Bioware and linearity.

[Sinclair Solutions]

I liked ME2 a hell of a lot more than ME1. It was just more refined. Sure, the galaxies felt smaller, but I didn't mind it that much. I think it was a much better game. I don't mind linearity, to be honest. I think it's a better, easier way to tell a story.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I don't like the way Bioware games tell their stories, but I have a hard time nailing down exactly why. It may be they are aren't the right mix of linearity and choice for me. In The Elder Scrolls for example, sometimes I'm being told a story and sometimes I'm making my own story. Both are engaging. In Bioware games, I'm just choosing a story from a list. Ironically, the way they implement choice robs the story of any gravity for me. If something happens, it's only because I selected it from the list. It will work for some people, just not for me.

EDIT: For another example, I think I would have enjoyed Dragon Age more if they had just picked the most heart-wrenching choices and built the story linearly around those. It would have been much 'weightier' for me. I know some of you are pulling your hair out at the suggestion, though.

 

[ZephrC]

I feel that Bioware is very devoted to the story telling aspect of their games. And like the people before me said, linearity(?) and good story kinda go hand in hand. I mean, killing a bunch of people and becoming the master of a guild of assassins (the black hand in oblivion) Then saving the king and becoming the noble protector of the realm, that just doesn't make sense, from a story telling perspective. So Bioware has to include a good measure of linearity(Am I using the right word?) to get across their masterfully sculpted story. Kinda forgot where I was going with that, so I'll say that I really like DA, despite its linear story.

Get Fallout NV, obsidian dose it right, mixing sandbox and story.

Funny thing, there's a very linear path that the game highly encourages you to follow for quite a distance while you get to know all the factions so the story makes sense. Sure, it's possible to break off that path and just do your own thing, but they made it a serious pain, and if you somehow actually miss all that stuff on your first playthrough of the game the story doesn't make much sense, and you're unlikely to care about it.

I personally like both styles of game. They each have advantages and disadvantages, but if I had to pick one I liked better it would have to be more linear games. They really can just tell a better story. That doesn't mean that a good open world game can't have a better story than an okay linear game, or that you can't prefer the style and characters in an open world game, or just straight up prefer open world games so much that you can't get into the story of linear games. All those things are fine. It just mean that given similar quality and styles of story, and given a gamer that likes both kinds of games, the story will generally be found to be superior in the linear game.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Well I apologize if there already is a thread about this but I just want to hear some opinions.
Now as you know Mass Effect 2 is a more linear and action oriented RPG. And that seems to be the case with Dragon Age 2. I really don't mind as long as the game is good but I understand if someone doesn't like the direction. Bioware is my favorite developer but I'm not a fanboy. For example ME2 didn't feel as large as the first one. So what do you people think. Do you prefer the older RPG style or the new direction Bioware seems to be taking?

I like the older stuff but even when you boil it down you still have the basic good/bad/gray dailog tree, no matter how small thier content is getting until they overhaul that the games will remain pretty linearity. A shame we can;t have deep level design AND quick pathing so those that need a drool cup can play too.

 

[C-45]

While the game's may be getting more linear the story lines are still interesting, the characters are still engaging, and they still allow you to make decisions which affect the plot. As long as this continues I'll be happy.

 

[badgersprite]

I don't mind the way Bioware does it's linearity, because it still gives you time to do what you want (or time to let me do what I want, at least). Stopping and talking to people, as much as that may irk some people, is invaluable to me because a) it creates contrast to the action sequences and missions, which invariably makes the pacing feel better, b) having an array of characters inhabit the world makes it feel like a real place, or at least one that I can care about, and c) it means you have a way of finding out more about the world that, most importantly, is optional. You don't have to have exposition shoved down your throat in cutscenes; if you've played through the games before, you don't have to stop and talk to all the dudes in, say, Ostagar, because you already know what Darkspawn are.

Besides, I do like the fact that, in Dragon Age, at least, they do go out of their way to provide multiple solutions for missions. Are there 'best options'? Yeah, sure, but at least it gives you the sense that they're trying to leave room for people to roleplay, and I like the fact that they give incentives to take evil options in order to unlock new classes.

