Linearity vs Non-Linearity in Open World Games

[kofeiiniturpa]

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

I'm not really sure I understand what you mean. You have to have a storyline for a "role" to exist, and a story to be told in this medium requires there to be a goal of some sort. Tracking down Ciri, finding the waterchip, etc. You are always put on a road to "go to this guy who tells you to do that, return for debrief", and queuing these up you have story. It is very rare to have "things just happening to the character". But with a little bit of irony... "things just happening to you" is kinda exactly what I'm suggesting here with only loose narrative joint-sections, before and after which you build your own story arc through what you do and how in your trek towards those joints (in a world that reacts and is persistent).

Don't get stuck on the word "goal", though. It's just word to underline a narrative "waypoint".

If we go a bit deeper into narrative design this way, and let's speak figuratively for a moment, what I meant is that there are a couple of very loose narrative barriers pretty far apart (or as close as you can get them, if you choose to rush) that you have to cross for the storyline to progress. In a more strict story, you'd have large set of those. The way you choose to deal with those barriers is up to you. You can go over the, you can go under them, or you can go straight through them. The choice is your and each way might produce a different situation behind the barrier to continue from towards the next. And the "loose" part... you might also get around them, in which case you are once again altering the story by dismissing certain parts of it and going "your own way" as opposed to the "suggested way". You don't cross the barrier, so you don't see what's behind it. You go past it and get what's coming that way -- which, I would think, would be the closest to the theme of "saving yourself".

In this way, every missions would kinda be a sidemission, and the "core storyline" just a glorified sidemission that you can neglect if you wish, but still reach a conclusion. And the actual storyline builds up from what you do during the game and how that affects your character, where it gets him/her, and what happens to the key figures along the way that you've met and dealt with (how ever you've chosen to do that).

If I were designing the narrative, I'd allow the player to enter the world do a couple of missions, board a plane or take his bike and fly/drive away. Two hours passed, not much done. And have that be a valid playthrough. I'd even allow the player to jump in the plane right after the game starts, with nothing done. "You visited NC and thought, this is not your thing. The prospects are better elsewhere. Will you find your fortunes that way, only time will tell... GAME OVER. *Credits roll* "

The crux is that the narrative line you get, is as much "up to you" as possible in this medium. And without sacrificing quality stories and writing that you run across. If you want high class personal drama, you need a highly set character like Geralt and a very dictated path through the game (like Witcher 3). And I'd rather not have that here. I would gladly sacrifice some of that drama for player agency (and character agency if we go down and dirty with gameplay).

Some have cited games like New Vegas as a example of how badly this kind of openness fits with character-specific drama, but one has to keep in mind that that game was cobbled together in 18 months from the leftovers of another game with large portions left in the cutting room floor because time and money were running out and the scope had already skyrocketed. CDPR has the money and time to do such a thing far, far better since they are pretty much their own masters. Not that I think they will, but they could.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

I don't understand why for it seems most people (not only here), narrative driven game "have to" force things like "goals", "character traits" and so on, while well selected situations can be good enough to strongly direct the players into doing things:
-Have the player poisonned and being able to get the cured only if "X" is done (and while he get to a doctor the doctor say he can find the cure but by that time he will be dead, cause finding cure takes time).
-Having someone sending people to kill the player should make him investigate about that in the end (or flee. That would make the game short, but hey, good games often have possibilitues to get bad endings! ), about the who, about the why...
-And so on.

The good part abouth those is they don't feel forced on the player, as you don't lose a part of the control over your character, they are just external things that's it's normal you have no control over it.

Post automatically merged: Dec 19, 2018

I'm not really sure I understand what you mean. You have to have a storyline for a "role" to exist, and a story to be told in this medium requires there to be a goal of some sort. Tracking down Ciri, finding the waterchip, etc. You are always put on a road to "got to this guy who tolds you to do that, return for debrief", and queuing these up you have story. It is very rare to have "things just happening to the character". But with a little bit of irony... "things just happening to you" is kinda what I'm suggesting here with only loose narrative joint-sections, before and after which you build your own story arc through what you do in your trek towards those joints (in a world that reacts and is persistent).

From what I understand, what you suggest need an imposed goal at the start to use as a "joint".
That's a part of the character that is taken from you.

