Article - bjlhct2 On Scenario Design pt 1: Linearity
Pages
| Author | Topic: Article - bjlhct2 On Scenario Design pt 1: Linearity |
|---|---|
|
Apprentice
Member # 5048
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 00:09
Profile
Articles, huh? Well, OK. Good scenarios have appropriate difficulty, have strong story, are nonlinear, involve strategy, and create progress. Balancing these is a large part of the art of scenario design. Totally linear scenarios are boring. Totally nonlinear scenarios make no sense. Most scenarios err on the side of linearity: the best scenarios are only as linear as required by the story, and involve many choices and tradeoffs. "Karma" This is a general term here for values that change many things and get changed by many possible actions. This is a fundamental technique to prevent linearity. However, simple, predictable karma systems are boring and cliche. Consider a scenario where you work for one city-state, and help fight the other city-state. Option 1: Have a series of missions to attack the enemy state in specific ways in a certain order. This is bad. Option 2: Each time you hurt the other city-state, a "has damaged enemy" value increases. When this value is high, you get better deals on equipment, tougher missions, etc. This is mediocre. Option 3: You can choose to defect to the other state. There are a number of points where you can help either side - eg there is a battle, and you fight one or the other, or you deliver an item to one or the other, and so on. Each action makes one place like you more and the other place like you less. This is better. Option 4: Like #3, but each state has a triad of leaders, one good, one evil, and one neutral. There are many opportunities to be either evil, good, or neutral. When your "good vs evil" value is high, the good leader likes you, when it is low, the evil leader likes you, and when it is in the middle, the neutral leader likes you. There are also good, evil, and neutral affiliated people in each city and outdoors. This is best. Ordered and Unordered Challenges One of the reasons most scenarios are more linear than would be most enjoyable is to keep the player taking on challenges matching their strength throughout a scenario where they gain strength. This, however, is not an insurmountable problem. One option for keeping a player always well matched is to use impermanent items. Consider a situation where ten enemy camps, each different, must be attacked and defeated. If the camps are all easy enough to be defeated at the beginning, by the end, the player will be stronger and will find the later camps too easy. However, consider a player in the same situation, given powerful impermanent items, eg potions. The player then must use the items to defeat the camps initially, and by the later camps will have used them up. This also adds an element of strategy. A second option to keep a player well matched is to simply make challenges that are done later more difficult. Consider a situation where the player must infiltrate two forts. The first fort infiltrated can warn the other fort, which increases its level of security, making the second infiltration more difficult. A third option is to temporarily weaken the player between challenges. Consider a situation where a player must defeat, separately, a vampire and a demon. Each curses the player in a different way when defeated, leaving the player at the same strength they were at before defeating them. After both are defeated, a way to remove the curses is given. A fourth option is to make challenges that strengthen the player little as they are solved. This, however, is bad, because it leaves the player with a sense that little progress is being made. Posts: 33 | Registered: Sunday, October 3 2004 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 02:47
Profile
Homepage
I respect your opinions, but I don't agree with them. Oh, and this doesn't seem to be about linearity at all. This is my article on linearity: http://www.sitemouse.com/users/drakefyre/boa.html#art3 I think that in a medium like Blades of Exile or Blades of Avernum, linearity is a good thing. A linear scenario can be much more complete and fun to play than a more open-ended scenario. The author has much more control over a linear scenario, and they can more easily keep the scenario moving quickly. Still, if it's not done right, the scenario will seem too short and sparse. Open-ended scenarios generally fail from having giant outdoors and no real direction in the plot, both of which result in the player getting bored and/or frustrated, which are two of worst feelings for a player to have. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5415
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 04:24
Profile
