Linear vs non linear story

[Malekith]

 

Obsidian's games reliability has rised significantly during years, especially when they started their own QA team, as DS3 don't have any major bugs (at least I don't know any). So I am quite confident that PE's quality in that department will be at least adequate.

 

Non-linear story is in my opinion better for not specified main character RPGs than linear story as it gives player freedon to roleplay more his/her character.

DS3 is the only one, but in that case I'd rather have bugs than the ****show of a PC port that game was. Also that game was a great deal more linear than AP and NV which were some of the most bug filled games I'd ever played.

 

AP was bugged???  I know it has that fame but most people i know hadn't any serious problems with the game

Edited April 23, 2013 by Malekith

[Elerond]

 

Obsidian's games reliability has rised significantly during years, especially when they started their own QA team, as DS3 don't have any major bugs (at least I don't know any). So I am quite confident that PE's quality in that department will be at least adequate.

 

Non-linear story is in my opinion better for not specified main character RPGs than linear story as it gives player freedon to roleplay more his/her character.

DS3 is the only one, but in that case I'd rather have bugs than the ****show of a PC port that game was. Also that game was a great deal more linear than AP and NV which were some of the most bug filled games I'd ever played.

 

DS3 is only Obsidian game where Obsidian itself did do QA (Quality assurance), in other their games publishers were entirely resposibility of QA and decision when game is good enough to be published. It is hard to fix bugs when your bug testers say that this works well enough now and so stop development now, as we will publish this version of the game.

[Dream]

DS3 is only Obsidian game where Obsidian itself did do QA (Quality assurance), in other their games publishers were entirely resposibility of QA and decision when game is good enough to be published. It is hard to fix bugs when your bug testers say that this works well enough now and so stop development now, as we will publish this version of the game.

 

There's only so much blame you can lay at the feet of QA though. After all these aren't random obscure bugs we're talking about, but blatant issues the devs would have seen by simply playing through their own game.

[Elerond]

 

DS3 is only Obsidian game where Obsidian itself did do QA (Quality assurance), in other their games publishers were entirely resposibility of QA and decision when game is good enough to be published. It is hard to fix bugs when your bug testers say that this works well enough now and so stop development now, as we will publish this version of the game.

 

There's only so much blame you can lay at the feet of QA though. After all these aren't random obscure bugs we're talking about, but blatant issues the devs would have seen by simply playing through their own game.

 

In their own time? As publishers don't pay them to play their own game as they have QA department for that purpose. But after F:NV Obsidian decided that they will use their own money to ensure that games quality is enough so that what happened with F:NV don't happen again (or at least I think that was reason for their own QA department).

 

If you have ever done complex computer programs (like games), you know that most of the time whole product is not functional, but only parts of it, why you need to do integration and systems tests, to see if all parts work with other like you have intented,  but that take time and money to do so smaller development studios usually give that part for publishers to do as they have more resources and its their product at the end of the day, but that don't work always so well as we have seen.

[Dream]

 

 

DS3 is only Obsidian game where Obsidian itself did do QA (Quality assurance), in other their games publishers were entirely resposibility of QA and decision when game is good enough to be published. It is hard to fix bugs when your bug testers say that this works well enough now and so stop development now, as we will publish this version of the game.

 

There's only so much blame you can lay at the feet of QA though. After all these aren't random obscure bugs we're talking about, but blatant issues the devs would have seen by simply playing through their own game.

 

In their own time? As publishers don't pay them to play their own game as they have QA department for that purpose. But after F:NV Obsidian decided that they will use their own money to ensure that games quality is enough so that what happened with F:NV don't happen again (or at least I think that was reason for their own QA department).

 

If you have ever done complex computer programs (like games), you know that most of the time whole product is not functional, but only parts of it, why you need to do integration and systems tests, to see if all parts work with other like you have intented,  but that take time and money to do so smaller development studios usually give that part for publishers to do as they have more resources and its their product at the end of the day, but that don't work always so well as we have seen.

