GameBanshee Forums

Over on the PS:T forum Denethorn posted a thread asking for help getting engrossed in this fine game. As we chatted we agreed that the story- excellent though it is- seemed to make for a somewhat linear experience whereas Morrowing was the exact opposite being very freeform in nature but as such suffered with a weak story.
At the risk of getting another warning from fable for going off topic I thought I'd continue this discusion here with the questions do you prefer your games to have an intricate and well told plot or be huge and open ended? Or do you think it is entirely possible to mix the two successfully without significantly affecting either?
For me no game has yet blended both very well. BG2 was mostly freeform to begin with but became distinctly linear when the story kicked off properly.
Thoughts anyone?

No threat of going off-topic, here: you're dead on, and it's a good idea for discussion.

Can freeform and deep stories be combined - interesting questiong, and in my humble opinion .. yes they can. However (as always there is a however )).......

It would requier some elements I'm not sure we'll see for some years to come yet.
It would requier companies in the industry to be innovative. A element that lacks these days, when looking at most of the popular "RPGs" that hit the market.
Companies these days - especially the established ones - seems to throw "RPG" after "RPG" on the market, with the same recipy.
Good graphics (or at least a large focus on graphics), fast action, low interaction and oppertuinty for choices, lack of depth, lack of sensible puzzles/quests, easy to go to and easy to go through.
Effectively producing what I like to refere to as "RPG Lites". It almost seems as the "progress" have been backstepping instead.

The reason some companies produce liniar games, is that they are easier to make. You control where the player go and what he interacts with, thus the player doesn't get as "lost" and can't break anything.
However when producing freeform, the story element is hard to combine, because the player might not find the story and wander around getting bored, so better to make a semi-story and then call it freedom.
These two wings can and should be combined, but until a ressourcefull company steps of the "RPG lite wagon" I don't see it happen.

You can make a dynamic world, where the player can walk around as he choose. You can make the deep engrossing story, but only give hints to where it is located, so the player has to find out for himself. You can even make this dynamic and allow for spawns/gamestory to be much more random.
But this is where the risk comes into it for the developers and why it haven't been made.....

Can the players adapt?
Looking at the current climate of the "RPG lites" do we think that a game which actually sets demands for the players would make as much money as the RPG Lites Bioware, Obsidian Ent, Bethesda or what they are call throw on the market?
Would players actually take to a game which requiered them to think. Sadly - I'd say no to the mainstream, but yes in a niche production.

So while, I think it isn't only possible to make a RPG which combines both story and freeform, I simply think the majority of players aren't interested in a game which sets to many "demands" on them.
(The reasons for this? Well - that is a different topic)

But it is possible, but will we see one? - Not for many years, until we see some invoation on the RPG scene and a change in the general playerbases "expectations". (which means focus on something other then graphics and action)

Absolutely, Xandax the current climate of RPG-lite is the responsibility of developers but not I think because there is no innovative talent out there. To me innovation is an idea that introduces something new and vibrant to an unsuspecting world and this has been in evidence over ther last few years- Baldur's Gate, Deus Ex, Thief, Black & White to name but a few- are we to believe then, that the talent the created these games is dead and gone?
No, but it is being supressed, I think, by the faceless money-men behind the development teams. The new trend of RPG-lite does make money and in particular on consoles, which is all that matters to these corporations, so until developers start thinking for themselves or the tastes of gamers change on a massive scale the lite will remain the mainstream.

It is as much the gamers fault as it is the developers.
Industries are a two way street. If gamers continue to buy - what I view as subpar RPGs (RPG-Lite) - then the developers/moneymen will continue to create these, often with minor innovating elements, but still pretty much following the same recipy.

So if nobody buys them - or buys fewer - and RPG-players would buy more "niche" productions (I'm so taking a look at the The Fall and The Witcher when they come out near me) instead of only buying SW:KotOR1, SW:KotOR2: SW:KotOR3 (when that comes out, and rest asurred - it will) then the developers might get more incitament to start developing more experimental and innovating RPGs.
Unfortunally - I don't see this happen, because of the way the gamers seems to be these days.
Focus on fast action, easy puzzles and quest - or they turn to a walkthrough the instant they get stuck. This is the image I'm getting of the general gamers these days, for what ever reason (Younger, "Console-syndrom" and what not).

