LINEARITY OK? ARE CHOICES IMPORTANT?

Personally, I think the best way to go about it is to stick to roughly one linear path with the small changes here and there depending on what you do. Nothing that alters the main story in any major way, but... for example, let's say you defeat a major enemy: you're given the choice to spare him or to kill him. If you kill him, word might get out you're a bit of a ruthless guy when it comes to them there baddies, and the next baddy might refuse to talk simply because of that action (or, because you spared the last one, you might have an option to talk the theoretical next baddy down instead of fighting him).

With LSX, I'm doing pretty much that - making some places where, depending on the actions you do in that segment, things later on in the game change in a small way (for example, you're asked to go speak with someone - if you rest first, you miss a couple extra lines that hint at what's going on much earlier - and in another place, you can choose to go do a section of the storyline without taking Eva, the choice of which will affect some scenes later in and how she sees you, but not in a major 'oh my god, I need to restart because I screwed up my game' way).

I think it is important to create the illusion of choice. Mostly the player Won't even know what was optional or non linear until a replay. Which is great and all for replay value but i wouldnt count on that and design wise I always feel like if I'm going to design something I'd like to get it in game.

Linear games are great.
Non-linear games are great.

The first case has parts of non-linearity, and the second is non-linear but not exactly a wide-open sandbox.

Both ways can be fun and engaging if played right. I have no personal preference. Just make right to synthesize everything in a concrete manner, wether you go linear or not. Also, extras (almost) never hurt.

author=slashphoenix
The player should feel like her or his decisions matter somehow

Or not, if you're going for a cinematic game. (great to tell a story)
But that's a minority anyways, and if you are going for a cinematic game you must be sure that the story is engaging, in a way or another.

author=zorro
For me it depends on what game you are making,but a linear RPG,we're talking about very straight forward game with no sidequest,choices,or traveling to extra places for an RPG is VERY BORING.

See, you say that, but if a linear RPG seems more boring to you than a linear action game (like Contra), it's just because you apparently think RPGs are boring compared to action games. Which means you don't like RPGs, not really. Which means you're not the person that anyone making RPGs is making games for. So your opinion about them is irrelevant. Right? Stop me if there's a part of that that seems like a leap, but I think my logic is sound.

author=zorro
Other than story and gameplay RPG is also about exploration and one of thing that I always can't wait to do in an RPG(commercial only,usually I have low hopes for RPG Maker games)is traveling to a new town and see new places and explore it.
Usually the linear RPG games also have shitty towns cause usually its trying to force people to get with the program and forget about exploration and thus sometimes not a lot of work is done to the town.

Exploration is really much more closely identified with a seperate genre from RPGs, the Adventure genre. Now, a lot of RPGs are a combination of both RPG and adventure elements. And purely due to convention, that combination continues to be popular in the few RPGs that still get released these days. But it's far from a necessity! Think about what core emotions are driving your player in your game. You can totally make a game about growing into a super powerful hero and about solving problems and overcoming challenges through tactics and planning without it also being a game about exploration and discovery. 99% of tactical RPGs are an excellent example.

Shitty towns that have no effort put into them because the designer wants you to get back to actually playing the game are kind of stupid. I mean, I totally get the designer wanting you to get back to actually playing the game. But why have the town at all if there's nothing in it that's at all engaging? If it doesn't support your game design goals, just get rid of it. Replace it with something more appropriate, like the home bases in Nippon Ichi games or the menu-towns in FF Tactics or the savepoint-shops in FF13.

author=Travio
The other games you mention are games from genres where exploration isn't expected and, in most cases, is frowned upon because it drives you out of the main point of the game - the action, in all three cases.

The main points of an RPG are usually the combat and the rewards you get from that combat, generally speaking. So exploration is driving you out of the main point of the game there too. There are RPGs that are built around exploration too - they're called western RPGs - but that's just one subgenre. Most RPGs feel like they just kind of included some exploration to waste my time while I'm trying to play, because there's nothing about the exploration that's at all engaging. It's added to the game only at the absolute most primitive, surface level. It's not what makes the game tick.

author=LockeZ

author=Travio
The other games you mention are games from genres where exploration isn't expected and, in most cases, is frowned upon because it drives you out of the main point of the game - the action, in all three cases.

The main points of an RPG are usually the combat and the rewards you get from that combat, generally speaking. So exploration is driving you out of the main point of the game there too. There are RPGs that are built around exploration too - they're called western RPGs - but that's just one subgenre. Most RPGs feel like they just kind of included some exploration to waste my time while I'm trying to play, because there's nothing about the exploration that's at all engaging. It's added to the game only at the absolute most primitive, surface level. It's not what makes the game tick.

Then let's go back to the title - Final Fantasy 13 varies from the existing formula of Final Fantasy in a bad way in doing this. And RPGs have almost always had 'secrets' to find, things that aren't on the main path, but just off of it in some hidden nook. I can probably count on my hands the number of times there was any meaningful choice to which direction I was going in FF13 - even places where you can choose multiple paths tend towards the two paths reconverging, with all the actual treasure right there in front of you. There's a legitimate fan beef with the game locking you onto one path, especially after how 'open' FF12 was.

I disagree with Isrieri, but that's because my games are mostly experimental in nature >_>

author=LouisCyphre
GUYS.

gg

=3

--

My theory for rpg design is a balance between ff13 and ff12. I want the game to be linear just enough for me to balance gameplay and plot, while attempting non-linearity in specific, controlled regions throughout the game.

I like choices, and I like giving choices to the player, but you got to keep balance in mind. Bite off more than you can chew, and play testing your game will become a nightmare and a half.

I love choices. However, I despise and loath dummy choices. If selecting option A and option B results in nothing but a slight change in dialogue, then I would rather not even have the options in the first place.