I had no problem with this. You find out pretty early that your son was taken by the local big bad. So take any combination of the following would work for delaying the main quest (assuming you do care for him)-


1. You reason that want him alive for some reason, so you can take a little time.

2. You need to learn a bit about them and the world in general before charging in.

3. You need to train yourself up before taking them on.

4. You need better equipment.

5. You need allies.


Granted, that falls apart a little if you do too much settlement stuff before at least getting partway through the main story, but other than that, I think it works OK.

If we take a look at Skyrim, for example, it's main quest isn't exactly complex either. I think that I would rather that the game doesn't pretend that it's main quest has branching paths that leads to wildly different outcomes. A linear main quest which I have no obligation to complete I find much more acceptable than the alternative.


That said, I do hope that there will be story DLCs to beef up side quest content.

I don't think you're even going to get enough people to agree on what "linear" means to have a meaningful discussion.


But, the main quest branches out in act 3, so that's as close to objectively non-linear as I think it can be.

I'd add on to that that cryogenic stasis must be disorienting. Your vestibular system is filled up with fluid, so if it remained still for two centuries, I imagine that it would need to recover from the prototypical cryogenic stasis pods' side effects. Think Han Solo after being released from carbonite. I reasoned that my character stumbled his way to the living quarters of the vault-tec staff and survived as best he could with the scraps he managed to find. He doesn't know anything about the outside world or in fact the vault, so in my backstory, my sole survivor sat with a 10mm pistol next to a water faucet facing the entrance, waiting for a vault-tec staff member (which he presumed stole his son and killed his wife or allowed this to happen) to come through. He waited for about a week for all his senses to return to normal, after which he exited the vault in earnest.


That way, your character can reason that the bad guys are one week ahead of you and that their advantage would grow by the day if you didn't do all the things that you just described. And, by that point, you'll know that they have a decade ahead of you, so you need all the advantage you can get.


You can also just reason that you see a date of your partner's death and compare it with the date in the pip boy to deduce that your partner's pod opened ten years ago and that you have been in stasis for centuries. I think the former is more elegant, however.

No. I don't even care what happened to the baby. I just want to build settlements so the people can make me rich from crops and purified water. It is not linear unless you lack creativity.

Agreed. I would say it makes less sense story-wise just to go straight to Diamond City to burn through the main quests. Your character knows absolutely nothing about this new world they have found themselves in, and even if the main objective is to find Shaun, you are going to need allies that know this world to help you do that. If we are talking about " what I would really do" scenarios, going straight to Diamond City with Dogmeat is a death sentence at the beginning of the game. Kellog is a very dangerous enemy, and the wasteland is hell on earth, and as a person who knows nothing about the commonwealth post-war, your character is not ready, military training or not. Joining one of the factions you meet early (MM, BOS, etc.) exposes your character to the world, and helps them gather supplies, and harden themselves for the things to come. Eventually, your character has adapted to this horrifying world, and is now ready to continue his/her search for Shaun and his kidnapper.

It certainly can be if you play the main missions straight thru (even if branching).

That being said, the fact that you can play it almost indefinitely and never do any of the main story missions (once you leave the Vault 111), indicates that you certainly have the option to not play it as a linear game.

What I consider a linear game is the first 5-10 hours of FF XIII. In order to advance in the game, you MUST follow the path the developers guide you thru. FO4 is certainly NOT this type of game.

But isn't your death exactly what everyone expected? Just the fact that you made it to Diamond City means you went AGAINST the MQ to get there, which IMO makes the MQ in FO4 a REALLY bad setup for the game. The totally blank TES starts are much better for an open world experience. Hell I'd even accept the "woke up in a freezer with no memory" cliche than the background we were given.

Even if you believe it's linear because you are setup with the "find your son" portion, that part is over after what, 3 quests? Then you embark on whatever main journey you wish, or none and just do what you want.

Sorry if that's a spoiler =/

I guess I'm trying to say two things. One, the MQ is linear in that it should be important to go find your son. Second, as others have pointed out, the game makes it impossible to actually do that so you must screw around with other stuff. Conclusion, FO4's MQ is totally BS ... which sadly was very much expected.