What bjlhct2 is a little unpolished for something meant to explain concepts to other people, but what he does say makes perfect sense. Linearity is just plain bad, though of course something completely open ended is impractical. Basically I think people are going to be divided into at least three major camps here. We have the storytellers (linear, cutscene, backstory and other creator-focused aspects), the interactivists (a wide range of choices, immersive reality, suspense and other character-focused aspects) and the gamers (tactics, stats, power-ups and other player-focused aspects). You can mix some of them together, and probably should to soome extent, but people usually land squarely in one or another. Most game designers in other CRPGs and RPGS are either activists or gamers, with a few notable exceptions here and there. For some unknown reason this community is dominated by the storytellers, though I'd hazard a guess that it's because that mindset is more typical of younger and less experienced designers. Posts: 62 | Registered: Thursday, January 20 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 05:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is outright wrong. I think it might have something to do with Alcritas, who designed a number of spectacular and fairly linear scenarios -- and he's older than you think, and as experienced a designer as just about anyone you can name. Your opinions are not better than anyone else's opinions. I wish you'd realize this. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 06:20
Profile
Homepage
quote:Funny, I think that it's exactly the opposite. Blades of Avernum and Blades of Exile are not made for the 'gamers'. Playing scenarios just to raise your party's stats seems incredibly pointless to me. But your definition of interactivity fits my definition of a good scenario, but having backstory and things are not a bad thing. They help flesh out the world that the player is placed into. quote:How is linearity bad? I think it's a good thing to have that structure in a scenario. You're misinterpreting linearity to mean following a rigid set of the author's instructions, which linearity does not have to be. Something we could discuss here is having a party provided for you by the designer. Personally, I like having a provided party. I think that it creates a greater tie to the world where the scenario takes place, and the author can have greater control over the story that way. I think that if you and bjlhct2 both played the best Blades of Exile scenarios, you'd change your tune. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 10:32
Profile
Homepage
In my opinion, a good game must keep the player entertained. In my case, a too open ended game might became boring. A good story is the fuel that keeps players going on, but for a good story be told, the designer must have more control. Now, giving more control and linearity to designers, doesn't mean no freedom for players. It's a matter of finding a good balance. But if I had to choose one of those two extremes, I would certainly prefer the linear scenarios. I prefer a story-driven game than an open ended mind numbing game (dungeon hacks, no specific goals, no game's feedback, repetition, etc). -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3610
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 10:40
Profile
From the point of view of someone who has designed and run many RPG's in a whole variety of formats (PnP, PbP, Chat, cRPG, RTS/TBS Scenarios, freeform, etc.), I think that what everyone seems to be missing is that there is no absolute! Linearity and non-linearity are a continuum, not polar opposites. In the ideal RPG storyline, the player never realizes that it is non-linear because s/he is naturally motivated to take the path set before him/her. How do you achieve that motivation? Story. A game/scenario without a story, no matter how open ended, is no more than a construct. The point of non-linearity is to make the game world more immersive by giving the player choices. Well, the best way to make the game world more immersive is to actually create a game world. If you merely have a construct for presenting choices, there is no reason, and indeed no basis, for those choices. Then the choices only highlight the artificiality of the game. On the other hand, if you create an immersive game world, then you involve the player. Now you can present choices when appropriate to strengthen that immersion. In the ideal scenario, you actually craft the story so the player will only really be able to make one choice. If you do that, then you have told the perfect story. You have instilled the emotions you want to instill in the player, and they haven't even noticed. Of course, to be able to get to that point, you need to be able to lure the player into your story. The best way for all concerned is by proper reward placement. Small rewards in rapid succession, followed by larger rewards spaced further and further. As a rule of thumb, you should be giving aproximately the same average gold value for the same average period of game time. Special challenges like boss battles and major puzzles should be spaced so that they are part of your rubric, or at most only slight blips in it. This gives a better pacing to the game, and draws the players in. Then you can begin to weaves your story around them, and once you have woven it, then you can begin to emphisize the game-play elements less. You still need some important battles, but they can come when and how the story dictates. Cheers. Posts: 129 | Registered: Tuesday, October 28 2003 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 10:48
Profile