 

If they bothered to do it on their own time then maybe they would have hit that 85 on metacritic (and then they would have been paid). Also, while it may be the publisher's product, a massive amount of bugs reflects more on the developer (after all who was blamed for the whole A:CM debacle; Gearbox or Sega).

Edited April 23, 2013 by Dream

[Elerond]

 

 

 

DS3 is only Obsidian game where Obsidian itself did do QA (Quality assurance), in other their games publishers were entirely resposibility of QA and decision when game is good enough to be published. It is hard to fix bugs when your bug testers say that this works well enough now and so stop development now, as we will publish this version of the game.

 

There's only so much blame you can lay at the feet of QA though. After all these aren't random obscure bugs we're talking about, but blatant issues the devs would have seen by simply playing through their own game.

 

In their own time? As publishers don't pay them to play their own game as they have QA department for that purpose. But after F:NV Obsidian decided that they will use their own money to ensure that games quality is enough so that what happened with F:NV don't happen again (or at least I think that was reason for their own QA department).

 

If you have ever done complex computer programs (like games), you know that most of the time whole product is not functional, but only parts of it, why you need to do integration and systems tests, to see if all parts work with other like you have intented,  but that take time and money to do so smaller development studios usually give that part for publishers to do as they have more resources and its their product at the end of the day, but that don't work always so well as we have seen.

 

If they bothered to do it on their own time then maybe they would have hit that 85 on metacritic (and then they would have been paid). Also, while it may be the publisher's product, the massive amount of bugs reflects more on the developer (after all who was blamed for the whole A:CM debacle; Gearbox or Sega).

 

Do you usually do work for free for companies that you work? I may reflect badly (mostly because people have wrong image how things work in development) on developer, but most of time small developers just don't have money to pay anyone to test their product. Especially when you need to do that testing in multiple platforms and you must test product that have tens of hours of gameplay content to be tested. And there is usually also problem that employees of developer can't bring game in their homes to be played, for contract/technical/other reasons, so usually all playing during development much be done during office hour (same time when those employees should make that game). And having two QA teams for game seems very redundant on the paper. And it is debatable if loss of gameplay content would have cause F:NV lose more MC points than fixed bugs would have rised it.

 

And I blame always QA department and the one(s) whose decision it was to put buggy game on the market. Although what I have read about A:CM it had many things wrong in it development like workers that work on Borderlands, but collect their payment from Sega's A:CM budget and large parts of game was outsourced outside of the Gearbox, and that development team didn't except that game would ship present year's february, which was big part of why it was so full of bugs. So sometimes you can share responsibilty with more open handedly.

 

http://www.destructoid.com/developer-gearbox-lied-to-sega-2k-over-colonial-marines-245986.phtml

http://www.destructoid.com/so-who-the-hell-did-make-aliens-colonial-marines--244939.phtml

[Dream]

Do you usually do work for free for companies that you work? I may reflect badly (mostly because people have wrong image how things work in development) on developer, but most of time small developers just don't have money to pay anyone to test their product. Especially when you need to do that testing in multiple platforms and you must test product that have tens of hours of gameplay content to be tested. And there is usually also problem that employees of developer can't bring game in their homes to be played, for contract/technical/other reasons, so usually all playing during development much be done during office hour (same time when those employees should make that game). And having two QA teams for game seems very redundant on the paper. And it is debatable if loss of gameplay content would have cause F:NV lose more MC points than fixed bugs would have rised it.

 Staying after your shift is over to do a better job is not an unheard of thing in this world (and yes I've personally done just that). Maybe you don't get paid directly, but when it comes time for raises/bonuses/promotions higher ups will generally take your extra effort into consideration.

