Open ended vs linear storytelling.

[thejboy88]

As you all know, video gaming has reached a point where we can have games where they player can make choices regarding the progression of the story, who lives and dies and even the speed at which the story progresses.

However, as the player makes the choices, it seems to me that the stories in those games have very little suspense for the player as they know what will probably happen.

In linear stories however, we get the problem of being spoonfed the story from someone (the publisher) who has a particular story to tell.

So here is my problem. What is the better trade-off?

Is it better to have a story you can control so you get the story you want with little to no surprise or suspense?

Or, is it better to be given the story by someone else so those elements remain?

All comments are welcome.

 

[GeorgW]

I think that if it's done right, open ended is preferred. Especially in gaming, as it's the only media that can do it really well. If I want a linear story, I'll just read a book or watch a movie. They're usually a hell of a lot better at story telling anyway.

 

[shini]

The problem with "open ended" is that often it's faked and in the end you realize your choices had little or no impact after all. Mass Effect is an exception that comes to mind though.

That being said I like linear storytelling for 2 reasons: 1. chances are if there is one story and all effort was put into it it will have deeper characterization and will flow more naturally (I play jRPGs for this very reason), 2. I am not a fan of multiple playthroughs so choices that significantly change what I see of the game hurt the completionist in me.

 

[Rylot]

I prefer stories where my actions have consequences and change things, and it's always fun when the game throws a curve at you with unintended consequences or a choice that is ambiguous at best (ME2's Geth or the whole Genophage thing) But on the flip side I do enjoy watching and playing a good story.

 

[GeorgW]

Sorry, accidentally double posted. This forum has been lagging quite a lot lately.

EDIT: I'll try to add something anyway, to make this post less useless. I never do multiple playthroughs, so a linear story would let me experience everything. But I still enjoy a good open ended story more, as it's more immersive.

 

[BourneGamer]

I personally like the approach that F.E.A.R. has, or attempts (depending on how you think they did at it), where you can find more backstory and come to your own conclusions about it. The biggest problem is: if done improperly it becomes more of a chore, than a method to flesh out the backstory.

 

[ferv0r]

Both has its place. There is nothing wrong with linear storylines. Living through a good epic story can be a great experience.

Open ended storylines can often end up being more a gimmick, rather than something that improves the game. Obviously, it requires more work for the developers, so there is sometimes the feeling that sacrifices had to be made.

 

[Trivun]

I'm an aspiring video game developer, and I also write stories sometimes too. I have a lot of stories in my head that I want to tell, whether as webcomics or in short stories, or as novels, or whatever. And although I want to work in level design, writing for video games is another area that I'm interested in. So from a creative standpoint, I prefer linear storytelling, because it means that I am satisfied by being able to tell my story to the people who buy and play the game.

However, from a gamer's point of view, I enjoy both types of games. Some games that do stories well, like the Halo games or Bioshock or some RPGs (Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, KOTOR, etc.) or JRPGs (The World Ends With You, Final Fantasy, and so on), are okay having linear storylines. I note that not all of my listed games tell their stories linearly, but they still have well-written plots, hence me including them here. If a game does its story well then I don't mind it being linear. But then again, I do enjoy having the power as a gamer to decide what path the story takes (one of the reasons I'm one of the few people who really enjoyed playing FF X-2, well, that and Paine was pretty hot in her gothic attire ).

At the end of the day, it comes down to what the story is and how well it's been written. Best to look at it on a case-by-case basis, especially if you're anything like me, and hold both methods of storytelling in equal regard...

 

[ferv0r]

Give endless money, time and resources, I think most people would prefer a game with great open ended storytelling. People like to feel like their choices made a difference.

Unfortunately, developers do not have endless resources.

If a game is supposed to be open-ended, that should mean the story branches multiple times. With a single playthrough, you can't see all the game content.

If the developer made a linear story progression, they can put all their effort into creating more content that every player will see.

I think I'd prefer the linear storyline, so I can play the game once and see everything. Unless the game is amazing, I don't think a lot of people would replay it over and over.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

This is kind of a moot point... The answer to your question is subjective; both methods of storytelling have a multitude of pros and cons.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I like both types of storytelling. So long as your actions have some sort of impact on the story anyway.

 

[Saltyk]

Both has its place. There is nothing wrong with linear storylines. Living through a good epic story can be a great experience.

