Open World versus Linear Story Path

[Point08 219]

I have a decision to make, and thought I'd get some feedback from the community. At a particular point in my game, the character(s) need to reach, what is essentially another continent. They have two options: take a southern path through the mountains, cross some arctic tundra, and finally cross to other continent over a land bridge formed by ice (like once allowed people to travel into what is now Alaska from what is now Russia); or they can travel by ship, (which would be at best, as difficult as say Columbus' voyage, as the level of technology in my world is similar to Earth around that time) which requires a visit to the capital, where one of the characters is a wanted man.

 

So the player will have a decision, and I have to decide exactly what the results of that decision really are. As far as the story goes, I've got that. So let me explain my dilemma. I'm not sure if I should allow the player to actually choose, and have two completely different story arcs for that phase of the game, that will then come back together at a common point. This would mean to see both story arcs, someone would have to replay the game (or from a save just prior to the choice) and choose the other method of travel. While I'm fine doing the work to make that possible, some people are disappointed when they have to make choices like that, where either choice makes them miss out on certain story or gameplay elements. Another option would be to force them into choosing one (by never asking, have the characters decide) and having that method not work out, and so they end up having to go the other way. This would allow for both story arcs to be seen in a single playthrough, but makes the game more linear and limits player choice. Having the player be able to do one, then come back and do the other makes no sense from a story standpoint, unless it is as I described above where they attempt one method of reaching the continent, but it fails and so are forced to try the other.

 

So which option would you prefer? Do you have other suggestions?

 

I'm also a little curious on your opinions related to open world versus linear in general. Games like The Witcher 3, with massive open worlds are fun to explore. However, thanks to modern graphics, the environment itself is immersive and interesting. RM games simply don't have the option to make a world visually as immersive. Further, while the stories to many of the side quests in The Witcher 3 are amazing, the open world setting, to me, detracts from the main story. What I mean is, like in many games, the hero is trying to do something, and he's in a hurry, and yet I can wander the entire world, sleep with an old acquaintance, slay some random monsters, find someone's lost soldier son, etc., so as a player, I completely lose the sense of urgency in the story. That makes me care a lot less about it. So I love playing The Witcher 3, but I love playing it because the side quests are so good, the main story is decent, and I enjoy the general gameplay. That's all well and good, but what about a game where the main story is not meant to be relegated to the sidelines?

 

In my game for instance, the characters are not trying to save the world, and are in general, not on a strict timeline. However, they are trying to accomplish things that are important to them. So while I don't have any "please find my missing dog, sir" quests in my game because I hate them, it still doesn't make sense to allow the player too much freedom. For example, one of the early towns, after leaving, the characters would have no reason, from a story standpoint, to return. It seems silly to allow the player to, as if the characters were making the choice, they certainly wouldn't go back. I do allow the player to determine what order they do certain things in, but currently, most areas, once the characters finish the relevant story aspects there and move on, they don't, and can't, go back. What are your opinions on this type of gameplay? Do you prefer a very open world game? If yes, do you think RM games are well suited to such a style? Do you think linear gameplay is fine as long as some choice is included? Do you have any ideas on how to strike some sort of balance? How are you dealing with this in your own games?

 

Thanks in advance for the feedback, as I'm sure I'll get some great responses!

 

 

*Completely unrelated, but here is a very interesting article I stumbled across when I happened to wonder what would be the theoretical flight ceiling for dragons.

Dragon Physics

 

[Lord Vectra 414]

Both have their pros and cons so it's really whatever you feel like fits the game. With open-world, it's good but like most games, after a certain point, you're nearly unstoppable. With closed games, developers have a better chance in making sure the player can't be impossible or nearly impossible. It just depends on the game, story, and does it make since.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Vectra

[Guyver 65]

I'm a fan of linear games that build up to a more open world. Open worlds are hard to build in general, and you can lose focus pretty quick. With a more linear story that nudges you which way to go, you're free to explore while not having to stress too much. FF6 did that pretty well, they waited long enough before giving you access to the bulk of the open world and a lot of side content. FF13 not NOT do it well, and forced you into a long and somewhat boring linear story before throwing you out into a grindfest open area.

