LINEARITY OK? ARE CHOICES IMPORTANT?

author=Clareain_Christopher

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.

On the Western RPG side of things, I'm currently playing The Witcher and I'd say it pulls off the balance between linearity and nonlinearity almost perfectly for me. It's a very story focused game, but there's a lot of side content and hidden loot that you would never find if you didn't bother to stray from the critical path a bit. The game opens up even more in Chapter 3 and 4 when you have more zones available to you.

It also has some fantastic examples of choice and consequence, as well.

The Walking Dead games are a very good example of a linear game series that manages to engage the player; there are a few gameplay elements, but the games are essentially visual novels with a lot of player input. It's a prefect example of how linear games are still alive and well in the modern age of MMOs and sandbox games.

Having said that, as LockeZ pointed out, linear RPGs are typically viewed as primitive and out of place in the modern gaming market. There are a number of reasons why RPGs are held to a different standard than action games. To use LouisCyphre's example:

author=LouisCyphre
GUYS.

gg

This is an exaggeration for most RPGs, but it essentially is the non-combat gameplay of Final Fantasy XIII. The bulk of Final Fantasy XIII's gameplay is combat, and while some have praised the combat system, fans of the series had come to expect exploration elements, backtracking, and more sophisticated story progression. Combat just isn't the overwhelming focus in Final Fantasy the way it is in an action game like, say, Devil May Cry, and many fans regretted that the game did not follow the traditions of earlier games in the series in this regard. Basically, RPGs are expected to have some exploration.

The second problem is player input. Walking Dead thrived on player input, and as a result the player was never bored and their input always mattered. By contrast, linear RPGs typically feature long-winded, obtuse cinema scenes of narrative that, due to a lack of player input, clash heavily with gameplay elements and test the patience of all but the most invested of players. Long cutscenes without player input are irritating at the best of times, but when they are present in a game where a player receives little or no choice outside of combat, the entire exercise feels more like watching a movie than playing a game.

When the above points are taken into consideration by a game designer, it is easy to see why Final Fantasy XIII has been criticized as primitive while a game like Xenoblade Chronicles, with its wealth of optional content and its emphasis on exploration, is widely viewed as the future of console RPGs. Really though, this isn't a proof of the idea that linear games are inherently inferior to non-linear ones, but rather that games which successfully engage the player are more popular than ones that do not.

I've played and enjoyed RPGs that are just pure battle gauntlets, but as far as I can remember, they were all indie games. I can't even imagine a $60 game that worked like that; for better or worse, AAA games are always full of tons of things to do, to attract as wide a crowd as possible.

author=LockeZ
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.

I did once decide to play Contra a bit and I noticed something (to me at least) interesting about it. I found myself enjoying Contra more than RPGs, but I got tired of playing it quicker. I identified the main reason being that while Contra had better action than RPGs, it had only action going for it. So, when I inevitable got tired of the action, it meant I also got tired of the game as a whole because the action pretty much is the whole game.

Anyway, I like having choices, but only choices that feels meaningful for me matters. Take Suikoden as an example, it has a lot of choices, but the only ones that actually matters are the ones that decides whether or not characters will join your army. If the rest of the choices were cut out, I would have enjoyed the game more.

The consequences of the choice doesn't have to be super important to be meaningful, but most of them should do what they say on the tin. For example, if I get to choose between being nice or mean towards a character and the only consequence of being mean is that the character I'm mean towards get hurt for a cut-scene or two, that's enough for me. While it's not important, it still means I can affect how the main character react to people and the option I got never implied that my choice would have a huge consequence.

However, if I'm given the choice between say sneaking into the villain castle and not do so, then a no should mean no and not that I'm forced to do it either way. If I don't actually have a choice, then don't pretend I do. Likewise, going back to my earlier example, if I can choose to have my character being mean towards the female lead frequently, but the game still ends with him and her being a couple, there's also a problem. If a choice implies it has a certain consequence, it should have that consequence. I can accept exceptions like choices have unforeseen consequences for story reasons, but not when the game flat out nullifies them.

The ability to backtrack is also based on whether or not it feels meaningful to me. I could backtrack easily once I got the airship in Final Fantasy X, but I didn't find much that interested me by doing so and I would have liked the game just fine if it automatically progressed instead of letting me choose from a list of locations. In Kingdom Hearts however, I absolutely loved revisiting earlier worlds even if it just was to pick up previously unavailable Dalmatians.

The Dalmatians are cuter than the Celestian Weapons. KH also has cuter graphics period.

To be serious though, the search and reward system worked better for me in KH. I could tell why, but it will ultimately boil down to my tastes.