[Elerond]

 

Do you usually do work for free for companies that you work? I may reflect badly (mostly because people have wrong image how things work in development) on developer, but most of time small developers just don't have money to pay anyone to test their product. Especially when you need to do that testing in multiple platforms and you must test product that have tens of hours of gameplay content to be tested. And there is usually also problem that employees of developer can't bring game in their homes to be played, for contract/technical/other reasons, so usually all playing during development much be done during office hour (same time when those employees should make that game). And having two QA teams for game seems very redundant on the paper. And it is debatable if loss of gameplay content would have cause F:NV lose more MC points than fixed bugs would have rised it.

 Staying after your shift is over to do a better job is not an unheard of thing in this world (and yes I've personally done just that). Maybe you don't get paid directly, but when it comes time for raises/bonuses/promotions higher ups will generally take your extra effort into consideration.

I don't think that there is many people who are ready to do full extra shifts (testing is quite time consuming work) make sure that 71 people who are hired to do QA work have done their job as good as they should have, even if it would guarantee rise in future if game is reviewed good enough.

[redneckdevil]

if they can acheive the quality of story, culture, and politics and the semi-linearity of morrowind and fonv, tbth ill be a very happy camper.

[Lephys]

I vote for a directional story. There are a variety of routes to take and still end up in the north. 8P

[Ulquiorra]

Both

 

 

 

Linerar and non-linear. They both good.

 

 

In general the most importat conflict in RPGS is conflict beetween Story made by desiners vs. freedom of the world.

 

Have you ever seen a good game with goos "main-plot" story or wathever ... witch open world and freedom in the world ... ?

 

i think that BG 1 was close but is stuck in the middle on one and another ...

 

 

i give to difenr examples ... Witcher 1 (the best plot in my opinion) and Skyrim (most open world in my opinion) ..

 

they are both good games .. but it is almost imposible to make a game that combain one and another ...

 

 

From my perspectiv if you made a wery interesting storyline .. (that takes main character full atention) then adding a setting when "you coud do everything" whoud be pointless becouse if the players full atention is on a main plot ... he will not rescue dogs from the trees .... for 24 gold ...

 

of course addinm some sub-quests will not break the game ...

 

But think about ... you have a witcher in skyrim setting ... propably you whoud get tired of this game before 3 act ....( adding such main plot to this numer of sub-quests) will result in "to much content at once" ...

 

In D&D type of games we have half linear half open world type of seting in my opinon (the same main-lot diffter characters) ... but makeing a plot that suit all classes .. is imposible ...

 

 

For example from role playing side ... do you belive that it possible to raise druid in candlekeep ? ... From logic point it's not becouse druids gain their powers not so much by studying but for devoting them self to nature .. so no one who live whole his live in a city .. whoud be able to be druid ...

 

Other thing ... "the orgins" from Dragon age orgins ... the only orgin that suits main quest was Human Noble ... the rest was in some way to ... appart from it

 

other example

 

"WEST port" the same for druid or paladin ... do you belive that a commoner from some vilidge that never meet any paladin or druid will in some way "posses" this type of abilitis ?

 

I liked linear games like Witcher 1 or FF7 .. (one the same character one main plot) .. but this type of game will win only if .. desiners make wery interesting characters and personal-plot (plot more ralated personaly to the player from motivation side not some unatural bounding like "you are dragon born so kill dragons")

 

I also like game with open world like skyrim or morrowind but .. at some part o got tired of them ....

[Micamo]

Personally, my big worry is, linear or not, Obsidian will focus too much on forcing a great big "epic" plot chock filled with "moral dilemmas" and "philosophical ideas" and "choice and consequence." All I want is to just be dumped into a well-crafted setting.

[Kjaamor]

I was thinking that I wasn't really bothered by how linear things were, because I thought that Baldur's Gate I+II were both quite linear.

 

Then I remembered Icewind Dale.

 

Quick shudder aside, I would like a game that is either largely non-linear (Fallout/Fallout 2) or semi-linear (Baldur's Gate/BG 2/Arcanum). It's worth being explicit that non-linearity in the purest sense can make it very easy to fall foul of level scaling, and false choices (see DA:O). Being able to go anywhere, but being met with the same level of challenge wherever you go, makes for a non-linear narrative at the expense of utterly linear gameplay.

