OnlySP: “Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle.” I’ve heard that phrase thrown around a lot when talking about Skyrim, the latest entry in the Elder Scrolls saga, and for the life of me, I can’t figure out if the phrase is meant to be praise or criticism. I can’t exactly disagree with the saying. The game has enough sheer content to keep a player busy for hundreds of hours of real-world time, but aside from a couple notable faction storylines, no quest is particularly engaging in and of itself.
Replaying Skyrim after 13 years is a reminder of the progress made in western RPGs over the last decade, but also what's been lost.
RPGs are often huge, sprawling endeavours. With limited playtime, we have to choose wisely, so here's the best western RPGs available today.
"I started playing games yesterday" the List... Meh!
How about a few RPGs that deserve some love instead?
1 - Alpha Protocol - Now on GOG
2 - else Heart.Break()
3 - Shadowrun Trilogy
4 - Wasteland 2
5 - UnderRail
6 - Tyranny
7 - Torment: Tides of Numenera
And for a bonus game that flew under the radar:
8 - Banishers: Ghosts of New Eden
Not only glorious jank, but the idea that the story can completely change depending on what you do, or say, or side with, makes it one of the most forward thinking games ever. The amount of story permutation is the equivalent of a Hitman level but in Story Form. And it wasn't just that the story changed, no, it was that you met completely new characters, or missed them, depending on your choices. Made Mass Effect feel static in comparison.
Alpha Protocol was absolutely glorious, indeed. And it was, and still is, more Next Gen than most anything out there these days. In this regard at least.
Pity.
A new Partner Spotlight Sale is now live on the Switch eShop, including Skyrim, lowest price ever for Bomb Rush Cyberfunk, and more.
Depends more on the game itself. Loved the open world of Far Cry 3, but also loved the linear story of Max Payne 3. I also love the wide linear path of TLOU, and at the same time really enjoy fully open world games live Red Dead Redemption.
As I said it depends more on the style of the game in question as opposed to it's general gameplay settings. Assassins Creed for example would not really work as a linear game, while Uncharted wouldn't really work and an open world game.
I have to say though that as I get older as a gamer, I much prefer the depth of story telling in games, to gameplay tropes. That's why games like the Walking Dead appeal to the more mature gamer, where the gameplay is secondary to the unfolding story.
Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us are two great examples of games that are able to hold the balance of open vs liner world; and story vs gameplay perfectly.
EDIT: Dishonoured should also get an 'honorable' mention. :)
I wrote up a comment and then deleted.
Because what we have here is a problem with language.
The problem is that we have literary terminology and gameplay terminology that simply do not match up. A linear narrative is simply a story that is told in sequence; a nonlinear narrative is simply a story that is not told in sequence. That means that any story with a flashback or flash-forward--even if only for the briefest of moments--is nonlinear.
When we discuss narrative structure in game, we're not really talking about whether or not the narratives are linear or nonlinear. We're talking more about GAME DESIGN than story. More about /how/ the story is conveyed than what the story is.
What we're essentially discussing is the difference between open and closed game design. With an open game, the player chooses how to experience a given story--by going to X town or Y town, by speaking to person A or person B, or by avoiding things altogether. In a closed game, the player does not have that choice at all.
The structure of an open game can range from the very simple (Baldur's Gate) to the very complex (Fallout 2). Narratives can be constructed like a novel or a choose-your-own-adventure tale.
And, of course, sometimes we're talking about branching narratives versus non-branching narratives, or forked narratives, or spooling narratives, etc., etc.
The key point I'm getting at is that it's effectively pointless to try and discuss game narrative without using the appropriate vocabulary. It's about as nonsensical as discussing "graphics" in any capacity. We end up getting articles like this that try to force a false equivalency between game design and narrative design.
I get that gaming is a new medium and a lot of the vocabulary simply doesn't exist yet, but a lot of it DOES and terms like "open world" have clearly defined meanings... and, more importantly, the literary terminology we need to discuss game narrative does exist, and has existed for a very, very long time.
...
And the post I deleted was basically me just pointing out that the best example I've seen of an open-world coupled with open narrative design was Romancing Saga on the PS2. You chose one of 8 characters, each of whom had a different origin story and personal quest (which you could ignore), the world had events that would happen as time passed (which you could miss or hear about), so it was entirely possible to "miss" your "destiny" because you took the scenic route and didn't arrive in town X in time... and everything was presented so seamlessly you wouldn't even know you'd missed anything at all.
I myself prefer liner stories with epic set pieces. I love open world games too but sometimes I become so lost in them with side missions, multiplayer and general larking about that I sometimes forget what the story even is to the point where I want to start the whole game again.
I prefer both, diversion is good.
I'll take a well made linear game over a loosely made open world one any day
theres nothing inherently wrong with linearity, its what the developers do with it that matters