[+ CVincent 234]

I agree with Guyver's opinion on the subject, it seems to be a repeating pattern in my choice of favourite games which may be why I'm doing something like that with my own project.

 

While I have yet to play FF6 I have played FF13 and found it mostly enjoyable with the exception that the open world felt kind of tacked on to the game. There's something to be said about consistency and there was a lack thereof in that game. It would have been much more interesting if each area slowly became more open world as you progressed through the story.

 

For my project I simply started with a linear progressing story that had clear objectives in mind, each location had a significant landmark that I would then build around with slightly less significant tasks being placed in relevant areas. As the player progresses through the story their new tools become much more relevant in these places and would be used to explore unseen locations. The Legend of Zelda series used this kind of thing a lot, it adds progression and teases the player as they are lead on that they will eventually be able to explore more.

 

This is all to say that you could totally build an open world game from a linear one. If you choose to do this however, be aware that you will need to keep the player engaged and wanting to come back to previously visited locations for a variety of reasons. World and level design are important here because having the player backtrack through half the game just to get or see something they wouldn't have been able to otherwise is a massive pain in the butt. It wouldn't be worth it if they backtracked for a treasure chest and had no more content to explore.

 

I think RM games can be best suited to this particular mix of styles because you can use your story and branch it out into many paths as most people will try to do with quests. Think of how you can use those quests when crafting the world instead of just tasks to keep the player entertained.

Edited September 29, 2015 by CVincent

[magic2345 252]

Poor random dog NPC.... :[

 

Personally, I would not let the players choose between them, and honestly, I don't think it matters to them. That is an example of a non-meaningful choice. The player doesn't really have anything to base the choice on since they do not know what will happen. Unless you put some hints like, if you choose to go to through this location, this will happen or a character will like you less. If it's just there to give the player freedom, but it doesn't really affect anything, I suggest not giving the player a choice at all.

 

This video should help.

 

 

On whether a game should be more linear or more open, it depends. Personally, I like both. Although it wouldn't make sense to go back and explore the world, that is one of those aspects of RPGs that makes it fun. One of the problems that will come up if you decide to not let the players explore or go back to earlier locations is that you really need good balancing. Say, a game suddenly decides that you can't go back. Sadly, you are quite underleveled but still somehow managed to beat the boss. Training in the new area or progressing is impossible or too hard either because the enemies one-hit kill the players, or the players can't damage them at all, Boom, you just made your player need to restart from the beginning. Now, when I am faced with this, I will just stop playing altogether, unless the game is reeeaaally worth it, and the story is good.

[Point08 219]

If you watch the very next video in that series about choice, if you assume I would design the moment leading up to the choice to give the player the impression that the two choices will have a real impact (even though the story arc comes back together relatively quickly), it is exactly the kind of choice recommended. Of course, designing the story and gameplay to make that choice feel meaningful is the hard part.

 

As for allowing or disallowing a player to go back to an area, I'm not talking FF13 here. In that game, at the start everything is so linear you have only one choice, to the point usually there is not even a separate path to walk. Sure there might be a side branch with treasure, but there isn't even a branching path to walk on that takes you to the same place. I'm talking more to the point that if one area is somehow isolated from another, for example a large forest (that you had to trek through), or later the two separate continents, to then not allow the player to return. Now later in the game, most areas will be visited or at the very least accessible again. However, the journey between the two continent is supposed to be to take a while, and be extremely dangerous, so suddenly allowing the player to do so freely seems silly to me (as the developer though, I'm biased as of course, I have a vision for how I hope the game will flow to some extent.) The story arc for each area does encourage the player to explore while there, before moving on. If someone rushes, yes, they might miss content. However, I find that people who rush from one boss to the next, don't really want to do any of that content they missed anyway.