 

What would be nice, however, would be to have the fallout 1/2 'your ending describes your effect on each settlement' if we're going non-linear. Maybe even if we aren't.

[Lephys]

Personally, my big worry is, linear or not, Obsidian will focus too much on forcing a great big "epic" plot chock filled with "moral dilemmas" and "philosophical ideas" and "choice and consequence." All I want is to just be dumped into a well-crafted setting.

You failed to provide an explanation of what "well-crafted" means. Who's to say it can't have epic, philosophically moral dilemmas and still be well-crafted? u_u

[mcmanusaur]

For me, linearity (or the lack thereof) is a big part of what separates an RPG from an action/adventure game. So take your pick, I guess, but I'm here for a comparatively nonlinear RPG.

Edited April 25, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Malekith]

Personally, my big worry is, linear or not, Obsidian will focus too much on forcing a great big "epic" plot chock filled with "moral dilemmas" and "philosophical ideas" and "choice and consequence." All I want is to just be dumped into a well-crafted setting.

I hate this approach to games. I never liked a single Bethseda game, not even Morrowind which even Bethesda's critics say it were good. Personally i hope we get something like Torment, entirelly focused on the narrarive. It seems we won't,as they aim for BG2 type of game, but sure as hell i don't want something in the vein of TES or Arcanum-Fallout. I loved the latter 2, but this is supposed to be an IE successor, where all the games were about story. For an Arcanum successor i wouldn't had pay the same amound.

[Micamo]

You failed to provide an explanation of what "well-crafted" means.

 

 

The specifics are hard to describe, so I'm going to give you a frustratingly vague answer instead: Some of my favorite parts of fantasy novels are those maps the really good authors put in the front pages of the book. If you do it right, you don't even have to do any work in trying to get the reader to care about the place. They just look at interesting spots on the map and say to themselves "Wow, I want to go there!" They're already invested and engaged in the work before even reading the first sentence. The best maps don't need a story to justify them; They justify themselves.

 

Likewise, the best settings in video games are the ones where I don't need a quest giver telling me to go visit someplace or talk to someone: I'm interested because it's there. The setting justifies itself.

 

Now, I'll be the first to admit, I'm a rather easy gamer to please. Give me a good setting, and I'll love your game in spite of basically all else. Bugs? Not a problem. Terrible gameplay? Don't sweat it. Vomit-inducing dialogue and voice acting? Meh, not a big deal. So long as you manage to keep me interested in what's over that next hill, I'll keep climbing over it no matter what it means I'll have to endure. It's why I'm such a rabid Elder Scrolls fan in spite of the series's mountain of flaws.

 

And the worst settings in games are the ones where the writer comes up with a plot line in their head, then everything in the setting is built purely in subservience to that plot. No place exists unless something important happens there except to provide a buffer of endless mooks for the player to wade through as they move from A to B (or worse, back from B to A). Nobody exists unless they have some piece of exposition to deliver about what you're supposed to do next. Everyone just apparently stands around all day waiting for the player to show up, and nobody ever has any problems unless they're somehow directly relevant to whatever storyline the writer has intended. And everything matches convention unless the plot specifically requires otherwise, or the writer is trying to be clever by "subverting" a convention with something just as played out as the default, or just using the default with a different (usually stupid) name.

 

Honestly? I'm worried this is the road Project Eternity's headed down. Maybe I'm being unfair because we really don't have that much info on the setting/story yet, but most of what I've seen so far has been a bad sign. The creative spark behind the Dyrwood seems to be "Well, 4/5 of the IE games we're using as inspiration were Forgotten Realms, so our setting can't be too different from FR. Also, there's guns, souls work different, there are cat people, we call bards 'Chanters', psions 'Ciphers', and Planetouched 'Godlike'." We're also told that the plot will have a big emphasis on "Moral Dilemmas", a fad that should have been discredited with Jade Empire. Furthermore pretty much all the updates we've received about the game, especially since the kickstarter ended, are about the mechanical and technical aspects of the game. Those are nifty and all, and it might just be that it's what they're focusing on in development right now, but I'm worried the reason they aren't talking much about the setting is because they think that nobody really cares about it.

