Concentrated Linearity Debate (New Voices Welcome to Participate and Vote)
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Concentrated Linearity Debate (New Voices Welcome to Participate and Vote) |
|---|---|
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, March 6 2005 08:33
Profile
Not only is linearity a continuum, but sometimes it's even hard to put the relevant issues on a single line. Instead of analyzing whether linearity or nonlinearity enhances quality most, I too easily find myself invoking quality to decide how linear a story is. For example, a really good subplot can enhance a main plot, and even though it can stand very well on its own as a story, it is even better as part of a larger story. (This can be so even if the way the sub- and main plots resonate is not directly a matter of plot -- I'm not talking about a sub-quest whose completion is necessary for a main quest.) A good subplot will thus feel nonlinear at first, but in the end it will seem linear. Ascribing the greatness of such a scenario to either linearity or nonlinearity seems perverse in such a case: it has all the advantages of both. On the other hand a proliferation of meaningless options in a pointless world can also seem nonlinear at first, but linear in retrospect, because in retrospect every choice has the same ultimate consequence, namely nothing you care about. Looking to either linearity or nonlinearity alone, to explain why this scenario is so awful, is again a poor choice of conceptual tools: it's bad because it's both, in bad ways. The unambiguous connection that I do see between quality and linearity is that I think only a nonlinear game can be really great, but only a great game can afford to be very nonlinear. After all, if a game isn't good enough to deserve a lot of replaying, it may as well not bother having significantly different outcomes. If you can't pull off a great nonlinear game, far better to scale back to something more linear, than to put out a nonlinear mess. And that isn't even necessarily a reflection on designer skill; there probably aren't so many basic scenario ideas that really have the legs for nonlinear greatness. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 6 2005 18:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:So pretty much every Ancient Greek playwright in history was a very poor writer? After all, that's where we got the term "deus ex machina" from in the first place. Please learn that not everybody enjoys the same things you do. EDIT: quote:1) Alec is far from being a "well-respected designer", and the fact that you think he is gives me an idea of just how much credence I should give your observations and opinions about our community. 2) It's blindingly obvious from the context of Alec's post that he's talking about what can be done with BoA -- the fact that something can be done by "other designers on other games" doesn't imply that it's possible within the framework of BoA. Mind you, I don't entirely agree with Alec's statement, but DreamGuy's response still shows that he missed the point, whether recklessly or intentionally. As far as I'm concerned, he's a troll until he convinces me otherwise -- preferably by making a scenario of his own that's the kind of scenario he'd like to play. [ Sunday, March 06, 2005 20:04: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Sunday, March 6 2005 22:57
Profile
@Cradial: This will be the last time I repeat this so try and pay attention this time: I NEVER "DEMANDED" that ANY author design ANY scenario in ANY particular way! After I tried to explain this to you the first few times, you came back once again with something along the lines of "But Why should a scenario designer cater to your demands?". @Thuryl: Re: Your last response to me in the now locked threadds. I assure you that what you were assuming was my intent is just that, an assumption. Once again, I respect everyone's opinion up until they drag out the strawman and set it on fire and pin my name tag on the dummy's lapel. Kelandon and TM can correct me if i am wrong here but I don't recall EVER sending them emails or posting in thread "demands" or even SUGGESTIONS on how they should write their scenarios. Nor have i done this for any author of any BoE scenario. I happen to think non-linear makes more sense because RPGs are, unlike books, interactive affairs and linearity limits interactivity(which does not in itself make a scenario "bad"). The thing that seperates RPGs from books is that, in a book, it is the suthor's job to create all the characters and plot out every detail, decision, and situation in order to tell the best story he can. In a RPG, the scenario author/GM/DM/Game creator is supposed to create the world(or an area within a world), a begining point, an end point and some general events in between. It is the player's job to create the characters adn decide how they get from point 'A' to point 'Z'. Now I realize that many BoA scenario authors say that BoA severely restricts how many "points" one can allow for in his design and even the most minimally non-linear scenario is a lot of work. Fine. I don't dispute this at all. I am NOT "demanding" you guys even TRY to do anything differently(nor am I suggesting you haven't tried). I have certainly never "demanded" one of you write a scenario the way I might want it written. Lastly, in one of my earliest replies to the subject, I used the words "Pretentious and egotistical" to describe the general motivations behind someone choosing restrictively linear game design when creating a CRPG. "Pretentious" does