Does Obsidian intend to make an RPG like FO?

[Tale]

Obsidian did make a non-linear game. Kotor 2, you can do the planets in any order. That's what non-linear means, that the quest progression does not have a set order. That if you drew a diagram of it, it wouldn't be just a line. NWN2 had two parts that I explicitly recall being non-linear.

 

Fallout 2, and the Elder Scrolls games mentioned here, are open-ended. They are sandbox games and, at least Morrowind and Oblivion, are linear. Each quest line can only be done in a specific order. However, the freedom to ignore the quests, to tool around dungeon spelunking or running side quests for 2 weeks without ever touching the main quest is what makes them open-ended.

 

I don't know how I really feel about open-ended RPGs. I know they can make great MMOs, if done right. I know I loved Morrowind. I never could really get into Fallout 2, though.

[Gromnir]

"Obsidian did make a non-linear game. Kotor 2, you can do the planets in any order. That's what non-linear means, that the quest progression does not have a set order. That if you drew a diagram of it, it wouldn't be just a line. NWN2 had two parts that I explicitly recall being non-linear."

 

*chuckle*

 

go over to the rpgcodex boards and make this same post into a new thread... see how long it takes you to get the vol tag.

 

please note that when nwn were first released there were considerable complaints that those games were too linear.

 

am hating the "non-linear" nonsense, 'cause almost every poster means something different when they use term... and being convinced that your definintion is right not change fact that 75% o' peoples disagree with you.

 

btw, chris A is still writing likes a young writer... too often his characters talks like they gots their dialogues from a thousand forgotten fortune cookies... too much introspection and navel gazing and cheap philosophy. the Philosophy for Dummies approach may have worked better in ps:t 'cause of the setting, but it not work quite so well in subsequent games. oh, and the endings for kotor 2 and nwn2 were somewheres between forgettable and terrible.

 

chris A made ravel. too bad he ain't managed to come close to doing another character with same heart. kreia? so much potential ruined by sloppy execution. still, we liked kreia for the most part.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 18, 2006 by Gromnir

[Mortis Nai]

But Interplay is making a Fallout MMOG... How much more Nonlinear can you get than Drizzet, Raistlen and Neo all in the Fallout Universe, while everyone grinds out levels and speaks in Leet?

 

Ne0: "LOL U R a N00b!"

Dr1zz1t: "Ph34r m3 4 I R T3h H4x0rz UR Acc0unt F4g!!!"

R4ist13n: "IR Pw0rn A11 U N00bs"

 

Fallout Fan: "Why God!? Why have you forsaken me!?"

Edited December 18, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Cyric]

You dont have control over your own party, you cant kill who you want, you cant enter any houses, and except for merchants and plot characters, there isnt even anyone you can talk to. The game has no reactivity at all to your decisions. Class and race choices have no impact on the game whatsoever. The only thing NWN2 did decently was speech skills, but those generally cost you rather than provide bonuses.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have u played the Gothic series oh! intrepid gamer?

 

NWN2 is by far the most dumbed down RPG experience to be had on the PC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh? Just wow. <_<

[Cyric]

as having 6 characters could concievably unbalance the game. My

That's because the game wasn't very hard. :whistle:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm at least I didn't puke in disgust the way I did when I was playing the original NWN, the battle encounters in that game lacked any real challenge and any visceral touch. Anyone remember just how easy it woz to down the dragons in that game?

I have some love for NWN, but after BG2? Boy was I disappointed with Bio.

 

Obsidian redeemed the NWN franchise with this good sequel. 3 cheers for Ammon Jarro.

 

More ambushes, more dispel spells by the enemy (modern games seem to really skimp on enemies using dispel / breaches), and so forth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agree battles could be more challenging.

[Tale]

go over to the rpgcodex boards and make this same post into a new thread

I'll pass.

 

am hating the "non-linear" nonsense, 'cause almost every poster means something different when they use term... and being convinced that your definintion is right not change fact that 75% o' peoples disagree with you.

You think "non-linear" is bad? You should see people talk about "next-gen PC games." I don't even think that means anything at all.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Tale

[alanschu]

I agree with Gromnir and his assessment of non-linear gameplay. Very, very few games actually allow you to progress through the story in a non-linear fashion.

 

And if you get down to the barebones of it and strip away a lot of the fluff, you could probably strip down most (if not all) plots into a linear story.