Not to spam the forum I moderate, but I sense a Tower of Hanoi rant coming on

[QUOTE=Xandax]instead of only buying SW:KotOR1, SW:KotOR2: SW:KotOR3[/QUOTE]

Funny you should mention those, since I think they are the epitome of your "RPG-lites" (although in fairness I have only played the first one).

In a way, Morrowind and KotOR represent two opposite ends of the RPG spectrum; freedom and linearity. I felt KotOR was almost a first person shooter with its long corridors, very structured path through the game and heavily combat orientated.

I believe that the success of Baldur's Gate (as a series) was that it mixed combat, story and gameplay into a very potent and successful mix. BGII is one of (if not my number 1) my favourite games, hence I am almost certainly biased .

If I had to pick between story and freeform, then I would choose story. Freeform is something of a dream game of mine, but when I thought I had found that game (Morrowind), it turned out to be uninspiring and ultimately dissapointing.

From my limited experiance of Gothic that seems to master the freeform/story mix very well. But Gothic seems to be little know on GB

(btw limey, I'm a dwarfer )

[QUOTE=Aegis]Not to spam the forum I moderate, but I sense a Tower of Hanoi rant coming on [/QUOTE]

Hehehe - I'll be nice. Promise



[QUOTE=Denethorn]<snip>
I felt KotOR was almost a first person shooter with its long corridors, very structured path through the game and heavily combat orientated.
<snip>[/quote]
I agree very much with this "feeling", to me the KoTOR's were more action, then RPG, although there were significant RPG elements, and a few more in the sequel then the first one.
But I still see these RPGs as way to static, easy in all aspects - simplistic even. RPG is not simply assigning stats to a character and leveling up.

[QUOTE=Denethorn]<snip>
If I had to pick between story and freeform, then I would choose story. Freeform is something of a dream game of mine, but when I thought I had found that game (Morrowind), it turned out to be uninspiring and ultimately dissapointing.[/quote]
Also my experience. Now I know many swear to Morrowind, and I'm by no mean wanting to put down their experiences, but to me - Morrowind was bland, boring and way to static. It is good that you have a big world to explore, but you have little incentive to do so in my view.

[QUOTE=Denethorn]<snip>
From my limited experiance of Gothic that seems to master the freeform/story mix very well. But Gothic seems to be little know on GB
[/QUOTE]

I think most are aware of Gothic, but I don't think many have played it - myself inclusive. What I read in various reviews, didn't appeal much to me.

But while I am not optemistic about the RPG genre in years to come, I still think it would be possible to combine the two genres, and I still think the "only" (hehe) reasons it hasn't been done, is that fast action RPGs seems to attract a better market then the more deep RPG does.

Indeed it is possible, and I only hope we will (eventually) see such a game. Bioware seem to be the few lasting strongholds of RPG development houses, but they increasingly seem to be moving towards cinematic RPGs (not necessarily 'lite') - heavily based on heroism and combat.

It occured to me that such a game mixing freedom and story, does possibly exist, although it is now archived among "great RPGs of the past"... Ultima 7 . Once you're out of the "tutorial" city, you're free to roam Britannia with a freedom of exploration and activities that rival (and possibly exceed) Morrowind (fancy baking bread or becoming a tailor ?). And all the while you have an excellent story brewing, which you can choose to follow.

As for Gothic, I have it in my list of games-to-be-played, but from what I have played, it is atleast a true RPG (with quite an intriguing story).

From my limited experiance of Gothic that seems to master the freeform/story mix very well.

Must have missed this one- is is it worth a look?

felt KotOR was almost a first person shooter with its long corridors, very structured path through the game and heavily combat orientated

Although it was indeed very linear, I did feel that KotoR and it's sequel disguised this by giving you the choice of tackling (most of) the planets in any order. This is a trick that more and more developers are implementing- giving us the illusion of choice.

Although I havn't played the first, Gothic II is pretty good. It definintly has a better story than Morrowind and atleast makes you earn your skills and class through quests. It is a little more challenging than Morrowind as well, though it's mainly just having a good response time and blocking while finding the right time to strike. As for freedom, there's a bit, yes, but not nearly as much as Morrowind. The world is smaller, obviously, but it's basically just a network of paths with few 'open' areas.

