Linear Singleplayer vs. Adaptive Choice

[I will avoid spoilers in this thread]

I have been playing the Battlefield 4 campaign for the past couple days in order to create a first impressions video on the campaign, as well as unlock the weapons for multiplayer (I want my M249!).

After playing through a great deal of the game I have pondered on what makes a great singleplayer experience in a game. Particularly in the FPS genre.

First off i'd like to say i'm fond of indulging in games such as Operation Flashpoint, Battlefield Multiplayer, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, ARMA and other open world or adaptive choice games. I enjoy feeling immersed with the world I play in and value the personal choices involved.

That being said, I see the value in a linear storyline. A story involving a fantastic story, great characters, and engaging dialogue is just as enjoyable to sit down and play for a session. Games such as Uncharted, Battlefield: Bad Company and Halo are a few examples of single player stories I greatly enjoy to this day.

This brings me to Battlefield 4 and the singleplayer involved with the game. After playing for three or so hours I have continuously felt bored out of my skull. In my opinion the problems with the singleplayer experience boil down to the feeling of lack of immersion within the story along with the lack of choice invloved. The campaign has seemingly managed to avoid being a compelling personal player story as well as being a lackluster character story. The story seems to sit in a limbo between allowing you to create your own story and punishing you for attempting to think outside the box.

For instance, whilst playing through the levels I have consistently come under attack by helicopters. On more than one occasion I have already acquired the means to dispose of said helicopter via a grenade launcher, or other explosive. Although the helicopter was hovering directly in front of me, firing my explosive weapon clipped through the vehicle as it was at that stage a set piece in the level, unable to be harmed. This was the case until mere minutes later when the game gave me "permission" to use the same explosive device to destroy the helicopter.

Why did the game not let me destroy the helicopter in the first place? It was certainly aimed to appeal to the target audience that would rather have their hand held through the campaign in order to simplify the process of actually playing the game. My question towards this is whether or not that populace of gamers actually exists. We see games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, Homefront, and other AAA titles released every year with minimal choice or variety within their respective campaigns in order to draw in revenue from casual gamers who may only buy between one and three games per year. However, do these gamers actually prefer linear, hand-holding campaigns? Or would they prefer a campaign where their choice would matter and affect the game as they played? Would they even notice?

I have a few ideas as to how singleplayer campaigns can be spiced up in order to feel personal, or offer more engaging storylines and gameplay. Money and game development time is definitely a factor therefore I will attempt to have these ideas affect monetary spending as best as possible.

Offer small choices throughout the game. Games such as Mass Effect, Skyrim and other RPG titles offer a variety of story or gameplay impacting choices throughout the experience. Many of these choices impact the game in a large manner, although many more have slighter results. I believe The Walking Dead by TellTale is a fantastic example of this. The game will regularly offer slight choices whilst conversing with the player about various subjects. While conversing, the game takes your responses and actions and applies their consequences later in a manner of varying extremes. This sounds as though it would be a huge endeavor to take on during game development, however, small choices that may be less noticeable are also an option while developing games. What I refer to is the notion that destroying a helicopter before it's scripted even should be entirely available to the player, with a small change to the game's immediate progression. Even a small line change later down the line such as "Another helicopter! This one must be out for revenge." would be more welcome than simply being unable to complete an objective until the game permits it. Other choices may include choosing to save civilians before they are shot, blowing your cover but possibly having them help fend off enemies by shooting from a balcony later in the level, or choosing to let them die which would lead enemies to believe the area is clear to evacuate thus having less later in the level. Even having small dialogues with different squabbling squad members which could change their dialogue or load-outs would be a welcome addition. Small changes to gameplay along with the inclusion of choice help immerse the player in feeling that the world is alive outside of the small corridor they are traversing and should be used to compliment the game.

Give the main character a voice. RPGs often refrain from voicing their main protagonist in order to give the player a sense of immersion and take over the character for themselves. On the flip-side, a linear game without choice such as Uncharted will create a cast of colorful characters with distinct personalities, while placing extra effort in to crafting a likable main character for players to relate to. A game such as Battlefield 4 offers neither of these. The main character of Battlefield 4 does not have a voice in order to have the player be immersed in the character himself. Although, the character his own name and the player cannot make any choices during play. Thus, the game fails at creating compelling characters, or immersing the player with the protagonist. It feels as though the player is a toddler being handed cookies from the jar for waiting through a cutscene. The Half-Life series has perfected sitting on the fence in this aspect by allowing the player to engage with fantastic characters, but also offering choices in the gameplay in the form of how you handle situations or solve puzzles.