 

That's not to say it's all bad news: I think the colonialism angle has interesting potential. I'm also happy to hear they're implementing these "dilemmas" through a reputation system where you choose between multiple factions to support rather than a morality meter: I think this worked out really well in New Vegas.

 

 

Also: I thought Planescape: Torment had an amazing setting. In fact, it was one of my favorite parts of the game. You don't have to be a TES/Fallout/Arcanum-like complete wide-open world game to have an interesting setting.

[Malekith]

 

You failed to provide an explanation of what "well-crafted" means.

 

 

The specifics are hard to describe, so I'm going to give you a frustratingly vague answer instead: Some of my favorite parts of fantasy novels are those maps the really good authors put in the front pages of the book. If you do it right, you don't even have to do any work in trying to get the reader to care about the place. They just look at interesting spots on the map and say to themselves "Wow, I want to go there!" They're already invested and engaged in the work before even reading the first sentence. The best maps don't need a story to justify them; They justify themselves.

 

Likewise, the best settings in video games are the ones where I don't need a quest giver telling me to go visit someplace or talk to someone: I'm interested because it's there. The setting justifies itself.

 

Now, I'll be the first to admit, I'm a rather easy gamer to please. Give me a good setting, and I'll love your game in spite of basically all else. Bugs? Not a problem. Terrible gameplay? Don't sweat it. Vomit-inducing dialogue and voice acting? Meh, not a big deal. So long as you manage to keep me interested in what's over that next hill, I'll keep climbing over it no matter what it means I'll have to endure. It's why I'm such a rabid Elder Scrolls fan in spite of the series's mountain of flaws.

 

And the worst settings in games are the ones where the writer comes up with a plot line in their head, then everything in the setting is built purely in subservience to that plot. No place exists unless something important happens there except to provide a buffer of endless mooks for the player to wade through as they move from A to B (or worse, back from B to A). Nobody exists unless they have some piece of exposition to deliver about what you're supposed to do next. Everyone just apparently stands around all day waiting for the player to show up, and nobody ever has any problems unless they're somehow directly relevant to whatever storyline the writer has intended. And everything matches convention unless the plot specifically requires otherwise, or the writer is trying to be clever by "subverting" a convention with something just as played out as the default, or just using the default with a different (usually stupid) name.

 

Honestly? I'm worried this is the road Project Eternity's headed down. Maybe I'm being unfair because we really don't have that much info on the setting/story yet, but most of what I've seen so far has been a bad sign. The creative spark behind the Dyrwood seems to be "Well, 4/5 of the IE games we're using as inspiration were Forgotten Realms, so our setting can't be too different from FR. Also, there's guns, souls work different, there are cat people, we call bards 'Chanters', psions 'Ciphers', and Planetouched 'Godlike'." We're also told that the plot will have a big emphasis on "Moral Dilemmas", a fad that should have been discredited with Jade Empire. Furthermore pretty much all the updates we've received about the game, especially since the kickstarter ended, are about the mechanical and technical aspects of the game. Those are nifty and all, and it might just be that it's what they're focusing on in development right now, but I'm worried the reason they aren't talking much about the setting is because they think that nobody really cares about it.

 

That's not to say it's all bad news: I think the colonialism angle has interesting potential. I'm also happy to hear they're implementing these "dilemmas" through a reputation system where you choose between multiple factions to support rather than a morality meter: I think this worked out really well in New Vegas.

 

 

Also: I thought Planescape: Torment had an amazing setting. In fact, it was one of my favorite parts of the game. You don't have to be a TES/Fallout/Arcanum-like complete wide-open world game to have an interesting setting.

