Bioware and linearity.

[JourneyThroughHell]

I'm alright with linearity, as long as it's not story linearity. In ME2's case, it's anything but that.

The exploration part of the first game wasn't particularly good that great anyway.

 

[Caligulove]

I used to think that something like KotOR felt like a bigger game, but when I went back and replayed it, I realized that was mostly just rose-tinted glasses, since that game really blew me away when I played it.

That and I think that ME2 felt 'smaller' than the first one at times because backtracking through a mission back to the shuttle/ship etc was practically non-existent, besides a few missions. The mission was over and the game says "you pretty much got everything you were gonna get out of this mission, including credits, minerals and upgrades- so how 'bout I just take you back to where you need to go right now? "

BioWare has never been TOO bad with backtracking, though Taris in KotOR could get pretty tedious if you wanted to do EVERYTHING Light Side. But I realized that they both had moments where after you beat the Sith Base or Temple or the Geth Base or Noveria- you had to run back to some sort of starting point or back to the ship in order to leave. In a lot of ways, this can add some feelings of immersion since youre always in control and always moving through areas- I just think Mass Effect cut out a lot of that to keep the focus on the characters, and move on to more and more sceneries.

Think of the diversity in environments from all the missions compared to that in Mass Effect 1, for instance. And I understand the choice to streamline. Not only would the game be padded out to a longer length that it would have to be, but it fits with the change of Epic-focused Space Opera to Character-focused Space Opera. Not to mention cutting the tedious bits encourages replays, while still keeping it tight and focused.

 

[Flying-Emu]

I don't mind the linearity. What I do mind is that they basically rehash the cast of Knights of the Old Republic in all of their games.

Every archetype from KOTOR is seen in each of their characters from their other series.

... Where was Kreia in ME2?

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

I don't mind the linearity. What I do mind is that they basically rehash the cast of Knights of the Old Republic in all of their games.

Every archetype from KOTOR is seen in each of their characters from their other series.

... Where was Kreia in ME2?

Kreia was the manipulative witch in KotOR 2. soooo... Miranda?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Linear versus open-world game design will always represent an interesting "give and take" for developers.

My preference: minimalistic/sparse worlds, environments, and stories with clear and urgent goals. This sort of approach allows designers to craft convincing game worlds based on story logic (the village is empty because everyone's long dead, gone missing, etc.), and the impetus to move forward comes from the player (I need to find my wife, locate a weapon, etc.) rather than the environment (I can't go anywhere else, so I obviously need to go here).

Anyways, I prefer ME1.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I don't mind the linearity. What I do mind is that they basically rehash the cast of Knights of the Old Republic in all of their games.

Every archetype from KOTOR is seen in each of their characters from their other series.

... Where was Kreia in ME2?

Kreia is an Obsidian staple, not Bioware. First seen as Ravel in Planescape: Torment. A tiny part of the character came through as SIE in Alpha Protocol.

 

[RatRace123]

I prefer the older style, it really made the games feel big and the quests and planets actually felt big.
I like it when missions take a while, the missions in Mass Effect 2 didn't really feel like missions they felt like levels.

While I don't mind that much 'cause the game was still well written and fun, but I'd prefer a return to classic Bioware form.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't mind the linearity that much, Bioware just needs to make more engaging gameplay.

Now, I only played ME1,ME2 and DA: Origins, but with Bioware games the gameplay almost seems like just a template for the story.

 

[Altorin]

I don't mind the linearity. What I do mind is that they basically rehash the cast of Knights of the Old Republic in all of their games.

Every archetype from KOTOR is seen in each of their characters from their other series.

... Where was Kreia in ME2?

I don't mind the linearity. What I do mind is that they basically rehash the cast of Knights of the Old Republic in all of their games.

Every archetype from KOTOR is seen in each of their characters from their other series.

... Where was Kreia in ME2?

Kreia was the manipulative witch in KotOR 2. soooo... Miranda?

Kreia was in KOTOR2, not KOTOR1.

Important Distinction, as KOTOR2 was developed by Obsidian, not Bioware.

 

[fingerbang143]

Well i'm only getting it if there is a legend thingy that tells me where to go.

 

[Frozengale]

I tend to prefer more linear RPGs. The issue I have with large open world style ones is that while they're large they feel very empty. Yes I could explore anything I want to in Oblivion and Fallout 3, but each patch of land is so identical to the next, and lacks any real detail I can't bring myself to do so. It just seems so pointless.

I seriously wonder if you've played Oblivion or Fallout 3 then. If you just take the time to explore the place then you'll find all types of differing landscapes with varieties of monsters and a plethora of side quests that you just wouldn't be able to find if you just played the main quest through.