Make the fight mean something. America vs. [Insert communist country here.] is a tired storyline filled with meaningless plot. Saving the world is great, yet offers no meaningful incentive or feelings. Yes, you are saving the population of billions of people on the planet, but you don't know any of them. A game such as Bioshock Infinite uses your emotions for Elizabeth in order to drive you to move forward in the game. The Halo series does a fantastic job of having it seem that the entire fate of the galaxy, nae universe is in the hands of the player through fantastic dialogue, characters (Sergeant Johnson.) and cutscenes. Battlefield: Bad Company attaches you to your squad via their personality and allows you to care about their journey. Battlefield 4 is an example of a game which tries to convey these feelings within minutes, rather than an entire game. Sections such as walking you around an area and seeing NPCs which you cannot interact with, only to have the area be invaded and destroyed minutes later are sorry excuses for conveying emotion on the player. Why should I care whether these miscellaneous soldiers survive when their names don't even pop up if I look at them? A good storyline takes time to gradually develop in order to have impact on the player through characters and lore.

What are your thoughts? Do you enjoy linear games? Or do you prefer having a degree of choice?

@patty-jack:

Sup pat. Hope you're enjoying BF4 multiplayer. Thanks for the fore warning on the single player. I do enjoy good single player. But E.A.'s clearly lighting a fire under D.I.C.E's arse to shovel out a supplemental single-player, when the focus is really on having the best multi-player. I think the keys to making single player have been revealed in earlier throughout game history too. Devs can use fear, and dread like survival horror. they can create more objectively, or universally evil and oppressive villains, that all your characters have an investment in defeating I.E. Half-life2. The circumstances should be big or crucial enough to evolve or unravel characters in layers, and it could be more a little more in service of the game-play, rather contextually apart from what we do in-game.

but careful homie. Folks who h8 linearity as whole because of examples like BF3 and BF4 are on the prowl for these posts.. Prepare thyself for a bit of scrutiny

Before I tell you which I prefer, I just want to address the decision part. I think RPGs are a horrible genre to borrow this particular conscept from because of the way they execute decisions and manage consquences. In Mass Effect some options simply are not available (usually near the end of the game) unless you grind along a single path building up only one of Paragon/Renegade atrributes, theres not enough quests in the game to net you enough points for both Paragon and Renegade special Options, when you're confronted with with an option to be good or bad then you have to commit to only one of those options every time if the oppertunity presents itself FOR THE ENTIRE GAME, any attempt try and actually decide when you should be good for some quests and when you should be bad will dilute your overall Paragon/Renegade points leaving you you with fewer or no choice at all near the end, rendering the entire choice structure a f#cking waste of time, unless you fall easy for such cheap illusions.

The problem with RPGs is they use statistical models to execute choices and consquences instead actuall logical outcomes, choices you make amount to nothing more than stats going up or down, theres hardly ever any logical outcome for the choices you make. However, not all RPGs are gona the same problem as Mass Effect, each RPG will manifest its own unique flaw, but they all stem from the same source: Statistical Execution.

I say stick with the The Walking Dead type of execution, its better suited for games like battle field. I think Gears Of War impliment tactical choices (you go left/high, I go right/low) every once in a while.

Ofcourse for some games you don't need a choice at all because controll is hardly ever taken away from and its scripted so well, ofcourse I'm talking about Portal 2.

Depends heavily on the game, but I find that games with even the smallest amount of choices or customization options tend to be more replayable and enjoyable than overly linear, hand holdy games. It's why I love JRPGs. Even though the stories are linear, there's usually enough customization that still gives plenty of choice.

@Lulu_Lulu:

I do agree that a game such as Battlefield shouldn't have RPG decisions shoe-horned in to the game. What you said about using The Walking Dead method or offering a choice of approach in GoW or Crysis 2 is definitely the way to go in my opinion if the game is going to have that linear path and story.

@ Patty-Jack

I'm just happy you didn't make fun of my Grammar. :D

When it comes to more linear games it all depends on how well the world is created, how well characters are written and if the story itself is compelling to play. Take The Last of Us for example. It tells a very specific story based around two specific characters. If that story is terrible or the characters boring then the gamer has no reason to play but give them something as moving and as interesting as TLOU then it has the power to become something so much better than any game filled with unlimited choice.

@ puddinghead101

TLOU started out pretty well instead of watching a cutscene of the prologue, you get to play throughout most of it, you get push the narrative foward. Then for the next 15 hours its typical gameplay-cutscene-gameplay-cutscene formula right up until the end where they actually grant you one more shot at illusory, narrative agency.