By definition, no. Compared to previous fallout/elder scrolls or even other open world games, yes.

Interesting. I embrace 'Nora's backstory as a lawyer (and not a soldier)

with a weak (but smart) build that grows over time.

And actually spent quite a bit of time being upset and mopey in early game.

Yet my favourite end-game is not to play the end-game, leaving all factions 'held' at penultimate points.

Guess we are enjoying this game in very different ways.

So, must not be linear ...

I can do that to if I EMBRACE the story given. But if you don't, like if I want my female PC to be Pvt. Vasquez, I'm screwed. You didn't prove it's not linear, you just gave in to the linear story. Big difference.

Never said I wasn't enjoying the game. All my male PC's are vets and my female PC's smarty-pants. But it's enjoyable. Just not much freedom. i.e. Linear.

But you are saying that just because you can't escape the backstory and have to perform 3 storyline quests related to the backstory that the game is completely linear. Yes you have to do the first 3 to complete any of the branched main quests, but we're talking 1 hour of linear-ness vs 200+ hours of complete choice.

Most dialogue options that would reveal your backstory about the vault, your son, etc. can be lied about or simply not discussed if you want to escape that story. This game has felt the least forcing of a direction or main quest than any other RPG I've played. I actually felt penalized for moving on the main story too quickly with my first account having done it after 50 hours and then not being able to use BoS anymore.

Don't embrace anything, play a character that believes their memories have been implanted into them and they are synth. Completely ignore your "son" as a simple memory implanted into your head and use Nick valentine as a means to find and avenge the institute for keeping enslaved for years before the railroad rescued you.

If the story is of such importance to you I would think that you would also have a good imagination.

Even circles are linear. A circle of finite size comprises a finite number of dots, each of which is connected to its neighboring points by a line segment. Thus, a circle is nothing but a bunch of microscopic lines dithered together and which appear to be curved at sufficient distance.

So yes, Fallout, and all RPGs are linear. All games are linear, everything in the Universe is linear. Nothing in existence is nonlinear except waves, which are actually also particles, which can be connected to form line segments, which are linear.

. . . seriously though . . .

There is no such thing as a "non-linear" game. Even Minecraft is linear. Everything you ever do in a game can be reduced to a "sequence of events" and even if those events at a distance are obviously "going in circles" they are still connected points in a succession.

I think the real question that you are interested in is: "Is Fallout 4 'Open-World'" and/or "Does playing Fallout 4 facilitate 'sandbox play.'" Another slight variant of the actual question at hand would be: "For the game overall, are there various ways to play it; are they all reasonably promising prospects in terms of 'fun potential' (to an average player), and does the game facilitate all of them to a roughly equivalent degree or are some disporportionately leveraged onto the player?"

I. Open-World? Absolutely. Once you get out of the vault you go in any direction you want. Not as gigantic a world as say a Minecraft world, but with far, FAR more detail and atmosphere.

II. Sandbox play 'friendly?' Most definitely. This is precisely what the game is, with the oft-criticized Settlements, as well as crafting and just plain exploring being exemplary of this.

III. Comparable facilitation of varying playstyles? Yes and No. Trying playing the game as a pacifistic demagogue with high Charisma . . . probably a lot more challenging than playing as a gun-wielding badass. The "Wasteland" being portrayed favors a few specific playstyles over others and I would place them in the following order of precedence:

A. Use of weapons and/or violence to overcome obstacles;

B. Use of mobility and cover to mitigate or avoid damage;

C. Use of sneaking to achieve tactical advantage (though I find that completely "sneaking past" would-be enemies is far less possible in this Fallout than in many past and similar games);

