Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Would you rather play an RPG with a large world for exploration and side quests with a loose story (like oblivion) or a more linear, in depth storyline (like FFX)?

After spending quite a bit of time on each, i have to go with the linear game, since they usually have a more driving plot, and a greater sense of purpose. Oblivion was fun, but once i completed enough quests, there wasn't much motivation. The main story certainly wasn't impressive.

--------------------

Currently Playing : Final Fantasy V
Most Recently Beat : Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Favorite Game : Final Fantasy X

The newest CoNcast is up! Have a listen!

Quote (Death Penalty @ 23rd April 2008 18:46)

Would you rather play an RPG with a large world for exploration and side quests with a loose story (like oblivion) or a more linear, in depth storyline (like FFX)?

After spending quite a bit of time on each, i have to go with the linear game, since they usually have a more driving plot, and a greater sense of purpose. Oblivion was fun, but once i completed enough quests, there wasn't much motivation. The main story certainly wasn't impressive.

large, that way i dont get bored with things.

--------------------

Aujourdhui a commence avec toi.

I normally like linear, but I also like more options and bonuses.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I hate the cop out in a lot of these "open" rpgs where nothing actually ever happens and you really just have to grind and fight tons of monsters for no real reason other than the fact that they're in the game. I don't see the point in playing an RPG unless there is a solid plot behind it. So yeah, 9 times out of 10, I'm more inclined to take a "closed" rpg.

--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!

I typically play the "closed" variety, but each has its merits. If it weren't for specific exceptions you could probably just identify them as Western vs. Eastern RPGs instead of Open vs. Closed.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

As a fanfiction writer, I have a ton of material to work with a tight plot and gameplay (it's so much easier to write characters you actually know). I also enjoy tight plots, for they [usually] supply amazing characters. Without it, I don't think I would play RPGs as much as I do.

An expansive environment is exciting and great, but I seem to waste so much time exploring everything. And I sort of have a life to attend to.

--------------------

I say what I wanna say, I play how I wanna play.

I null voted, because I like both. Sometimes I feel like just wandering the landscape like the Incredible Hulk and smash any enemy that crosses my path. Other times I like to actually follow a storyline. Really depends on my mood

I like a strong plot with linear gameplay. Yes, it can be a bit boring without an expansive world with so much side quests and such, but, I've always been one for a serious plot with a good deal of character depth.

--------------------

"Thought I was dead, eh? Not until I fulfill my dream!"
Seifer Almasy


"The most important part of the story is the ending."
Secret Window


"Peace is but a shadow of death."
Kuja

Quote (laszlow @ 23rd April 2008 21:35)

I typically play the "closed" variety, but each has its merits. If it weren't for specific exceptions you could probably just identify them as Western vs. Eastern RPGs instead of Open vs. Closed.

More like console (closed) versus tabletop (open).

This one was a close decision on my part, but I went with open.

I like being able to have a "sandbox world" to work with--I create a characcter, I get to play the character in its interacting with other characters to a generous amount of sensible realism. This is the type of game where I care that the shops sell items that make sense, and stuff like that. I have a lot of fun interacting with various features inside the game world. I get this from playing D&D.

On the other hand, a linear plot-centric RPG is good for telling a story. So, if there's a great story to tell using it, all the better. I'll be less attentive to particular details such as whether stores carry sensible items, and more of my focus will be on the plot, or anything important that's related to said plot (e.g. literary-wise character development).

I like tactical RPGs. Maybe that's because they tell a story while retaining strong player-determinant gameplay features.


As a sidenote, Golden Sun's presentation of the our-side/enemy-side standard RPG battle convinced me that that battle format is far from dead.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Can't decide. I do believe that plot is necessary if you want to keep playing the game, but if there's very little gameplay and stuff to do then it would be boring. But a plotless game with lots to do is kind of a double-edged sword right there. I guess I'd go for both.. I don't care, I just play the game already. As long as it doesn't have scenes or battles that last a whole month.

The examples given, Oblivion and FF10, are interesting because they both, to some extent, play to both the strongest and weakest elements of each subgenre.

