Considering this is an HOT TOPIC...and all the replies are seems comfusing, i'm gonna start a poll on this.

Quote:

Original post by KevinatorWhat I find interesting is that the game was able to accomodate both of us well enough that we would both walk away from the experience claiming it was a good game. Gives me a little hope.

I think Morrowind could've been better for the linear type players if it had a decent tutorial. Morrowind can be just as linear as Freelancer, if you stick to the main plot. There's a network of low-cost transportation to reduce distances, at least most of the time. There's really only a couple of quests you need to do extensive exploring, most of the time you can use silt striders and mages' guild teleportation and you'll be within <5 minutes of walking distance to your goal.

Morrowind is a prime example of non-linear gameplay but it must've done something wrong in guiding linear type players to the main storyline. For example, I've heard a lot less criticism on GTA: San Andreas' non-linearity, and IMO it's just as open-ended as Morrowind.

I'm a 100% sandbox player myself and I enjoyed Freelancer, Morrowind, GTA:SA mainly for their exploratory aspects. Personally (this is just IMHO, I don't want to start a debate on this) I think the contrast in how you can experience Morrowind is the greatest achievement in video game history so far. If you play a hunter/ranger/scout type player, you might only visit settlements to sell a couple of guar hides and with the money buy a couple of healing potions and some arrows. After making the necessary purchases, it's back to the nature in a hurry, away from all the people and the chaos of city life. On the other hand, if you play a thief, you might play for a year or two without setting foot outside city walls. With all the beasts and whatnot roaming around in the wilderness, who in their right mind would leave a city if you can make a good profit using just your social and stealth skills?

Now that is just brilliant game design.

That sort of freedom lets the player do what they enjoy the most, and avoid what they enjoy the least. Let's say we have two players -- one is a dungeon crawler and another is a hunter. If you had one linear game experience, you'd have to cater for both, and they both would probably agree there were some fine moments in the game as well as some tedious ones. In a non-linear game experience they both could emphasize what they enjoy the most. On the other hand, if you swapped the game experiences, I'm sure they both would think the game sucks. Overall, I think allowing for players to choose their own challenges is a win-win, if you as a developer can manage the software engineering required.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator So without badlands and no-man's lands, without significant physical spacing between interaction nodes, how do you capture the right flavor of a medieval world that shouldn't be anywhere near as populated as the modern world? Throw in swarms of dense NPCs and quests and you might as well throw in a Starbucks. (btw, this is similar to setting up interactions in space and capturing the feeling of that medium-- compare Freelancer, which has ridiculously small star systems that completely destroy the feeling of space to I-War2, which creates an awesome sense of versimilitude because star systems are vast and solitary)

This bit really highlighted a difference for me. When I think "game", I think of something with rules and winning conditions, etc. It seems you (and many others who, in general, prefer non-linearity) are thinking of something more like a world simulator.

I don't mean to say that setting means nothing to me. It's very important. I've played a board game called Puerto Rico where you started plantations on Puerto Rico and competed with other players in various aspects of creating a successful plantation. It wouldn't have been nearly as fun if it were just moving tokens around by the same rules, if it hadn't been about starting a plantation. On the other hand, I didn't play the game to experience plantation life.

In the Metroid series, I love the background information hinting at this great history, but I still play them just to "win" (not strictly true, I do just run around fighting enemies or enjoying the "experience" of different areas, but theses experiences are less like watching sunsets and more like playing games of chess. It's not to experience the ambience, it's to experience the interplay of the rules).

Heh, I was thinking about starting a thread on linearity/non-linearity, but then I found this one. [smile] I think the above post nailed it right on the mark. There's no way you can say "Okay, let's make this a non-linear game because everyone appreciates that!", because that's just not true. There is no way you can design a game that everyone will enjoy. What you and 90% of others feel is a great feature in your game, there's bound to be a few that dislike
that feature. So you need to take that to heart and not try to attempt the impossible and create a game that will please absolutely everyone.


Having said that, I appreciate both non-linearity and customization to a limited degree. I don't like having thousands upon thousands of options for completing quests or customizing my character, because it's simply overwhelming and almost makes the game feel intiidating. For the game I've been working on (a single-player RPG), in the beginning there was a graphics artist on my design team and during a meeting where we were discussing features, the two of us were at each other's throats. He wanted the game to be completely customizable (practically everything down to the color of the shoe laces you wear [lol]) and totally open, while I was strongly opposed to that and wanted only minimal customization and non-linearity. He has long since left for unrelated reasons.