Was the story good ? You bet your sweet ass it was !

Did it matter ? Nope, not a f#cking chance !

atleast thats my theory.

i tend to go to the choosing your own path, that's why i love the Mass Effect series so much. But i don't mind the linear story if it is well told.

@ The_Last_Ride

seriously even after my analysis of Mass Effect (specifically Mass Effect 2) you still prefer that style of decision making ? You're yanking my chain aren't you ?

The FPS games that are coming out today are not as linear as many think they are. Look at Doom it was a truly liner shooter with only one path you must go to get what you need to get to the exit. Then the hallways are so narrow that you can do nothing about it.

Most FPS coming give the player more way to deal with the the shootout while giving the developer more power to make better staged shootouts.

A open world FPS allow the player to attack from a number of sides. The problem is that the deveopler must now spread out wher the enemies are so it can be an okay fight from any side.

I don't particularly mind a directed experience, but games like Battlefield and Call of Duty seem to discourage play. I feel like most of the time those games are like someone putting their hands on my cheeks and pointing my head at exactly what they want me to see. To borrow a term from @Lulu_Lulu, they are poor illusions. Yahtzee has famously bashed these games for this sort of thing over and over and over. He even has a childish euphemism just for modern military shooters. Still funny though.

I prefer a game like Halo where I have a goal, a toybox full of guns and a whole bunch of blood filled aliens between me and said goal. From there, it's up to me how I want to dispatch them. If I want to use my sniper rifle as a baseball bat and melee all the enemies instead of shooting any of them, that's my business and the game doesn't discourage it. Inversely, Call of Duty and Battlefield, as you say, give you permissions of what to do and when and it's about as much fun as clipping my toenails (meaning none and all).

Good thread, thanks for making it. :)

There are very few linear shooter campaigns that are any good. Singularity, Bioshock, Binary Domain and Call of Juarez Gunslinger are a few. What makes them good is either the characters the setting the story or just the world itself is an interesting place.

Games like CoD or Battlefield are terrible for a FPS campaign experience. It's a 4-6 hour shoot fest with no purpose.

If you want amazing single player shooters, play Dues Ex HR, Far Cry 3, Rage, Blood Dragon.

@ristactionjakso:

I would argue that a singleplayer game such as CoD or Battlefield 4 is not really a core game as much as it's a gallery shooter. The basic principle of gaming is to overcome obstacles and be required to solve puzzles or other events.

There is non of that in the Battlefield 4 singelplayer campaign because you are quite literally told where to go, when to go there, and even when you are allowed to shoot something. This makes the game akin to a gallary shooter in an arcade, rather than a full core gaming title (Barring the multiplayer.).

Patty-Jack is right, You can't script conflicts like that, it undermines the players Autonomy, questioning very the reason why you're playing the game in the 1st place. they gotta stop tying our hands like that.

@wiouds:

The difference between a linear game such as Battlefield 4 and DOOM is that DOOM still required a degree of problem solving in order to advance through the game. Whether that be finding keys, secrets, weapons, etc it still allowed the player to figure this out for themselves.

Battlefield 4 and similar games don't have this, they will blatantly tell you who, and when to shoot, what weapon to use and not allow you to stray from the pre-determined path in the slightest.

@patty-jack: For all that hand holding these two series's shouldve been multiplayer only. At least Respawn admitted they just wanted multiplayer w/ titanfall

I generally prefer linear games, though not the extremes like Battlefield 4 or to be honest most modern shooters. With the move to the current gen apparently the extra graphical enhancements came at the cost of any sort of expanse to maps. It has hit the FPS the hardest I think, though it was also particularly notable in the likes of Final Fantasy 13 but it's kind of undeniable map design has taken a turn for the unambitious. I mean people were actually seriously mentioning things like "verticality" as a selling point for a certain modern shooter ( I can't remember which one, unsurprisingly). That's been a thing since the original Quake. It's only been in very recent years it's been dropped in favour of set pieces and bland corridors that don't go anywhere. Even Bioshock Infinte, a game praised to ridiculous heights over its world design, utterly failed in this department, but it didn't matter because all of the pretty scenery outside the invisible walls apparently makes most people completely oblivious to the fact they're trudging down another long corridor while a stream of enemies pop into existence just out of sight until you've killed x amount.