D. Use of lock-picking to break into places and containers;

E. Use of charisma to convince others;

F. Use of hacking to break into computers.

G. Use of cover to evade damage;

H. Use of damage resistance to tank damage;

I. Use of chems, medicines, and perks to circumvent or remediate damage.

This is perhaps the games most serious flaw: you can "finish it" by focusing inordinately on being a gun-wielding, run-and-gun, super-trooper: sneak only a bit, basically ignore all locked doors and containers (couple exceptions I think, but very few), never once attempt to make a charisma check in dialogues, never once hack into a computer (again, there are probably one or two exceptions but very few overall), generally eschew cover or tactical ingenuity, even ignore power armor and only gather up the chems you find in the abundant containers in the dungeons you will clear and you can probably "finish" most of the game. I put "finish" in quotes because I do not actually consider it to be "finishing" but you can basically 'get to the cut-scenes' that tell you "You finished that quest/quest line" which is what a lot of gamers seem to think "finishing" a game is really all about.

If you want to be an "old-school RPG" player, you can, and the game doesn't even punish you for that. But you do note HAVE TO. This is the big difference with the game compared to say FO2, or other older-style RPG and character development games (Temple of Elemental Evil; Baldur's Gate; Jagged Alliance, etc.).

I tend to agree that there probably is a clearer and more definite descriptive focus for this kind of question than linearity.

I would point out, though, that just because some of the mainstream companies thought it would improve sales if they described their game as an "RPG", when it was clearly not an RPG, doesn't redefine an RPG in any way, form or manner - other than misinforming people and propagating an erroneous definition. I think this is probably what makes it even more important to find a way to be clear on the distinction between an RPG and games with the kinds of game mechanics people (who know what an RPG is) are trying to get away from when when they shell out their money for something promoted as an "RPG". Based, solely, on what you've stated (above) about Icewind Dale, it certainly doesn't qualify as an RPG because if you have no choice about where you're going or what you're doing next within the game world, where exactly is the "role-play"? Even the old terribly-written role-playing genre of novel were more choice-oriented than that. Looking through the eyes of a a fictional character identified with a fixed itinerary is one thing - and very much an example of the story-book game where you follow in the footsteps of a character with a totally predefined story. But this is not the same thing as playing a character according to the story of your own creation. After all, identity and role are two very different things.

This brings us back to the fact that the meat and bones of role-play boils down to decision-making. "What would you do if..." That's what the RPG has always been about since the earliest days of D&D, Gangbusters, etc. The open non-linear nature of these games was defined by their eminent moddifiability, their player character's ability to branch out, explore the world, or do a gazillion other things - which is exactly what I suspect Bethesda were reaching for when they started releasing titles like Morrowind 28 years later. In contrast, lot of other computer game developers using the term "RPG" either had no idea what they were talking about or were deliberately defrauding the consumer. There was a lot of that kind of thing going on back then and some very big names behaving dishonestly towards their customers too. gamesas are the only developers I'm aware of who've seriously tried to integrate the various emerging PC technologies with the RPG while remaining as true as possible to the genre.

To further try to clarify matters, with respect to linearity:

Worldspace linearity speaks to the kind of design we see emerging in post-y2k shooters where the entire world is just one big long canyon (however contorted) with only a single pathway and no larger strategic choices concerning approach or pathing. While I agree that a circle or circuit cayon is also linear (lack of branching) I think there is a little more to this. While we can say that there are linear building blocks in everything it is, nonetheless, still very much the case that just because a game can be shown to be made up entirely of linear building blocks, does not make the game linear. A square straight-line two-dimensional maze, being two dimensional in plan, cannot be accurately described as linear in spite of the fact that the entire maze is constructed from strictly linear design elements (i.e. lines). If we take the canyon example, and add another canyon, to which the first is connected, laterally, by an access-way at one or more points, the options for navigation no longer exist in only a single dimension (linear) but now require two dimensions to represent meaningfully, if not correctly, the plan or layout of the world-space which is now planar in layout. Another way this can happen is if you take a linear canyon worldspace and alter the topography so that it is possible for the player to climb up onto the upper surfaces of the world space and use this upper surface area to navigate an alternative pathway to any point in the map or, for that matter, to any point in the canyon itself (e.g. to go around the bad guys and take them from behind). In fact, one can do some very interesting things with three dimensional maze layouts - but that's getting into a whole new area.

