[Knight Templar]

(yes it's a poll, yes it has a 60 day limit.)

I want to know which you guys prefer, Multiple (alternate) endings vs. a linear (longer) story. Oh, first off, lemme say that by Alternate Endings, I mean like full acts ( anywhere from 5 - 15 missions), not wether you fail or achieve a few objectives in one mission.

[glow=blue]Alternate Endings - Pros [/glow]

- You can explore various outcomes of a conflict, show what would it be like if the player were fighting for them instead of them

- It's generally kinda fun to get to choose wether you want to play as the bad guy or good guy.. or the other guy.

- Adds a good deal of replayability to the game, keeping people interested.

[glow=red]Alternate Endings - Cons[/glow]

- They can be a lot of work, and are a lot more time consuming (interface art you wouldn't need, more missions [theorhetically], etc.)

- Alternate Endings can (IMHO) take away from the drama or epic feel of an otherwise linear story. If Admiral Petrarch sacrifices the Aquitaine to save Vega from the Shivans in ending#1 but in ending#2, Petrarch is out on lunch break and misses the whole thing, it takes away from the movie-esque feel, or at least what a linear ending would have in the way of being true to it's on story.

- Alternate endings could be confusing or hard to follow

- If a sequel were to be made, and you have 3 alternate endings, 2 would have to be disregarded. That normally wouldn't be a big deal, but going to all that trouble, story-wise to create 2 alternate endings (acts) , it seems like a waste.

- Could in a sense belittle the story by making it seem 'too-fun'.

[glow=blue] Linear Endings - Pros[/size][/glow]

- A lot easier to work with one story outcome compared to 2 or 3 or 4.

- Tends to make a story feel bigger, more epic, that sorta thing.

- Keeps everything in one Canon plotline.

- Easier to produce story and mission wise.

- All of the focus that would be distributed among multiple outcomes (characters, feelings, events, cool ideas, etc.) can be mixed into one , bigger, longer, better storyline.

- Sequels seem a lot more viable / make more sense / connect with the first plot better

[glow=red] Linear Endings - Cons [/glow]

- You don't get the 'fun' of multiple endings.

- not as much replayability.

- no *required* replayability to finish playing the product.

- A bit shorter of a mission count

- Not as much playing for the bad-guys (situation depending)

- Loss of ideas and such that could be done/shown through alternate endings

----------------------------------------------------------------

So bassically I'm debating it myself and I want some public opinion. I'm leaning torwards linearity, but i'm already set up more or less for doing alternate stuff (which was a sort of feature).

I know a lot of RTS's make it work, but they aren't dealing with a story following one character. If it weren't for that, there'd hardly be any question.

So what's your guy's opinion?

[Galemp]

I say, make it the same ending as far as the storyline goes, but have alternate endings from the player's viewpoint.

[Fineus]

Linear, but only because it can potentially be a richer ending that draws something to a close better than a number of alternate endings. Personal taste is A1

[aldo_14]

I'd say linear, because it is better for overall story-telling.  I think non-linearity tends to force you into ambiguities or 'fuzzy' stuff, because you can;t be sure exactly which way the story will go down.

[TopAce]

Linear is simplier but alternate, multiple ending possibilities would be good to have.

I don't vote in here yet, I cannot decide.

[Killfrenzy]

I say linear, because you can have the whole story leading up to a point which is then turned into the climax of the whole saga.

[Havock]

I choose for something in between.

don't make every nickel count, just some hidden gimmicks and such.

make it worthwile to play a second time.

[karajorma]

I quite like the way FS2 did it. Mostly linear but with several powerful endings.

[StratComm]

The only way that I would support multiple endings is if there is a more elaborate failure state.  You fail one mission by losing a destroyer... that destroyer would (several missions later) play a pivitol role in a major battle and without it you lose the fight... the system falls... the GTVA is crushed... humanity is defeated... ending cinematic of a scorched earth/fleet adrift and bodys floating in space, that sort of thing.  Normal ending (you save the destroyer) is at least a semi-success, so the story goes on.

Basically, if it leaves only one possible outcome (for sequels, etc) and something definitive (but bad) for all the other endings then it's ok.  If it leads to a CnC-style "the other endings ddn't happen even though there's no reason why they shouldn't have" kind of ending, then I'm definitely against it.

[Knight Templar]

Stratt: Right, bassically what we had/have in mind was the CnC style thing, where you end up playing for one of the 3 factions (all opposing each other) and no matter what side you play for, you win. (hinting that the main character/player is the balance in who wins and who loses). It wasn't like "play as the GTVA and win or play as the GTVA and loose" although, if you played as the enemy of the GTVA, you'd see them loose. But again, following that route, any sequel or add on would have to senselessly drop all but one of the outcomes, which is one of the parts I'm not found of myself.

GE: You mean like have the same plotline, just from different pilot's point of view?

Aldo: or less realistic in itself stuff. You know it's bad when you are doing stuff you don't agree with just to keep it in line with the theme of alternate realties. Meaning that some (well at least one) of the endings seems a bit stretched, even if a little. Rather improve it/crop it a bit and stick it into one thing than have it there for the sake of being there.

Top: I think you are looking for option 3.

Kara: check your PM's

[TopAce]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
....
Top: I think you are looking for option 3.
...

I voted Linear.

[magatsu1]

I say linear. Even alternate endings have a short "life-span"
Who needs V to do various scenarios when you can do it yourself with the wounders of FRED and HLP !!

[Taristin]

I want peperoni on my pizza...

[pyro-manic]

Eegh. I don't - gharstley stuff....

...but I still voted that, 'cos I reckon a combi of both is the best - have a mainly linear story, but be able to go through it from different viewpoints (different squadrons, etc., or different sides depending on your actions).

[Knight Templar]

Right, except that I the idea is that this is all from a single characters point of view (I.E. not Anonymous Alpha 1), maybe I failed to mention that. Anyway, it's hard to keep a story linear with an actual character while putting him in alternate realities. I could do that fine with A1, but not a character.

And on that note, I think a certain mixing of both worlds is the best bet. Dynamically linear.

[Descenterace]

StarCraft had a cool campaign style, allowing you to play from three different viewpoints whilst keeping the story linear.  Dunno how you'd do that in FreeSpace.

How about like in Tachyon: The Fringe, where one mission determines which side you fight on for the rest of the game?  The missions you fight in would be the same, but rebalanced depending on which side you're on.  This would work for linear plots, because you could have two factions fighting amongst themselves which later join to fight a common enemy... just like the Terrans and Vasudans in the Great War...

Hmmm... Conflict: Freespace from the Vasudan PoV?

[Killfrenzy]

Just make a new campaign.

[Knight Templar]

Right, Warcraft III did this as well. Problem is, WCIII or SC don't have one character going inbetween everyone (Well Raynor to some extent, but that doesn't really count...)

[TrashMan]

Alternate endings?
yust look at the DOTA campaign tree:

[Knight Templar]

So bassically you have 1 campaign that branches off into 2 with a bunch of SOC loops and yellow dots in between?