not mean "sucky". It just means that someone is, rightly or wrongly, presuming themselves to be of an appreciable caliber as a storyteller(in the context of this discussion). Like the girl in junior high school who writes (bad)poetry and tells you that if you play your cards right, she will allow you to read some of her work. WHat I had in mind when I said this was more along the lines of those QBasic CRPG authors who churn out concole styled CRPGs and invariably advertise them as having "Great story!" or "Cool characters!". At the other end of the spectrum(the non-linear end) you have 'roguelike' CRPGs. Games that do not even bother with any story, feature randomized dungeons and are all about combat and character building. IMO, roguelikes are WAY more fun than their linear counterparts. The ideal is probably closer to the center but, IMO still on the side of non-linearity simply because of the interactive nature of CRPGs. [ Sunday, March 06, 2005 23:03: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "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 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 6 2005 23:05
Profile
Homepage
Calm down, ST. Your preferences are, of course, as valid as those of any other player -- and if you ever find the time, I'd be very interested to see the sort of scenario you'd design. It's quite likely that I'd enjoy it considerably. We're now replying to DreamGuy, who has indeed told us that we're designing the wrong way and ought to change. [ Sunday, March 06, 2005 23:15: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 01:42
Profile
Homepage
If I want a mindless dungeon crawl, I'll play Marathon (yes, I know). If I want to play something fun and challenging, there's linear BoE scenarios. -------------------- "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 # 5322
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 03:56
Profile
quote:i won't bother replying to these faulty accusations and thoughts, since it's now all clear to me that you'll just ignore the true meaning of my words and go run them through "hatespeechagainstSkeleTony"-translator. ^^ [ Monday, March 07, 2005 03:58: Message edited by: cradial ] Posts: 73 | Registered: Saturday, December 25 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 04:23
Profile
Homepage
There will be both type of scenarios, so pick the ones you fancy. I guess, and I might be wrong, that any scenario maker will do a scenario with his own tastes in mind, not others' (although he probably won't ignore some advice and do some things to please a wider audience). But judging other RPG's, the most successful ones were linear or non-linear but with a strong main story/quest. The completely non-linear ones (rare!) were the most criticized ones. Maybe Morrowind is an exception, but sure everyone had higher expectations for that game. I, myself, didn't enjoy it. In my opinion, a good story is the fuel that keeps players going on. And it's much, but MUCH more easier to make a good story with a linear scenario. A mixture of both types would be the ideal, but I wonder how many will be able to do that. Complexity, time and endurance can be negative factors for those creators. -------------------- 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 # 5415
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 06:08
Profile
Yes, Greek plays using Deus ex machina devices are pretty much the textbook example of poor plotting. Not all of them used that device, and the ones who did were soundly ridiculed for it, both at the time and later. And trying to clarify that it's impossible to make BoA games nonlinear and still dramatic but maybe it's possible in other games is still wrong, because there are no technical limitations in BoA that affect that sort of thing. If anything, designers are positively floating in options in BoA, with flags that can keep track of tons of different choices, towns that can be hooked together any which way, scripts that allow extensive modificiations and can adjust what happens when based upon the party's level, and so forth. And, heck, the examples of linearity we've been talking about aren't really questions of not having the time to build in options. The designers specifically spent time coding things to remove options from the players. Extensive time and effort was taken to make the whole things extremely linear and exactly the way the programmer wanted, going so far as to turn off spells, make spells that are normally effective in certain situations completely ineffectual there so that a plot point can be shoved in the player's face, and so forth. And, Kel, Jeff's scenarios are like a thousand times less linear than yours. It's all about options. Where you go, in what order, the choices you can make in combat/dialog/shopping, who you help and who you don't (sidequests, factions) and so forth. Your Bahs scenario has next to none of any of that. You make people go from specific encounter to specific encounter following only one strategy in fighting anything (pure mindless hack and slash, with an occasional bless altar thrown in) with no alternate routes or ways of doing anything. Pretty much the whole way through if you choose not to do the obvious thing you are intended to do in front of you and look for something else to do, the whole thing grinds to an immediate halt, because there is nothing else, anywhere at anytime. If you are claiming that Jeff's scenarios are just as linear you either just no have no concept of what the word means or are seriously in some major denial. And, for crying out loud, restricting the combat down to only one option is not "challenging," especially since the option you end up doing is not only blindingly obvious and the expected norm (haste/slash/heal, repeat) but even frequently spelled out to you on screen (go into combat mode now... look for something in the southwest to stop the ghosts, etc.) But then I'm repeating what was already explained in the emails. It's a rather simple concept to grasp, so I don't get why it's such a difficulty, other than sheer stubborn self-interest. Posts: 62 | Registered: Thursday, January 20 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 06:11