The same facts concerning such degrees of freedom also extend to the mapping of "quest-lines", "mission-chains", "campaigns" etc. If you have a singlular campaign with an fixed order of missions and no option to make choices like

1. not engaging in the campaign


2. deciding when to discontinute the campaign and do other things

Then, and only then, does the term "linear" really apply to the overall game because, in this case, the player's most important role-playing choices have all been made without the involvement of the player. How can that be role-play? If, as in the numerous linear quests we've seen in the series, the player can play the game while making the choice not to engage a quest (e.g. because it would be out of character) then this, very much, dictates that the linear quest is a meager component of a decidedly non-linear design map of the game's choices and outcomes.

Conversely, simply tacking character development and open backstories onto linear gaming systems doesn't remotely convert them into open role-play systems either. Backstories, in particular, have absolutely no bearing on the world-space's impact on gameplay because decisions made during the course of developing a backstory are inconsequential to gameplay. While backstories may vaguely define the player's broader strategic approach to a game (and this is certainly not necessaruily so as many of my own playthroughs have demonstrated), it's only possible for this to actually have any impact on the game if the game in question does not corral the player down a singular linear gameplay-map. This allows that a setpiece backstory can and, on occasion, is ignored in the context of an open world game - but, on the other hand, will tend to enrich a corralled, linear game that is more focused delivering on a set story than allowing variations which make gameplay unique in the larger rather than smaller details. The point being that the only time a canned backstory really can be ignored by any of the players is when the world that it is applied to really is sufficiently open for the player to envision a character build which is entirrely incompatible with that backstory. The fact that people can do this in Fallout 4 is, very much, to Bethesda's credit because it wouldn't be possible without that open world sandbox with so many other things to do.

[edit]Grammar, spelling, argh! WHY WONT THIS KEYBOARD STAND STILL!!!!! [/edit]

This is my 3rd playthrough, I headed directly east from the Vault, spent time killing enemies and doing quests from settlements I come across to level up (the ones that turn into radiant quests for the minutemen.) Level 34 right now, haven't even gone to Concord yet. I went down to Bunker Hill and Goodneighbor to do some trading/get some of their quests, then went to Vault 81 to do their quests/get Curie/get that awesome weapon from the depot Been building settlements out of the empty ones I cleared out too.

So yeah, not linear at all. Of course if all you do is focus on the main story line then it'll seem linear, but then you miss out on so, so much. There's no shortage of 'off the beaten path' gameplay.

Similar to Skyrim, if you want to RPG outside the main quite linear quest/storyline, you're pretty much on your own. Gotta make up your own fantasies in your head and play them out as best you can in the open world. I call this Player-Based RPG'ing. It's all well and good for those who prefer it, I suppose, but it doesn't do anything for the rest of us who would prefer to see them actually put more quest options, branches, and possibilities into the game itself for us to explore in multiple *different* ways. See: FO1, FO2, FO:NV. Don't know why not, maybe they just lack the talent for that sort of thing- but they've never really done much of it in the games they've been solely responsible for, sadly.

Planar elements are planar because they cannot fit into the confines of a linear world, description, or depicion. As I explained before, just because there are linear components in something, does not make that thing linear. No matter how linear the story of my life is, my life, as separate and distinct from the story or history of it, is not linear. No matter how much hair I have on my head, I am still not linear.

When talking about the plan or layout for something, the minute you introduce a branch, linearity goes out the window because, while any given component might well be linear, the whole cannot be linear because it cannot fiit into, for example, an unbroken linear description or linear depiction.

I think http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20151120 explains the average gamer's reaction to Fallout 4 best. Sure it is linear, but only because traveling in a straight line is the quickest way to get whatever new shiny has caught the gamer's attention at that particular moment.

Not as much as people think it is. Brimsurfer has been pushing this whole spiel about what makes an RPG an RPG and it's absolute nonsense. Pure nonsense. Nothing about this useless, semantic debate does anything for the game - we shouldn't give a [censored] about whether it fits some specific definition that someone has personally carved out for him or herself, there are numerous [censored] definitions of what an RPG is. Pointless discussion.