But after a lot of discussion about what our game should be, I think we are finally agreed on a compromise between the two camps. In our game, we decided to have a linear story/plot, but a good number of optional side-quests and mini-games where the player can learn new skills, find new equipment, etc. that may or may not have an impact on the main story. For customization, we came to the agreement that total customization would be a chore and too much micromanagement for the player, so instead we're thinking of allowing weapons and armor to come with slots to insert/remove gems/relics that give small bonuses. Think of the materia equipment in FFVII or the jewel system in Diablo II (although I hated that you couldn't remove jewels once you equipped them to something in that game!!!).


In conclusion, I think that non-linearity and customization should automatically be treated as big bonuses over a game that is linear or has no customization. It simply depends on the player's preferences and even when non-linearity or customization is done right, it doesn't necessarily mean that your game is going to be "better" in everyone's eyes.

Quote:

Original post by Roots He wanted the game to be completely customizable (practically everything down to the color of the shoe laces you wear [lol]) and totally open, while I was strongly opposed to that and wanted only minimal customization and non-linearity.

Another problem is that there are degrees of non-linearity/customization. Basically, if you keep adding things for the players to customize, you'll eventually get down to shipping a compiler with an example program. If you keep going the other direction, you'll end up with an animated film. In neither case do you really end up with a game (and in both cases you'll have to end up playing by different rules to make a good product. Compilers, games, and movies all have very different rules when it comes to what's good).

Quote:

(although I hated that you couldn't remove jewels once you equipped them to something in that game!!!).

This is similar to one of the main complaints against customization/non-linearity: I might miss something. This is especially a problem if I have to invest another forty (or even ten) hours to replay the game.

I remember there was an article about making games for the "wage slave". At one point he compared the Solitaire and Spider games that come with Windows. He said Spider was better for the wage slave because it had infinite undo. You could always go back and try something new with a minimal loss of time.

On a side note, most games seem to fail on the "don't waste my time" rule (which I think is probably the most important rule to get right).

Quote:

Original post by Roots "Okay, let's make this a non-linear game because everyone appreciates that!", because that's just not true.

If you follow a linear storyline in a non-linear, free-roaming game setting instead of a linear game setting,

- how is the game experience different?
- does the difference affect quality and if so,
- in what way does it affect the quality?

Quote:

There is no way you can design a game that everyone will enjoy.

Which is pretty much stating the obvious...

Quote:

What you and 90% of others feel is a great feature in your game, there's bound to be a few that dislike that feature.

This is one thing I have a hard time digesting. Within reasonable limits, how does more of something make for a worse game? In GTA: San Andreas you can micromanage the color of the shoes you're wearing but you don't have to, you can just ignore that feature. I never took one single tattoo but I didn't complain they were implemented in the first place, I simply ignored them.

Reminds me of the flamefests over at the Gran Turismo forums. Some people were hugely offended by the fact that there were trucks in GT4. Others thought including Japanese Kei cars was an outright insult, and they should be removed from the sequels. All this while they could just ignore the cars they disliked and gather their favourite cars instead.

Quote:

I don't like having thousands upon thousands of options for completing quests or customizing my character, because it's simply overwhelming and almost makes the game feel intiidating.

Fair enough. But if some default [value] is offered and you can just ignore the fact that there even is a choice, can you appreciate the fact that many other players will enjoy a choice?

This could be an issue of how we experience video games. For the (short) history of gaming, we've been taught that if there's something that can be done, then it must be done. We're so used to real life being full of choices we can ignore we don't feel overwhelmed by it. But if a game has multiple choices, we feel the need to explore each and every step throughout the game, weighing the cost and benefit of each choice.

I'm wearing black socks right now. Within the grasp of my hand there is a pair of white socks. Within a minute (what an incredible feat of dexterity!) I could be wearing white socks. I still don't feel overwhelmed by the choice -- in fact, I had to think for a while which choice to pick here as an example, as I had more choices to pick from than I can imagine. We should experience the choices in games in a similar fashion. Those people who feel this sense of being overwhelmed by choices in the real world are called neurotic, obsessive or just plain crazy. Some people experience the same with the newer generation of massive-data free-roaming games.

So the question is -- should there be an attempt to change the games, or the players?

Quote:

Original post by ruistola All this while they could just ignore the cars they disliked and gather their favourite cars instead.

Careful there, that cuts both ways. What does it matter to you if a game is linear? Just ignore it. Like you say, we're very good at ignoring choices in real life, why is it so hard to ignore a linear game?

Quote:

We should experience the choices in games in a similar fashion.

I disagree. Life is full of uninteresting choices (white or black socks?). Games should be full of interesting choices.