For all its massive open world and numerous quests, Oblivion sadly just isn't that interesting. The outside world looks beautiful but there's very little variety across the nation, and indoor locations similarly fall into one of very few categories (Imperial ruin, Ayleid ruin, cave, house), often with repeated geography between different instances of each. Quest rewards and fighting remain pedestrian throughout because everything depends on your level - I have yet to play a game that works that way that gives any real sense of accomplishment - and because most of the world was effectively designed by computer generation rather than loving thought and care.

That last point is exactly where (good) "closed" RPGs shine, but FF10? I'm sure there's some nice stuff in there, but honestly, I've never been able to stomach more than an hour of it without getting bored. The only interaction you get within that hour is pressing X to fight and moving along straight corridors! The danger of a game being too closed is that it loses all of the attributes of a game, and becomes some kind of nightmare version of a movie whereby you have to remember to press a button to advance to the next scene every once in a while. (I'm sorry to say I find FF6 quite irritating in this respect, in parts - the random battle rate can be most annoying, and they're generally of no interest whatsoever when you've seen the same formation ten times already in the current dungeon or region).

I'd like to submit the Baldur's Gate (PC) games as an example of what I think both sides of the coin should be aiming towards. There's a pretty strong plot running through it, and your party are all genuinely entertaining companions; meanwhile, there's a reasonably large world to explore (particularly in the first game) with buckets and buckets full of sidequests you can just find lying around. The point is that these things really, really needn't be mutually exclusive. Ultimately BG tends more towards the open-world side of the coin - the plot isn't nearly as dense as a typical Final Fantasy - but it's all the better for making a good effort in both fields.

(That's not to say you can't make a beautiful game that only focuses on one side, mind - Elite? The Longest Journey? Not strictly RPGs, but the principle is the same.)

You know, a lot of people complain about "graphics over gameplay," but I think "plot over gameplay" is very similar and kills it for me too. NES games had very simple stories but were ridiculously fun. FFX is the perfect example of "let's make an interactive movie with no gameplay." Pressing "X" and watching a movie for twenty minutes (that you can't skip) is not my idea of a good game. While I love many of the FF games for their plots, it was really the interactive elements of the game combined with the plots that drove me in. FFVII had tons of mini-games and side quests as well as a good plot. Ditto for FFVI (though not so much on mini-games, but the WoR is almost all open exploration). I think striking a balance is the best thing you can do. But if I HAD to choose one or the other, I'd say gameplay. So, open is my choice. If I want a movie, I'll rent one. But I expect a game to have some element of interactivity.

I would have to say that WoB is my favorite part of FFVI, but I'll still partly agree with you. Games are games. Story and Graphics shouldn't get in the way of Gameplay, because gameplay is what makes games games. I want to be a filmmaker, I'm pretty sure that's what I want to do, but making video games is something I might try to do too. If I end up doing both ( I know that even being successful in one will be hard to do, but anyways) I'll have to know that movies and video games are very different. Movies can be different things, but people expect video games to be fun to play. That's why you can't make just an interactive movie. If you're going to, you still have to think about how fun the game is. I do think that FF is the closest thing to a good interactive movie. They all have great stories.

Anyways, I digress (a lot), Open or closed, it doesn't matter, as long as the game is fun to play. I personally (since I like movies so much) want more story out of video games, but story or graphics can't take over the gameplay.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Loose! The sandbox is the greatest place to play!

An incredibly linear game only affords me a chance to see if I can find offshoots to the lines, and typically ends in me trying to search for things that aren't there until I get bored, lose interest in the acutal story, and then never finish the game.

Also it sometimes annoys me when a gigantic world is put out in front of me, but the only time that exploration is worthwhile/relevant, is right before the comet hits... **cough** FF7 **cough**

Give me something you can deviate from, and grab onto plot pieces here and there.

Hell, I've played Fable for like a month solid, I'm only 1/3 of the way through the game. Why? Because I do every little thing possible. Oh, and in Fable, everything is always possible.

But I'm also the completeionist that tries to "catch them all" in pokemon, so whatev...

