Poll: Branching Story vs Scripted Story?

[Ambient_Malice]

These two seemed to be the biggest form of story telling in games.

Games such as To the moon, Valiant Heart, TLOU, Spec Ops: The Line (The only decision you make is the last one), Borderlands series, and FFVI are examples of scripted stories that are expertly written and filled with twists and turns.

Call of Duty: Black Ops II is an example of a scripted story that is expertly written (if you don't hate David Goyer's schtick), filled with twists and turns, while also featuring obvious and non-obvious choices that have consequences both obvious and non-obvious throughout the game culminating in several endings. Making the player do stupid things that they know are stupid while expecting some sort of emotional resonance afterwards is bad design. (Spec Ops: The Line is flagrantly guilty of this.) Deus Ex: Human Revolution had a nasty case of "now the player must do this to proceed", which was a horrific violation of Warren Spector's core Deus Ex game design principles. The final boss where you shoot a defenseless, unarmed woman because reasons is an excellent example of "branching" storylines completely falling apart.

Spoiler

There's a somewhat mocking accusation that Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has more meaningful choices than Bioware games. It's hyperbole, but after Mass Effect 3, people were kinda grumpy.

Orson Scott Card wrote that "To the degree that the game is fixed ? the outcome predetermined ? the game is a story. But to the degree that you SEE that the game is fixed, it becomes less fun to play!" Practically speaking, a linear narrative is perfectly fine so long as you can never see the rails. But when the player wants to go in a completely different direction or even a slightly different direction to the game's narrative, things begin to fall apart. And the problem with branching narrative is that you're adding layers of complexity that alleviate player discontent, but can never fully absolve it.

Card stated that "When a movie is made from a book and the script changes key events, the readers are usually furious. Why? Since the original events weren't real, why not change them? The answer is simple: Even in fiction, what the author put down on paper is "the truth" and anyone who fiddles with it is "lying" or "wrecking it.""
There lies the rub. Branching narratives weaken the "truth" of a story. Real people make stupid mistakes. Players of a videogame do not want to make stupid mistakes. "There is no question about character motivation. The lead character is you, and your motivation is to beat the enemy and win," as Card put it. Gamers resent losing through no fault of their own, per se. That's why character incompetence in Ubisoft games "I'm gonna trip around instead of shooting you" is so jarring. Videogames have always struggled with how to make the player fail without descending into very blatant railroading. For example, a careful player will be pissed when the game decides to trigger a cutscene where the lead character walks into an area without checking that SUPER OBVIOUS blind spot where some guy with a blunt object is waiting to whack them. (Monolith did this twice in the SAME YEAR, with FEAR and Condemned: Criminal Origins.)

 

[FPLOON]

Scripted... All day, everyday, and even in my branchin', son!

Other than that, the best kind of branching is when the gameplay figuratively tells you "Here's your shit... Have fun... We'll see you in the next scripted cutscene you activated..." That shit never gets old for me...

 

[1981]

*snip*

The Witcher 3, which is the last game I played, is guilty of that.

Spoiler

When you're chasing the murderer in Carnal Sins, you're stopped by guards even though you could've easily outrun them. Later, you get into a barfight with two drunken peasants. Even if your health bar is full, you get a cutscene where you get knocked out and your friend gets shivved. Another case of railroading is when a druid tells you that his friend lost his voice because of a curse. He asks you to spook him into talking. I wasn't at all surprised to learn that he had actually taken a wow of silence.

You can't skip quests without "failing" them. Most of them are very well designed though.

The first time I saw a ghost in Silent Hill, I panicked and put a few rounds in it. Had that happened in a movie, most of us would've probably gone "stop wasting ammo you stupid mofo". Game designers can control when the player sees something, but not how they react to it. Often the scripted events that feel forced aren't even vital to the plot. The Witcher 3 actually has a few quests that you can complete even if you lose a fight.

 

[StatusNil]

The player affecting the story by their actions is gameplay. I like gameplay in my games.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Thing I look for most in a game is replay value, and branching storylines have greater replay value ... so ... yeah.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

Haven't put a vote down because I can't. They are both as good as eachother, it just depends on how the writers want to implement it.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

As long as the story is good im not that fussed which is used. Scripted can make a better and tighter story. But branching can give you some choice so your more involved in the story but then most branching story choices are basic at best anyway. But, again if the story and gameplay is fun then both are good.

 

[kenu12345]

Where is the option good execution of story? I don't care for either method as they both can have very deep story. It just depends on the execution of said story and how well it ties together

 

[K12]

I voted for linear stories and then regretted it almost immediately.

The thing is that branching stories are just so much damn harder than linear ones but the ability to do branching stories properly and give players agency is what sets our medium apart from all others so I really hope the devs get better at this over time.

At the moment the number of genuinely branching stories (e.g. telltale games don't really count though they are fantastic) and are also satisfying and enjoyable on each branch can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

No middle option? Because the problem is I generally don't see much difference, if at all with "branching" stories (which, btw, are still scripted). 99% of games are as linear as those walking simulators everyone seems to hate.

Haven't put a vote down because I can't. They are both as good as eachother, it just depends on how the writers want to implement it.

Pft, this is the Escapist internetz!There's no middle ground and no 'they're both good because they're both different' - the only value in choice is one or t'other...

Given a this-or-that choice I picked biasing towards linearity, because I like good stories, and those are extraordinarily hard to do with so-called 'branching' design. [edited something out re open-world design, which really wasn't relevant]

 

[Xyebane]

For me, i prefer meaningful choices, though those are rare in games. Personally, I think most really great stories are built around specific themes, and games have the opportunity to explore some very interesting themes that other mediums cannot pursue in the same way. For example, themes on free will vs. destiny, is choice an illusion, or even the nature of relationships. I think the question is a bit deceitful because a well done story that integrates player choice properly can be a great story, and stories told completely through cutscenes or removed from player interaction are rarely good.

 

[Something Amyss]

Pft, this is the Escapist internetz!There's no middle ground and no 'they're both good because they're both different' - the only value in choice is one or t'other...

Clearly, you need to become familiar with the "pedantic Amy choice [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.883370-Poll-Kvlt-or-br00tal#22280126]."

Given a this-or-that choice I picked biasing towards linearity, because I like good stories, and those are extraordinarily hard to do with so-called 'branching' design. [edited something out re open-world design, which really wasn't relevant]

I suppose it really depends on what I'm in the mood for, honestly. At their best, a linear story is something like an interactive movie and a branching story is more like an adventure. Of course, at their worst, they're both crap. But I guess it largely comes down to what experience I'm looking for at the time. Kind of like open world v closed world. I like them both, but what I prefer depends on whether I want to play a level for challenge or reign down chaos.

You know, I didn't even noticed you edited out the open world thing. Which is what got me thinking about it. Curse you, Rosenberg! You win this round!

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

I did not choose either option, they both seem to degrade the other. I enjoy a well put together linear story, but if you can put together six well written paths to take, all the better!

I site Tactics ogre for the ps1 and a prime example of branching storytelling at its best.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Branching is ambitious...and much easier to screw up than a canned script.
Thus, it rarely works out.
Branching is also uniquely suited to gaming, vs static "traditional" storytelling (which works defacto across the mediums of text and performance).

Which isn't to say that game scripts are rubbish; quite the contrary.
But I more appreciate games that aim high and try (even some that fail) than those that just do the same old same old.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Games such as KOTOR, DA series, ME series, Wticher series, Fable series, and TTG games have branching stories, where player's decision impact what happens later in the game. This also adds replay values.

I am a fan of these games (and interestingly, not particularly of any of the ones listed above), but saying that, there are very few (one or two handfuls few) games that genuinely have "branching" story telling. The BW games in particular aren't really branching, and I'll explain why.

ME: All three games each have one over-arching story. The first for example is Shepard chasing Saren. It is linear until after the first Citadel visit and then gives the player three options. Therum, Feros and Noveria. At this point, the main story is effectively put on hold. These three objectives are distinct and each have a self contained mini-story that is itself linear. It is because they are self-contained that they can be done in any order. IIRC you need the key, the cipher and Liara to unlock the beacon's message. After all these three are done in whatever order, the main story picks up again with Virmire, then Citadel, Ilos and the endgame. It's not really branching because there's one main story that is simply paused. The only bits that are arguably "branching" that come to mind are going with *either* garrus or wrex on the citadel to find Tali and not with both (excluding the player from one of the two joining the crew), but here the player could get them both anyway, the only choice was in which order. And the other is who survives out of Ash or Kaiden (tho it wasn't a hard choice...Ash if you're Adept or romancing her, Kaiden under all other circumstances). But even here, one will always be saved and return in ME3 to take up the same slot in the crew.

ME2 and 3 were no different. One story, put on hold while the player does mini-objectives in their preferred order, then linear again. In fact, one of ME3s, main criticisms was that nothing done before made much difference to the game. You could kill Maelon, wipe his Genophage cure data AND kill Mordin at the end of ME2 and STILL have to do the mission to cure the genophage in ME3. It shouldn't even be an option at that point, but the writers only had one idea, so in it went despite making no sense; Mordin had an exact duplicate to replace him. You could send grunt out of an airlock, sell legion for scrap metal and shoot Wrex on Virmire, all three had doubles too (and Legion's double isn't even a different Geth but the same exact one, only a hologram like they didn't even try).

DA:O was similar. I must say I did absolutely love the different origins and was sad that they weren't a) more involved and b) a series mainstay used in later games. So it starts with 6 unique prologues, which are about the only bits that *are* branching. Then it's linear until after meeting Flemeth. Again, the main story is on hold until the four distinct parts are done (dwarves, elves, humans, magi). I think the only potential interconnect between them is one option for resolving the human storyline only available if magi tower is done beforehand. Otherwise again, they are separate stories that meet up again.

KotOR 1 & 2 are the same, with the four middle planets having individual arcs and being doable in any order. It makes little difference which is done first. Even BG2 wasn't branching. What it did have was a sort of open-world Chapter 2/3 where the player could do things as they chose, before a linear progression from 4 onwards. The only "branching" part here is the keeps/strongholds the player can get depending on their class. They are excluded from getting the others (without a mod anyway).

In my opinion, to qualify as "branching", a game would need to 1) offer a choice of two or more distinct ways to progress thru the main story AND 2) MUST exclude the player from taking other branches. The Witcher 2 comes to mind first, with Chapter 2 being wholly different depending on the choice at end of Chap. 1. There are two different paths that reach the same destination, or conversely, one story with two different branches.

 

[Timeless Lavender]

I really do not care. All of them have their advantages. Linear story lines done wrong would have ludo-dissonance (in other words inconsistency). While branching story-lines done wrong is when the writer only thinks black and white with the player choices or have choices that really do not hinder the story.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

To be honest, I'm a bit back and forth on this one. I've seen games ruined by either approach, and also either one turning out phenomenally great. Having said that, I think I lean towards the scripted story as I think I've had more better experiences with that type of game. COULD BE that I just play more of those types of games, but whatever.

Since I'm playing The Witcher 3 right now, I'll weigh in on that while the overarching story may not be that epic, it does have some meaningful decisions thrown at you. And some of them are just as small as either being snarky or friendly, and end up with interesting consequences. It's also a cool psychological test at times to see how heartless and shitty you are willing to role play yourself, and also how much you like screwing around, if anything just to see how much the writers are going to let shit get out of hand.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Let's see, usually i find stories in games worse than in books or movies in general, so i think it's better when a game utilizes something that only this medium can pull out. My pick is branching.

But like to every rule, there's an exception to it and that is:

(...) "open ended" or "player driven" stories, like in Bethesda games, aren't stories at all. They're just a sequence of disconnected events, most of which will just consist of killing lots of mooks.

Because screw that kind of "storytelling".

 

[Randoman01]

Branching. I like the idea that a game gives you multiple paths to take.

 

[madwarper]

Games such as KOTOR, DA series, ME series, [...] have branching stories, where player's decision impact what happens later in the game. This also adds replay values.

Wait... What? Have you been playing the same games I have?

KotOR? Your actions are irrelevant.
DA? Side with the Werewolves or the Elves? Templars or Mages? They're just throwing a different skin onto the same regiment of troops.
ME? Any choices you make only result in a subtle "sup? remember that time we did that thing?"

I would like to play a game where my actions had /actual/ consequences in the game world. But, those 3 examples you've listed... Those aren't it.