 

Well, when you put it that way i almost agree with you. Yes, the setting is very important.Fallout,Arcanum,even Baldur's Gate were so good because of the setting. When i said that storis the most importand part of the game for me, i included  setting.I put setting,story,characters,atmophere all together in the "narrative" part of a game, and that part is the most importand. I hate the TES games because except of the setting, all other parts of the narrative are bad. Story-no. Characters-no. Good writing-no.

As for the updates, i agree with you. I think most people are interested in the story or the setting and not so much in game mechanics. But many things about those would be spoilers to have them revealed.

[mcmanusaur]

 

Personally, my big worry is, linear or not, Obsidian will focus too much on forcing a great big "epic" plot chock filled with "moral dilemmas" and "philosophical ideas" and "choice and consequence." All I want is to just be dumped into a well-crafted setting.

I hate this approach to games. I never liked a single Bethseda game, not even Morrowind which even Bethesda's critics say it were good. Personally i hope we get something like Torment, entirelly focused on the narrarive. It seems we won't,as they aim for BG2 type of game, but sure as hell i don't want something in the vein of TES or Arcanum-Fallout. I loved the latter 2, but this is supposed to be an IE successor, where all the games were about story. For an Arcanum successor i wouldn't had pay the same amound.

 

Well, maybe I'm the only one who aspires to be able to make a choice with regard to what "role" I'm playing in RPG's. After all, if you can't play different roles, what separates it from another game, such as action/adventure games as I've been mentioning. Then it comes down to how superficial the player's supposed freedom to play their role is. Does the freedom end after character creation is complete if the narrative is linear, or do players continue to make meaningful choices to define their character's role throughout the game? As much as people like to talk about how modern RPG's have straggled away from the past greatness of RPG's, in some ways you can see the same trends in the Infinity Engine games that this game follows. For me it ultimately comes down to the fact that games either use the flawed DnD system or they streamline their mechanics to hell like with Skyrim. In terms of narrative though, I think that less linearity can only be a good thing, as long as it's not just choosing between "generic good option" and "generic evil option". From a strictly narrative perspective with regard to drama, sorry but there's nothing superior about Infinity Engine games in comparison to modern RPG's in my humble opinion.

[Malekith]

 

 

Personally, my big worry is, linear or not, Obsidian will focus too much on forcing a great big "epic" plot chock filled with "moral dilemmas" and "philosophical ideas" and "choice and consequence." All I want is to just be dumped into a well-crafted setting.

I hate this approach to games. I never liked a single Bethseda game, not even Morrowind which even Bethesda's critics say it were good. Personally i hope we get something like Torment, entirelly focused on the narrarive. It seems we won't,as they aim for BG2 type of game, but sure as hell i don't want something in the vein of TES or Arcanum-Fallout. I loved the latter 2, but this is supposed to be an IE successor, where all the games were about story. For an Arcanum successor i wouldn't had pay the same amound.

 

Well, maybe I'm the only one who aspires to be able to make a choice with regard to what "role" I'm playing in RPG's. After all, if you can't play different roles, what separates it from another game, such as action/adventure games as I've been mentioning. Then it comes down to how superficial the player's supposed freedom to play their role is. Does the freedom end after character creation is complete if the narrative is linear, or do players continue to make meaningful choices to define their character's role throughout the game? As much as people like to talk about how modern RPG's have straggled away from the past greatness of RPG's, in some ways you can see the same trends in the Infinity Engine games that this game follows. For me it ultimately comes down to the fact that games either use the flawed DnD system or they streamline their mechanics to hell like with Skyrim. In terms of narrative though, I think that less linearity can only be a good thing, as long as it's not just choosing between "generic good option" and "generic evil option". From a strictly narrative perspective with regard to drama, sorry but there's nothing superior about Infinity Engine games in comparison to modern RPG's in my humble opinion.

 

If you compair them with older games,sure. Black Isle were never a " hardcore"  RPG company. Fallouts and Torment were too easy and had very small areas(minimal exploration).