For me the immersiveness as well as the appearance of choice no matter how small makes the game enjoyable. When the game becomes too obviously controlling and linear it becomes less fun. How does one generate the appearance of choice? How does one create the atmosphere where a character wants to move forward in a linear progression? Even in open ended scenarios-- you still have to progress to the end-- it is just you do not have to do every piece of scenario. You get to avoid the boring parts. Also, you have more options to find hidden material, explore, and do sidequests in a non-linear setting. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 10:48
Profile
Ultimately the choice is left to the designer and the player on linearity. Both can be successful if carried out well. I totally disagree with the sentiment that linear scenarios are a product of youthfulness. I know as I have gotten older and more experienced, my stories have tended toward more character development which can only be effectively carried out in a somewhat linear environment. There are definitely parts of the community that like a strong story based scenario with a linear structure. Often the two go hand in hand because a too sparse scenario cannot develop a coherent plot well enough to sustain the storyline. Personally, I like writing scenarios with a stronger storyline and a linear flow as it makes me more excited to complete such scenarios. Often, however, I will put in distractions from the main plotline to give the player a little choice in the matter. As far as the article, it probably should be modified to reflect the overall tastes of the community. What is the best type of scenario? The answer is there is none just as there is no best genre of music or literature. Some people feel scenarios should be traditional RPGs, others feel they should achieve more of a literary aspect. There is no right or wrong answer in this debate. All we can do is respect each others feelings on this matter. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5512
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 10:50
Profile
quote:OKay... and what about the most popular RPG franchise to date? Final Fantasy... Id say thats entirely and utterly Linear. In fact, when they tried to be less linear and more open in X2, it was recieved with mix reviews. People (that is, the population of RPGers in general, excluding die hard MMO fanatics and doesnt say anything about the Individual who is nto the same as the people) want to be told a story. That is why they play games. They want a story. So tell, if linearity is so bad - why does FF do so good? How about Prince of Persia, another extremely linear game, that did very well. Doom3, though it hink thats just shooting and less for story. Now how about thought, the two most seen examples of 'open' game play. Grand Theft Auto and KotoR. Of the two, i would say only one comes close to be open. and thats GTA, simply because you do have thirty some storylines or whatever to go through at your leasier. Kotor - what would you call that? Open gaming? Linearity? Kotor is EXTREMLY linear. Its just that it happens to have several branching paths - but look at it, whatever option you pick, you only get 2 endings. Good, Bad. thats it. Yet that is hailed as a wonderful type of game where the player has extreme control over what happens to them. Ive seen a lot of statements saying "Linearity means there cannot be any character growth chosen by the player" Bull****. Kotor is linear. And yet your character grows exactly the way you want to - Want to be dark, light or gray? You choose the actions that make it so. The best linear scenarios in BoA are going to be doing that. They will direct the player down one or two paths, but along the way the player has the option to change paths. But guess what, thats not open ended, that is linear - its just 2 seperate linear paths you get to choose. I dont think there is a way to make a story based game open ended. Even MMO's, when you get into the story, have a very definate linearity to them. Any story you follow in any game will be linear, with a clear cut begining, middle, and end - just that there may be 2 or more stories you can switch between at the same time. -------------------- Gir! What did you do with the Guidance chip? I took it out to make room for the CUPCAKE!!!!! Posts: 30 | Registered: Thursday, February 17 2005 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5048
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 10:54
Profile
I stand by my misinterpreted statement that linearity is just plain bad. Let me clarify: the linearity itself is bad, but it often enables stronger story, which is good. This article is, in part, about trying to make something with both strong story and non-linearity. Posts: 33 | Registered: Sunday, October 3 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 18:57
Profile
Homepage
