Bioware and linearity.

[Vault101]

there's nothing wrong with the Linearity in Bioware games

I do have a problem with the linearity in Fallout: New Vegas
it killed the game

thats probably personal choice but I liked the linearity in NV (so far anyway) I like the feeling that all the quests are tied together in some way or another and I think to make a better story more linearity is required

like in fallout 3 The story wasn't that bad but I accidently ended up skiping certain parts (I went to rivet city too early) In a free world I think the more freedom you get the more the "main quest" story suffers

 

[Mikeyfell]

there's nothing wrong with the Linearity in Bioware games

I do have a problem with the linearity in Fallout: New Vegas
it killed the game

thats probably personal choice but I liked the linearity in NV (so far anyway) I like the feeling that all the quests are tied together in some way or another and I think to make a better story more linearity is required

like in fallout 3 The story wasn't that bad but I accidently ended up skiping certain parts (I went to rivet city too early) In a free world I think the more freedom you get the more the "main quest" story suffers

that's true but the thing that made fallout 3 shine to me was that all the locations had their own "personality" (I guess that's the word I'm looking for)

in New Vegas all the locations feel bland

also I played Fallout 3 through 5 times
I don't want to do that with New Vegas, because I know that the game goes: south, south, east, north east, north, north, west, then you get some freedom. but by that point you're mostly done leveling up so continuing on just feels like a grind
Fallout 3 never felt like a grind

 

[Diligent]

I prefer a linear story that is beefy over a non-linear story filled with fluff.
That is all.

 

[Jaranja]

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.

You're wrong. It didn't feel forced along by the plot. The plot appeared and shoved you at times.

I was doing the Firewalker missions in my latest playthrough and, after one of them, The Illusive Man told me about, oh god... What's the name..., the place that's under attack... Yeah.

I had to go there straight away.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Since bioware doesn't make sandbox games isn't this just business as usual i'm not really seeing anything to discuss

 

[blxtnsq]

I'm not saying this is how all RPGs are or how they always will be, but it seems to me the more linear the game, the tighter the storytelling. A lot of people will disagree with my examples but eh, it's the internet.

We have games like Morrowind and pretty much all Bethesda games at one end (and Mount and Blade because I love that game). Completely open-ended BUT at the sacrifice of character development or tight, memorable storytelling with games like Mass Effect 2 and Dark Messiah at the other end, sacrificing the free-roaming aspects for story.
Then there's games in the middle like Divinity II (I'm playing it at the moment, shush) and Dragon Age in the middle with varying mixtures of the two.

Okay, Mount and Blade has no story whatsoever, but come on! It's Mount and Blade!

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

I care more about story, linear rpgs have an advantage in that respect but a well done open or semi open world will have a rich lore to pull from to promote roleplaying in a larger sense. It's a give and take thing, done correctly both can be good and have their own strengths. As long as I feel engaged in the universe of their games I will always like Bioware games.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I felt that ME2 was better then its prequel. Mainly due to the fact that combat was the first ones weakest point. The second one was much more user friendly then the original where getting lost was rather easy and while cool, the Citadel drove quite a few players away.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

A balance is nice.

Overlord had a nice big open level and some linear parts, twas great.

 

[DVS Storm]

Old. Mass effect 2 felt more like a shooter than an rpg, add that with it being more linear, and the non existant plot that game had (80% was gathering a team and sorting out thier issues). So no I dont like the direction they are taking. After ME3 I likely wont touch another BW game, and ME3 may just be me going on youtube for the ending, I cant play through another tps corridor shooter with chest high walls again. If it was more like ME1 maybe, but its most likely the same engine as ME2, so I will pass.

I've heard that Biowares main storywriter was in some other project when BW was making ME2. That's the basic reason the game had such a simple storyline. But yeah I too hope that they would make the thirt one more open. But ME2 is still one of the best games ever imo.

 

[DVS Storm]

I'm not saying this is how all RPGs are or how they always will be, but it seems to me the more linear the game, the tighter the storytelling. A lot of people will disagree with my examples but eh, it's the internet.