I prefer my games to have a linear story because honestly, most don't do choice well, with the exception of maybe the original Deus Ex. Changing a few lines of dialogue doesn't constitute choice to me, nor swapping a few items granted as rewards. I like having the freedom to choose how I tackle a problem, level or area in a game, but I'm not 5, I'm not impressed when a line of dialogue changes, or a pop up on screen appears to reflect the programmers were clever enough to let the game notice, I already noticed. I don't need the games story to change because I decided on a whim to clear a level with only my pistol, and even if it did change dramatically because of my actions, without prior knowledge of what events trigger the change how would I know that it had changed. Do developers really think I'm going to play a game to completion half a dozen times to hear the 30 superfluous lines of dialogue they recorded?

Well, there's room for both. Neither is inherently superior to the other, and it's certainly a mistake to equate linear design with simplicity and/or casual audiences. Having multiple paths is, as we've witnessed and heard told over and over again, exceptionally expensive for high-fidelity games. The more graphically intensive your game, and the bigger your world is, the more your budget begs for linearity.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario anyway. Mass Effect is constantly a game of false choices. The Walking Dead is a game where your choices equal flavour, rather than plot difference. Developers aren't trying to belittle or trick players when they do this, or, for example, when they design FPS that have multiple hallways leading to the same "Next Level Door", it's just a necessary part of the design.

I don't have much love for CoD type campains that are on the far side of the linearity curve, but that's the price you pay for those set pieces. There is no game - NO GAME - that is open to any degree that has the same production value as CoD. Uncharted and Gears of War are good examples of this too. They look spectacular but they're very small worlds.

The Witcher 2 is a good example of choice because the developer's take huge fucking risks no one else would dare and *allow* players to miss lots of content depending on their choices. This creates a game that is actually worth replaying/talking about. Western devs don't do stuff like this because their policy is "the player can see/do/achieve it all regardless of skill/choice/etc".

@patty-jack: Battlefield 4 sounds like a terrible game on every account then.

And the tl;dr prize goes to...

@patty-jack: Wondering around narrow hallways is not problem solving. There almost nothing to the shootouts.

Current FPS have a number of things you can do within each of the shootouts. The things is they are small that you can easily over look them.

I think what he's talking about is more decision making. in old shooters when you've gotten out of a battle and your health is low. Since you can't regen you can get caught in a pickle where you know where power-ups might be, but have to decide whether going in is worth getting shot up or to just soldier on with what you have left. DOOM maps were wide enough to allow for situations like that. Especially with those damn shotgun zombies.

@wiouds:

Allowing you to choose between a sniper rifle and assault rifle isn't problem solving, as you do not face a tougher challenge based on which you choose and are fully able to progress regardless. It simply allows anyone to pick up and play the game in order to appeal to casual fans.

Games like Battlefield 4 are Multiplayer-focused , u shouldn't expect a mind-blowing story of'em ...

Generally speaking , if u wanna experience an awesome multiplayer go with sth like BF4 or Titanfall, if u wanna have an intense immersive single player with thought-provoking story go with sth like Bioshock Infinite ....It all depends on the gamer ...

@patty-jack: If you take the time to look at the game then there a number of things the player can do in the current FPS unlike Doom which is just walking down the hallway. Compare to today FPS Doom gives so little that you can do to change the shootout.

@ mjorh

Really ? Biosck Infinite ?

Thought Provoking ? Yep no problem there.

Immersive ? Sure I guess so, if you like shiny things

I think I understand what your getting at. You feel as though if your'e actually in control of the game during narrative sequences then it becomes more powerful and in many cases I agree with you. That first sequence in TLOU is amazing and when I think of games like Journey where you basically make the experience by how you play then I can see your point.

But as some games become more of a performance with actors doing the voicing and motion capture I guess developers want you to see that so then it becomes more of you watching the story than playing it and in the case of TLOU I didn't mind watching what was some great performances. I am worried that games might go too far in this direction and we might lose what games are but the medium has to adapt and progress to what people want to see. I'm just not sure what that is yet.

@ puddinghead101

You Bioturd Infinite yet ?

Absolutely horrible game but story delivery method is good. I don't want it to win the GOTY but it would be criminal if it or Beyond Two Souls doesn't win the Best Story award at the VGAs and the BAFTAs. TLOU should definately go for the GOTY

@wiouds:

As I said, a modern shooter such as Battlefield 4 doesn't change depending on how you deal with situations, and depending on the choices you make doesn't matter in the long run. They have even eliminated the problem solving element in games such as DOOM. Therfore the singleplayer element is nothing more than an amusement park ride. No skill involved, no changes depending on your choices, even death of your character isn't a factor.

There are exceptions to this, i'm not saying every modern game is like this. If you are thinking of games such as Crysis, Deus Ex, etc then you are right. I am specifically referring to Battlefield and CoD esque franchises.

