Fast Jimmy wrote...
But we're moving the goal posts here... non-linear doesn't mean "it has no end." That's open-ended.
Just to be clear, cyberant isn't me. Even if we use the same ruggedly handsome, incredibly tasteful avatar.
Non-linear is, again by definition, not a straight line. The player can choose the path they want to take. They can opt to do some items in the main plot line and not others. There are lots of shades of gray, I agree... but that just means your definition is functionally worthless. My definition of "a game that doesn't play out completely straight" allows more games to be called non-linear, but your definiton seems to only allow games that are sandboxes, MMOs or The Witcher to be non-linear. Which seems pretty self-serving.
That's a plenty fair view. I'm not sure if you're conflating his views with mine, so I'll just try to (possibly oversimplify) my own view.
The key point of a non-linear
core plot is mutually exclusive narratives.
That can be done by plot divergance, where the sequence of events, locations, virtually everything follow a different scenario. I have also have also heard this called branching narratives, and it looks like a tree. Once you follow one route, the rest of the branch is distinct from the rest. About the only point Bioware tries branching narratives is with ending choices, which kicks the divergance to after the game is effectively complete. The primary (partial?) exception was KOTOR and the Dark Side path: a very late game but distinct narrative split into the finale. Essentially absent from modern Bioware, this is a very common formula for dating sim games, and hence why I think they are under-recognized RPGs.
This can also be done with parallel plotlines with mutually exclusive composition. The key here is that the plot is going to reflect the point of divergence in various ways as a part of the narrative going forward: different patron factions, different sequences of events, different allies, and so on. Even though parallel plots will eventually come back to a similar point (or else they would be branching narratives), they do so from different directions and perspectives that make the overall core narrative a distinct route from the alternative. This is what the Witcher 2 does in Act 2.
I distinguish between core plots, the accessory plots, and stories (narrative experience) based on the importance and nature of the events to the narrative.
The core plot is basically the underlying premise of the game, for which there is a distinct beginning and ending that resolves the game. All other plots are subordinate and/or supporting the core plot, if they are related at all. In the ME trilogy, the core plot was the Reapers. In DAO, it was the Blight. Games with the Creamy Middle design (in which a series of macguffins are hunted, sometimes in any order, in order to further the main quest) often abandon the core plot during the mid-game to pack in the accessory plots, before returning to the core plot.
The accessory plots are the plots aren't the core plot of the game. They range in importance, from the major subarcs (the Genophage, the Geth/Quarian plotlines) to minor sidequests. Despite the name they are important, providing much of the lore, content, and overall experience of the game. In games with the Creamy Middle, the Creamy Middle often is composed of the major subarcs that are self-contained, and often do not impact the core plot.
The story, as I mentioned before, is the general setting experience to be consumed. It can be approached in different ways: Bioware places heavy emphasis on the core plot of the Epic Adventure, while sandbox games can pursue the story through less centralized means. So while the story is nearly synonymous for the plot of a Bioware game, the same can't necessarily be said for something like FNV. For Bioware, ME2 is the big exception with questions: it is framed from start to finish both internally and by external advertising and focus by its core plot of the Collectors and Suicide Mission, but the vast majority of its content is accessory squdmate content. Where is the story in ME2, then?
The same game can have different amounts of linearity across these categories. A game with a non-linear core plot can have primarily linear accessory plots, and vice versa. A non-linear story like Bethesda setting-based stories can have a linear core plot.
I categorize the overal linearity of a game based first on its story, and then on its core plot. A common illusion on non-linearity in games comes when games with linear core plots have non-linear accessory plots that don't really matter outside of themselves.
This is what DAO does with its treaty quests in the Creamy Middle. The Treaty Quests themselves are a good example of the different styles of linearity, even apart from how they can be approached differently.
The Circle of Magi is a very linear plot, and while there are a few minor choices here and there the opportunity for divergence is at the very, very end, after the plot and conflict has already otherwise been resolved. This is a microcosm of a linear game with an end-game choice.
The Elven quest is a classic late-branching factional narrative: we are introduced to one faction, then another, reveal the conflict, and then are offered a choice between them for diverging outcomes and finales. The distinguishing feature between it and the circle of magi is that the faction choice comes before the resolution, allowing the final confrontation to play out in divergent ways.
Orzamar is a great example of a parallel non-linearity, in that it actually has two parallels that diverge and reunite: the initial 'choose who you support' to get to the Deep Roads has different quests and themes (highlighting Bhelen's agressiveness versus Harrowmounts reactionary defense), and then the handling of the Anvil and the Crown. While the parallels return to the same general point and serve the same gameplay/story roles, they do so in distinct ways.
None of these are perfect representations, of course. The factional choice between the Elves and werewolves is so late there's hardly any content after the narrative divergence aside from the finale, and the differences in the Bhelen/Harrowmount route effectively amount to dialogue and a brief skirmish or two with supporters. But then these are general representations, and I'll gladly make allowances based on their relative lengths.
So we have non-linearity in the accessory sub-arcs. Why isn't that enough for me to consider DAO a non-linear story?
In a nutshell, because of how isolated the accessory plots are to the core plot's narrative, and to eachother. A number of stories that interact and reinforce eachother provides an interlocking narrative. A lesser story that sits on its own to the side without influencing later developments is effectively a glorified sidequest. The lack of later impact of the treaty quests (or the ME1 planets for Saren, or ME2's order of recruitment missions) is what undermines the non-linearity of the core plot. As soon as you pick your king, what changes after that? For the rest of the game after their quest, Bhelen and Harrowmount make no substantitive difference for the rest of the core plot. No one knows, or cares, and there are only superficial reflections until the epilogue slides*. You approach the next sequence of events with the same themes, the same sequences, and the same characters from the same direction.
The order of the Creamy Middle's quests has no impact on the Core Plot, or even on itself. As far as the narrative is concerned, it's no different than having to do an arbitrary number of sidequests in order to progress: good for world building, not good for impacting the narrative. There are not enough variations or distinctions of the Creamy Middle to distinguish it from other variations on the grounds of impacting the overall, and thus the Creamy Middle is a single narrative unit. As a single unit, there is only one Core Plot progression (Origin-Loghain Betrayal-Creamy Middle-Landsmeet-Finale). Hence, a linear core plot.
Linear accessory plots? No. Bad story? Not at all. But linear enough to call the creamy middle an illusion of non-linearity, rather than being a non-linear core plot.
*And, to respond to an earlier response: I do not view epilogue slides as distinct endings. Epilogue slides reflect ending states, but ending states exist regardless of the epilogue slides. Claiming epilogue slides as distinct endings wildly inflates the ending count to the number of potential epilogue combinations (easily in the hundreds or thousands) vis-a-vis actual ending content and divergence. A completely linear core plot with no choices apart from a companion/romance epilogue slide would have one ending even if it had 16 potential epilogue slides. Since you make epilogue slide divergences based on choices that already exist, and not necessarily all of them, the ending states is a separate issue from the number of endings.
Again, there is a difference between open ended games with no ending, divergent content games which have branches in how the story/events play out and non-linear games. They often overlap on execution, but they are not, by themselves, the same things.
Totally agreed.
For the record, I'm going to have to go away for awhile, but I want to commend you on being thoughtful and composing yourself with dignity and grace, even if you think I'm wrong. I'm enjoying this discussion with you, Jimmy.
Retour en haut
