Trend towards linearity (CYOA->RPG)

A

alec

White heterosexual male
Orderite
A couple of days ago I discovered what undoubtedly is the best new site on the internet this year, namely this one.
On this site you can find the best information about Choose Your Own Adventure books I've seen so far. A CYOA book is a book that lets the reader make decisions and lets him choose his 'own' path through the story. It's basically one book but with many different readings.
What caught my eye, though, and my interest is this little excerpt on said site:

cyoa said:
In scanning over the distribution of colors in this plot, one clear pattern is the gradual decline in the number of endings. [...] Another surprising change over time is the decline in the number of choices in the books. [...] I’d be very curious to know the reason for this progression toward linearity. Presumably the invisible hand was guiding this development, but whether the hunger was for less difficulty in the books or simply for something with more in the way of traditional storytelling is harder to unravel. I could also imagine that this balance between interaction and exposition was peculiar to the individual writers, so this could merely reflect a changing set of practitioners.
In another way, this trend mirrors the adoption of more recent new media. In the early days of the web, people flocked to what was unique to HTML, namely links, animated gifs, and the <blink> tag. A similar cautionless exuberance marked the appearance of affordable typesetting systems – the first time people without phototypositors had access to typefaces beyond a choice of monospaced typewriter fonts.
When a world of new possibilities has just opened, it’s hard to find the will for restraint. But, in time, people scale back the more gratuitous uses of this sort of glitz, moving from what’s possible to what best suits the material.
It could be that the glut of choices in the early books reflected more a rush toward the new than a well-considered balancing of storytelling and reader-directedness. As the genre developed, the choice-based structure ceased being so novel that it was an experiential end in itself. Perhaps only then could it recede into its proper role as a gameplay mechanic – all the more potent when used judiciously.
Click to expand...

I kinda sorta like that explanation: "in time, people scale back the more gratuitous uses of this sort of glitz, moving from what’s possible to what best suits the material" and immediately had to think about the original Fallout games: were they mayhaps "more a rush toward the new than a well-considered balancing of storytelling and reader-directedness" as well? And is that why RPG's nowadays tend to favour linearity?

Discuss please.
 
You're saying that the RPG evolution is leading towards simpler, more linear plots. That's a fact. That's the nature of such evolution, that it picks what's best.

However this is also tied with what *is* best. What RPG is better and which is worse. This is the core of the problem, as this has changed over the years.

Back in the Fallout days, a good RPG was one with an interesting story, fleshed out characters, memorable situations with cleverness and inspiration at each step.

Today all that changes. Today a good RPG is one that has a large profit to investment ratio with a short timespan and potential for generating more revenue.

This is the direction bethesda followed. They never tried to create anything good, but profitable.

Which also brings up the inherent problem of art and quality. Art and quality require education and intellect to appreciate. And the money of a casual xbox-totting mcdonalds-working joe living in a trailer park is just as good as the money of a well-educated, literate and recognized critic. In fact, the money of the casual idiot is better, simply because there are more idiots than recognized critics. (Note that the two not always have to me mutually exclusive... )

There's no point in hireing a competent writer if 90% of the players are only in for the ASPLODIN HEADS AND CARS LOL WARE DO I GET MY NUKULAR LANCHAR kind of thrill. The money is better spent on marketing, because that guarantees a higher profit.
 
1. Shouldn't this be in the general gaming?

2. I don't know about this argument...

A lot of older RPGs are fairly linear, unless of course, you are talking about cRPG only. Even then, iirc there were lots of linear cRPGs.

I have posted in the death of gaming authors thread that the trend isn't towards linear game play, but towards no story at all. Of course, you need to be old enough to see the general trend in the big picture through out the years.

MMO - the big money maker, and what everyone want to do in the industry these days because, 1. subscription based payment method, 2. loyal core customers, 3. ability to sell this group more advertising and products. MMO in the real sense of the word is the epitome of non-linearity. There are no real stories to be told, and the theme is only the background to frame the PC's stories and interactions. And the PCers are suppose the create the lore and stories themselves through their interactions and play throughs.

Is that an evolution towards simpler more linear plots?

A lot of older games are quite linear or have no real stories at all simply because there weren't enough memory or technology to push that data. If you think about it, one branch path for a major decision requires a complete different set of character interactions, dialogues, reactions, etc that all have to be programmed.

