In Defense of Pure Linearity: a Case Study
| Author | Topic: In Defense of Pure Linearity: a Case Study |
|---|---|
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Friday, March 4 2005 21:23
Profile
This is about BoX (BoA primarily, I don't own BoE) scenario design. There are several spoilers about Canopy in the paragraph marked as such. Don't read it if you haven't played the scenario. Much has been made of the desirability of a dynamic, non-linear world for a scenario. Some have even spoken desparagingly of the designers of linear, story-driven scenarios, saying that their desire to tell a story through the BoA medium is pretentious, even egotistical. Is it any less egotistical, however, for the player to indict the designer for not giving him/her enough choices? In this case, I say let the "egotism" of the person putting hours into the development of a scenario take precedence. So, in light of all the non-designers sharing their opinions on the subject, I am going to do a fairly detailed case study, using Canopy, because it is my favorite scenario out for BoA, because TM has often been (somewhat unjustly, IMO), accused of egotism, and because it is an excellent example of linear design done very, very well. Its foil, for this discussion, will be Geneforge, because it is an example of a lot of things that annoy me about a lack of linearity, and because, while not a BoX scenario, its interface (particularly the dialog system) is similar enough to merit its inclusion in an article about BoX scenario design. Before I get into the case study, I'll delve a bit into what I want from a scenario. When I put a new directory in the scenario folder and fire up BoA, I do so with the objective of being entertained. I want interesting things to happen to my character(s). Those events should include challenges, which I must overcome, whether they be tactical challenges posed by combat, a difficult puzzle, or the necessity of pumping all the NPCs for info. This, I feel, more than choices or lack thereof, separates the BoX medium from more passive media like books, movies, etc. What I do not want is for me to be responsible for creating interesting events through my character(s). The whole reason that I play computer games is to free myself from the obligation of creating my own fun; it has been created for me. I want the designer to create an enjoyable experience for me, the player, not facilitate doing so on my own. Also, I do not mind being presented with a clear choice in a plotline, as long as I know what I'm choosing (redundant, I know). I do not, however, want to worry overmuch about the consequences of all my IC actions. Responsibility isn't fun in real life, why transpose it to a computer game? Detractors of linearity have also said that the lack of choice destroys the immersion of the player in the game world; however, of all the boA scenarios released thus far, I have felt most immersed in Canopy, the epitome of linearity. Why? That's what I hope to explain. Did I understand TM's philosophy? No, but if you think about it, it's sort of incidental to the plot. Why, then, did I find Canopy so enjoyable? Why did I feel so involved in it? Firstly, despite my characters' importance to the story, and the other characters' preoccupation with them, I didn't feel like they were the center of the world. TM made Canopy seem, to me, like a living, breathing reality, with a dynamic existence beyond that of the party, and he did so by limiting me, not empowering me. My characters couldn't go everywhere or do everything, and their actions weren't the be-all and end-all of causality in the game world. These touches made Canopy more real for me than any amount of choices ever could have made Geneforge-land. I also think that Canopy's narrative was, by far, more integrated with the gameplay than that of any other scenario to date. Every challenge that was posed to me as a player was accompanied by some narrative by way of justification. The action never lapsed for explanation, and I always knew why I was doing what I was doing. This is why I feel that Canopy was superior to Bahssikava (which was, however, very good in its own right). In Bahssikava, long intervals of action and description were followed by long intervals of plot development. This structuring made it feel disjointed, despite the excellent quality and coherence of Kelandon's cutscenes and prose. Although the end of Canopy was more passive than the first, say, three quarters, this did not bother me because the events in the cutscenes were both a culmination of the drama that the narrative had built up to that point, and evidence that a lot was going on around the party; again, the world of Canopy existed outside of the challenges that my party faced and the actions they took. ///// SPOILERS Now, to return to the thrust of this article. How can one hope to achieve the level of drama that TM achieved at Canopy's end, with the duplicity of Spiegelbrecher, the return of your vengeful fallen foes, the death of Leader, and Moerder's defeat of her counterpart to save the party, in a world where the plot is determined by the different actions of different players? ///// SPOILERS Many have said that, executed well by a good designer, a non-linear scenario would totally surpass its linear counterparts in terms of quality. I just don't think this would be true. It could be just as good, but I don't see any way that any designer, no matter how talented, could create a non-linear scenario in which the narration integrates as seamlessly with the gameplay and all the scenario's characters combine to create as much drama as Canopy, nor could large-scale events develop around the party quite the way they do in Canopy. A final note: look at it from the designer's perspective for a second, too. Less of the work you do translates directly into fun stuff for each player to do; rather, you have to expend a lot of time and effort preparing for contingencies. [ Saturday, March 05, 2005 08:23: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 05:32
