Are Linear Games Inherently Bad?
- Thread starter Nickompoop
- Start date
Recommended Videos
For me, it's not overly-linear unless it is just running down a corridor with no other rooms to enter like the doors are painted on the fucking walls, making you stop every now and then to fight some enemies and has a huge glowing neon sign saying "Go straight in this direction you stupid ****!" every 5 meters
Since When? I have never heard of anyone say this sentence in real life, sure people say its good, but do people really think its worthy of that title?Nickompoop said:
Not at all. Linearity is a story telling technique (for want of a better word) and works really well when the game has a powerful and compelling story. In sandbox games it's easy too easy to be sidetracked.
Linear storytelling has to be done well and no linear story telling has to be done REALLY well. Bar story telling. Sandbox for sandboxes sake is needless. In fact needless exploration or stupi side quests/jobs for upgrades is a big minus in my eyes.
A big issue is some games give you too much of one or the other. Other get the mix right. There's liniar game play and storytelling. You can have an open world and a set story with side bits or a closed world with an open story, or vice versa.
A big issue is some games give you too much of one or the other. Other get the mix right. There's liniar game play and storytelling. You can have an open world and a set story with side bits or a closed world with an open story, or vice versa.
"Too linear" means the game feels overly constrained. Someone tried to draw a contrast between Halo and Call Of Duty which kind of illustrates the principle, but Call Of Duty features fairly large levels that allow for slightly different approaches. It's linear but I can move around and approach fights differently.
But there are games that restrict you to a very narrow corridor where you are always aware of the boundaries of the level. That's too linear. It's one think to bump up against the limits here and there (either the obstruction or invisible wall) but when I'm going through a forest and its all I see in a level as narrow as an indoor level, the game has failed to immerse me. That's too linear.
But there are games that restrict you to a very narrow corridor where you are always aware of the boundaries of the level. That's too linear. It's one think to bump up against the limits here and there (either the obstruction or invisible wall) but when I'm going through a forest and its all I see in a level as narrow as an indoor level, the game has failed to immerse me. That's too linear.
At the end of the day, any game which attempts to tell a semi coherent story is linear to some extent. There's no point in allowing the player to do the final mission before the opening one. Even the Bethesda games, though they claim (and can back up to some extent) to allow you to do whatever you want, whenever you want, start to beat you around the ears if you consider doing the main story missions out of order.
I find that heavily linear games tend to allow for the more immediate Call of Duty adrenaline rush type scenario's, so to answer your question: No, not at all. Linearity can be effectively used to push the story, presentation and more importantly; pacing.
It's been mentioned before, but many (not all, but most) open world games are pretty poorly paced, simply because of the fact that the game isn't constantly pushing you along and so it needs to find other methods, usually pointless gimmicks, to fill in the extended gaps between missions.
Still, at the end of the day, both methods have their uses.
I find that heavily linear games tend to allow for the more immediate Call of Duty adrenaline rush type scenario's, so to answer your question: No, not at all. Linearity can be effectively used to push the story, presentation and more importantly; pacing.
It's been mentioned before, but many (not all, but most) open world games are pretty poorly paced, simply because of the fact that the game isn't constantly pushing you along and so it needs to find other methods, usually pointless gimmicks, to fill in the extended gaps between missions.
Still, at the end of the day, both methods have their uses.
As with all games, this is simply a design decision. If you make a game that needs to be linear open, it will feel too thin, and if you make an open-world game linear it'll feel restrictive.
Games like Bioshock only really work as linear games, because they are incredibly story-focussed. However, if you were designing something with an overarching story but not a lot else (say, a straight-up RPG) then you'd want to make it open-world.
Neither is inherently better or worse than the other - it just depends on the type of game you're making. And if the game is badly written, then even the right choice won't save it.
Games like Bioshock only really work as linear games, because they are incredibly story-focussed. However, if you were designing something with an overarching story but not a lot else (say, a straight-up RPG) then you'd want to make it open-world.
Neither is inherently better or worse than the other - it just depends on the type of game you're making. And if the game is badly written, then even the right choice won't save it.
Non-linear games aren't all that often non-linear in the first place.
Lets take Mass Effect 2 for example.
My playthrough is totally different from yours.
But is it really non-linear?
No.
You still have exactly the same missions as I do, with exactly the same way from A to Z. Only you get the decide the sequence of those linear paths.