The few older games that have any sense of nonlinearity and did it fairly well, (besides the obvious FO and all the other games already mentioned to death around here) were probably something like Chrono Trigger or Romancing Saga. And the biggest complaint you hear about games like Romancing Saga is that it's too complicated, too hard, and too many choices to make. But there were still lots of fans.

I didn't mind linear games in the old days, and I don't mind them these days either. As long as I like the story, back drop, theme, and the game mechanic isn't a complete wash.

It's quite a leap of logic to say linear games is the way of the future that will make millions because of what Beth does. Look, Beth is good at making a certain type of games, and it's kinda ptless to expect otherwise.

And profit does not have to get in the way of art direction, even though it's easier to be accepted if you drop to the lowest common denominator. But customers evolve, and soon your core group of loyal customers will demand more than the same old, same old. The current generation will eventually grow up, make more money and vote with their wallets on what they want. And the industry has to respond in kind or face bankruptcy.
 
I want some linearity when playing important quests and such (For good story tellings sake). But when I'm done with all that I want to explore the world.
 
Holiace said:
I want some linearity when playing important quests and such (For good story tellings sake).
Click to expand...
You can still have good storytelling when playing un-linear quests.
**Points to Fallout 1 and 2**
 
archont said:
You're saying that the RPG evolution is leading towards simpler, more linear plots. That's a fact. That's the nature of such evolution, that it picks what's best.

However this is also tied with what *is* best. What RPG is better and which is worse. This is the core of the problem, as this has changed over the years.

Back in the Fallout days, a good RPG was one with an interesting story, fleshed out characters, memorable situations with cleverness and inspiration at each step.

Today all that changes. Today a good RPG is one that has a large profit to investment ratio with a short timespan and potential for generating more revenue.

This is the direction bethesda followed. They never tried to create anything good, but profitable.

Which also brings up the inherent problem of art and quality. Art and quality require education and intellect to appreciate. And the money of a casual xbox-totting mcdonalds-working joe living in a trailer park is just as good as the money of a well-educated, literate and recognized critic. In fact, the money of the casual idiot is better, simply because there are more idiots than recognized critics. (Note that the two not always have to me mutually exclusive... )

There's no point in hireing a competent writer if 90% of the players are only in for the ASPLODIN HEADS AND CARS LOL WARE DO I GET MY NUKULAR LANCHAR kind of thrill. The money is better spent on marketing, because that guarantees a higher profit.
Click to expand...

I think the profit motive plays a large part, but that doesn't explain why you can't have a small, dedicated number of fans. In the market for cars, there are Hondas for the masses, and Porsches for the elite. Why doesn't the video game market have a similar elite segment?
 
Reconite said:
Holiace said:
I want some linearity when playing important quests and such (For good story tellings sake).
Click to expand...
You can still have good storytelling when playing un-linear quests.
**Points to Fallout 1 and 2**
Click to expand...

Both games had pretty little of the story, and it was pretty linear (esp. Fallout 2). :roll:

There's a difference between a general quality of writing and storytelling. Not there's anything wrong with a linear story, I don't see it as a problem if it's well-written. The problem is this:

the trend isn't towards linear game play, but towards no story at all
Click to expand...

A bit exaggerated but sad/true.
 
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
Because the price tag on games is the same regardless of what's inside, unlike cars, I think.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No question about it. Car "elitists" are perfectly willing to pay 100 grand for a premium vehicle, Joe Average can pay 10-20 grand for his.

As a gaming elitist (as most of us here are), are you willing to pay $250-$300 for a well crafted RPG?

In fact, that is a topic that somebody brings up every few years here. Somebody will mention that they would pay like $100, or something, for the RPG that they want, but 95% of responders say they won't pay more for a game, no matter the quality.

For many, if not most, products in the marketplace quality is factor that affects price. You have your generic brands, and your top of the line brands. And probably if we are to really get quality games (in the "games as works of art" category) on a regular basis, the gaming industry would have to work the same way.

I don't see it ever working that way, however. I doubt there is a developer out there that would want to take the risk of pricing themselves out of customers. And, more importantly, there really just aren't many people that would pay significantly more for games.

Historically, trying to go that route, in gaming, has not worked out well (3D0, Playstation 3).

It is an interesting thing to think about though. What makes the mentality of somebody who is willing to spend 5 (or more) times the amount of money a "regular" car costs, different from somebody who's main hobby is games and won't do the same?

I'd say wealth plays a factor, but there are plenty of broke people out there with really unaffordable cars, because they sink every penny they have into them.
 