Profile
Jesus f*cking CHRIST already! Listen, when I used the word "pretentious", I was refering NOT to anyone designing any sort of linear scenario. I was refering to CRPG designers IN GENERAL who opt for such interactivity-removing features as pregenerated parties coupled with strictly linear(as in you might as well be reading a book) scenario/game design. While there are surely exceptions, generally speaking, such authors operate from a pretentious sort of egotism in that they do not seem to think that RPGs should be a very intereactive affair. If the author of such games creates all the characters, removes all ability for the player to affect how the game plays out and such then what is left is a sort of "choose your own adventure" wherein you only have ONE CHOICE. Even if the solving of puzzles and whatnot is left up to the player, this is still just the player having to solve a puzzle in order to be allowed to turn the page in the book. MY freaking GOD but you people are a sensitive bunch! I gave Canopy an 8.0 at the CSR and I did not even dock points for linearity as it seemed relatively unimportant to me. I have not gotten through Bahsikava yet because I am kind of busy but what I have played of it, I like very much. If someone were to take a look at my artwork adn say "He's good but I am not a big fan of that comic-book style of exaggerated realism." then I would accept that for what it is. An expression of personal taste(it would be different if he claimed that I could not draw my way out of a paper bag or something). I would not go to a message board and post rant after rant telling people who don't prefer my style to "**** OFF!" like Harloe did. I would not write article after article explaining why people who don't like my artistic style are "wrong" or even explaining that I employ said style because of restrictions in my ability to produce art. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 06:34
Profile
Homepage
DreamGuy's words about Bahs are the source for the statement, "Some have even spoken desparagingly of the designers of linear, story-driven scenarios, saying that their desire to tell a story through the BoA medium is pretentious, even egotistical." You have to recall that you're not the only one who took that side in the discussion. EDIT: This is just sillly: "MY freaking GOD but you people are a sensitive bunch!" [ Saturday, March 05, 2005 06:37: 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 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5322
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 07:02
Profile
quote:either you misunderstood, or just completely ignored what Silver actually wrote, just to, possibly, get to cleverly use his, IMHO, quite fine "rant" against him. the words "**** OFF" weren't, to my eyes, directed at designers who don't agree with Silver's methods and style of working in general. they were directed to people demanding designers to add more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more to their sceanrios, not realizing that the designer uses his free time, doesn't get paid, etc. just my, uh, how's it said.. 2 cents (?), though. if it's me who completely misunderstood Silver's post, though, feel free to correct me. ^^ part of Silver's original post: quote: [ Saturday, March 05, 2005 07:03: Message edited by: cradial ] Posts: 73 | Registered: Saturday, December 25 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 07:11
Profile
EDIT: Thank you. Excellent article, by the way. [ Saturday, March 05, 2005 13:20: Message edited by: The Almighty Doer of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 07:15
Profile
This article was more for one or two hypothetical invisible newbs with some designing talent than anyone else. I read all the articles when I first registered BoA, and tried (failing miserably) to make a scenario by all of their tenets. Because the designers themselves have mostly abstained from the discussion, I felt that any designers of the future who may happen to be lurking should know that there is a counterpoint to the points which have been presented. If you'll notice, I said a masterfully crafted non-linear scenario could be just as good as a masterfully crafted linear one like Canopy. I just said it was ridiculous to expect the same kind of drama from the former. Really, this article was just meant to return the debate to "a matter of choice," because there have been a lot of articles saying that a non-linear scenario can be more than another, linear, scenario can ever be. I meant simply to show that there are some things a linear scenario can provide, which a non-linear one cannot, as well as the reverse, which had already been shown in other articles. Also, I made sure to include the points that silver made, although they weren't nearly as well or directly stated. Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5415
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 07:43
Profile