Besides that, previous games have always provided a level of backstory that was, inevitably always a lingering reality. The only true blank slate was the Courier, and that went out the window depending on certain speech checks, dialogue, and the Lonesome Road DLC. The one problem I see with Fallout 4 is that the plot is driven by the fact the PC has a kid, and the story kind of hinges on this. In the greater scope of things, I feel like they could have done without the kid, because there's a huge level of dissonance that's produced the moment you step out of the vault and start exploring, dungeon diving, and doing side quests unrelated to your quest for the baby. One moment you're a scavenger and the next you're a concerned Father. Not really a big deal that you were in the Army or that you were a Lawyer at one point, depending on your gender.

The biggest Problem for thinking this Game is linear, is the Dialog Wheel with less Options in my Eyes. I mean the most Dialogs are not even working without Yes-Option. You cant accept Missions, Sarcasm is useless, just for a little Fun. Extra Informations are sometimes good but still not needed to pass the next Dialog and then of course No. When you press no you have to do the Dialog again. So more i think about it so more i just see the uselessness. Example when you get a Contract to kill something from the Factions. There is no really an seperate Option to do anythign else like non-Hostile Things. You have to be strict in one Line. And in the most Cases and dont want it at all to be like that. The Institute is a good Example. After some Time you getting into a Situation and Position where you could Change something even if you play with a Group of Scientists. A Alternate Ending with the Institute is more as possible here its just to bad but we dont get an Option for this.

"Actually I would say FO 4 is a lot more linear than FONV, especially if you consider ignoring the MQ as an example, as I have never completed the MQ in FONV. In FO 4 I feel more compelled to advance the MQ, because well.. my kid taken, and not to mention the game opens up once you progress the MQ to a certain point(same in FO 3)"


I suppose it depends on what you think of as linearity. I mean granted FO4 has this great, ham-fisted guilt trip built into the set up to try and motivate you to follow the MQ, but you're still not compelled. I wouldn't have called that linearity so much as clumsy story telling.


In the case of F1, F2 and NV: The linearity I'm thinking of is the way that you're clearly supposed to visit settlements in a certain order. In F1 it's Vault 13 -> Shady Sands -> Junktown -> etc. In NV it's Goodsprings -> Primm -> NCR Ranger Base -> Nipton -> Novac -> Boulder is it? -> then finally NV. After that, you're more or less free to wander, but it seems clear that the designers intended to strongly constrain the player to a certain route in order to better support the narrative. Not a necessarily a bad design decison, and in 1 & 2 finding the guy to talk to to reveal the next area was a big part of the game.


F3 broke away from that model. It used a much looser storyline and gave the player more freedom to explore at random. New Vegas, largely designed by the original Fallout crew went back to the model in 1 and 2 and worked to channel the player along a certain route. I won't dispute that if you're a skilled and experienced player then with the right build and playstyle you can head off to Sloan and tiptoe past the deathclaws. But I don't think there's much doubt that the intention was to channel the player along a single route.


Even so, I'd hope you'll concede that there's a dramatic difference in difficulty between that and following the "official" route. And hopefully too that there are far fewer constraints on where you can go and how as a starting character in F3.


It's all a matter of degree, really.

"while in NV you don't have to wait for anything, can walk into Vegas, kill House, Kill Benny, 10 minutes later be at the Fort and kill Caesar if you want to. In the process you just skipped a ton of quests, which to me is very non-linear."


Minor point, but that's really just short-circuiting the MQ. You can do the same in F3 by going direct to Rivet City and talking to Dr. Li, or to Tranquillity Lanes and freeing your dad.


I agree with you about the overuse of essential NPCs in the Beth fallouts, but again, I wouldn't call that linearity on the whole. I suppose to a certain extent it's a matter of definition.