And I like the fact that you can kill pretty much all of your party characters at some point in the story and finish the game without them if you'd like. Most games don't give you the option to choose to kill all of your allies from the get go; that's a pretty big risk. There are probably people out there who never got Sten or Leliana in their party, or who never realised Wynne was recruitable, and that's pretty ballsy; knowing you're giving players the opportunity to skip out on a lot of the hard work the designers and writers put into these characters.

Eh, I'll shut up now.

 

[high_castle]

People say linearity like it's a bad thing. I've always been a fan. And if you think BG2 or NWN weren't linear...well, you're crazy. Of course they were. And it worked. See, BioWare makes story-driven RPGs, and in order to tell a good story, it needs to flow in some logical way. That's why RPGs like Morrowind and Oblivion (I'm not knocking them, well at least not Morrowind) don't have very strong stories. When you can wander about freely and do whatever you want, story mechanics need to be loose so you don't break the narrative. When the path's a little more restrictive, you can have high drama and lots of characterization.

I'm a huge BioWare fangirl, so take my opinion for what it's worth. I love the way they make their games. ME2 is about the only thing they've made I've been even the slightest bit disappointed in, and that's for reasons far more related to its shootification than linearity.

 

[Rzepik]

People say linearity like it's a bad thing. I've always been a fan. And if you think BG2 or NWN weren't linear...well, you're crazy.

First half of BG2 are sidequests. Later you can skip whole underwater city. You can even skip almost whole Underdark (no need to enter Ust'Natha). And most importantly, you can kill almost anybody, no stupid restrictions.
Call me crazy, but BG2 compared to KOTOR, DA:O or ME isn't linear at all.

 

[high_castle]

People say linearity like it's a bad thing. I've always been a fan. And if you think BG2 or NWN weren't linear...well, you're crazy.

First half of BG2 are sidequests. Later you can skip whole underwater city. You can even skip almost whole Underdark (no need to enter Ust'Natha). And most importantly, you can kill almost anybody, no stupid restrictions.
Call me crazy, but BG2 compared to KOTOR, DA:O or ME isn't linear at all.

You can kill anyone, but if they're plot important, Biff the Understudy shows up in their stead. It might be funny, but it breaks immersion. And I say this while also being on record as saying BG2 is my favorite game of all time. BG2 is one of BioWare's earliest games. They were still working on their formula. And it's still not as open as a game like Morrowind.

 

[Rzepik]

People say linearity like it's a bad thing. I've always been a fan. And if you think BG2 or NWN weren't linear...well, you're crazy.

First half of BG2 are sidequests. Later you can skip whole underwater city. You can even skip almost whole Underdark (no need to enter Ust'Natha). And most importantly, you can kill almost anybody, no stupid restrictions.
Call me crazy, but BG2 compared to KOTOR, DA:O or ME isn't linear at all.

You can kill anyone, but if they're plot important, Biff the Understudy shows up in their stead. It might be funny, but it breaks immersion. And I say this while also being on record as saying BG2 is my favorite game of all time. BG2 is one of BioWare's earliest games. They were still working on their formula. And it's still not as open as a game like Morrowind.

Mhmm... I'm pretty sure there's no Biff the Understudy in BG2 (except easter egg). Instead of him two uber assassins will appear and kill you if you will try to attack Aran Linvail/Bodhi too early. Can't think of any other NPC essential for the plot.

Of course it's not as open as Morrowind. It shouldn't be, because it's not necessarily a good thing. Not everybody like sandboxes.
The thing is there was no cRPG with free exploring/linearity balance for a veeeery long time. There's a huge void between TES and Mass Effect.

 

[Andy999]

Linearity is generally better for the purposes of telling to a good, coherent story. Bioware does a pretty good job of it too; Mass Effect 2 didn't really feel any smaller to me, although frankly, I was willing to forgive anything once it established that there was no more Mako.

I recently played Alpha Protocol and though I know that game got a lot of criticism I loved the balance of linearity vs choice. The three acts played out in order, but the events within were nearly entirely up to the player, and what the player does first has a meaningful impact on whatever they choose to do later. For me, it offered the best of both worlds.

 

[FinalHeart95]

I know someone who has everyone from the first section of the game in the crew except the professor (forget his name at the moment). That is the one I have so far.