 

My intention for doing this, while it somewhat limits player choice as far as where to explore, is it allows me to make each location feel more alive. What I mean by that, is for instance having NPCs that actually say things related to what has changed in the world since the last time you were there. Also, maps of areas might even change, depending on world events. While this can be done in a completely open world, it would mean writing dialogue and switches for every town, for everything the player might do or witness. Whereas, if I somewhat limit when they go back, then I might say, still have to set switches and write dialogue for whether or not they fought this boss, or met that character, I don't have to worry about setting switches for the three previous bosses and another character, because I know they've already defeated and met them respectively. It allows me to give the feeling of a dynamic world, without spending endless months writing dialogue.

 

The latter point above is, I think, an especially relevant concern for me, as side quests in my game are mostly obtained by chance. The way it works is each location has a variety of possible side quests, some of them can be "received" in more than one location via different means. This isn't a quest in my game, but just for the sake of simplicity, say that you hear two characters talking in one of the towns about an interesting location one of them heard about. You get a note in your journal and now have a new place to explore, should you choose to. Some areas like that you could stumble upon, some need to be learned of. I already have the NPCs in the surrounding area with dialogue branches and switches that cause them to respond to these quests and events, doing so for an entire world would be prohibitively time consuming.

 

I'm not trying to defend the way I have currently designed things, merely explain my reasoning, in the hopes it allows you all to provide more specific feedback. What you have given so far is valuable, and honestly, along the lines I expected. I'm of the opinion that in a story that is somewhat linear, a balance between the two is the best choice, as too little freedom (e.g. first half of FF13) gets a bit boring, and too much choice (e.g. The Witcher 3) can detract from the story in some instances, and even feel a bit overwhelming. (Although if someone made an RM game the size of the Witcher 3, I would give them mucho respect simply for dedication!)

[magic2345 252]

Hmmhmm.....I see you've got it all planned out. Another thing I would add is to control the pacing, the placement of the exploration parts of the game. Sure, the player can explore the area, but when the tension from the story is high, most will probably want to go and continue with the story instead of wandering off exploring and searching for things. This is why it's sometimes (I'm actually not sure, as I myself am still learning how to do this) essential to let the player be able to explore the area after the story settles down.

 

You said that some locations would sometimes change after world events (which is cool by the way XD ), do keep in mind what I said above.

 

Good luck on your game!

Edited September 30, 2015 by magic2345

[Point08 219]

Very good points. You hit on exactly what I think the hardest part is, in trying to find a balance. I think perhaps it's not how open or linear your game is, but when it is open and when it is linear. I suppose ideally it would be designed so during high tension points in the story, gameplay would be linear, so the player could move along the story without feeling like they missed things. Then, as you said, when the tension eases, allow them more freedom to do as they wish. I suppose the way to do that effectively is through a story with well-planned pacing.

 

I think you've really given me a good way to approach this. As I think you're right, in those really exciting moments, people will want to just see what happens next (I know that's how I am in story-driven games). I was looking at this as a problem of how and when do I restrict the player, without them feeling like I'm restricting them. I think, perhaps, it's probably somewhat less of a concern, as if when I need them to go a certain direction, I ensure it is a high tension/excitement part of the story, and most players will go that way naturally. The ones who don't, are the ones who would miss the openness of the world. I'll still have to do some restriction to the dialogue and map changes mentioned above, but perhaps less so overall than I originally anticipated.

 

This is why I love this community!

[Kayzee 4,032]

You know I like open world RPGs, but I also kinda like how Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger started out pretty linear and opened up at the end. I would think it would be better to maybe have the first 25% be linear and then become more open though.

[Squires 35]

Open world games are a big favorite of mine. When it comes to  a game with just pure storyline, I'll play it, love it, and then probably mever touch it again. It just seems to me that a lot of story driven games these days don't tend to have a lot of "free roam" options. 

