Story Telling In Video Games - Linearity & Progression

I was watching an interview with Richard Garriott when, at one point along the dialogue, the subject of linearity was brought up.  The interviewer expressed interesting opinions on the matter (this was far from what is often considered a "professional" interview):

• All stories are linear
• The non-linear structure of open-world games (Skyrim, Just Cause 2, etc.) causes their stories to become unfocused, losing the sense of urgency that keeps the player engaged.

While an artist of the avant-garde variety may try to prove otherwise, it is quite simple to agree with the first point.  We all experience stories as a linear progression of events with respect to the passage of time (which we have, unfortunately, not been able to manipulate), even if it is told out of order.  Thus we can start to see how the second point begins to hold weight.  But surely a non-linear game is a good thing?  After all, Player agency, and thus choice, is what separates the medium from other arts.

The conflict I see here is that, from initial appearances, it would seem that in order to have a focused and engaging story, one would need to limit player choice, but a fun game relies on having choice available, even if it's just "fail or succeed." (That is, of course, up for discussion, but that's another post).  This choice is why open-world games have exploded in popularity.

So can a game have a good story without heavily limiting player choice?

Yes.  However, there can be a problem with our understanding of narrative.  A conventional method of telling a story doesn't always work in the more unconventional environments of gaming.

The plot of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim doesn't progress in a completely conventional way [A-B-C] at all times.  The player can occasionally choose to progress in a different order [B-A-C] but, no matter what, that quest line ends at one of the set points [C1-C2-C3 I actually can't remember if there are different endings...].  Yet Skyrim, as a game, doesn't end.  It can continue indefinitely and the "main quest" can stay infinitely unfinished but can be finished at any point.  As you might imagine, this means that not finishing the quest provides no resolution.  It's still sitting there...

Waiting...

Beckoning...

Thus, with not only no resolution, it has an anti-resolution (yes, I just created that term).  It's not some sort of experimental story with an ambiguous ending, it's an unfinished story.  And, as mentioned earlier, it goes cold, losing its emotional weight/impact.

The strange part is that an earlier game in the Elder Scrolls series, Morrowind, did much better at telling its story in a manner that fit the flow of the game... Well, at least the early game did. I never finished it.  I can point out two specific things Morrowind did better in terms of narrative presentation:

• The lack of obvious pointers and guides in Morrowind meant part of the challenge was for the player to figure out where he was supposed to be going.  Thus the large, open world was an active participant in the story.  Exploration was necessary to reach an objective.  Whereas, with the markers and arrows of Skyrim (and most contemporary open-world games), the environment takes a passive role.  Exploration is only needed when the guide fails, which is uncommon. 
  
  Thus the environment is just a backdrop to the story, and not a part of it.  So when the player takes the time to explore it, it is equivalent to admiring a prop within a movie during a dialogue segment.  It may be a cool prop, but now you're ignoring the driving force of the movie and miss out on important details.

•  In Morrowind a quest can be failed.  There's a significant difference between an incomplete quest and a failed one.  A failed one can't be continued, ever.  (This is, of course, ignoring the tactic of save-scumming) This is a form of resolution.  That story line ends there and the player knows that it is because of their actions.
  
  But wait, don't you fail in Skyrim when you die?  Yes.  The difference is, Morrowind continues as a game even when a quest is failed.  "Oh, whoops.  I just killed a main character.  Guess I'll just find some side quests now."

This doesn't necessarily decide whether Morrowind is a better game than Skyrim or not.  There are other factors deciding that (Not to mention the ever changing variable of "opinion").  However, I argue that the narrative structure of Morrowind is far more appropriate to the gameplay.


Another game to consider is the recently released The Stanley Parable.  This is a prime example of what I mentioned earlier with the whole [C1-C2-C3] thing.  Despite the many endings and paths, each possible story is just that, a path.  Whether its [A-B2-C5-D3] or [A2-B-C-D-E], it's still a path with a beginning and a predetermined end.  It's also an amazing set of paths at that.

In contrast, there's Minecraft.  It begins at some indeterminate point, and ends when you feel like being done.  Who knows what happens in between.  Does it have a story?  Yes, but only after it's done.  Just like life.  Now isn't that creative.


Now my favorite approach to story progression is that seen in games like Deus Ex and Baldur's Gate.  There's obviously a linear story structure, but whereas my first playthrough may be [A-B-D-E-F-I-J-K-L-X-Z] my next might go [A-B-C-E-F-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-T-U-V-W-Y-Z2].  In that second playthrough, my mind is blown as I discover things I can skip and things I had no idea that I did skip on accident.


So this was a long first post.  I would appreciate any ideas for another topic to contemplate in furture updates.  Thanks for reading!