I don't remember Fallout 1 very well because it has been so long, but about the waterchip quest, it is forced by external means as a startup point (I don't remember my character automatically accepting it, it's imposed externally to him, not affecting my roleplay), meaning it doesn't affect at all how you play your character which aside from being kicked from the vault (still an external thing) can choose to tell them to f*ck off with their quest and try to find something else to do (then they all die if I remember). Bad part if I remember well is the auto "game over" part when they all die, which isn't realist.

Don't get stuck on the word "goal", though. It's just word to underline a narrative "waypoint".

Well, I got stuck on it. I wish that I can choose what my character thinks, including what my character wants.
Narrative "waypoint", as long as it's "external", isn't a problem for me.
But I like when the main narrative show to be there, I don't like pure sandbox games.

If you want high class personal drama, you need a highly set character like Geralt and a very dictated path through the game. And I'd rather not have that here. I would gladly sacrifice some of that drama for player agency (and character agency if we go down and dirty gameplay).

Agreed with you on that. Forced personal drama means forced ties, and I wish to choose what my character cares for. Even if there may be exeption. I kind of remember playing a game where of of the member of your team dies, sacrificed by you opponent to summon something, and that character was chosen as the one identified by the game as your favorite.
That was one quite good way to do simething more personal without forcing it on the player I think.

 

[Mobster100]

I prefer open world where you can do whatever you like the way you like it. To me I think one of the main issues in games today and agree with the guy in the video is that a lot of them seems to be dumbed down, mostly due to the way quests are presented and works in most games, where very little seems to be done in regards to developing new or more interesting ways of handling this.

So in most games you have a main quest and side quests. Which is fine as an overall structure. But to me there are good and bad ways of how players are shown how to solve a quest. For the most part you get a quest marker which tells you exactly where to go, which obviously makes sense if the location is known, but it also removes a lot of the thinking from the player having to actually figure out where to go to solve a certain quest.

It would be more interesting if the main quest were better supported by side quests, so side quests weren't for the most part isolated cases, following the line of, go here and do this, and once your done you get a reward. So instead of that, the main quests objectives could be for the most part hidden to the player and more abstract. Like "Find out who murdered Jason" and you would obviously be told that certain gangs might be involved or something. But through exploring these gangs, investigating areas where they hang out, maybe do some quests for them or against them, could give the player clues to whether a particular gang had something to do with it or not. So instead of simply getting a quest marker to go a certain place, where you know the "correct" information you need is, you would have to actually figure out how to obtain such information only given very few clues.

In a open world game, I see no reason why certain side quests couldn't support the main quest better. I also think it would make side quests feel a lot more interesting compared to how most of these work in games today, where you already know, that its a side quests that have nothing to do with anything, besides getting you some stuff etc and you can move on to the next one. If these could actually help you in trying to solve the main quest as well, as you might find some useful clue or something, It would make things feel better connected and interesting I think.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

From what I understand, what you suggest need an imposed goal at the start to use as a "joint".
That's a part of the character that is taken from you.

You will have some form of goal to reach one way or another. Like I said earlier. What I'm trying to suggest is to keep those goals as ambigous and loose as possible so that reaching them doesn't seem forced or that you are being deliberately herded down a path.

There might be a starting point like you are being told: "If you want to manage in this city, you need to get something behind your name, so that it gets known."

As far how CP2077's main story is described, that path is already forced on you. "V wants to become a legend" is what they said. What I would say would not be as dictated as that in the least. Just a nudge towards a certain kind storypath, after which it's "off you go", like how Morrowind started (you are told you "owe" the emperor a favor for pardoning you, so go find Caius Cosades and bring him the package" after which you are left completely to your own faculties).

I don't remember Fallout 1 very well because it has been so long, but about the waterchip quest, it is forced by external means as a startup point (I don't remember my character automatically accepting it, it's imposed externally to him, not affecting my roleplay), meaning it doesn't affect at all how you play your character which aside from being kicked from the vault (still an external thing) can choose to tell them to f*ck off with their quest and try to find something else to do (then they all die if I remember). Bad part if I remember well is the auto "game over" part when they all die, which isn't realist.