--------------------

If internal struggles were as enjoyable and glamorous as the self conflicted wars within video game characters, we would all be statues, reveling in perpetual self war. -Me

Play me on Rock Band 2, GH-WT, or any other Xbox GH!
Xbox Gamertag-MeanJerry

It's funny you'd mention Pokemon. Because it's probably the perfect mix of open and closed. It has a linear story, yet it is full of mini games and extra gameplay. That's probably what I like the most, linear with tons of bonuses.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Hey leilong, you sound like me there! I'm completionist--I recently got everything room and secret in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, and I'm also annoyed when I can't be completionist in a single playthrough of the game, such as in Pokémon. And I like sandbox playing, as I mentioned above, like using D&D to see just what I can do with the world. Like, exploring it "physically" and also "potentially"--for example, I enjoy having the option of, say, punching a steel door with my bare fist and injuring myself. Because that would make the setting "feel realistic".

Ironically, I'm working on a story-based RPG right now. But I'll make sure to make actions "make sense".

I think the difference between a sandbox RPG and a story-driven RPG is that in a sandbox RPG, you're really "playing" your character by trying to think through the character's situations, and in a story-driven RPG, you're basically "performing" the already-scripted roles of different characters.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey @ 26th April 2008 20:59)

I think the difference between a sandbox RPG and a story-driven RPG is that in a sandbox RPG, you're really "playing" your character by trying to think through the character's situations, and in a story-driven RPG, you're basically "performing" the already-scripted roles of different characters.

You hit on something really key here: because of the graphic and memory restrictions set by the systems these games are released on, many of them (referencing SNES and equivalents for the moment) are similar in physical memory. I understand that there are some differences in what is packed on each cartridge, but my point stands, and what you get is that you used to have to make a choice, story or sandbox, because there wasn't room to do both.

It's very much like the old, "Choose your own adventure" books they used to make, where you got a full 100+ page book that your individual decisions directed you around countless pages til you made **maybe** a 20 page story. So your plot was only 1/5 of what is available, as opposed to the linear 100+ page book that was read start to finish allowing for much more character development. It's an identical concept.

And of the two, I'd always pick the choose your own adventure, and check to see what happens at every fork in the road.

--------------------

If internal struggles were as enjoyable and glamorous as the self conflicted wars within video game characters, we would all be statues, reveling in perpetual self war. -Me

Play me on Rock Band 2, GH-WT, or any other Xbox GH!
Xbox Gamertag-MeanJerry

Quote (leilong @ 27th April 2008 15:32)

You hit on something really key here: because of the graphic and memory restrictions set by the systems these games are released on, many of them (referencing SNES and equivalents for the moment) are similar in physical memory. I understand that there are some differences in what is packed on each cartridge, but my point stands, and what you get is that you used to have to make a choice, story or sandbox, because there wasn't room to do both.

Pokemon was both, and it was on Gameboy. But you're still right. Technical limitations play a role in what the game makers choose. I would say that is the reason there are fewer open rpgs, because wouldn't they be harder to make with limitations.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I have to say, I'm kinda split-decisioned here, too. I like being able to hold on to a plot when it's good, and deviate from it to find extras and explore and so on. painreaver you said it, my friend-- sometimes it's just about your mood. Some days I wanna just run around, mindlessly hacking up townspeople in Oblivion, other days, I really want a good story. It's good to have both! If I get addicted to a game, then I get all sick house completionist on it too; FF 6 thru 8, Tactics, Castlevania SotN, Xenogears, Xenosaga, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, etc. I could write my own walkthrough for these games from memory. And I never even used a walkthrough for any of them-- I just play them over and over-- Squaresoft, maker of all things bright and beautiful!

This post has been edited by Calculate_Death on 5th June 2008 19:34

I think that the game should have a plot and a general storyline to follow. Sidequesting should be there, and be both rewarding and optional, giving the player a feeling of freedom to do whatever he wants, when he wants - while also giving the excitement a good storyline can create...

So... a bit of both i guess!

--------------------

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Broccoli to die.