Games like Oblivion, Fallout, give a bigger feeling of non-linearity, but in the end, you're still following that one road the developers made for you to finish that quest, and that story line.
Lets take Mass Effect 2 for example.
My playthrough is totally different from yours.
But is it really non-linear?
No.
You still have exactly the same missions as I do, with exactly the same way from A to Z. Only you get the decide the sequence of those linear paths.
Games like Oblivion, Fallout, give a bigger feeling of non-linearity, but in the end, you're still following that one road the developers made for you to finish that quest, and that story line.
The cool thing about non-linear is the sense of freedom they give you which more linear games have been incorporating. A great example is Arkham Asylum that requires you to complete all missions in exactly the same order... but let's you go back and re-explore previously played areas. It felt a bit like a sandbox game without being one. The original Bioshock did the same thing. I enjoy not feeling artificially cut off from earlierlevels. I'm sure all of us have had that situation where we walked through a door ending the level and thought "Im not through yet" but unable to simple walk through the door again.
Not for every game but I like games that work to sell the illusion.
Not for every game but I like games that work to sell the illusion.
Metroid Prime is linear? I have to disagree on that one for a variety of reasons, though admittedly there is a semi-defined "path" you're expected to take in the game. The thing is that path overlaps with itself numerous times, and the series is very well-known for it's backtracking (exploring previously completed areas for upgrades & items). Sequence-breaking [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SequenceBreaking] is a common practice for experienced players of the franchise, which allows the player (using a minor glitch or two) to go around the expected path and acquire some key items much earlier than intended. Anyhow, the key point is that Metroid (referring to the series as a whole) is traditionally considered non-linear.Nickompoop said:
Back to the main question, linearity isn't objectively bad... but it does create some problems. The issue primarily arises when a game is obviously linear, especially when things start to get repetitive.
Ultimately, almost all players want some variety in their gameplay. If you're going to make a linear game, you can't have it consist of the same thing over and over again; things have to be mixed up a bit or else the player is just going to get bored of repeating the same task without deviation. In a non-linear game, the player is given the option to deviate from the main course at any time they want (how far they can get may be limited at first, but the game world opens up more and more as they progress). Sand-box games can be described as being primarily or entirely composed of these deviations, and quite often the entire point is for the player to just do as they please.
So yeah, you could say linearity is inherently bad for a game... but feeling linear is definitely a negative aspect for any game. Because games are interactive, players want choice (which leads directly to variety). If a game is going to be linear, variety has to be incorporated into the level design. In a non-linear or sand-box game, players have the option to make their own variety if need be (though overly repetitive level design and/or not enough variety is the possible activities can still be an issue).
The issue isn't of linearity, which most people accept in games, but of showing you its shackles. Homefront is a good example of this: Invisible walls everywhere, you can't go anywhere until your teammates go first, absolutely no scope to tackle anything your own way. Every game has its constraints, the fault is when it points them out so obviously.
Half life 2 and Portal 1 and 2 are good example of linearity done well, since you don't feel like the world is just out of reach, but that you're actively interacting with it, even on the straight path. As long as the world feels tangible and real, and not just some props on a roller coaster, then linearity is fine and dandy.
Half life 2 and Portal 1 and 2 are good example of linearity done well, since you don't feel like the world is just out of reach, but that you're actively interacting with it, even on the straight path. As long as the world feels tangible and real, and not just some props on a roller coaster, then linearity is fine and dandy.
Linearity is only bad in RPGs. RPGs should allow for as much freedom as possible, as long as they don't let the story suffer in the process. This is why the old Baldur's Gate and Fallout games are so highly regarded: they provided a sandbox experience that was still story driven.
No, linearity is not inherently bad. When someone says that a game is too linear, it usually means that the linearity is badly executed.
BioShock, Half-Life 2 and even Mario let you make small choices that influence gameplay. Do I kill the Little Sister to harvest more Adam? Do I use the med-station now or save it for later? Do I risk my life to get more coins? A game that's too linear takes that away from you, becoming merely a test of skill.
BioShock, Half-Life 2 and even Mario let you make small choices that influence gameplay. Do I kill the Little Sister to harvest more Adam? Do I use the med-station now or save it for later? Do I risk my life to get more coins? A game that's too linear takes that away from you, becoming merely a test of skill.