Storyline vs. Choice?

[Raya Wolfsun]

I've been puzzling over this statement I found in an online article (you can read the whole thing here).

"I don't play games because I want to extract my own fun, I want to play the fun that was made for me by professional fun-designers. [...] If you want to have a linear story - and you will if you have any kind of story, because non-linear stories don't and will never exist no matter what anyone tells you - then any freedom you give the player to mess about and do side-quests will distract from the pacing.

I could say that unlike this author, I do enjoy a good dose of "extracting my own fun". Some of the games I've most enjoyed are ones that allowed a lot of choice (Fallout 2, Shenmue). At the same time, storytelling is a very important component of video games for me - and I must admit that the games I've played with the best storytelling (Dreamfall, Broken Sword) are quite linear.

I agree that if you're telling a story, there has to be some degree of linearity - a clear starting point and ending point at least. But does giving the player choices about the middle really mess things up?

Personally, I think it is key that games are a form of interactive storytelling. If I want a fully worked-out story delivered to me, I'll read a novel or watch a film. But isn't the beauty of games that you are positioned within the story? And what is "playing" such a game if not the ability to make choices that have consequences upon the game world (however limited they may be)?

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Aurora]

I agree with this up to a certain point. Yes, a linear story can be more "full" or be experienced as more intense. Still, a game such as fallout 2 is mentioned. A RPG game with, as far as I know, plenty of "free" choice.

Limitations in games aren't as bad as that article suggests. I played Oblivion, a game with plenty of freedom and several ways to complete each of the quests. All of this with different dialogues and such opening up. Still, the ending is the same all the time. So is that a linear story? I wouldn't know.

Then there are games such as Bioshock. A fantastic story, with multiple possible endings. But the game is the same for all endings. The only difference lies in how you treat the Little Sisters. So is that a linear game? I wouldn't know.

So basically: it all depends on what you define as linear. All games are a series of scripted events at some point. You just can't have a game with an unlimited amount of choices. No matter how badly people want to believe that they are influencing the progress of the story, they just aren't in 9 out of 10 games.

 

[Raya Wolfsun]

You raise a good point there, Aurora: what counts as linearity? Personally I think it has to do with a defined start and end point - so I suppose in a game like Bioshock, the idea would be that there are several possible lines extending from the starting point (or some point that everyone reaches in the course of the game).

On an entirely different note though: what about games like the Sims series where it really is totally open-ended? You are obviously constrained by what the game allows (e.g. you can't make your sims go on murderous rampages) - but there is no real end-point, no predefined goal to reach. For this reason, some people do not consider the Sims titles to be games at all; I think I even read somewhere that the original creator thinks of them as "digital toys". (And then you have my mother, who watched me playing Sims 3 once and said: "Haven't you outgrown dolls & dollhouses?" Pwned. XD)

On the other hand, there's no real end to Tetris or pinball either, and nobody questions their status as games. You could argue that the difference is that they have an objective (e.g. make as many lines as possible in Tetris) - but when you play a game like The Sims, you set your own objective(s). It could be to take a sim to the top of their career track or to keep a household of 8 running without a single sim getting a job. Not to mention, even in a game with predefined goals you can set your objective as something else - like once you've killed Diablo and Baal in D2, you're not playing for the storyline anymore.

I think there's something very interesting here... a disconnection between how developers expect people to interact with games vs how people actually do...

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Any game with a story needs linearity. It needs structure. If there is no structure, there is no story.

The best experiences in a game's story are the linear ones. Bioshock has a great story because of this. In essence the illusion of choice the game gives you, impacts it little, just weakening the ending.

The loss of tructure, like in Fallout, weakens the story. For example, in Fallout 3 you can dick around between doing the major quests. By doing this the main story, finding your father, suddenly is not important if you are running around collecting cola bottles for people. IF there isn't linearity, then there isn't a proper story.

It's akin to the difference between a novel, and a "choose your own adventure" book. They just aren't on the same level, and the same is with games.

 

[Krovvy]

Well I enjoy both, but I agree there has to be some structure. Unless you're a well disciplined gamer you'll eventually get lost, and lose any hope of following the storyline. Morrowind is a good example of an epic story (stories), and yet most of the people I've seen play the game get lost immediately and never come close to following the storyline. Now with that said, I think games such as Morrowind have their place, but you definitely have to work towards completing the story. It could even arguably be more rewarding in the end.