 

[Loonerinoes]

Personally I love the new direction a lot. I can't begin to praise ME2's focused style over its predecessor enough, because it fits the setting a lot more IMHO. On the other hand, I am slightly worried that they might decide to overdo it too much with the upcoming Dragon Age 2. I'm just not sure it'll work out as well in a fantasy setting really.

And, in the end, though I like this somewhat more linear, but also moreso focused, style, even so I'd prefer it if games like the last two Fallouts continued to make a living as well. I'd hate to see all the RPGs decide to just be all alike really.

 

[archvile93]

I tend to prefer more linear RPGs. The issue I have with large open world style ones is that while they're large they feel very empty. Yes I could explore anything I want to in Oblivion and Fallout 3, but each patch of land is so identical to the next, and lacks any real detail I can't bring myself to do so. It just seems so pointless.

I seriously wonder if you've played Oblivion or Fallout 3 then. If you just take the time to explore the place then you'll find all types of differing landscapes with varieties of monsters and a plethora of side quests that you just wouldn't be able to find if you just played the main quest through.

Yes I have, and I found it dull the whole way through (except black and white pleasentville or whatever it's called, that was fun), everything about it just seemed samey except high north in Oblivion where everything looks nearly the same, but with snow. There were no NPCs of any interest other than as mission dispensers that I could sometimes kill for the lolz. I'd walk through those forest and occasionally run into either generic cave number 37 or generic bandit camp number 54, but that's all I ever really found. The vast magority of quest givers are in town. People always complain that that game would have been a lot better without fast travel since it'd make the world seem bigger, but I think it'd just make it more tedious.

 

[loc978]

I prefer older RPGs... never took very kindly to a story on rails.

That said, ME2 wasn't that linear... though I did feel forced along by the plot at times.

 

[Frozengale]

I remember there was a "bioware cliche chart", funny stuff if you think about it. If anyone can dig it up for me, that would be appreciated.

Easy enough to find it for yourself, just google it.

Oh hell, I'll post it here anyway.

Massively huge image be herein! [http://gza.gameriot.com/content/images/orig_320200_1_1257581825.png]

OT: Linearity is pretty much essential in the telling of a good story. And since Bioware make story-based games, I would expect nothing less of them than more linearity than more sandbox-oriented RPGs (or sandbox games in general).

Also there is Shamus's article on the cliche characters
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6862-Experienced-Points-The-Writers-of-BioWare

 

[Steve Fidler]

The majority of Bioware's new games are linear. Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect included. Their is an illusion of non-linearity but for the most part it is a serious of events that have to be performed, usually to progress the story. Just because three missions can be done in any order doesn't make the game non-linear. Because they all end up needing to be done. True Non-Linear gameplay makes entire aspects of the game become locked or unlocked by following certain paths, and often offer options to have those trees rejoin.

It is a very difficult thing for a well known developer to accomplish because it often results in long development time. These companies are more interested in producing a game from their primary franchises every year than producing a quality game. Bioware is well known for their non-linear gameplay, best portrayed in games like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.

 

[Tarkand]

While Bioware games has some linearity, I still wouldn't kill them totally linear. We're a far shot from Final Fantasy here.

You can decided which part of the world to visit first, which quest to complete or not and how you will complete them (which often has an impact on the rest of the world) and even when it comes to companion npcs, your decision can end up leaving them out of your party altogether (Leaving Sven in his cage or Grunt in his pod are fairly common occurence from what I gathered) or cause their death.

Bioware games really make me think of a good old pen and paper game - yeah, you can do whatever you want (to a degree), but ultimately you are going to go through the Game Master's story.

It is a very difficult thing for a well known developer to accomplish because it often results in long development time. These companies are more interested in producing a game from their primary franchises every year than producing a quality game. Bioware is well known for their non-linear gameplay, best portrayed in games like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.

I'm not sure how KoToR fits in your idea of non-linearity, since it basically laid the groundwork for the Bioware 'Intro > 3 Planets > Ending' recipe.

It's been way to long since I played BG and NWN... all I really remember from those games is that they were great... but unless I'm mistaken, at some point, you HAD to go in some places to have some keys event happen in order for the story to progress.

If nothing else, Baldur's Gate gave more of an illusion of freedom because of the map (which was really similar to the one in DA, but with a bit more freedom in where you could move)... but really, replace the map by Space and turn the 'hubs where something happened' and you pretty much have the ME map...

 

[easternflame]

Well its not bad, I just think its different orientation, less distractions more action. It all depends whether you like to look around or not, thats all.

 

[dcrane]

Linearity = hoop jumping. Luckily, sandbox games mean I no longer have to be a circus dog if I don't want to. Dragon Age was such a frickin' hoop jumping grind it took me 6 months of putting it down in frustration and coming back to it to get 'er done. What a grind.

I know, I know - story-based games require linearity. Frankly, after too many years playing bad story-based games and reading great novels, I want games to stick to gameplay.