Profile
Homepage
What you're talking about is not what most people would call "linearity." That's why there's been some confusion. EDIT: Also, I am curious. You make precious few references to anything that happens in the Guardpost or beyond. Did you actually complete the scenario? [ Monday, March 07, 2005 06:12: 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 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 06:31
Profile
Homepage
Amazing! A real, live example of the sort of person Jeff says Blades scenarios should be made for. -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. New Mac BoE Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 06:36
Profile
Emerald Mountain could have been a lot less restrictive in where you could go, yes. I complained about it to TM during the beta, actually, because I frequently got a "you went off the path!" message when I was trying to go where TM wanted me to. Regarding Morrowind, I found it rather fun, but a bit lacking because there wasn't any real natural progression of things to do, since you could go anywhere and do anything at any time. (yes, including beat the game in under an hour) quote:In any case, while I don't really care for "You don't want to do that!" messages, especially when I might actually want to do what the designer is telling me I don't, the turning off of spells / making spells ineffective was to force the player to look for a new strategy. Consider this: EVERY party at a high enough level for Bahssikava has Unshackle Mind. If you can just cast that on your charmed character, is his being charmed a threat at all? With that made ineffective, the battle was made much more difficult. (As a lengthy aside, I consider the removal of Cloud of Blades in Canopy permissible, as well, as it defeats a potentially game-breaking tactic. In BoE, it was common practice for your invulnerability to be removed constantly in boss fights, and, in one scenario, for the game to instantly kill you if you left combat mode during a boss fight. While these seem odd, the former is truly game-breaking, as in BoE, there's an easily recastable spell that gives a single character six rounds worth of invulnerability. The latter, while it seems offensively limiting, stops the player from abusing a game-breaking bug which allows him to take full combat actions while restricting the enemy to one action per monster per round. While the party can do these things and, in the former case, has earned the ability to do said things, they break the game when they are used. Therefore, I see no reason that negating something game-breaking in BoA, such as Cloud of Blades and its percent-of-target's-HP-based damage, is not permissible.) Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 08:30
Profile
I have to disagree utterly with DreamGuy's assertion that use of non-influential main characters is indicative of poor writing. Read any great fictional works of the last two millenia. There are always greater powers at work in the world of the characters. That the characters are able to cope with, strive against, and sometimes succeed is what makes them interesting, and in turn, the writing good. Example: The Odyssey. Odysseus, neither the strongest nor the most kalos of the Greeks, uses his resourceful mind to contend with the anger of gods and foes much greater than him. Heck, if you want a contemporary example, how about Harry Potter? The main characters in those stories are students, getting by in a world populated by wizards much more powerful and fearsome. If anything, when characters become great movers and shakers, writing becomes abominable. Why? Authors in those cases are incapable of sustaining the level of detail necessary to make their stories realistic because such levels of power/understanding of government/world functions and motivations are beyond the scope of their imagination/comprehension. What results is a story that falls flat. Read Eddings' Belgariad/Mallorean series, for example - certainly entertaining, fluffy fantasy romps, but with few exceptions, the main party of super-world-shakingly powerful characters never face a real or interesting challenge. What results is a ten-book-spanning yawn of a story. Reread Dune, if you haven't read it in a while. Would rulers of *entire planets* behave the way those characters do? Heck, look to the abortion that Robert Jordan's series has become - progress in that story line has ground to a halt due to his geo-political twittering. Good storytelling requires compelling, not necessarily influential, characters. In my opinion, the best storytelling occurs when much of the rest of the background remains concealed (and provided that the background does, in fact, exist) - the tip of the iceberg metaphor. It's what made Tolkein's work great, and was what made the Matrix great, until we found out there was no decent "rest of the iceberg." As for the linearity/non-linearity argument, I think it's strictly a matter of opinion. As for people complaining about the scenarios, why are you wasting your time playing this game? Why don't you write your own scenario and show everyone how it's done? [ Monday, March 07, 2005 08:37: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 11:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yes exactly make your own. -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 15:20