Yeah, linearity? Not as bad as it seems to be implied.

 

[high_castle]

People say linearity like it's a bad thing. I've always been a fan. And if you think BG2 or NWN weren't linear...well, you're crazy.

First half of BG2 are sidequests. Later you can skip whole underwater city. You can even skip almost whole Underdark (no need to enter Ust'Natha). And most importantly, you can kill almost anybody, no stupid restrictions.
Call me crazy, but BG2 compared to KOTOR, DA:O or ME isn't linear at all.

You can kill anyone, but if they're plot important, Biff the Understudy shows up in their stead. It might be funny, but it breaks immersion. And I say this while also being on record as saying BG2 is my favorite game of all time. BG2 is one of BioWare's earliest games. They were still working on their formula. And it's still not as open as a game like Morrowind.

Mhmm... I'm pretty sure there's no Biff the Understudy in BG2 (except easter egg). Instead of him two uber assassins will appear and kill you if you will try to attack Aran Linvail/Bodhi too early. Can't think of any other NPC essential for the plot.

Of course it's not as open as Morrowind. It shouldn't be, because it's not necessarily a good thing. Not everybody like sandboxes.
The thing is there was no cRPG with free exploring/linearity balance for a veeeery long time. There's a huge void between TES and Mass Effect.

You may be right on the Biff thing. I'd have to reinstall to be certain. Regardless, I think the point stands, and I'm definitely one for a balance between exploration and good story-telling. However, I think this story should take precedent simply because it's the more memorable of the two (at least for me). The decision on Virmire in Mass Effect, for instance, remains more emotionally engaging than anything I learned or saw in Morrowind, no matter how pretty it was (for the time, of course).

Of course, one thing that's making BioWare games more linear is voice acting. With the addition of VA, other content has to be cut in order to fund the actors. Plus it's a lot more work to add multiple variations of VA than it is to add pages and pages worth of written dialogue. There was a lot of text in both BG games, I'd wager more than made it into ME or DA. With DA2 featuring a voiced protagonist, the announcement then came that the length would be taking a hit.

Linearity and shortened gameplay always occur when VA becomes prominent, particularly in RPGs. It's not feasible or profitable to record small variations of dialogue depending on whether you've met Character X already or been to Location Z. So the game railroads you to a degree just to minimize that variation and keep VA costs to a minimum. But the trade off is that the game becomes more cinematic. If you care about that, great. If not, I think there's a definite case to be made in whether VA is actually appreciated or not.

Personally, I didn't mind DAO's silent protagonist. But I also liked ME's cinematic style of gameplay. I'm fine with striking a compromise as long as the story remains solid.

 

[Xaositect]

Biowares latest take on linearity is killing their games for me.

The style of "lets cut Mass Effect 2 up into little a to b shooting galleries and just rely on cover shooting all the time" made me detest the game. The plot of ME2 advancing precisely NOTHING didnt help either, along with the whole "newbs are more important to us than players who started with ME1".

Basically, Im just keeping one eye on ME3 to see what they do with it. If things continue to drop, that eye moves to bethesda to join the other one.

If they maybe say "actually, we could do with a lot of the attitude we put into ME1", it might just swing me back as a buyer.

Things like returning characters as squadmates from ME1, and returning decisions made, and making sure 90% of the game isnt a crawl through a linear waist-high-wall-filled shooting gallery level with loading and mission complete screens ruining immersion are what Im looking for in ME3.

 

[numbersix1979]

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.

In any case, linearity is subjective, some like it, some don't. I personally don't care if it benefits the game but I do prefer an open world a bit more.

http://gza.gameriot.com/content/images/orig_320200_1_1257581825.png ?

 

[DustyDrB]

That being said, the main thing I disliked about ME2, is that they CREATED a universe to explore, -explore- and then go around and say "Hey, lets punish the player for not following the storyline, and instead deciding to explore these worlds we created, and placed missions on, by KILLING his/her ship crew if they don't follow our story." counter-productive a bit IMO

That only happens if you attempt to install the IFF and then explore after your crew is taken. You can do everything the game has to offer before installing the IFF and then not lose any of your crew. Jacob and Miranda ask if you're sure the team is ready before you decide to install it.