Again, here we are with yet another post belonging in the BoA editor area whining and complaining that people dare to talk about how to make scenarios better. And I stand behind my statement that Kelandon's choices on how he developed his scenario were pretentious, ego-driven, and not all that good. This is further shown by the way he responded to criticisms. (Things like refusing to add an option to turn off the cutscenes because he considers them the best part and so forth.) If you could put up with Canopy and didn't loathe it with every fiber of your being and actually got some enjoyment out of it, good, it's nice that somebody can. I can't help but be bewildered on the idea that someone liked that, but then there are all sorts of pepole out there. And, if nothing else, those of you who like linear scenarios with poor storytelling are lucky to have found a place where a number of designers are more than happy to give it to you. None of that changes the fact that scenarios can be better, and in some cases could be a lot better, with no more extra time added into the development and so forth if they people making them would take some minimal efforts to read up on what makes scenarios enjoyable, what makes stories coherent and interesting (especially for those focusing the entire thing on the story and not immersiveness or gameplay), providing options, and so forth. There are easy ways to make scenarios enjoyable for lots of different people. Most of the people posting to these boards don't seem to care about any of that. They don't want to improve themselves or the community in general. They don't want to attract new designers, new players, or new ways of doing things (regardless of the fact that these ways aren't even new but old and obvious everywhere else). All they seem to care about is extensive rationalizations of why the way they already do things is perfect and how nothing needs to be changed, even something as simple as following the guidelines on these boards for where different kinds of posts should go and not stealing other people's things. So the boards sit they way they are, with the same people here forever doing the same things over and over and complaining when new people show up unless they stroke their egos about how unbelievably great the scenarios they made are. What a complete waste. Posts: 62 | Registered: Thursday, January 20 2005 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5322
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 07:51
Profile
so, when you gonna release the scenario ultimatum, that'll rock our worlds, then? Posts: 73 | Registered: Saturday, December 25 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 08:20
Profile
Umm, Kelandon is a "new person" and he's been accepted with open arms. And this isn't calling the advocates of non-linearity wrong, I'm just saying how and why I like linearity. Oh, and I didn't see your point before, ADoS, I'll get right on that. I don't want to remove the spoilers, because the whole case study concept of the article would kind of be ruined if there were no specific references to the plot. I shall, however, mark the offending paragraph. [ Saturday, March 05, 2005 08:26: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 08:49
Profile
quote:Wrong. Dreamguy never called anyone pretentious. Those were MY words and it had nothing to do with your scenario. Make sure you have your facts straight before offering corrections. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 08:56
Profile
Peoples are taking this **** too ****** seriously. I say **** this *** bleep bleep bloop. Make me :P . This has become a kind of pretentious argument, which although entertaining is starting to get off track. The whole point is not whether the scenario is completely linear or not. The point is that sometimes players like to make decisions no matter how small and not have words put in their mouths. -------------------- 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 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5322
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 09:00
Profile
..that's the point? i've been living under the impression that the real point has been debating just for the sake of debating. :P Posts: 73 | Registered: Saturday, December 25 2004 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 11:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yes he did. And he just confirmed it by saying it again a few posts up. quote:These do not belong in the editor section - the editor section is for people trying to make scenarios and encountering problems, or people trying to learn how to script. This forum is fine for discussion about scenario types. quote:I don't like linear scenarios with poor storytelling. I like linear scenarios with good storytelling, and as a whole, linear scenarios in the community tend to have better storytelling than more open-ended scenarios that seem to 'lose the plot,' pardon the pun. quote:I don't disagree that scenarios could be better, but it's insane to think that your opinion is the only one. Different people find different things enjoyable, and different people like different amounts of options available. If half of the community is going to dislike a scenario because it's linear and not open enough and vice versa, shouldn't the designer pick the one that they like best and will help them actually finish the scenario? Doing something that they don't like will reduce the likelihood that the scenario will actually be finished. quote:Where is this hostility coming from? You are part of the community. You are making think about different ways to do things. Bravo. Just because some people don't agree with you doesn't mean that they're stupid and wrong. If you want to show us a good open-ended and choicey scenario, please, design one for us. -------------------- "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 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Saturday, March 5 2005 15:02
Profile
Homepage
Please continue the discussion in this thread. If you wish to reply to a post from this thread, please quote it. [ Saturday, March 05, 2005 15:03: Message edited by: Drakefyre ] -------------------- "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 |