Non-Linearity and Multiple Endings (Continued)

In my previous article, I tried to put forward a view about non-linearity in games, based on a quote of Berthold Brecht. I basically argued that most of the games which are called non-linear games or games with multiple endings, aren't really non-linear, nor do they really have multiple endings. In this article I continue to elaborate on this argument and share some of my thoughts on branching structure and multiple endings. Well, here we go.


The Challenge of Multiple Endings

The challenge of multiple endings lies in the fact that each different pair of endings (B and B') will require a different set-up or plot of its own (the A), because an ending makes only really sense if it relates to the problem that lies at its core. In that sense we must plant the seeds of more than one row-of-crisis + climax in the build-up of the game.


How to Overcome the Challenge?

One method for this would be to use subplots that unfold differently depending on how the main plot or other subplots develop, thereby changing the dramatic direction of the story (altering the nature and scope of the problem) and turning the game towards a different climax or maybe multiple climaxes (maybe a better word for "multiple endings"?). Another way could be to manipulate exposure in a way that results into different knowledge regimes as I go through the game, changing my experience as individual, although the event unfolds the same (For example I might or might not know that there was an agreement with the cops while I play a character in a Mafia game, depending on if I'm a cop or a mafia member)

Designing this maze of mazes is different from designing the pathways of the single maze with its single entrance and exit (A, B, B'). In many of the games based on moral choices, the design effort actually goes into the pathway of a single maze, and not into multiple storylines and multiple endings, but still these games are called non-linear games or games with multiple endings. But multiple storylines and multiple endings is to have multiple mazes (packed into one big maze, or arranging them as overlapping/intersecting mazes, or have them as parallel mazes). The problem now is how to intersect these mazes, if you should do that at all and not instead prefer to make two or more different games.

This multi-maze is different from the single-maze, because it has many points to enter and many points to exit; maybe some parts of the path would need to be walked through in each one of the stories (like if it is the only bridge over a river that runs through the maze) while certain parts of the maze might be not connected to any other path, once you decided to turn into that branch. In some designs it would be difficult to tell which path connects which entrance to which exit.

A story that aims for multiple endings would be served better, so it seems to me, if it has multiple antagonists at once, with their unique motives. This would make it easier to plant the seeds for multiple storylines and enable the writer to weave compelling story-branches out of them. This character-engendered approach could be accompanied by a variety of event-engendered situations, alltogether creating a huge story.


How the Evaluate the Branches

I think stories with multiple branches need evaluation criteria not only on the horizontal, but also on the vertical level. You could have a variety of story-track parts, A, B, C, D, E.... etc etc... but what matters is not just if B logically follows A, or if we can trace back A coming from B. It also matters what emerges through the combination of A and B, i.e if AB propels the act onto a higher level. There could be situations in which E would propel B onto an unexpected height, but not D, of which it is just a repetition. So when we combine many storylines consisting of many story-track parts, which are the track parts that ensure a climbing story when combined and which ones would cause the story to stagnate?Would there be a way in which a narrative engine could evaluate the 'topos' of the particular track parts of every story line and direct the player towards those parts that ensure that the plot keeps climbing and away from those that would stagnate story development, depending on the current topos that the player holds?

A last note

One risk you always face while having multiple storylines or many perspectives at once is that the story could lose its focus and go off-track. What if the story just feels like branching away from what has been perceived as the initial conflict? The player would probably think after a while: "What was I trying to solve? Was this my problem at the beginning? What the heck is my goal now? What is this game about?? Am I character X trying to save Y, or am I character Y, trying to save X?"


Was this article useful? Do you agree with the idea that having multiple antagonists would create a better basis for branching structures in story-driven games? Please leave a comment and share your thoughts with us.
_____