Profile
Homepage
quote:Euripides' Medea may not have been immensely popular in its time, but I'd hardly call it poorly-written. And even if not every example is so obvious, a large proportion of great literature is about the futility of human endeavour in the face of fate. Look at Macbeth, for example -- interpreting it as a cautionary tale about ambition, as many modern critics do, is missing the point entirely. quote:As I said, I don't disagree with you on this point -- I was just clarifying the point Alec was trying to make. quote:As has been mentioned in previous posts in this thread, when designers here talk about "linearity" they mean it in terms of plot rather than gameplay. A non-linear plot has advantages and disadvantages compared to a linear one, but the former almost invariably requires more time and effort to make it really high-quality, and I'd rather see a designer release two linear scenarios than one non-linear one. Restrictive gameplay, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing, at least up to a point; if anything is possible, nothing is interesting. quote:I'm really not sure what to say to you if you hated the Tunnels sequence in Bahssikava. This seems to be a matter of personal preference. Apparently your dislike of it rests on the fact that the behaviour of the party's spells in that situation isn't consistent with the way they'd normally work (i.e. they don't work when they normally would). As far as I'm concerned, it's more important for a system to be interesting than for it to be consistent, and to me, Tunnels was interesting. quote:This may be a somewhat reasonable criticism of Bahssikava (even more so in the earlier beta versions than in the final release). But if so, the problem is in the method, not the aim -- forcing strategies other than the normally optimal ones is a good thing, and if Bahssikava doesn't always do that, that shouldn't be taken as an indictment of restrictive combat as a whole. You can hardly argue that the strategies required for battles in Canopy are "blindingly obvious and the expected norm", for example. quote:It's a bit rich to accuse designers of "self-interest" when they're contributing scenarios to the community and you're not. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Monday, March 7 2005 16:26
Profile
A Deus Ex Machina is a previously unintroduced character who provides, by virtue of his/her deity, a resolution to the drama in a play. It is rightly regarded as a kind of cheating, because it bespeaks the author's inability to resolve the plot through conventional means. Dei Ex Machinis are not, however, anything outside of the protagonist who advances or complicates the plot. The name for those is antagonists. Sometimes the protagonist's choices are determined by the antagonists' actions. In fact, it should be so a fair amount of the time, because drama is in the protagonist's responses to the antagonists, not in doing what he/she wishes, at his/her leisure. Oh, and DreamGuy, be consistent with your objections. You whine first about how Bahssikava prevented you from doing what you always do (uncharming your character), and then complain that a lot of the combat required you to do what you always do. The latter objection indicates that even you think that combat, if you're left to do what you always do, is boring. So, how does the designer stop you from doing what you always do, unless he restricts you? (He adds special spells. But he still restricts you.) No one here is calling Bahssikava perfect. Read what I had to say about it on CSR. However, its problems had less to do with choices or lack thereof than with the presence of filler and sparse present-tense plot development. Instead of crucifying Kelandon for refusing to implement some sort of sweeping movement to non-linearity in his scenario that would have necessitated the deletion of tons of scripts and the writing of tons more, why not take the bad with the good, say what he did well, and how he can improve his next scenario, in the context of what he already did well? Edit: And if you want to call him lazy, why not actually open the folder and look at the scripts? It is a lot of work, and sweeping changes would have taken a lot of time. I, and others, would rather just have him release the scenario so I can play it already, instead of restructuring the whole thing at one indignant member's behest. [ Monday, March 07, 2005 16:30: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, March 8 2005 16:05
Profile
Homepage
I'm probably just going to stir up the hornets' nest again by replying, but it strikes me that a lot of the objections to linear or restrictive scenarios are based around the idea that the player ought to have complete control over the party's actions. Although this is one design model that's seen considerable use, a large proportion of the designing community doesn't adhere to it as a philosophy of design. Creator's article, Player vs. Party, gives a fair idea of where the community's coming from. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Tuesday, January 15 2008 23:15
Profile
*bump* To preserve material Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2