 

[Aurora]

Wow. First time ever on this forum that I want to react to all posts. Good thread Raya!

@Raya Wolfsun
I think of games such as The Sims as a simulator. It's not what I would call a game that's being pushed forward by a set storyline. In fact, there isn't even a storyline that I'm aware of. It should be noted that I only played the vanilla versions of the original and The Sims 2, so that might be a mistake.

Still, they aren't telling a story, so they're simulators. The same goes for most sports games. Tetris on the other hand is a pure puzzle game. So it also doesn't have an obvious goal. If one would say linearity is the same as following a set path in the form of a story, then there isn't any linearity in both simulators and puzzle games. And what if it's purely meant to describe following any path to any goal? You are playing these games without an end goal, but does that mean that you aren't doing exactly what you are expected to do? One could call that following a set path, and therefore call those games linear. Oh fuuu... paradox.

@Emperor Pan
If a player can choose to ignore the linear path of the game, does that mean that there isn't any of it? In the end you have no choice but to follow the main story of a game if you want to make any progress. For example: I once just kept walking around the city in Bioshock, waiting for enemies to respawn. Just for the fun of hearing their weird speeches and observing their weird habits. Or just hurt them and watch them die in hacked health machines. In the end, I started following the story again. Was the linear part of the game gone during the time I wasn't following it? The story felt just as good as the part where I played multiple sections in a row.

@Krovvy
I only found out how to follow the main quest after becoming head of Hllaluu. You're so right.

 

[Renzokuken]

I want to be thrust into a different world and follow their storyline, not have to make decisions that will impact the story, because my decisions might make the story pretty terrible. The only game I've come across that made decision making not totally annoying was probably Mass Effect, and you know why? It was because I'm male and I wanted to get into that chicks pants so bad I just agreed with everything she said. I really had no other motive. Sure, she killed the Krogan guy and I wanted to be angry with her, but I thought "well hey, maybe she wont let me in her pants then" (You know how women are, all crazy) so I just said "good job" and went with it. I also let that other guy die. It was either him, or the girl I wanted, so I got him killed of course.

That could actually all be read as a bad thing. Maybe I'm changing my mind while posting this, but decision making in games where it actually makes an impact can be kind of frustrating. Like the examples I gave above, I didn't want the Krogan to spaz out at me and end up with him getting killed. I liked the guy, but when you're choosing a response you really have no fucking clue how they'll react most of the time. Yeah, it's realistic I guess, but it's annoying. When the Krogan started going mental I honestly tried my hardest not to get him killed (And you can have him survive, friend told me) but he ended up dying anyway. That's dumb.

Anyways. I prefer not to have to make too many decisions, especially ones where I'm going to miss out on content if I choose one option or the other. Alternate endings piss me the fuck off because then I have to play the game again and it just doesn't feel the same. It's like either of the endings aren't actually endings and you really don't know which one is canon. You can't get lost in the story that way.

 

[Aurora]

I love alternate endings, to be honest. They make the hand feel more real, as he you really have an impact on the game's world. Isn't that what makes people feel one with their characters?

For example, I loved the story in Warcraft III and it's expansion. Still, I would have loved to manipulate the story somehow. It just didn't feel right. But hey, that's what you get when playing with 4 (3 in the expansion) separate races. You just can't expect yourself to be able to manipulate anything there.

I hope you're not planning to play Dragon Age, Renzo. Just the character you pick can already influence the story in a dozen ways. Lol. You actually get to choose the personality and what class of people you come from. Like nobles or peasants and such. It's going to be epic.

 

[Renzokuken]

I'll still probably play that, because I like RPGs and would like to see if the game is any good. What platform do you reckon would be best for it? PS3 or PC?

 

[Aurora]

If you have a pc, I'd go for that. User generated content will keep you busy for months. And even if there are no mods, then you always have better graphics and less lag.

I heard the game is being ported almost 1:1 with all the content, so that can't be good if they also go for equal graphics. :/

For example, read the Fallout 3 review on Gamespot. The graphics where better on both the 360 and the pc. The ps3 couldn't handle the 1:1 port.

