Gears of War 2, Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2

In the most basic terms, games can be split into two types, or styles, of storytelling: linear and non-linear.  Linear games progress in a straight line; players must complete Objective A before moving to Objective B.  Non-linear games progress however the player wants, with few exceptions in the beginning; once a player completes Objective A, generally the tutorial area, Objectives B-Z, and then some, open up.  Linear games have a concrete beginning, middle, and end, all progressing in a straight line.

With exceptions in in-the-moment decisions (do I take cover here, pick up this weapon, use this magic or this weapon, search for hidden items, etc.), all players experience the same story.  This style of storytelling is present in the Gears of War games, namely, as illustrated, Gears of War 2 (2008).  Also, the Final Fantasy saga (1988-2014), Dishonored (2012), the Bioshock series (2007-2013), and Alan Wake (2010) all rely on linear storytelling: players all experience the same story, the same plot, and the same structure, the only difference between one playthrough and another being strategy.  As covered in Customization, Bioshock players can upgrade their character’s powers and weapons to their liking; Dishonored operates similarly.  Final Fantasy differs in (depending on the game) the characters chosen, the weapons and armor equipped, the frequency of fighting vs. running, and so on.  Alan Wake has players’ experiences differing in their strategy: do they pick up the more powerful, but less efficient flashlight; the slower, but more powerful weapon; pick off the smaller enemies before confronting the big one, or vice versa?

In all examples (with some variation in Bioshock, covered later in Choice), players experience the same beginning, the same middle, and the same end.  This is beneficial in narration because it ensures like experiences among players, streamlining themes, morals, and expected emotions experienced in-game, as one might pick up from a story via text or cinema.  To play a linear game is to experience a linear story.  Everyone who read through the Harry Potter series (Rowling, 1997-2007) experienced the same story, the same motifs, and followed the same paths.  The same principle applies to linear-narrative games.

On the other side, there are non-linear games, generally with a concrete (sometimes varying) beginning, and then an open world for players to explore as they see fit, which Tom Bissell talks at length about.  Instead of non-linear, he calls them by more popular, more ‘mainstream’ names, like open-world, free-roaming, or sandbox games; the main principle of narrative freedom and player exploration is key.  “The genre is superintended by a few general conventions, which include the sensation of being inside a large and disinterestedly functioning world, a main story line that can be abandoned for subordinate story lines (or for no purpose at all), large numbers of supporting characters with whom meaningful interaction is possible, and the ability to customize…the game’s player-controlled central character.” (Bissell, 2008)

Fallout 3 (2008) illustrates this narrative style, as seen in the second image to the side.  Once players complete the tutorial, the world becomes theirs.  In the example of Fallout, after the tutorial, players can either follow the main path towards the town of Megaton or start walking in any other direction: they can explore and discover other landmarks, raid abandoned buildings, enlist in other quests, and so on.  The game doesn’t hinder deviating players in any way for going off the story-dictated path; they will gain experience and level up just the same as their story-following fellows, and experience the game on their own terms.

Imagine going to the store with a grocery list for vegetable stir-fry with chicken.  You got yourself to the store; that’s the tutorial, everyone gets to the store.  Once inside, your location dictates which item for your recipe you pursue first and foremost; most beginning story missions are nearby, easy to be acquired from the get-go.  But just as easily, you can venture out into the rest of the store and see what else you can find; sometimes, you stumble on something and you pick that up, too.  But you recognize that you can only pick up your main items in a certain order: rice first, frozen veggies next, then cold chicken.  Once you have that and are satisfied with having explored the store in its entirety, you can take on the ‘final mission:’ going back home and making dinner.  And even then, you can return to the store at a later date for ‘special deals’ or just seeing if there was anything else you wanted.

It’s a haphazard analogy, but it works: players have an open area filled with opportunities, but there are still barriers, like store walls, so one can’t just walk forever in one direction.  Main missions are often the only ones that require anything before tackling them; namely, one must complete the main story missions in the order the narrative dictates.  That is often the only narrative restriction.  Bissell touches on the daunting openness of non-linear games, that “the first several hours I spent inside Fallout 3 were, in essence, optional,” (Bissell, 2008) as, it could be argued, are the rest of the narrative decisions made by the player.  The same applies to games like Skyrim (2012) and the other Elder Scrolls experiences.

Arsenault and Perron, in their study of overall gameplay, note that with Oblivion (2006), everything outside the main missions is what defines the experience; I’d add that it’s the same principle across the non-linear board.  They note, “Even though the gameplay is still very rich…the game’s design, with its many side quests and detailed universe (with hundreds of in-game books) makes it possible for a gamer to get into a narrative spiral just as large as the gameplay.”  (Arsenault & Perron, 2009)  Non-linear games suck players into their worlds, not just with the main missions, but with the sidequests, with the atmosphere, the lore, and the unwritten stories of the world, all comparable to, if not totally dwarfing, main story missions.

Some might argue that there is an in-between, existing both linear and non-linear.  I agree, especially having played through the Mass Effect (2007-2013) series.  Mass Effect 2 (2010), in particular, illustrates what I view to be a hybrid of linear and non-linear gameplay.  As one can see, very similarly to non-linear games, the game starts in a straight narrative line, then splits into a web that players can tackle however they see fit.  Aside from main recruitment missions, players don’t need to pursue any extra missions, which could be downloaded extras or small missions on other planets.  Once the main recruitment is clear, players progress to the next story point (the Horizon investigation) and the second web.  From here, same principle: there are recruitment and necessary plot missions to progress, but everything else is open and optional.  This includes new minor missions, minor mission that one didn’t finish in the first web, downloadable missions from both webs (again, assuming they didn’t complete them in the first web), and crew loyalty missions.  Once players are satisfied with everything they have and haven’t pursued, they may progress to the final, linear phase of the Suicide Mission.

Hybrid games offer a linear plot, but offer a greater degree of independence to the player, allowing them the choice to tackle available missions in whatever order they please, and keeping the options open as time and narrative progresses.  Some games work well operating on either linear or non-linear mechanics, but Mass Effect and others, like Dragon Age, show that storytelling can be both and still tell an amazing story.