IWDs were completely linear. BGs set most of the trends that modern games follow like romances, the nonsensical "theme park" approach Bethesda follows etc.

But for most people were the best RPGs ever created. If that is true or not does not matter. What matters is that people paid for a IE game.

 

 

"From a strictly narrative perspective with regard to drama, sorry but there's nothing superior about Infinity Engine games in comparison to modern RPG's in my humble opinion"

The only IE games that focused on narrative were PS:T and in a lesser extend BG2.(which are the two most popular by the way).

From a strictly narrative perspective with regard to drama, tell me a modern RPG that can compair to PS:T. The closer is MotB, which is also semi-linear.

[mcmanusaur]

Inb4Iaccidentallyquotedthewrongpostsorrybro

[Lephys]

The specifics are hard to describe, so I'm going to give you a frustratingly vague answer instead:

 

...

...

...

 

Also: I thought Planescape: Torment had an amazing setting. In fact, it was one of my favorite parts of the game. You don't have to be a TES/Fallout/Arcanum-like complete wide-open world game to have an interesting setting.

For what it's worth, I just really wanted to know what you meant by "well-crafted," so thank you for taking the time to answer, ^_^

 

And I hear ya. Even about the map thing. I couldn't even tell you where half the places are in the Wheel of Time books, in relation to each other, or the shapes of their borders, etc., but each nation/region/city has so much friggin' character in that series that you can't help but get kind of attached to them. And, strangely enough (human psychology and all that, maybe?), those awesome maps in the beginning of the books make it feel like a world full of character and significant detail, even before you start reading about it all.

 

I think the simplest way I can put my take on the whole linear-vs-non-linear thing is... The world/setting needs to supply all the reactive scenarios, and it should be up to the player to serve as the catalyst. Think of a bunch of cauldrons, each filled with 70%-complete potions, and the character has to go around adding the final ingredients. But, different final ingredients will result in completely different end-products, even though you're always dealing with the same starting 70% of the mixtures. Sometimes, there are cauldrons that may or may not have the lids off, or that may start out in different mixtures depending on how the player handles previous ones. But, the player never just determines all 100% of a cauldron's contents.

 

I think you can do this, and still have the cauldrons geographically spaced out, and have the overall path/sequential link between them be a lot more interesting than a single straight line. However, you've ultimately got to start at one, and arrive at another. You can't just literally go in any direction you so choose at any time. And you can't just ALWAYS get to go wherever you want, at any given time, with no consequences, or that means the story never is important enough to require your action within any specific limitations. It's basically a priorities list. Sure, you can go rescue that kitten before you go deal with these bandits who are plotting to take over this city, but you can't just run off and check out 72 sets of ancient ruins for 5 weeks, scattered around the globe, THEN expect the bandits to not have done anything in the amount of time it took you to travel the globe aimlessly exploring.

 

It's not even that fine of a line, really. But, I digress...

 

I WILL say that, though I don't have any proof, I believe your heavy concerns for Obsidian's handling of this matter are for naught. I don't think they're going to do what you think they are. Pure hypothesis, but, I really, truly don't. I believe you may be overly-worrying yourself, in this regard, before there is sufficient evidence or reason to do so. Not that I think you sit around all day with raised blood pressure because you can't stop thinking about how Obsidian's gonna mess up the story and setting, heh. But, I'm just saying... I recommend giving them the benefit of the doubt, until we know more,

[Randomthom]

I personally think that BG2 is probably the best game I've ever played, particularly in regards to it's story.

 

When you break it down it's essentially a linear story with a couple of this-or-that options along the way. Thieves or Vampires. Portal or Ship. This didn't disadvantage it simply because it was such a good story.

 

I think that choice is good, the illusion of choice is almost as good. Even better is not caring about the choice because everything is just so frickin' awesome anyway that whatever happens, it'll be worth the ride.*

 

*Note to the developers of CoD etc. Explosions do nor make things frickin' awesome.