Open ended storylines can often end up being more a gimmick, rather than something that improves the game. Obviously, it requires more work for the developers, so there is sometimes the feeling that sacrifices had to be made.

I'm an aspiring video game developer, and I also write stories sometimes too. I have a lot of stories in my head that I want to tell, whether as webcomics or in short stories, or as novels, or whatever. And although I want to work in level design, writing for video games is another area that I'm interested in. So from a creative standpoint, I prefer linear storytelling, because it means that I am satisfied by being able to tell my story to the people who buy and play the game.

However, from a gamer's point of view, I enjoy both types of games. Some games that do stories well, like the Halo games or Bioshock or some RPGs (Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, KOTOR, etc.) or JRPGs (The World Ends With You, Final Fantasy, and so on), are okay having linear storylines. I note that not all of my listed games tell their stories linearly, but they still have well-written plots, hence me including them here. If a game does its story well then I don't mind it being linear. But then again, I do enjoy having the power as a gamer to decide what path the story takes (one of the reasons I'm one of the few people who really enjoyed playing FF X-2, well, that and Paine was pretty hot in her gothic attire ).

At the end of the day, it comes down to what the story is and how well it's been written. Best to look at it on a case-by-case basis, especially if you're anything like me, and hold both methods of storytelling in equal regard...

Quoted for truth! I agree with both of these posters. I think there is room for both types.

An open ended story can offer a lot of replay value and let the player impact the game universe in a meaningful way. Giving the player a sense of power and purpose in the game world. Which I think is a major reason we all play games in the first place.

Linear stories can offer excellent set pieces and compelling tales. They can allow the developer to tell a story that they want, in an interesting way. To really emphasize some of the scenes, which is something that the more open ended games lack.

In the end, it depends on what the developer wants to do in the game. But whatever they do, they need to do it well. Otherwise, there is no purpose in doing it in the first place.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I like it linear. REALLY linear.

Keeps it clean, and keeps the canon on a straight track, too.

Funny how my name is Oblivion, and my pic is Dragon Age, though, huh?

 

[Casual Shinji]

I said it once and I'll say it again; Silent Hill 2 is the best multiple-ending game. Every other game always seems to work with either blatent GOOD/BAD choices or obvious dialoge options.

I'm not the biggest fan of choose-your-own-adventure stories and Silent Hill 2 circumvents that by never placing you for an obvious choice.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Personally, I fancy both provided they are given the proper attention to detail they deserve. It is simply a matter of preference as to which is superior. Unfortunately, the gaming industry suffers from developers who attempt to appeal to both and primarily appease no one. There has been masterpiece linear based games (FFX, Xenogears and such spring to mind) and equally engaging open ended games (Mass Effect)

My only concern is how the world, characters and plot is established and subsequently created.

 

[Pseudopod]

I like both as well. Both methods can be done well, and both can be done poorly, and both are valid, though I can see why some people prefer one over the other. I've never understood why some games are criticized simply for being linear. Just like with a good book or movie, a linear game can tell a compelling story and be very fun along the way. The Ace Attorney games are a good example. They are text heavy games where players are presented with few choices and pretty much just have to figure out how to advance the story, but they're one of my favorite franchises and I wouldn't want them to lose that "interactive novel" feel. I enjoy a lot of open world games for what they are, but the most compelling stories I've encountered have been from more linear games.

 

[TerranReaper]

Both works, both can be done terribly or done really well.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

First, you must define terms properly. Many games that seem "open" are, actually, quite linear. Take Fallout 3 as an example. During any part of the game where the narrative is explicitly delivered, the player has options on how to proceed but the game very generally proceeds in the same narrative fashion. You escape from the vault, you follow your dad, you find your dad, the true enemy is revealed, you secure and then immediately lose a mcguffin and finally you activate the end game sequence. This game is a series of (sometimes branching) linear narratives that takes place in a sandbox. Games that are truly open have no real narrative built in. They simply offer you a setting and leave the rest to you (Roguelikes are the most common example).

The trouble is, currently it is all but impossible to deliver a constructed narrative unless you resort to linearity for the narrative itself. You can try and disguise the nature of this fundamental truth by having a branching narrative or set the narrative in a sandbox but all you are doing is concealing the nature of the thing.

 

[The Night Shade]

I think both of them are are good for me but only if the story is good