We-erl, one could argue -some- cars are heavily invested on by -some- people that can't entirely afford them, as a way to purchase some kind of status symbol. You know, shiny flashy car, ekcetra.

I don't see anyone picking up floozies with their Limited Edition COD:Modern Warfare boxes.
 
Wooz said:
We-erl, one could argue -some- cars are heavily invested on by -some- people that can't entirely afford them, as a way to purchase some kind of status symbol. You know, shiny flashy car, ekcetra.
Click to expand...
Die.

Wooz said:
I don't see anyone picking up floozies with their Limited Edition COD:Modern Warfare boxes.
Click to expand...
Paying more money for a higher quality product isn't limited to status symbols, it's very commonplace. Except when it comes to popular media: movies, novels, games or music.
 
What makes the mentality of somebody who is willing to spend 5 (or more) times the amount of money a "regular" car costs, different from somebody who's main hobby is games and won't do the same?
Click to expand...

In my eyes because you aren't getting the same thing. A Ferrari costs a godzillion of dollars because it can't be mass produced and therefore can't really be cheap. Instead paying a super-RPG 100$ feels like a rip-off because it would have a normal price tag if the producers didn't push for a market filled with play-and-forget VGs.
In the first case you are paying for something that can't be cheap, in the other you are paying for something that has no real reason to be expensive.
 
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
In my eyes because you aren't getting the same thing. A Ferrari costs a godzillion of dollars because it can't be mass produced and therefore can't really be cheap. Instead paying a super-RPG 100$ feels like a rip-off because it would have a normal price tag if the producers didn't push for a market filled with play-and-forget VGs.
In the first case you are paying for something that can't be cheap, in the other you are paying for something that has no real reason to be expensive.
Click to expand...
If the quality RPG is produced for a niche market, which it likely is, but has the same or higher production costs than other games, it has every reason to be more expensive.
 
So, if a super rpg came with a limited edition box set that only sell for 100 units, then it would deserve a Ferrari price?

Wait.., how come I am reminded of Hunter x Hunter...

There is a fictional RPG in that show that only released 100 copies and worth something like 8 billion yen. It was sold out in the first day. :P
 
Paying more money for a higher quality product isn't limited to status symbols, it's very commonplace. Except when it comes to popular media: movies, novels, games or music.
Click to expand...

I never implied it was the sole reason.

aykcetra.
 
Starseeker said:
So, if a super rpg came with a limited edition box set that only sell for 100 units, then it would deserve a Ferrari price?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it would 'deserve' a higher price, I'm saying that production costs and a niche market can necessitate a higher price for the publisher.
Whether or not it would deserve a higher price would depend on its quality.
 
First of all, a computer game won't get you to work at a 250 km\h velocity, no matter how well crafted it is. It won't get you at a 0.1 km\h velocity, neither.

Paying a high price for something that can't be used for nothing else than time-consuming entertainment is simply too abstract for most people, for the right reasons I might add.

Computer games developers have it pretty bad - their products are mostly bought by young people, who are always short on cash and have no income of their own. I'm not saying games are for kids, but let's face it - people below 18 years of age buy the most of them. Developers need to adjust, so eyecandy and rule of cool comes first here.

Of course that doesn't justify the fact that most of the today's games stories make no sense.
 
I think this whole discussion is pretty strange since it has a lot more to do with taste than actual quality.

what you call a quality game isn't what everyone else would call a quality game. and good story and non-linear gameply does not equal quality.

I can imagine basing the pricetag around the length of a game though, but that concept is still very abstract since one person could spend hundreds of hours with a game before they consider themselves being done while another could be satisfied with 20-30 hours.

take Modern Warfare 2 for example - I don't play such games online so I'm only interested in the single-player campaign. and I definitely don't think it's worth paying as much for that game with its ridiculously short campaign as for example Mass Effect 2 which I know I will spend a lot more time playing. but I can absolutely imagine someone having it the other way around - he will buy and play Mass Effect 2, but only once and he will skip most sidequests. however, he's playing at least a couple of hours of MW2 online every day and will do so until MW3 arrives.

so in the end, having a standard price for all games is the only thing that makes sense. at least for me.
 
aenemic said:
I think this whole discussion is pretty strange since it has a lot more to do with taste than actual quality.
Click to expand...
No. It's strange because it got derailed from the second post.
Which is a shame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top