you wanted one or not either way.

I don't think "having things happening to my character" qualify as "having a goal imposed to me".

 

[Bondaebu]

Narrative-centered story like Witcher 3 or RDR 2 need some linearity, inevitably.

To make story make sense, some plots are essential. And it enrich the story and people feel it.

Of course goal-centered stories like Fallout 1, 2 , New Vegas, BOTW, etc. can have good 'Story' but I think it's different. Personally I think this kind of stories are dry.

You know, Geralt and Arthur's stories were very heartwarming. But in fallout, yes, It has good story, good background, good characters, but.. I just can't feel emotional thing in this kind of game as I did in witcher series.

Because many elements composing good story, and causing people to feel something must have been sacrificed.

That kind of games want to give players freedom. In result, plots are very simple, story is superficial. (of course you can dig into it but it's so easy to miss for most players)

I love CDPR because their story and character, writing are so good. Plus their game has non-linearity too. not as much people in here want though, but still it exsists. Witcher series are not full linear, cinematic experience. And its balance between story and freedom is perfect for me. I hope they won't sacrifice the story that much for freedom.

 

[Rawls]

You know, Geralt and Arthur's stories were very heartwarming. But in fallout, yes, It has good story, good background, good characters, but.. I just can't feel emotional thing in this kind of game as I did in witcher series.

This is basically how I feel too. I like the idea of goal oriented storytelling, but it rarely makes me feel anything other than "oh it's cool that I can do this a bunch of different ways."

I think narrative focus is overall a very good thing for the story of a game. However, I think within quest and level design, non-linearity is good for gameplay. I would like it if there were lots of scenes within a quest that have those "feel" moments, but some of which aren't "necessary" for the conclusion of the quest. That way if you can logically figure it out with skipping certain beats, fine. You might miss something by not jumping through some hoops the story had, but if you made it work, good for you.

 

[romantoman123]

I would love a game that shows the player basic components of a game, but still allows for fun to be had in discovering new features. I don't like to have my handheld, but I don't like being tossed into a game with my eyes blindfolded. Show me how the game works, then let me have fun with it. In terms of storytelling, I enjoy a good story to go along with game play, but I'm a firm believer in choice based games. If I kill someone in open world/campaign play, I want the actions of people around me to be affected. Whether it's treating me different at certain points, or just a minor story change, I wan't my actions to have consequences. Although I do like those ideas, and I feel red dead followed through with them for the most part, one thing I think they screwed up on is the way that the campaign can affect your actions and abilities in the open world. During the play through I did, I didn't exactly pay attention to the story. So when I learned that I was wanted "dead or alive" in Blackwater, I had no idea why. In other instances, the game basically forces you to commit crimes, which if you become wanted for, can lead to consequences during open world play. I understand the game developers desire to make the player feel more immersed into the life of Arthur Morgan, but I'm not a big fan of actions that I can't control affecting the way I play the game.