Non Linearity in Story RPGs - why don't we see more of it?

by Rob Janney

An often heard complaint about console RPGs, Final Fantasy in particular, is their linearity. Let us consider the costs of making an effective non-linear plot driven RPG. There are two major ways to introduce non linearity: branching and the removal of temporal constraints in quests.

Removing temporal constraints will wreak havoc on any story unless carefully constructed: it's hard to make the plot meaningful if most of the quests can be completed in any old order. The best example of this is FF3 (6 Jap). The story was mostly linear for the world of light and I found myself enthralled with the sequence of events and the development of characters. The main non-linear point was where you were able to choose one of three threads of development after the Empire stormed the Returner base. The order of the quests had no meaningful plot effects: it merely let the player have some choice about which one to play first, gave the illusion of control, and did not sidetrack very long from the main sequence of development. This was a good use of non-linearity to provide more freedom, without detrimental effects to the story, and I'm glad they added to the game. However, I thought that the virtually complete freedom of movement in the world of ruin was a huge mistake. I saw the events as merely a collection of ten or so side quests to re-collect the party before attacking Kefka, without any continuity or consistent development and I thought that the story really lost its momentum. This is not to say that some of the side quests were not interesting, or did not have any character development - but if they had been strung together more cohesively, a more effective story could have been fashioned. I think Square recognized this and in FF7 and FF8 decided to avoid similar large groups of parallel quests.

Introducing branching, in my opinion can be very beneficial to a story driven RPG. However, it has a much higher cost than removing temporal constraints, if the effect of the branch is lasting. Consider a choice point in a game: you have defeated a sorceress who had given in to dark powers, do you kill her or let her try to redeem herself by joining you? In a game with minimal story, such as Ogre Battle, you could forgive the character, say Deneb the witch, and it would only affect the eventual ending of the game, and maybe 3 or 4 interactions. However, in a story driven game, imagine how much work would have to be done twice to allow a meaningful branch that lasts for a significant portion of the game. And if there was more than one, the cost would grow very quickly unless they were independent of each other (exponentially for the mathematically inclined). If there were four major choices, each with two alternatives and they were completely dependent on each other, then there would be a total of 16 different paths. While this sounds great from the perspective of replayability, the cost of making 16 different paths of story/gameplay is very high, though certainly not 16 times as great. Of course, one could argue that the major cost of non linearity is graphics and FMV in particular. It is probably true that non-linear story based games could be developed easily if FMVs were cut way down - but is that what the consumer wants? I think FMVs are very essential to RPGs now - they connect the player emotionally to the story and make everything seem so much more realistic.

The important question is: does the benefit of the extra work involved outweigh the cost to the developer ... or the player? Would you rather buy one game for $150 that can have 16 different paths, or three games that are mostly linear, but have completely different plots, worlds, characters and systems for $50? Or maybe one game for $75 with many less FMVs ... just for key decision points and the introduction and ending. There's also the matter of time, if say Square suddenly decided to make all of their Final Fantasies very non-linear and still story heavy, we might have to wait twice as long or longer to get the new game.

In my opinion, such heavy non linearity is just not worth the cost to the developer or consumer of story based RPGs. However, I do think that carefully limited branching could enhance the experience of an RPG. Having a choice near the end of the game that determines the ending could add much more power to the experience of the player than its cost: a few dialogue changes and one more FMV. As well, developers could certainly afford to add more minor branching points that converge back together with little effect on the overall story, but carefully constructed to give the player the feeling of control and interactivity.