So in short: pc > ps3

 

[Emperor Pan I]

@Emperor Pan
If a player can choose to ignore the linear path of the game, does that mean that there isn't any of it? In the end you have no choice but to follow the main story of a game if you want to make any progress. For example: I once just kept walking around the city in Bioshock, waiting for enemies to respawn. Just for the fun of hearing their weird speeches and observing their weird habits. Or just hurt them and watch them die in hacked health machines. In the end, I started following the story again. Was the linear part of the game gone during the time I wasn't following it? The story felt just as good as the part where I played multiple sections in a row.

But then you aren't following the linearity of the game, you are making you own unlinear path. I'm talking about games which have no linear path that have a weak story because of it. I would say Fable II is decent in that beating the main story unlocks the rest of the content of the game. If there is a linear story, with maybe a few important side quests to not hamper the narrative, then it is good. If you dick around and take 10 hours to do a side quest about pretend supervillains in a random town (fallout III), suddenly beating Lucien in Fable II or getting the water purifier in Fallout III isn't important, and it loses credibility.

 

[Aurora]

Good point. I still haven't managed to get a copy of Fallout 3, since all stores I get my games from are a week late with getting their stock. I guess it's some transport issue or whatever.

Anyway, I had a similar experience in Oblivion. I was busy doing the main quest, and needed this book to get to that evil cult. When I walked out of the store to buy some more potion ingredients, this elf handed me a note. If I wanted to help finding some statues.

So a week later (in the game) I started working on the main quest again. And what a coincidence. I thought the story was weak after doing that.

Or the best example: that Wood Elf guy who thinks half the town wants him dead. You can make him wait a month behind that church for your secret meeting, and he doesn't seem to notice that any time has passed.

*sigh*
I suppose that the strongest point of any RPG game is also its weakest point.

 

[Krovvy]

Well the elf behind the church I'd say is more of a bug or broken gameplay mechanic.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Actually I was thinking of the best example, and I found it.

The original fallout had the perfect system. You're free to do anything you really want, but the main quest had a timer. You had to find water/stop the mutants in a set period of time. You had side quests to delay the time for the most part, but it gave a sense of importance and urgency. You still had a choice, and consequences for it, but the main quest was always there. Then once the main narrative was over you had the free roaming ability. that is what games need more of, but will never happen because I swear I'm the only one on the planet who liked the timer.

 

[Renzokuken]

Timers are annoying.

 

[Raya Wolfsun]

I forgot about the time limit in Fallout 1! And yeah, in that context, it totally made sense and created a great sense of tension. I like how you still had the sense that you could completely ignore the main quest and go off to do whatever... but all the while that clock was running down.

And if I may turn the discussion on its head:
You've all brought up some really good points about how a game can go wrong if it offers too much freedom to the player... but what about the opposite? How about games where you felt too constrained? What factors caused that sense of too little freedom, and to what effect?

 

[Aurora]

In that case: anybody played Lost Planet: Extreme Condition on a high difficulty? That timer counting down to the point where you thermal energy is up... Now that's giving things a sense of urgency. To bad that it was just a shooter. I would have loved to see a rpg version of it.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

For games I felt to constrained? Hm, gonna have to let me think on that for a bit.

I would say I hated lost planet, couldn't even finish it it got so damn stupid at the finale. ><

 

[Aurora]

I just got the "colonies edition" to give it a try. Damn Fallout 3 still not being re-stocked.

Kinda like it so far, but the times is really bugging me. Like it wants me to finish the game in the few hours the reviews say it takes.

As for games without a lot of freedom: GTA is the ultimate example. You have this huge city, but there's really not that much you can do in it. Sure, you can drive a cab. How nice for the two people that care for doing that in a game. Go play Crazy Taxi or something.

Or maybe the, hate to say it, Zelda series. The only part in the whole history of Zelda games that had side quests was Majora's Mask. It was awesome, but now I feel constraint in each of the new games. Almost no side quests at all. The only things that I can come up with are the statues in the Wind Waker, and the fixing of the small bridge in Twilight Princess.

 

[tobakkun]

Hmm... I think the problem with too much freedom is when it reaches the point that you may be allowed to go here and there or do this but without no real significance. If I'm gonna be given the freedom to do what I want, it better be worth doing.