So you're saying that making a scenario more linear is always a tradeoff? That's probably true in many cases, but I'm not entirely convinced. Linearity often has the disadvantage of making the player feel restricted, but open-endedness often has the disadvantage that players can unintentionally miss significant parts of the scenario. This is a disadvantage of open-endedness in itself, regardless of plot considerations. Allowing things to be done in any order may be liberating to some players, but unfortunately it leaves open the possibility that players won't do them at all, even if they would have enjoyed them had they found them. This is part of what people mean when they say non-linear scenarios suffer from a lack of direction. (Of course, it's also not impossible to provide direction in a non-linear scenario, but it takes much more work.) (By the way, I disagree with Kelandon's claim that Alcritas's scenarios are linear; indeed, I found many of Alcritas's scenarios very frustrating when I first played them precisely because they're not linear. In Redemption, if you run straight through the story without exploring, you miss half the plot. In Falling Stars, if you run straight through the story without exploring, you miss half the plot and have a hell of a time with the final battle. FS is a great scenario, but the way it pretends that it's basically linear and best completed as quickly as possible has always struck me as a bit of a cruel trick.) [ Sunday, February 27, 2005 18:58: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5415
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 19:27
Profile
I would say (and have said) that linearity is always a bad thing, but that some of it is necessary to hold the whole thing together. The better you can hide it or make the explanations logical for the setting, the less bad it turns out to be. Of course many people don't try to hide it. Multiple unavoidable several minute long cutscenes with cheesey dialog and nothing you don't know already is an example of linearity that slashes you across the face until you bleed. Regarding the idea that I'd like the best Blade of Exiles scenarios if I played them: Very doubtful, based upon comments I've seen on them and the "design" philosophy their creators tout on these boards. As far as changing my tune, absolutely not. I know what I know from countless years of playing, GMing and designing RPGs and games. It's possible that some of those scenarios are enjoyable despite their linearity, but they certainly aren't enjoyable because of them. As far as the supposed most successful RPG franchise being Final Fantasy, I think that depends upon what you mean by successful RPG. I'd say the most successful RPG franchise would be Dungeons & Dragons, pen and paper version. But that does bring up an interesting point. A lot of games are quite linear. They probably don't even count as RPGs, other than for the misuse of the term by marketing departments, but they exist. Some game designers have a lot of success aiming for less sophistacted players, ones used to sitting and watching TV all day and not having any interaction. To them, dialog boxes are a waste of time, puzzles are a waste of time, all they want to do is kill colored pixels on screen. Anything else is a massive disappointment. If that's your target audience then, yes, stick with strongly linear scenarios. Posts: 62 | Registered: Thursday, January 20 2005 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5362
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 19:43
Profile
In general i enjoy open-ended scenarios. I like the ability to chose what i'm gonna do. However, unless an open-ended scenario is made very very well (almost perfectly), i find myself lost. I have no idea where to go or what to do. I keep wandering around untill i find something. So unless a designer is willing to go that extra miles (probably more than a mile), to make an open-ended scenario, with direction, he should probably stick with linearity (although not to linear (i.e. i enjoyed canopy but i hated the lack of freedom). Posts: 59 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 19:59
Profile
Homepage
quote:Most of us don't disagree with you that excessive use of cutscenes can be a bad thing. Part of the problem may be the fact that BoE designers are used to the fact that players can easily skim over text they don't want to read, and this isn't so easy with BoA-style cutscenes. (If you want to avoid them, though, the two currently released scenarios with the greatest number of cutscenes have a Set Cutscene Speed ability; at the highest setting you can breeze through most cutscenes in very little time.) quote:Out of curiosity, what would be your ideal scenario? quote:Enjoyable to you, that is. At least one player has already mentioned that they dislike scenarios with branching plotlines because being unable to see the entire scenario in one playthrough annoys them. De gustibus non disputandum est. quote:Perhaps single-player computer RPGs just aren't the medium for you. Having designed BoE scenarios, and both designed and GMed a tabletop RPG system, it's my opinion that trying to make single-player computer RPGs feel like multiplayer tabletop RPGs is counterproductive. Tabletop RPGs work best when they're relatively light on mechanics (not many people like to spend all day rolling dice). They're essentially collaborative storytelling games with a referee and a few rules for settling disputes. In CRPGs, on the other hand, mechanics aren't a problem because the computer handles them itself, but the game itself consists of little more than a range of pre-determined story elements and puzzles (combat, after all, is just a certain kind of puzzle). Therefore, interest can be added to a CRPG either with a good plot or good puzzles (and a combat system relatively heavy on mechanics is one of the most valuable puzzle design tools at a designer's disposal.) Genuine interactivity in CRPGs is limited to what the designer foresees and allows for. It's better to be honest and acknowledge that rather than try to create a false sense of complete interactivity. Giving the player a range of options is a good thing in case he doesn't particularly enjoy some parts of the game or gets stuck on them, and a player can also be given choices regarding which of a number of predetermined possible directions the plot will progress in, but having a range of options is not the same kind of interactivity as that which involves an active exchange of ideas between designer and player, and the gap between the two is one which it is impossible in principle for CRPG game and scenario designers to bridge. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 20:26
Profile
Homepage
Certainly not all of Al's scenarios are linear, but some (An Apology, as far as I know) are. And I've always found that any trend of any kind in the Blades community is directly related to Al, one way or another. (And I think I'm only slightly exaggerating.) I thought to myself about Bahs and its cut scenes, and as far as I can tell, only three are both unavoidable and more related to the history of the situation in Bahssikava than related to the action of the scenario itself: the first two at the beginning narrated by Kass, and the last one at the very end (and even that one, I'd argue, is related insofar as it explains where the party ends up and why the scenario is over). The first cut scene explains why you should care about the sliths and the steel doors, but it doesn't directly help you defeat any monsters, so it could be considered superfluous. The second one (coming back up from the Deeps the first time) explains why you can't leave Bahs to the outdoors anymore and what you should do next, but it goes rather far afield in doing so -- it could have been a dialog box if I had wanted to keep it slim. Every other cut scene that I can think of is skippable, albeit with some disadvantages (the one narrated by Khassper in AB, the one at the end of the N-K sidequest) or ties directly into the action (the one going from the Deeps to the Guardpost -- this is the doors being opened, the guardpost explained, although I admit the poetry at the beginning isn't purely necessary). I floated with at least one or two beta testers the idea of making all the cut scenes skippable via the same "Set Cutscene Speed" ability, and I may still implement this for the next version (coming soon to a web site near you), but I always thought that the cut scenes in Bahs were the best part, and I didn't get much of a positive response to this from the ones to whom I mentioned this. If at least a few people think it's a good idea, though, I'll do it. [ Sunday, February 27, 2005 20:32: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5048
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 21:23
Profile
Thuryl: Are you seriously saying that it is better to make a player do something they need not do for the story than to just tell them that it is there? Posts: 33 | Registered: Sunday, October 3 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 21:35
Profile
Homepage
We don't all have endless hours to replay and experiment with scenarios. A scenario that's totally non-linear is like those choose-your-own-adventure books, they seem cool but you always wonder what would happen if your choices were different. I rarely replay scenarios so linearity is a must. That's not to say side quests and such shouldn't be included its just the main story should be very linear and easy to access. Perhaps one or two major choices along the line would be cool but more are just annoying. edit: Cut scenes are sweet no matter what. Its better than reading page after page of text. Though I will say cut scene dialogue should be displayed in larger sized font if that's possible. Also along the lines of the custom sounds petition thing, voices for cut scenes would be even better, though that's probably just a dream. [ Sunday, February 27, 2005 21:39: Message edited by: VCH ] -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 21:39
Profile
Homepage
quote:Depends. If part of the scenario is really, really good, sometimes it's nice to draw it to the player's attention by tying it in to the central plot. I agree that if part of the scenario could be left out without harming the plot at all, it should be optional. If you can suggest the player go through a particularly well-made or interesting part of the scenario instead of forcing it, by all means suggest, but suggest clearly, strongly and visibly within the main plot, so that all players at least know there's something to look for. And I think we can also agree that if the party must be put in a certain situation in order for the story to make sense, the designer should do his damnedest to make sure that situation is enjoyable to play through. [ Monday, February 28, 2005 01:16: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, February 27 2005 22:16
Profile
Homepage
quote:Possible on Jeff's end, but not on ours. Designers don't get to control the size of text bubbles. quote:While this could in principle be done even now, the scenario download size would grow exponentially out of control very quickly. (I think that's quite redundant, but you get the idea. :P ) [ Sunday, February 27, 2005 22:38: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 01:32