[Plano Skywalker]

I agree that there is a difference between "non-linear" and "open-ended". Open-ended games are generally sandbox-type games, such as Morrowind where you can log over 80 hours and not even work on the main quest.

 

As to "non-linear", I don't think it really exists in a story-based game but some games, because of their mechanic, can create the illusion of non-linear easier than others.

 

Both KOTORs had a "middle game" in which you had to find clues on different planets. Because the PC had control over which order this was done, it made it feel like it was non-linear but it was really just an illusionary non-linearity. And that is the best we can hope for in a game of the quality of a BG or a KOTOR....creating the illusion of a vast, open world with lots of choices but it still comes down to Intro>>Middle Game>>End Game.

 

But, indeed, having some say in the order in which we perform the middle game tasks, along with having releasable party members and joinable factions, rideable mounts and upgradeable vehicles, side quests that you just happen to stumble upon along the way (it was buried so good you didn't even know it was there the first 2 playthroughs)....all of these things help create the illusion of non-linearity and that is a very good thing.

[Spider]

Exactly how does rideable mounts and upgradeable vehicles help achieve a sense of non-linearity?

[Lare Kikkeli]

Exactly how does rideable mounts and upgradeable vehicles help achieve a sense of non-linearity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, if you can ride the mounts any way you want.... "

[Dark_Raven]

 

That is true.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think "non-linearity" is overrated. Thus far, in the history of gaming, it just means that instead of having a story progress like this

 

Begin-Chapter1-Chapter2-Chapter3-End

 

you get

 

Begin-Choose any one chapter to play until youve played all three-End

 

 

The differance is superficial at best, but restricts the dramatic keys a developer can use to piece together a good story. It also brings some serious "suspension of disbelief" issues in that you may leave in the middle of saving a castle from being overrun by demons, come back three weeks later and everyoe will still be shouting about saving the duke before its too late(example: oblivion).

[Slowtrain]

I think "non-linearity" is overrated. Thus far, in the history of gaming, it just means that instead of having a story progress like this

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Depends on your personal take really. For me the ability to go where I want and do what I want how I want when I want is the most important thing in a computer game.

 

I'm the kind of person who far prefers flying CAP in flight simulator with a dynamic campaign engine and have nothing happen except me flying around in circles for a few hours than I do flying a canned mission.

 

The unknown of what might happen is far more compelling to me than anything a dev can script.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think "non-linearity" is overrated. Thus far, in the history of gaming, it just means that instead of having a story progress like this

 

Begin-Chapter1-Chapter2-Chapter3-End

 

you get

 

Begin-Choose any one chapter to play until youve played all three-End

Fallout is not structured like this at all.

[Slowtrain]

To me, non-linearity is simply the freedom to go left, right, or straight at various junctions through the course of a game. Left, right, or straight does not just apply to physical direction either, but in a more figurative sense to the freedom to alter the course of your progress through the game as you see fit whether by choosing different npcs, different skills, different conflict resolutions, whatever. The more of those junctions there are, the more non-linear a game is. Obviously it is scale, since there is no such thing as a totally non-linear game or a totally linear game.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think "non-linearity" is overrated. Thus far, in the history of gaming, it just means that instead of having a story progress like this

 

Begin-Chapter1-Chapter2-Chapter3-End

 

you get

 

Begin-Choose any one chapter to play until youve played all three-End

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fallout is not structured like this at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It was my clumsy way to put it. Would it be fair to say that Fallout relies on a set of conditions that must be met to progress the main story? Like "If G.E.C.K = found, then Arroyo=kidnapped". To me, it feels the same since Arroyo wont be raided by the enclave until youve found the GECK.

 

But to expand on my example; it doesnt have to be chapters, it can be anything: in Oblivion it is pieces needed to do the ritual, in KoTOR it is planets. In the Fallout games its locations. And you dont necessarily have to play everything in one instance to progress to the next.

[Morgoth]

Having a story that keeps up it's tension but also talking about non-linearity at the same time kinda eliminates both qualities.

NWN2 for example felt incredibly linear in Act2 and 3, since your journey was just dedicated to prepare your castle and find the King of Shadws. While that keeps the plot's tension straight, it totally killed the pace of the game.

[J.E. Sawyer]

But to expand on my example; it doesnt have to be chapters, it can be anything: in Oblivion it is pieces needed to do the ritual, in KoTOR it is planets. In the Fallout games its locations. And you dont necessarily have to play everything in one instance to progress to the next.