As for open world games though, pass me one of those and I'll be hooked for weeks, maybe even months. Take Skyrim for example, every time you replay that game, you always find something new, maybe a quest, or a rare item, that you didn't find in your last play-through. It's games with a lot of things to do that i enjoy best, simply because I can't get bored of them.

[Point08 219]

This is why I asked. Open world, or at least if a balance is struck, more on the side of open world, seems to be largely the winner. I think some of the original restrictions I planned can be removed with just a bit more planning on my part, to allow a more open feel.

 

So if open world is the preference, then let me ask this: given the example above, where the journey between the two continents is a major thing (trade does not occur between the two, the last expedition was over 30 years ago and failed to actually reach the shores), would you let the player be able to travel between the two freely? If so, would you restrict that until late in the game?

 

A bit ore info to go on for that: progression wise I would say the trip to the other continent probably happens about 1/3 of the way into the game. The majority of the game will then take place on that continent, with the player returning to the original continent for perhaps that last 10-15% of the game. Really, some of that 10-15% is kind of probably post game (main story complete, just allows the player to mop up any loose ends they left, like unfinished quests they wanted to do, or an optional boss they couldn't beat previously) where free travel anywhere would certainly be allowed.

[Squires 35]

This is why I asked. Open world, or at least if a balance is struck, more on the side of open world, seems to be largely the winner. I think some of the original restrictions I planned can be removed with just a bit more planning on my part, to allow a more open feel.

 

So if open world is the preference, then let me ask this: given the example above, where the journey between the two continents is a major thing (trade does not occur between the two, the last expedition was over 30 years ago and failed to actually reach the shores), would you let the player be able to travel between the two freely? If so, would you restrict that until late in the game?

 

A bit ore info to go on for that: progression wise I would say the trip to the other continent probably happens about 1/3 of the way into the game. The majority of the game will then take place on that continent, with the player returning to the original continent for perhaps that last 10-15% of the game. Really, some of that 10-15% is kind of probably post game (main story complete, just allows the player to mop up any loose ends they left, like unfinished quests they wanted to do, or an optional boss they couldn't beat previously) where free travel anywhere would certainly be allowed.

Being able to walk back there yourself, or take another option (like boat, train, car, whatever) would be a good idea. As for being able to travel between the two, if there are quests there, being able to go between the two could be useful. Having lost of quests, forgetting to finish them, and then travelling back, unable to complete the quests, would be a bit of a pain. 

 

I think that once the player has traveled to the second continent, he/she may not be able to return back to the first before the main quests on the current continent are completed. Either that, or include in the main storyline a way to return, for example, the path that leads back to the first continent is blocked, but one of the main quests involve clearing the way back. I'd give a few examples of that to, but I'm in school and I'm focused on work. xP

[Point08 219]

That was what I was leaning toward Xerneas. The player will be able to go back to finish quests, but not until later. Letting them go back immediately, when the trip there makes them the first to reach the new continent in decades, is a bit like something I see in RPGs a lot, that annoys me. Things like, you beat a major boss, go back to town, and the NPC says, "thanks for killing SuperBoss Bob! You saved the whole town, maybe eve the world! There is another boss, SuperDuperBoss Bob that we need you to kill before he destroys the whole town! First, can you gather up some ingredients for a cake we're going to make to celebrate?" It completely kills the sense of accomplishment, within the story. The player still feels good they beat the boss, but I've always felt like the characters should be treated like they did something.

 

I might be the only person with that opinion though, so that's why I asked. I mean, I could always change the story, so the trip isn't such a big deal. That's problematic though, since the two societies haven't had any contact previously. No trade. No conflict. They've never even seen each other in modern times. Think Europeans and South Americans during the Renaissance. Essentially, they don't even know if people live on the other continent, let alone what type of society they might have. Is it immersion breaking to the point it will annoy people if right after they make the trip they can fast travel back to visit some other town, or is that no big deal?

 

It's probably a pointless thing to worry about in reality, since like 4 people will probably ever play my game