But, as Denethorn said, it still does a very good job of combining Freeform and Story. Not only that, but it doesn't feel as dead as Morrowind. All the NPCs have routines of what they do during the day and night, and have their own unique responses. Unless you hate reflex based combat in RPGs, you'd probably like it. That's the only complaint I've heard about it, atleast.

I dislike in Baldurs Gate that you pretty much have to do everything in linear sequence. The first time isnt bad but if you want to replay several times and you absolutely dread a particular area.

BG2 is good, you can pick any order. ie Nalias Keep quest was not dependent on anything else. But Irenicus dungeon is one of the linear parts I just wish I could bypass and get to the city.
Replayability as in Diablo, ie just monster areas where you can go level up.
Several areas of KOTOR1/2 tick me off. I dont know if its asking too much but I want 2 planets where u can just thrash random generated mobs, and a few others where you have to become engrossed in the stories.

Multiple endings also rock. I dont need a fancy movie either. Just pop up the secondary character and say blah blah blah, and off we go into the wild blue yonder.

Im a big fan of GTA because you can go wherever you want, you just dont progress in the story until you actually do the missions. So when you get tired of the mindless, you can go do something mindful. It just doesnt have to hit rolls and wearable armours/weapons/etc.

just my .03

To be honest, stormcloud, I would be hard pressed to find a more linear game than D2, but I see what your're saying, the ability to wander off and just murder a few hellspawn provides a welcome break.
As for GTA, I'd forgotten- but yes, this does provide both openness and a story, not a great one but it is there.

A good story with good character development HAS to be linear. They can disguise it with branches but invariably, all the branches must come together for the next plot point. The writer needs to control the plot points in order for it to be good.

Maybe in the future, you'll see multiple plot lines but that means scripting the game multiple times.

[QUOTE=slapandtickle]A good story with good character development HAS to be linear. They can disguise it with branches but invariably, all the branches must come together for the next plot point. The writer needs to control the plot points in order for it to be good.

Maybe in the future, you'll see multiple plot lines but that means scripting the game multiple times.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. The best example of this (IMHO) is Deus Ex. Programmers made the game feel like player was able to select his/her own way to solve things, but eventually almost every time the mission ended the same way regardless how you passed guards or so on. Of course, there were some small changes player's decisions made, like saving brother from death (heard that it's possible, never succeeded by myself). But nevertheless, Deus Ex IS linear.

Very good example of game that has very good story and still offers very much freedom to player is Fallout 2. (Okay, maybe Fallout 1 also, but IMO the time limit degreased the freedom too much, 'cause player had to hurry with things). In Fallout 2, player can be good or evil, (s)he can select what quest solve, mostly in what order, how to react to different things and player is forced to solve the plot, to think where to go next, to who talk next and so on. As already stated here, that's very important if game is wanted to offer freedom to player. For example, player there is (IIRC) at least couple of ways to find Vault 13, couple of way to oilrig and so on. And player can achieve goals in friendly way (talking), or in aggressive way (killing everything).

Of course, F2 belongs to those "great games in past". I agree that with current situation, deep, freeform games with superb story are more and more rare. And I fear that RPGs are going to be more linear and combat-style. And that's because those kind of games sell better (as already stated here).

[QUOTE=slapandtickle]A good story with good character development HAS to be linear. They can disguise it with branches but invariably, all the branches must come together for the next plot point. The writer needs to control the plot points in order for it to be good.

Maybe in the future, you'll see multiple plot lines but that means scripting the game multiple times.[/QUOTE]


It does not *have* to be liniar. It has to have liniar traits, because a story can only advance from one point if certain events has been taken care of. You can't advance a story without going from the beginning to the end, thus it would seem liniar

But what it does takes is good story-writing.
Exampels could be a story which could unfold whether or not the player is actually involved in it or not, luring the player to participate either on the side of "good" or "evil". So the "bad guy" will do whatever he does and starts taking over or killing towns irregardless of whether or not the "hero" participates. Naturally this should be done on a sensible timeline, because I hate it when games make you hurry through something
If the "hero" dosen't react, perhaps other "NPC heros" could step in and try to wack evil. And so on......
This would also create more of an illusion that you are part of a more dynamic world, and that the world dosen't exists only for the sake of your adventure.