In the original Fallout, you have to get the water chip and go to deal with the Master. Actually, you don't even have to do the second part if you want to join the Master's army. Considering the enormous amount of content you can skip or do in any order, it's a very big exception to what you suggested. Since it's the topic of the thread, I think it's worth noting.

[Slowtrain]

Non-linearity is all about choices and FO is about as choice-filled as one can get. There is very little that you HAVE to do in FO and I don't think there is anything you have to do in a certain way.

 

I've never really understood why some gamers are anti-choice in computer games, especially crpgs. It seems that they feel that a game should really be nothing more than another shape of the novel: click to turn the page and follow right along. But, that seems to totally work against the one thing a game can provide thata novel or a movie can't: the ability to make choices and change your gaming experience. Some choices will be small, some will be big, but regardless, they allow you the gamer to create your own experience.

 

You can't do that in a novel or a movie.

 

Every media has its unique power. You wouldn't make a movie of a book simply by filming the text of a book's turning pages; that would be a waste of the power of film. By the same token, making a game that is simply a choiceless following of a pre-created narrative path is a waste of the unique qualities of a game.

[Gromnir]

But to expand on my example; it doesnt have to be chapters, it can be anything: in Oblivion it is pieces needed to do the ritual, in KoTOR it is planets. In the Fallout games its locations. And you dont necessarily have to play everything in one instance to progress to the next.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the original Fallout, you have to get the water chip and go to deal with the Master. Actually, you don't even have to do the second part if you want to join the Master's army. Considering the enormous amount of content you can skip or do in any order, it's a very big exception to what you suggested. Since it's the topic of the thread, I think it's worth noting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

fo gets the cult following thing. is our opinion that it wouldn't do so well today. the critical path story were kinda flat and never got much development, and the favorite character from the game were a dog who had 0 lines o' genuine dialogue. all those folks that complain 'bouts lame story/writing rarely takes aim at fo... but they could. fo writing were not great, and critical path story were little more than a transparent raison d'etre to play game.

 

the fo critical path were pretty linear... is just that there were very few critical path plot encounters... which is a strength as much as a weakness. is pretty damn tough to develop a compelling critical path story if you only got a couple o' important scenes. on positive side, you gots that feel o' non-linearity... people can does all those side-quests when and how they wish. regardless, have multiple final choices not makes more or less non-linear. end choices is avoiding any need to deal with bifurcation, so you can have as many of those as you wish and they can't possibly break story... 'course as chris A has such a problem with game/story endings, maybe he wanna go back to the shotgun spread o' possible conclusions... 'least that way he got some excuse as to why none of 'em is particularly fulfilling.

 

fo were 'bout being able to do tangential and optional side-quests (side-quests which were themselves pretty linear,) which created the illusion o' non-linearity.

 

*shrug*

 

ultimately we think there can be a balance... has a nicely developed critical path that is ultimately gonna needs be pretty linear AND has loads of tangential and optional side-quests that makes people feels like they "explored" and gots "non-linear" gameplay. is in the tangential and optional side quest where you can allows for meaningful choices, 'cause such choices won't impact critical path. making such a game is simply a matter of time and expense and wherewithal of developers.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 19, 2006 by Gromnir

[Slowtrain]

fo gets the cult following thing.  is our opinion that it wouldn't do so well today.  the critical path story were kinda flat and never got much development, and the favorite character from the game were a dog who had 0 lines o' genuine dialogue.  all those folks that complain 'bouts lame story/writing rarely takes aim at fo... but they could.  fo writing were not great, and critical path story were little more than a transparent raison d'etre to play game.

 

the fo critical path were pretty linear... is just that there were very few critical path plot encounters... which is a strength as much as a weakness.  is pretty damn tough to develop a compelling critical path story if you only got a couple o' important scenes.  on positive side, you gots that feel o' non-linearity... people can does all those side-quests when and how they wish. regardless, have multiple final choices not makes more or less non-linear.  end choices is avoiding any need to deal with bifurcation, so you can have as many of those as you wish and they can't possibly break story... 'course as chris A has such a problem with game/story endings, maybe he wanna go back to the shotgun spread o' possible conclusions... 'least that way he got some excuse as to why none of 'em is particularly fulfilling. 