We have games like Morrowind and pretty much all Bethesda games at one end (and Mount and Blade because I love that game). Completely open-ended BUT at the sacrifice of character development or tight, memorable storytelling with games like Mass Effect 2 and Dark Messiah at the other end, sacrificing the free-roaming aspects for story.
Then there's games in the middle like Divinity II (I'm playing it at the moment, shush) and Dragon Age in the middle with varying mixtures of the two.

I agree. Betshesdas games are awesome but the story and characters aren't the main thing. It's the exploration(which is probably why I've played Oblivion for hundreds of hours). Basically when I play a Bethesda game I expect free roam and not a very good story and when I play a Bioware game I expect an awesome story and characters.

 

[conzan]

i like a huge open world to explore in an RPG

 

[Irridium]

Kreia was in KOTOR2, not KOTOR1.

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

You can easily tell because the characters aren't the same archetype like in every other Bioware game. Not that its bad, its just different, which I thought was great.

OT: I don't mind linearity, just don't market your game as non-linear and then give a game that is linear. Not that Bioware does this though.

 

[captainwolfos]

I much prefer open world RPGs. Dragon Age is good, but for me the only things which made it so were the story, the dialogue options and the characters, the party banter in particular.

 

[fix-the-spade]

For example ME2 didn't feel as large as the first one. So what do you people think.

Seriously?
I'm 30+ hours into ME2 and haven't even put my whole squad together yet, nevermind getting the Reaper IFF. ME1 didn't take me more than 35 hours to finish, even doing every side quest I could and going all-terraining in the Mako as much as possible.

I've found ME2 a lot more content heavy than 1. There's far fewer open/empty spaces in 2, everything leads to something.
It's definately more linear, whatever quest you start you go from A-toBorBi depending on choice, but I don't think it's smaller by a long shot.

Regards Bioware as a whole, I think the steady increase in linearity is because of cost and development time. Games seem to be heading more and more into movie style big spectacles and they're expensive to put together. It's making games like the ME series look amazing, but it's costing us freedom to muck around/explore the universe as well.

I don't entirely like it.

 

[Vrach]

Well I'm a huge fan of large open spaces, which is why I love Bethesda's games so much. Still, I enjoy the BioWare stuff, can't say I'm all for the linearity of their worlds so far, but it's never actually bothered me to the point where I didn't enjoy the game due to it. Still, given the option, I'd say go for the more open worlds, but we'll see how they do with TOR, they don't really have much choice in the matter there and it should be a good learning experience for them

 

[Kakashi on crack]

I'm kinda torn on this, because I like that it pushes me along, but at the same time, I don't like the linearity of it all.

I prefered the first Mass Effect personally, as instead of displaying a "dark RPG" they displayed a world, a universe, filled with interesting species, leaving even the darkest souls in a bit of awe.

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

I have a feeling ME3 might just kinda stink, but I promised to play the whole series, and by damned I'm going to >.>

 

[Twilight_guy]

I like gamers with a focus on exploration and thus do not like linearity. I do like the old style better but I feel that with just a few tweaks they could merge the two into something better.

 

[LogicNProportion]

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.

Probably a different one than you were talking about, but funny nonetheless.

Spoiler

As for the topic at hand, I feel BioWare always delivers what I promises. Never do they really put out hype, like Peter Molyneux, they just kind of show people some stuff, and the people themselves get excited.

I enjoyed ME2 better, even though I love a vaster world, because BioWare's games are usually in it for the story and characters. Focus is needed in any story. This is why Bethesda games, while rich in fluff, are often criticized for having weak plots. They may not, but it feels like so, because there's so much thing to do, and it gets overwhelming.

 

[DVS Storm]

For example ME2 didn't feel as large as the first one. So what do you people think.

Seriously?
I'm 30+ hours into ME2 and haven't even put my whole squad together yet, nevermind getting the Reaper IFF. ME1 didn't take me more than 35 hours to finish, even doing every side quest I could and going all-terraining in the Mako as much as possible.

I meant that because there were no planetside exploration like in the first game, ME2 didn't feel as massive. Yes you have lots to do of course and I still think that ME2 is better than the first partially because the Mako was gone. So in a nutshell not that much exploration but still a better game imo. Still I kinda miss Mako missions.