This is exactly what I'm trying to suggest here. You are given a starting point, you are thrown out there to find out how to do what you are set out to do, how you do it (or whether you are interested in the first place) is up to you. Completely and unequivocally. You have all the time in the world (aside from probable individual time sensitive missions) and all the tools to do your roleplay within the confines of the setting, characterbuild and core storyarc (like "finding the waterchip" in Fallout).

I'm not 100% sure what you think I am suggesting, because I'm not finding the relation to what I was trying to say in your criticism and you are countering me with pretty much what I was suggesting myself. I thought I was being pretty thorough there.

And by the way, the game over-thing there in Fallout was very much in line of what the game tried to do. You were set out on a task (not to loiter about - it's not a post-apocalyptic life-simulator) and if you didn't care about it, the game had the balls to not care about you. It was later patched out (unfortunately), but anyways... I would not put a timelimit on the main story, just on sidemissions where it makes sense to have time-based reactivity.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

You will have some form of goal to reach one way or another. Like I said earlier. What I'm trying to suggest is to keep those goals as ambigous and loose as possible so that reaching them doesn't seem forced or that you are being deliberately herded down a path.

There might be a starting point like you are being told: "If you want to manage in this city, you need to get something behind your name, so that it gets known."

My main point is this: goal "internal" to the character = bad. goal "external" to the character = good.

As far how CP2077's main story is described, that path is already forced on you. "V wants to become a legend" is what they said. What I would say would not be as dictated as that in the least. Just a nudge towards a certain kind storypath, after which it's "off you go", like how Morrowind started (you are told you "owe" the emperor a favor for pardoning you, so go find Caius Cosades and bring him the package" after which you are left completely to your own faculties).

Actually, "V wants to become a legend" is an "internal" goal, so I know that basically I'm already screwed, and will have to play someone else character.
That being done there isn't much liberty left, whatever I do I will always have that Damocles Sword over my head, ready to take decisions in my place because "V wants to become a legend".
Actually they have even already decided "how" V will try to become a legend.

I'm not 100% sure what you think I am suggesting, because I'm not finding the relation to what I was trying to say in your criticism and you are countering me with pretty much what I was suggesting myself. I thought I was being pretty thorough there.

What you suggest is the "How", my problem is the first "why" you came with.

And by the way, the game over-thing there in Fallout was very much in line of what the game tried to do. You were set out on a task (not to loiter about - it's not a post-apocalyptic life-simulator) and if you didn't care about it, the game had the balls to not care about you.

The problem with the "Game over" is that there were no reasons about it. The task is forced by someone else on the character, nothing force the character to agreed on doing it (that's the advantage of "external" goals. Sure, that end up killing the vault, but who cares? It doesn't end the world, and there are other things to do.). The only part that have sense to be a timed game over is the supermutant plot which will affect your character whatever his decisions.



All that aside, I prefer my games to be heavily scripted in the "what happens to my character" department (unlike you it seems who seems to have a more "sandbox" view about that), just that my view of liberty is being able to react to it anyway I wants.

 

[lelxrv]

Given that we have a relatively pre-defined protagonist with an established name, voice, one of several backgrounds... The story will be more strict in this case. Branching and alternative routes will be in the game too. So it's not RDR2 already.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

All that aside, I prefer my games to be heavily scripted in the "what happens to my character" department (unlike you it seems who seems to have a more "sandbox" view about that), just that my view of liberty is being able to react to it anyway I wants.

Sure, because I think it is closer to a PnP experience and what I view as "optimal" roleplaying experience. I think there needs to be a story, and that it is a good one and weighty enough that the character has a valid and good reason to pursue it. I want it to be (heavily) reactive to both, my character and my narrative choices, but I don't want it to be heavily scripted in that it feels like... say, playing Lord of the Rings otherwise strictly as per the book but with a few liberties in how to handle some situations.

Heavily scripted games bring to mind Deus Ex: HR and Witcher 3, and while those games are good on their own merits, I don't like the way they direct me if I look at them as RPG's (which don't, particularly... DXHR is more like an immersive sim and W3 an action adventure). Heavyhanded scripting of the story also dimishes the replayvalue because there's very little surprise or things to find out on subsequent runs.

Post automatically merged: Dec 19, 2018

The story will be more strict in this case.

Too bad.