As such there are many possiblities, but we need writers, producers, developers - and especially Gamers - to think outside the box of easy, liniar and powergaming RPGs.

Agreed, I dream of a perfect RPG...

One with the freeform values of Morrowind, be whatever you wish do whatever you wish in a vast beautiful world . But with a powerful, gripping storyline/

The storyline in such a game would be purely optional - one could immediately sign up against the Generic Legion of Darkness, or one could stay in their peaceful homeland, ignorant and oblivious of the war which is slowly creeping ever closer.

A truly great RPG would sort of entice the player into the thrust of the main story. Irrespective of the player's will, one way or another the game would slowly draw the player into the conflict. And ofcourse, at the end, the player would be victorious

[QUOTE=Xandax]But what it does takes is good story-writing.[/QUOTE]

This is my opinion as well. I think the only reason RGPs are so linear is that the writing is sloppy. To me it seems like the writers make the same misstake as lousy DMs in a Pen an Paper game does. They start of with a silly plot that takes about 10 minutes to come up with (Find powerful thing and take it to evil guy who steals it then find him and kill him or similar) Then they try to force the main characters to follow that plot. Instead you should start on the other end, with the characters and their motives, and then create the plot twists from there.

Another point is that you can't do as most RPGs do today and take a pre made world and fit it into any situation. The enviroment must be custom made so that the choices of characters seems natural and logical. If you for example have a world like Forgotten realms, where magic is extremely common and mundane it is obvious that everyone would like to solve their problems by using magic. When you can't because the problems it would mean for the plot it will shatter the illusion that you live in a complete and independent world. Plot breaking actions must be restricted by cleverly created world mechanics, not by a strategically placed wall on the map if you get my meaning.

This is a great thread. I've often wondered if I was the only person who felt as I do. I've played through both KOTOR games and, although I do like the storylines, I hated that I was walking down a predetermined path 90% of the time. It was almost like I was reading one of those old D&D adventure books where you were asked questions and were pointed to specific pages based upon your answers to those questions.

I personally liked Neverwinter Nights because a person could write their own adventures. When I played NWN online with a group of people and a DM you would never know where the story would end up. Often the DM's original plan would change half way through because of how the players reacted.

I've often wondered why Lucas Arts wouldn't have Bioware or Obsidian create a Star Wars CRPG based on the NWN1 or NWN2 engine. Even if the official campaign was somewhat lacking (like I thought the first NWN OC was) the game would probably sell VERY well just because of the replay ability and toolset features. I know I would buy it.

What think is important in games is not so much story, graphics or necessarily freedom; these are all important in one form or another and they all can lead to success if implemented correctly but I think it's something else.

Too many games today, I feel rely on graphics more than anything else and I am constantly dissappointed. When first brought my faithful Athlon 700mhz it was the newest thing on the market and for many years I enjoyed the fruits of current market but inevitably more and more games requiring newer computers came out I was left high and dry and resorted to simply looking for older games. (I had no money to upgrade you see)

With graphics thrown aside games needed to redeem themselves with gameplay alone and that's why I have many fond gaming moments where the game would run surpremely fast, have zero load times, no installation or hardware hassles yet at the same time be totally engrossing for hours on end at a price that could not be believed.

Now with a slightly newer system, although I can play many of today's newest games I have still to find something that held my eye for as long as Fallout 2 or Baldur's Gate 2; In fact I shall say I am constantly dissappointed.

~

Again more important than gameplay (or tied with it) is a game must feel rewarding to play. A game could offer a huge amount of freedom but if you have to spend 80% of the time mining just to get by it's really hard to see the point of playing, or again keep dying trying to kill tougher monsters and not get significantly stronger afterwards makes games feel empty.

I don't care if a game is linear, Dues Ex still made me feel free.
I don't care if a game is repetitive, Diablo made me feel powerful.
I don't care if the graphics, physics or anything else is new or improved, unless I can feel rewarded for doing things my way I'll never be happy.