"In FO 4 to do that kinda stuff, you would have to wait for the proper quest to open up that allowed it to happen, and to me, that is hella linear, plus while FONV suggests you go south to avoid Deathclaws, you can go east. I have, and I don't see much of a problem with tough mobs blocking a way, not everything is going to be an easy walk(plus if you just wander south in FO 4 you gonna die, too, more than likely..I did)."


Can't comment on F4 MQ since I've not progressed past the Glowing Sea yet. Tried it once, was handed my ass by a legendary glowing deathclaw and decided to level up a bit before I tried again. (Tried it again last night, clobbered the deathclaw and then spent the rest of the session responding to settlements under attack, so I'm still none the wiser). But yeah, head too far south and you get into trouble. But it's a gradual ramping up with freedom to move in all directions, rather than a narrow corridor with powdergangers in one cell and deathclaws in the one next door.

"I also disagree that FO 2 is linear, again, no essential NPCs, you can zip around anywhere on the map, and in that game it is pretty easy to escape combat, unless you try to do the 30 minute victory and head straight to Navarro, as Enclave patrol will have a high chance to kill you if you fail outdoorsman."


Not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely that you'll manage it without knowing the game very well and playing in a certain way. It could be argued (with some justification, I think) that the fact that you can get Enclave armour at level 2 or so is more an exploit rather than evidence of non-linear design. It depends on how you look at it, I suppose.

"But, I don't really have a problem with FO 4 being kinda linear, I think it should be a priority to find your kid, what is kind of annoying is how important that should be, yet all the distractions set up that keep you from doing it"


My concern is there are only going to be so many time I can play the game as GI Joe the Avenging Father. I must have played F3 a couple of dozen times. Often with more or less the same characters, but they were my characters. I still can't see this one having that sort of replay value. The alternative I suppose is to ignore the plot and treat it as a shooter with some poorly executed RP elements and that's more or less what I've settled into doing ... but I can't see that having lasting appeal, either.

[edit]

Typos

precisely, there are some things that are taken into consideration simply as a means to push a narrative, it's necessary. Even back in the original fallout games you have an origin, fresh faced vault dweller emerging into the world in part 1, or a descendant from the original vault dweller in part 2. However everything else you do aside from this is pretty much up to you. There is no way around this aside from simply not having a narrative at all. You would just emerge into the wasteland with no explanation and told to go do whatever. While this may sound like a dream game to many, there are also players who want some sense of what it is they are doing as well. You can however make up your own narrative, you don't have to pursue the main quest, just like you didn't have to do so in skyrim. You could wander around exploring and doing side missions without ever finding out you are Dragonborn.. I digress though, I wouldn't call this game linear since from the moment you leave the vault, you are free to go about doing things how you like, you don't even need to speak to Codsworth, you can simply start roaming.

I would disagree to an extent. A binary tree IS linear. It defines the path that selection logic can take on any given iteration of the structure. It can have many branches, thousands, but you will always start at one spot, and you will always arrive at one spot (not many). If you arrive at one, then you cannot arrive at any others.

The same is true for a human life and for most processes in the known universe, with the exception of some energetic phenomena which can be in two places at once, and exhibit traits of two seemingly mutually exclusive morphologies (e.g., light behaving like both a particle and a wave).

From my standpoint, more or less everything in existence is linear, albeit often curvilinear or even multiple degrees of polynomial.

I think what you are really talking about is "Does Fallout 4 lack the degree of _choice_ that makes it an exemplar of the role-playing genre?" Not "Is FO4 'Linear.'"

I myself have used the phrase "This game is too linear" as a way to complain about some that I didn't like; but on further reflection, I don't think "linearity" is the real problem. Lack of branches, or lack of truly distinctive branches is the real problem. Lack of "hidden" or not immediately obvious paths to alternative outcomes being an "advanced" form of branching.

I would also disagree that a "planar world" is "not" linear. A plane is defined by two lines. A three-dimensional space is defined by three lines, multi-dimensional by Nth lines.

ADDIT: just spotted a phrase I love in a previous response "Ham-fisted guilt trip." That is perfect!

ADDIT*2:

THAT! is perfectly true and apt!