 

BG2 was great because of all the rest of the game was binary non-linear (i.e. do it or don't). The characters were rich and interesting. the interactions between the NPCs was fantastic. On my first playthrough I couldn't believe it when 5 minutes after I'd told Imoen to sneak off in Spellhold, Haer'dalis left me when Aerie chose me over him. It's moments like that that make a game great. I've played through BG2 about 6 or 7 times (just finished my first solo run) and I discover new things all the time (also thanks to the awesome modding community but often stuff that was always been there).

 

AGX makes a good point to differentiate narrative and game design linearity. I would argue that Fallout: New Vegas is probably the least linear game I have played (outside of sandbox) with regards to it's core story. You can choose right at the beginning, change your mind mid way through and switch factions, each of which has a very different experience. The game has many flaws but it did a very good job of allowing real player choice with it's core narrative. It is also non-linear in game design of course (open world).

 

Many people laud Skyrim for its non-linearity but this is a half-truth. The core story is actually 100% linear with the sole exception of who you kill along the way, the end result is always the same. The only things that are non-linear narratively are outside of the core quest and even those are generally binary linearity.

 

Mass Effect, for all their talk about player choice, was essentially a linear game. It didn't make it a bad one (well, the final ending was a disappointment but the whole experience was still great).

 

Linear can be great, non-linear can be bad. A good story goes a long way to making people care less either way!

[TMZuk]

The best stories in video games are always semi linear. Planescape:Torment, Mask of the Betrayer, Baldur's Gate 2, Witcher 2 etc.

On the other hand non linear stories are at best servisable (Fallouts, Arcanum).Until now at least.

New Vegas and Alpha Protocol are not famous for their stories. Not a flaw, as they had diffirent focus and New Vegas would be a poor Fallout game with a linear story. Fallout 1 is the same. Great game but noone played it for the story.

Yet Josh said in an interview that he would like to try for a nonlinear, find the waterchip approach. If someone can do this, is Obsidian, but until now they haven't managed it.

Your thoughts? What would you prefer for P:E? A story in the vein of Planescape:Torment and Mask of the Betrayer, or more open like Fallout or Arcanum?

I must disagree. In my opinion, New Vegas has an excellent story, as does Fallout 1 and 2.

 

Fallout 3 has a very weak story, and is at the same time extremely linear.

Edited April 26, 2013 by TMZuk

[Malekith]

 

The best stories in video games are always semi linear. Planescape:Torment, Mask of the Betrayer, Baldur's Gate 2, Witcher 2 etc.

On the other hand non linear stories are at best servisable (Fallouts, Arcanum).Until now at least.

New Vegas and Alpha Protocol are not famous for their stories. Not a flaw, as they had diffirent focus and New Vegas would be a poor Fallout game with a linear story. Fallout 1 is the same. Great game but noone played it for the story.

Yet Josh said in an interview that he would like to try for a nonlinear, find the waterchip approach. If someone can do this, is Obsidian, but until now they haven't managed it.

Your thoughts? What would you prefer for P:E? A story in the vein of Planescape:Torment and Mask of the Betrayer, or more open like Fallout or Arcanum?

I must disagree. In my opinion, New Vegas has an excellent story, as does Fallout 1 and 2.

 

Fallout 3 has a very weak story, and is at the same time extremely linear.

 

Notise i didn't even mention Fallout 3? It was intentional. That game was crap from start to finish in my opinion. Others may disagree.

As for the other Fallouts, it depends to what you consider story in a game. Some people consider setting or atmosphere and characters part of the story. In these parts Fallouts were excelent. But story? No. The first Fallouts had good individual stories for each area, but the game's main story was... what? Find the waterchip, you find it and traces of an evil horde enemy, go kill the master, the end. The story is as basic as it goes. I don't mean that as a critisism as the game's focus was elsewere for the start. But i haven't seen anyone say that he played Fallout for the story, or that the story was the best thing about the game, as i have seen people do with PS:T and MotB.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Malekith