 

fo were 'bout being able to do tangential and optional side-quests (side-quests which were themselves pretty linear,)  which created the illusion o' non-linearity. 

 

*shrug*

 

ultimately we think there can be a balance... has a nicely developed critical path that is ultimately gonna needs be pretty linear AND has loads of tangential and optional side-quests that makes people feels like they "explored" and gots "non-linear" gameplay.  is in the tangential and optional side quest where you can allows for meaningful choices, 'cause such choices won't impact critical path. making such a game  is simply a matter of time and expense and wherewithal of developers.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

non-linearity has nothing to do with the end point. It has to do with the "line" one has to walk to get there. A single line that must be repeared every time by every gamer is a linear game. A game that has many possbile lines and deviations from the lines to the same end point is non-linear.

[Gromnir]

tell us what your definition not make a lick o' difference... as almost everybody else gots a different notion. am not sure how many times we seen peoples claim that fo and ps:t were more non-linear 'cause of multiple possible endings.

 

some people says nwn were non-linear... a person earlier in this thread argued that kotor2 were non-linear. conversely, many peoples has argued that those games is very linear.

 

the only thing that Gromnir can say with any certainty 'bout linearity is that based on our experiences of following these boards and crpgs for a long time, complaints 'bout linearity of a game decrease if you gots loads of optional and tangential side quests.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 19, 2006 by Gromnir

[Slowtrain]

tell us what your definition not make a lick o' difference... as almost everybody else gots a different notion.  am not sure how many times we seen peoples claim that fo and ps:t were more non-linear 'cause of multiple possible endings.

 

some people says nwn were non-linear... a person earlier in this thread argued that kotor2 were non-linear.  conversely, many peoples has argued that those games is very linear. 

 

the only thing that Gromnir can say with any certainty 'bout linearity is that based on our experiences of following these boards and crpgs for a long time, complaints 'bout linearity of a game decrease if you gots loads of optional and tangential side quests.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, if one doesn't offer their definition of something, in this case linearity, then we have no common agreement over what we are discussing. It's not that a defintion is "right" that makes it important; it's that it is "known".

 

More side-quests is one way of making a game less linear. I agree.

 

Another way would be to have an extremely robust skill system that lets you create a wide variety of pcs, and which then changes your gaming experience.

 

There are many ways to decrease the linearity of a game.

[Gromnir]

tell us what your definition not make a lick o' difference... as almost everybody else gots a different notion.  am not sure how many times we seen peoples claim that fo and ps:t were more non-linear 'cause of multiple possible endings.

 

some people says nwn were non-linear... a person earlier in this thread argued that kotor2 were non-linear.  conversely, many peoples has argued that those games is very linear. 

 

the only thing that Gromnir can say with any certainty 'bout linearity is that based on our experiences of following these boards and crpgs for a long time, complaints 'bout linearity of a game decrease if you gots loads of optional and tangential side quests.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, if one doesn't offer their definition of something, in this case linearity, then we have no common agreement over what we are discussing. It's not that a defintion is "right" that makes it important; it's that it is "known".

 

More side-quests is one way of making a game less linear. I agree.

 

Another way would be to have an extremely robust skill system that lets you create a wide variety of pcs, and which then changes your gaming experience.

 

There are many ways to decrease the linearity of a game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

bah.

 

people rgue over the definition and forget what it is they is trying to accomplish. argue over linear v. non-linear. argue over what is/isn't a rpg. example: please note that many people is gonna disagree with your notion that "robust" skillz system creates any kind of non-linearity.

 

rubbish.

 

tell developers what features you wants and why... argue the definition that nobodys agrees 'pon is pointless.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Slowtrain]

people rgue over the definition and forget what it is they is trying to accomplish.  argue over linear v. non-linear.  argue over what is/isn't a rpg.

 

Of course we argue. Why not? Arguing over things gets us thinking about them and helps us clarify our own thoughts.

 

example: please note that many people is gonna disagree with your notion that "robust" skillz system creates any kind of non-linearity.

Of course. But there are many ways to make a game non-linear. Not one single one is right. Or even the best.

 

 

rubbish.

 

tell developers what features you wants and why... argue the definition that nobodys agrees 'pon is pointless.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

the feature I want most is...non-linearity! Here lemme define that for you...

 

 

edit:Fixed quote stuff

Edited December 19, 2006 by CrashGirl