Profile
Homepage
Dream Guy - the designers of the best Blades of Exile scenarios don't post here, except for Stareye. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5415
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 04:02
Profile
quote:Uh, actually, the Choose Your Own Adventure Books are still fairly linear, in that you only get a very limited number of choices and they are dictated to you in a simplistic fashion. There's very little sense of immersiveness into characters for choosing real options, you just get to branch off at a limited number of points. quote:This argument doesn't make any sense. If you don't want to bother with a scenario unless you explore it all completely on the first time through, then why on earth are you going through the motions of playing a computer game? Read a book or rent a movie if you are so against the idea of there being more to something than you can get out of it with a minimal amount of effort. Or just have Kel and TM make a bunch of cutscenes for you to watch, it amounts to the same thing. Posts: 62 | Registered: Thursday, January 20 2005 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 04:35
Profile
Homepage
The point of a game is not "to provide choices" or "to tell a story", any more than the point of a book is "to read words". The point of a game/scenario is to provide the player with an enjoyable experience (and one that is often, but not always, immersive). Further, I think that a lot of things are being associated with "linearity" and "open-endedness" which are not actually connected. The perception of the "linearity-haters" seems to be that the lack of choices on the part of the player leads to detachment from the scenario and the story (if YOU don't make the choice, then why are YOU needed?). And this can be the case, but I don't think it always or even usually is. Personally, I like to use linearity to pull the player deeper into the story. If you can wander where you will and do what you like, well, there's no urgency and there's no excitement. I like to throw the player into an emergency - Act or Die. It's linear, sure. You only have one real option - but it's up to you find it and take it, now. What I think I'm trying to say (though I could be wrong...) is that linearity can only become a problem when the player is proactive. If you're the guy wandering around, fixing the world's ills, you don't like the feeling that you aren't actually in control. If you're just a pawn in the designer's hands, then how can you be a hero? Again, my preferred technique is to make the player reactive. Think you're a hero? Well, I've got a real challenge for you... see if you can survive this (which is also why I tend to make my scenarios very hard - if the bad guy is a genuine challenge, then it means something when you're actually able to beat him). I can't think of a any situation that would be so intense and exciting, but allowed a number of different options. I.e. Linearity can be used to improve a scenario. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5557
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 05:14
Profile
The whole thread idea is to say "linear = bad", or so it seems... Why that ? A linear scenario can be quite good, and the epitome of non linearity are those stupid randomly generated dungeon. It's quite hard to make a good and very linear scenario, but OTOH every "non linear" event can be seen as just wasting time and designer effort out of the "main plot". However many bjlhct2 (sp ?) ideas are quite good. ;) -------------------- Posts: 18 | Registered: Monday, February 28 2005 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Monday, February 28 2005 05:29
Profile
quote:How is it bad? It takes control away from the player. Not control over the world, but control over the player's characters. If the player doesn't have control over them, then he can become detached from them (see my article on Player Vs Party). It seems that for us old BoEer's this is not as much of a problem. Why? What does BoE have that BoA doesn't? More scenarios. After hearing "Thank-you anonymous adventurer" for the twentieth time, you feel that your characters are completely unconnected to the world they are in. Then we found that you could create a lot more emotional impact if you had the player's characters know the people they were saving (or not saving - Alcritas is a master at this). But doing this took away some of the control. You can no longer say that your leader was an orphan raised by sliths, because you're busily trying to save his brother. But most of us found the trade-off well and truly worth it. So people started linking the party to the world they were in more and more. But the more you link the party to your world, the more of the player's control is taken from them. We were quite happy with this, because after scenario fifty, you've well and truly had enough "Thank-you anonymous adventurer". But the new BoAers haven't experienced this, and until BoA has enough 'anonymous adventurer' they won't. Maybe once they've saved the world as many times as us 'oldies' their tastes will change as well. Only time will tell. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |