Hey GIA, [Hey, reader]

I think linear games are the best way to go with RPG's. Different paths may be all right for Resident Evil and such it just doesn't work for RPG's. They are just to long for choosing different paths to take. I enjoyed Tactics Ogre, but I refuse to play it again just to chose the different paths. Even on something grand like Final Fantasy 8, I wouldn't play it again even if it meant Squall ended up with all three girls, which ticks off Zell, Seifer, and Irvine to the point of murder, while no one opposes the sorceress, and the world is damned. That would be a crazy new plot, but it's still not worth the 50-80 hours, of basiclly the same route. That's even if all the side quests were all ready done for me.

When I beat 8, I going to savior it a minute, then start 5. People enjoy these games for the same reason they like movies, they're an enjoyable way to spend your time. Sure you may see a betrayal about to happen, and not be able to do anything about it, but you can see that happen in movies though too. It doesn't make either any less enjoyable! Hell it's fun to yell at the stupid characters on the silver screen. I would see different endings in a RPG, a burden because of this. Linear storylines let you sit back and enjoy the ride.

Finally, most of these good RPG's have sequels so if their are different endings to the original, the other endings are worthless like in fighting games. Thus like I said a waste of time for 'what could have been' endings when you could be enjoying other games. Heck of all the RPG's I played their are only afew things I can remember vividly like: parachuting into Midgar, Nall, telling Alex about Jessica's guard, holding his sword awfully tight while he talked about her, Cloud cross dressing (unfortunately), the castle dropping to battle mode in FF2 (US), the opera scene in FF4 (US), the honeymoon ending in Tactics (Didn't see that coming at all). Sure I can thing of other things, but those are the things that stick out. The rest just kind of jumbled together.

-The Great Cornholio

Drew,

It probably goes without saying that the majority of us would prefer a game that we could mold to fit our own personalities. It would be much more interesting, for instance, to choose your own love interest, choose whether or not an potentially devastating character will join your party, etc. And while we can gratify ourselves to a limited extent (like putting Cait Sith and Yuffie in your party and killing them after every inn visit, and/or giving them really funny names), the kind of power we'd like to have is not possible due to several restrictions.

First of all, every major decision potentially alters the game. What if, for instance, Cecelia had stayed in Adylehyde like her father ordered her to? Half of the game (Wild Arms) is based on getting back the Tear Drop and fixing all the mistakes they made while getting it. In order to get this kind of non-linearity the author of the game would have to either predict every possible decision and consequence, or the game would have to be created real-time as the decisions were being made.

The plausibility of both solutions is controversial, but even they could be done the game would suffer incredibly. For instance, in order to release a game in a timely fashion one would obviously have to limit the number of actual decisions the player can make (or rather, those that influence the story), which would kill the depth of the supporting cast as well as the plot. Each character would have to be relatively static in order to predict outcomes, and the REALLY static characters (like NPCs) wouldn't be able to contribute anything at all.

This goes for real time predictions as well. Technically, it is feasible to have a scenario that plays out differently each time based on computer AI, but again, what kind of characters would that produce? You're still limited to the characters that began in the game, and they must react within certain boundaries to keep the game from running off into irrecoverable tangents.

Finally, the ultimate objective must be plain as day in order for the player to stay on track. This rules out plot twists, reversals, and basically everything that makes a story worth experiencing. What you end up with is a Choose Your Own Adventure novella with hitpoints. I wouldn't be in any hurry to buy that.

Games are generally linear. There is an objective and a challenge, and the entertainment lies in accomplishing that objective. Life is non-linear, and is generally very boring. Personally, the games I enjoy most (Final Fantasy VII, Riven, Wild 9) are linear in the deepest sense of the word. I don't play them because they are deep, meaningful, or realistic; I play them because they are fun, immersive, and most of all not real, and that's what games are for.

- Naz

P.S. - Movies, books, and music are "linear." Think about it.

The best RPG experience in my memory is the second half of Chrono Trigger, which is as far from linearity as you can get. Side quest after sidequest, to be done in whatever order you find pleasing, each as optional as the next, each vitally important for story development. Going off on side-quests in the middle of a major story is a basic part of Japanese literature and, often as not, gaming as well. Most Americans find a completely unrelated mini-story boring and a waste of time. But then again, these are the same people who also record to videotape many CG sequences of Lara Croft's breast action for later perusal. None of my friends do that, and none of them despise side quests, either. These two facts are completely connected. You just have to think about it.

Plus, the Japanese invented Chu-Chu Rockets. Therefore they are free to send my RPG characters off to do any little errand they please, and I will still sell my body on MLK Boulevard to buy their import games. This is logical.

So, the bottom line is, linearity is a bad thing. A bad, bad thing. And so are the gamers who would have chaos crushed by its nasty ruler-straight gameplay. These monsters have no respect for human rights or human suffering. Much like the communists, linear game-players are not really people, but some festering infection which happens to know how to turn on a Playstation.

But then again, that's just the Jack Daniels speaking.

-Love, Lord Itlan

Hi Drew

I think that the hatred towards non-linearity stems from Saga Frontier, and games of its vile quality. It's just something that takes extreme skill to create. Some games, such as Chrono Trigger, and Maniac Mansion , are fun and somewhat non-linear, but they have you striving for a single goal, with multiple methods of reaching it. In essence, we won't be able to make true non-linear games, because that would be giving infinite major possibilities, and infinite is too big to fit on a DVD or cd-rom. However, I read about a research team that's working on teaching a computer to write literature, and dialogue, although I don't think a computer can be taught to independently create (that's one of the few things humans have to themselves) I think that this may spark some hope into having a truly epic, interactive story.

-Gilbert

P.S. There's this guy at the coffee shop, and his whole show is to tune his guitar, and practice scales, and he has groupies, should I kick him in the mouth?

Drew,

In response to you question about linear gameplay in RPGs, I'd have to say that non-linear or linear can both be good, but not always. I feel that very linear games such as FF7 and Xenogears usually can become addictive, and although gameplay suffers from the linearity of the storyline, the player usually won't notice because he/she is so engrossed in the story. This becomes a problem if the player takes some time out from playing and feels no need to start again, or once the player completes the game it becomes a paperweight. Although I enjoyed Xenogears, I have yet to play it since I beat it. I suspect this will also be the fate of FF8. Except for seeing the FMV, I really have no need to play through the entire game again to learn about friggen' "Time Compression".

But what about non-linear RPGs? I find that term an oxy-moron. Although I haven't nearly played al the RPGs out there, not one I've seen has been more than slightly non-linear. Chrono Trigger could be considered non-linear, but the story unfolds the same no matter how you play it. The multiple endings was a nice touch, but a lot of them were just little variations or just weird. My point is, if a CT player didn't know about the multiple endings, he or she would just assume that their ending was the normal one. This is because the way the player progressed through the game didn't change the ending.

There are games that are more story-driven than others, and many people confuse this for linearity. FF7's draw for most players was its exceptional storyline, thus making it linear. Zelda 64 was driven by gameplay, mainly because the story was so simple that a player had no reason to think about that aspect. I'm sure Miyamoto can think up a better story than saving the princess again, but that isn't the point of the game. Zelda 64 probably had the same amount of "secrets" that FF7 did, and the rest of these games were completely linear. Both games have a completely different focus, FF7 on story, and Zelda on gameplay. Can a game have both these things? Game designers have a vision behind the game their creating, and it usually is focused on one singular aspect. That's why I've never felt that a particular game was perfect. Their was always one thing the designers didn't put enough effort into.

I believe that it is possible to meld the two main aspects of an RPG (Gameplay and STory) equally and come out with a wonderful creation. But the game would have to be the child of a gameplay guru (Miyamoto) and a story genius (Sakaguchi).

-FLIGHT

If the MGS action alone was meanignless, they wouldn't have released VR missions. Which is a good game, by the way.

Just saying.

I'm pretty surprised no one has said this yet, considering how many letters there have been on the subject. There are two competing theories about the expansion of the universe. Essentially everyone agrees that the universe is expanding right now. In the future, either the universe could continue expanding, or the gravitational pull of the stars could cause everything to come back together again.

For a while this was a debated topic, but the most recent evidence suggests the universe does not have enough mass to stop expanding. Actually, as far as we can tell the universe only has about 20% of the mass it would need to stop expanding and eventually collapse.

(It may be hard to imagine that the universe could really continue expanding FOREVER, but, it really is possible. Gravity is constantly slowing the expansion of the universe. But, the farther away everything gets, the weaker the gravitational attraction is. So, if the matter is dispersing above a certain rate, then gravitational attraction will diminish too quickly to ever bring the matter back together.)

-Kaxon

I liked End of Days...but that's just me. I thought it was pretty good...