@patty-jack: I am also talking about Battlefield and CoD. I have the same single player level that was different by the tiny choices change how each shootout play out.

In Doom there was no choice at all in the shootout outs. Out side of the shootouts it is just wondering around hoping to find something. No real problem solving at all.

I have put more though and skill into a CoD game than Doom.

@wiouds lol we get it you like modern shooters, but come on now if you think you have more freedom during the CoD15/ BF4 campaign compared to much older shooters you're clearly not looking hard enough or simply haven't bothered playing the older games. CoD/BF campaigns look fantastic but the game very obviously doesn't even want you to play it, every 30 seconds it takes control off you so the art team can show off by having your character can do some preprogrammed animation or so they can forcibly turn your head so you don't miss out on any of their explosions. There's none of the same craftsmanship put into levels and encounters that focus on playing well and instead they focus on areas and events that look outstanding because the same emphasis on crowd control, exploration and resource management just isn't possible when your entire bag of game mechanics consists of "the enemies will keep respawning until you reach point X" and "Take Y amount of damage in Z seconds and you'll die".

And don't even get me started on their worst contribution to FPS gaming: actually automatically killing the player for walking outside the invisible mission area

Required viewing my friend. Now I respect your insight, I understand where you're coming from, but call me up when David Mason can out run his own rpg rockets, I'm jus' sayin.

andd

The first video was only picking out some parts of current shooter and then exaggerated it to an extreme.

The shootout in both still suck.

For a shooter, I want the best shootouts they can give. I do not want a dungeon crawler with guns.

Please stop arguing that the worse part of Doom as to why it is better that current shooters.

You mean the best they can 'present'? If you wanna give better modern examples you can try F.E.A.R. or at least the Halo series

but gps'ing you where to go, in a straightforward limited map? Why? It's not San Andreas and I'm not likely to get lost. Forcing you what guns to use for which sections? Wheres the choice in that. especially when we've NOT had to deal with rigged roller coasters for 20 some years in other FPS? Thats not evolution, its backwards and shouldn't be done in SP. Believe what you want man, but if freedom's more important I'll put more into pixelated hell on this one.

and at least you have more incentive to move constantly instead of camp behind chest high walls playing whack-a-mole with guns all day,

@Lulu_Lulu What's in ur definition of "Immersive" ?

@platinumking320: Wondering aimlessly is not the same thing as freedom. I want the best shooter I can get even if that mean they do not give me the worthless ability to move around a large maze.

Where do you get the ideal they force you to use some guns? I have yet played a current FPS that force you to use a weapon.

In a single shootout in CoD, do I go down the right side of the tank, left side or into the building. Each one change how the shootout play out. Also what weapon you pick up also change how you play that shootout.

In Doom, you to use all the weapon and the shootouts are as basic as you can get. Point the cross hair of the enemy and hold the fire button. It is so basic that there is no freedom in the way you handle the shootout in Doom. Look at rage, it use the same level staging as doom and its shootout sucks.

It's not aimless, there are keys to pick up. Just because the goals are simpler doesn't make it a complete dunce of a title.

From your comparison. you've got one of a few scenarios, that'll give you a different setpiece event. The enemies generally start from the same area, and they don't move around that much further either. at least in DOOM there's monster in fighting. I can choose out of eight different weapons, depending on who I'm up against, whether it's more logical or insane choice, again in the end it's my decision as a player to approach danger how I want no FPS battle is guaranteed to end 100% exactly in the same way.and theres No obligatory turret drone use because the on-rail section said so.

I can circle-strafe the entire perimeter of a group of foes and box them out, even while underpowered, I can wiggle in between fire and chainsaw the lot of them. In some cases it works even better than shooting. Despite how dumb they may appear to you, enough demons in a narrow space, a wrong move, and you can still get boxed out by them. I.E. they can become challenging.

RAGE is poor because the movement is current gen, for a considerably wide space and its focused on modern cover based mechanics which doesn't serve the FPS lore it comes from. Regen health just makes you want to wait it out till reach level's end.

DOOM is more focused on avoiding fire altogether, rhythmically quick movement, and making it on what power-ups you can find, inherently you earn and discover every means of destruction you get your hands on, even in setups when those weapons are shiny bait for a monster trap ( which unfortunately devs won't setup anymore ) rather than having some parts where the goodies are introduced to you.

and I'm not the only person who sees the backwardness in BF CoD style campaigns.

@ mjorh

Me ? I think immersion is overated. I personally don'r need it as much as others.

:D , Btw i believe Bioshock Infinite has such a fantastic unforgettable story ....

@ mjorh

Indeed it does. If only its gameplay was the same.