I've chosen to start a new thread for this relpy to a comment made in the "http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1574366-roleplaying-backstory-post-yours-here/" thread because neither the comment nor my reply is a backstory and neither have any relevance to the thread in question:

(http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1574366-roleplaying-backstory-post-yours-here/?p=24750310)

Folks over in the "mainstream" FPS camp have been trying to say this about the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series for donkey's years.

The question is, as always, is any of this true? Is Fallout 4 Linear?

Well, the fact that some people are just ignoring the official back story demonstrates one very important fact: People can and do find it immersive to modify or ignore the official backstory to varying degrees. The plausibility of being able to do this, in terms of immersive gameplay, really speaks to the openness of a gameworld where the main quest isn't really the centre piece (otherwise, the official backstory becomes much more important). This brings me back to http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1574366-roleplaying-backstory-post-yours-here/?p=24763498; which gives the old official backstory a vicious twist to let my character be something other than some kind of soldier or military guy without having to deny the window-dressing.

What, oh what am I going to do with http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1574366-roleplaying-backstory-post-yours-here/?p=24763498? If Fallout 4 were linear, how would it be plausibly immersive for me to be asking this question about my next playthrough?

Well, for one, as my second playthrough, Didier's going to get to do things differently. For starters, I've already got him set up to be a bit more challenging to play to make up for experience gained the first time through. Speaking of which, I had an absolute earful with the Minutemen and not being able to delegate missions in spite of being "General". So I'm planning to set up my settlement network without their "help" this time around. At least that way, I can get to have a look at how things done without the Minutemen and, hopefully, with a bit more room for my own self-direction - at least until I want to convert my settlement network into the infrastructure for a raider-baiting spectator sport...and I'll probably be sitting back for that one with some beer and chips

I find activity schedules I create, because they revolve around my own narrative, tend to be much more compelling than a main questline and, I seriously doubt that this approach to gaming is unique or original. This is not because of anything lacking in the main quest so much as it is because guiding gameplay is not the role of a main questline in an RPG - as I shall endeavour to explicate.

You see, in role-play, the most important missions are emergent. That is to say that the most important missions are, solely, the ones created and set by the player - which cannot be anticipated by the developer. After all, if you're not doing your own missions for your own purposes, how can it really be called role-play? The missions set by NPCs, on the other hand, are present in much the same way as water or mountains are present. As such, elements like this really only function as the necessary scenic pieces so that the game-world can be given a shape and form that makes sense. A main quest fills the necessary role of filling in the contemporary history within which the player narrative is set. Thus, as far as a main questline in an RPG is concerned, that's all it is; the finer details of an otherwise blank canvas on which it is up to the player to paint the events of her/his own narrative.

As the most powerful means of communicating player narrative, mods are a huge part of a game's non-linearity, by the way. The whole point of modding prohibition is to preserve the linearity and, thereby, rigidify a fixed narrative. This is, very much, not the case with the Fallout Franchise and I think that Bethesda actively encourage free and open modding. This opinion is inferred from the fact that Bethesda supply the tools to do so free of charge to those of the playerbase who want them. This is very much something which largely completes the RPG rubric for both the Elder Scrolls and the Fallout series' by including the all-important "dungeon master" role which allows players to not only make up their own narrative, but to systematise that into a main questline or any other game-world element of their own creative design and then share that creation with others.

So, how can it be said that a game is linear if, by way of example, it is so easy and instinctive for me to envision a planned playthrough which has nothing to do with the main questline? This is something you simply can't do in FPS games like HomeFront because those really are linear; right down to the exterior corralled architecture which guides you along narrow corridors and prevents you from doing anything remotely tactical (like flanking) unless the developer mandates the tactic (which technically, doesn't really qualify as a game because it precludes emergent strategy). And there's all kinds of shades in between but I'll leave that to the reader to explore.

This is not to say that linear elements don't exist in any given non-linear world-space but, instead, to point out that the choice to not be confined to any given linear element ultimately proves the non-linearity of the world-space in question - as the viability of my planned playthrough demonstrates.

[Edit]

1. Grammar!


2. One thing I neglected to mention is that just because there's a first person view and inevitability of fighting, doesn't necessarily make a game an FPS.
   
   The one distinction which stands out between the FPS and the RPG is linearisation of gameplay, in FPS, to the point of excluding player narrative (i.e. the scope for missions envisioned and executed by the player which do not conform to the mission-chain or campaign provided by the developer). That's why I'm replying with a focus on linearisation to an assertion pretty much confining itself to the FPS classification of Fallout 4.

[/Edit]

No.

The fact that you have backstory doesn't make it a linear game. It does have a mostly linear main quest, and the number of branching side quests is underwhelming, but the order is not set beyond the grand scope of things, not to mention you can do other things than questing.

Not to say that linearity to a certain degree is neccesarily a bad thing. A straightforward, overall goal with many twists and turns along the way (like finding the G.E.C.K. in Fallout 2) is still a good roleplaying story, though the ultimate goal and storyline is still linear.

Exactly, and it's those other things you can do which make Fallout 4 world such an open world, in my opinion.

Yeah, agred. An open world is still made up of linear elements and no matter what you choose to do, your character's overall narrative will be linear - but none of this makes the game itself linear unless linear elements become compulsory. The thing with Fallout 4 is that you can opt out of the main quest any time you like and the game world is diverse enough for you to come up with plenty of other goals to chase. So it doesn't have to be about the main quest or any other quest for that matter and I think that's a big part of what makes Fallout 4 such an open world kind of game.

Yeah, it's pretty linear. A inflexible backstory is just that, part of a linear story. It's a good thing when telling a story that's already finished, but when you're supposedly trying to give the story to the reader and let them have freedom, it can give the writer nervous breakdown to realize the reader isn't exactly into playing by the rules or their guidelines, thus true RPG right from the get go has an issue with Fallout 4. Luckily there's some flexibility, but overall? It's mostly Linear.

Pretty much this.

Fallout 4 can be played as a linear game or a sandbox. To reach the official game ending as the developers programmed it, then the main quest missions need to be completed and that's the only linear part of the game. Although it is still possible to continue even after the main quest has ended.

I previously played Fallout 4 for 160 hours and only did one main quest mission - out of time (talking to Codsworth). I just explored and built settlements from the very beginning and did not do any of the other main quests (not even "when freedom calls")... to me, that's a sandbox.

It's more linear than what most people would consider to be hardcoe RPGs. It's far less linear than something like Call of Duty. The main quest is very linear. There's a set progression of quests that one must go through in a certain order. When it gets to deciding on factions after completion of the main quest, this linearity somewhat ceases. A lot can ride on which quests you choose to do for certain factions, and switching up the order in which these quests are done can change the end result quite a bit. I think in a big way the interpretation depends on previous gaming experience. If someone has played nothing more than Call of Duty and similar games, this is going to be a very non-linear game. To someone that's been playing almost nothing but RPGs for years, this is going to have a much more linear feel than other games that they might play.

Personally this is about perfect for me. I tend not to like the truly hardcoe RPGs, but games like Call of Duty don't hold my attention for more than the ~20 hours it takes to beat it. They have very little replay value.

Well, any kind of tinned backstory can be regarded as a trespass by role-players but, honestly, who would take any notice of a prebaked backstory if it's not going to fit the character or role they want to play? On that other thread, I counted at least two backstories which were irreconcilable with the official one and, why not? I Particularly liked the one which starts out in the late 18th century.

And there's a similar dynamic with main questlines too. One does not have to engage in any of the quests to get some quality time out of Fallout as one does in games like HomeFront and Wolfenstein. And that independence from quests is what makes an open game.

You can kinda say this about any open-world game though.

Does anyone really think the backstory makes the game linear? Or non-linear for that matter? I can't see how the one affects the other at all.



Personally, I think that the giving the Single Parent such a strong backstory was a terrible design decision, but once you get out of the vault, you can go anywhere and do anything. In fact, F3 and F4 were considerable less linear than 1, 2 and NV all of which required to you to visit the settlements in a certain order if you didn't want to either get your face chewed off by radscorpions or resort to excessive save-scumming.



I can see how some folks might complain that the MQ is linear. To an extent it's something of a necessary evil: the game needs a story and a story needs a beginning and an end. I expect the NV fans would have been happier with a branching MQ where with some mutually exclusive faction quests. Even so, the story still has to have a single ending.

[edit]

3 & 4 were less linear than 1, 2 and NV. As opposed to "more" which is what I wrote for some stupid reason.

Well, I must say that this is the first game I've ever played where you MUST ignore the main back story to enjoy yourself. I mean think about it, if you really played the part of a grieving spouse and separated parent you wouldn't give a damn about settlements, or the MM, the BoS, the RR or anything else. You'd rush headlong into the MQ to find your infant son. Nothing else would matter. But this game gives you this backstory, then jerks you by the collar and makes you play completely unrelated story lines for weeks/months in game before bringing you back to "hey remember that kid?"

I think this is why the open backgrounds like the TES games use is so much better in these open world games. When there is so much to do you don't want to be tied up by some logical path your PC would follow due to background story. You want to be free to do whatever you want.

So far in this game I have played on the military background for my male PC's and high INT and CHR for my female PC's, just based on the background we were given. I would love to play a Pvt. Vasquez in FO4, but she just wouldn't fit the background given at all. This is where the given background story for FO4 really screws up, cause I want to play Pvt. Vasquez damnit, I mean who the hell wouldn't.

While I do wish the Bethesda had not gone the "looking for a family member" route again and instead allowed us to create our own family backgrounds, it's not an impossible idea to work with. My first character was part of a government program to track down a possible terrorist said to be basing operations in or around the Sanctuary area. She was given a family, including a baby, to keep up appearances. The law degree was also faked. Even though the baby wasn't hers, she figured she'd find out what happened to him and decided to keep up the appearance as his parent in order to extract that information.

To use linearity to determine that a game is an FPS though is just silly. By that definition, Icewind Dale would be considered an "isometric" party-based shooter instead of an RPG. Your party is hired for a particular thing, something happens which moves the party to the next thing, and the storyline continues as the party is guided from place to place. There is no branching out or exploring the world or a gazillion other things to do as in Bethesda-developed games. If you refuse to go where the game wants you to go, you have to stop playing it because doing it is the only thing they *can* do. Ultimately, the game comes to an end and there is only *one* undisputed ending. There is no playing evil or joining one of the monster factions or anything other than what the game wants.

Many RPGs over the decades have been the same. Yes, more branching stories came into existence as developers tried different things, but even in Baldur's Gate, you were still given the overall role you were to play and couldn't deviate from it, and eventually you are going to run out of side quests and be forced to either continue the main quest or stop playing the game.

In Bethesda's games, the main quest line is generally linear, but it is also optional. Our character's stories can branch out to be practically anything our imaginations can construct, and our game isn't over if we don't do what the game wants us to to.

I've only played on CoD game, and while it was fun for what it was, I had no choice but to do the missions in the order the game wanted me to do them, or stop playing. Hardly seems comparable to a Fallout game other than that guns and first-person are involved, and I couldn't even walk around the empty maps and explore because once they become "safe" then you are automatically taken to the next thing and no going back. (Which often made it difficult finding the collectibles.) I just don't see the comparison at all between CoD and an open-world RPG.

I thought it was set up pretty much like New Vegas. First, the protagonist is given a McGuffin to chase down (In New Vegas it was tracking down Benny) which motivates them to explore the world, then after resolving the McGuffin chase finds himself being courted by competing power groups with differing objectives and in a position to help determine the balance of power in the region.

Yeah, but in F4 it's more like you get to play through your time as (for example) a 34 year old accountant in the NCR, married with three kids followed by a messy divorce, how you get a job as a courier to cope with the child support ... and only then do you get shot in the head by Benny.

There's 4 factions, each with their own sets of random extra missions as well as the story missions. A game with a "story" will always feel linear IF you are forced into the story. You could play fallout 4 for 100 hours without ever progressing the main story past the very beginning.

You can't just say "there's a story that doesn't change therefore linear", any game with a story will have an "ending". But this game gives you 4 stories, unlimited ability to explore the world and find hundreds of other quests, many of which are very immersive, as well as unlimited sims: fallout edition lol.

The reasoning behind calling a game linear would be that great amounts of content are gated behind said linear story. Yes you do have to do the very beginning story mission quest (killing that guy working for those people that did that thing to your family. lol) but once you do that very early story mission all factions are available and nothing is gated. You could easily spend 100's of hours exploring the world and doing whatever the heck you want without ever touching the main story.

I had over 50 hours play time when I complete the story on my first playthrough. I feel like I super rushed it and this time around I will probably log 150+ before picking a new ending. It's pretty hard to find a game that provides 500+ hours of enjoyment for $60 IMO.

@DocClox

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), 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.

But, another thing that removes that "linear" feeling, is that in FONV you can kill anyone, at any time. While in FO 4, there are a ton of essential NPCs, which to me, increases the whole linear feeling, with a "don't do that, this person is important!!".

Yet, in FONV, first chance I got I killed Benny and then House, the leader of one of the factions. In all my playthroughs I only went to the Fort once, and when I did I killed Caesar. 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).

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. Otherwise you can go anywhere and easily avoid combat by running away. I've done this many times heading straight to NCR to snag myself some good gear via pickpocketing, not to mention with a combat build you can start sniping off deathclaws at low level, if you get a hunting rifle, sniper, or red ryder le bb gun and shoot em in the eyes(with tagged gun skill and putting all skill points in guns first 3 levels you can easily pick em off by level 4, but it helps if you like stealing, as you can steal from caravan guards and what not to get hunting rifles, I did this once in FO 1 right after leaving the Vault, first random encounter friendly trader and guards).

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.

I don't think so.

It seems that any game that doesn't accommodate every little thing that the player can think of to do or say is linear now.

Even though no game has ever really done that or will do it in our lifetime.

No, a in a linear game you are guided along one path of quests all the way to the end of the game with no alternate path. No Fallout game is linear.