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):
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. - 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.
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?