This problem is compounded by the fact that game designers think it's cute to offer arbitrary bonuses for arbitrary choices. "Talk" to the fifth flower pot during the night and you'll find a charm for +5 defense. Some people call that "A bonus to those who like to search every nook and cranny"; I call that "A bonus to those who have nothing better to do than walk along every wall in a game pressing the A button under every permutation of situations". I wouldn't be at all surprised if half-way through the game some guy gives you $1,000,000 because you happened to choose pink shoelaces at the beginning.

So, two things:
1) If you want us to ignore the choice, don't make such trivial choices have any effect on gameplay.
2) If a choice has no effect on gameplay, it's probably not interesting, and probably shouldn't be in the game. (though this is weaker than the first)

Quote:

So the question is -- should there be an attempt to change the games, or the players?

I think the players should change. Those who like non-linearity should stop. [razz][wink][lol]

Seriously, though, why should I change to like something I don't? To grow? Sure, why not? But that goes both ways, you'd grow just as much by learning what I enjoy in linear games as I'd grow by learning what you enjoy in non-linear games.

Changing games is easier, though. Like you say, we can just ignore those we don't like.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Careful there, that cuts both ways.

No, it actually doesn't. You can choose to only experience a subset of the game's contents, but you most definitely can't experience a superset.

Quote:

Just ignore it. Like you say, we're very good at ignoring choices in real life, why is it so hard to ignore a linear game?

How can I ignore a linear game if I expect non-linearity, when it constantly shatters the immersion by invisible walls whenever I try to deviate from the single path it offers? On the other hand, if you never try to deviate from that path, there could be other paths available for those who wish to explore them, but you wouldn't know it.

..nor should you care. Which was exactly my point. Some people can't enjoy the game if they know there are alternative solutions, more places to see than those visited in the main storyline, irrelevant items to collect or irrelevant people to meet. The main story doesn't suffer from them in any way, yet it still seems to bother some players. Just like the trucks and Kei cars in GT4.

I most definitely didn't want to insult linear game fans. If I did, I apologize. What I meant was a sort of "live and let live" attitude -- you can have your linear gameplay, I can have my exploring, and it can all happen in the scope of one game.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker The flip side of this argument is: I'd rather have a finely tuned gaming experience created by imaginiative and creative game designers than a watered down "create your own" experience created by unimaginative and uncreative game designers who can't be bothered to do the work themselves.

Actually to make a "create your own" experience game that actually allows for different involving and meaningful experiences takes a lot more work than creating a linear game. Perhaps you have not seen a good example of non-linearity. Or, perhaps your bias prevents your from seeing one. To those who believe that we will never land on the moon, the Apollo never happened.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Funny, because chess has all the linearity of Tetris and all the customization of pong.

Complexity was the purpose of that statement. You mentioned that you do not like the complexity of non-linearity and customization. Therefore I proposed the remedy of sticking to simplistic games more suited to your tastes.

Customization and non-linearity are a step forward in game design. Learning to apply it correctly is a far greater goal than simply retaining the status quo of non-linearity and zero customization. Many out there strongly oppose progress and going outside of the box. Those are the attitudes that stifle progress.

Quote:

Original post by ruistola Quote: Original post by Way Walker Careful there, that cuts both ways. No, it actually doesn't. You can choose to only experience a subset of the game's contents, but you most definitely can't experience a superset.

You missed my point. If you don't like a game, ignore it. If playing a linear game bothers you, don't play it. Simple. Done. I know that I vote with my wallet.

Quote:

Quote: Just ignore it. Like you say, we're very good at ignoring choices in real life, why is it so hard to ignore a linear game? How can I ignore a linear game if I expect non-linearity, when it constantly shatters the immersion by invisible walls whenever I try to deviate from the single path it offers?

How about by playing games you like?

Quote:

..nor should you care. Which was exactly my point. Some people can't enjoy the game if they know there are alternative solutions, more places to see than those visited in the main storyline, irrelevant items to collect or irrelevant people to meet.

I actually don't mind until I find out that something is in the game that I would've enjoyed, but my options are to either never see it or invest another twenty hours playing the game.

Quote:

The main story doesn't suffer from them in any way, yet it still seems to bother some players.

Actually, it can. In some games, non-linearity becomes the focus and you just get a weak story that's more of a tutorial for the sandbox. I suppose it may be similar to the wound you feel when a game company releases a linear game (which you don't have to play, by the way).

Quote:

I most definitely didn't want to insult linear game fans. If I did, I apologize. What I meant was a sort of "live and let live" attitude -- you can have your linear gameplay, I can have my exploring, and it can all happen in the scope of one game.

I do live and let live. There's a reason I didn't buy Morrowwind. Heck, I even like some non-linear games. I loved Fallout 1 and 2.