Are Linear Games Inherently Bad?

[DustyDrB]

Eh, there's only a very few games that I enjoy exploration in. Mostly, I prefer linearity. How it usually goes for me, more freedom of exploration (geographical exploration AND narrative exploration) leads to more clunky storytelling.

Some people expect so much freedom where it was never promised.

 

[figday]

when done right. linear games can be awesome too.
sad thing is, most linear games are just..sad

 

[Jack Rascal]

Personally I prefer semi-linear games. Those are games like Dragon Age. You have a specific goal and you are limited in what you can do or where you can go at that specific time but you are free to accomplish those goals in any order you wish. You could go to the Circle tower first and go to the elves last. Or you could go to Redcliff first and go to the dwarves last.

What troubled me with Dragon Age was that I somehow felt disconnected. I didn't like "travelling in a map" and that somehow tore the story a little apart for me. But boy was I surprised the first time I was ambushed during my journey! I had no idea that my travels could be stopped while between locations (yes, I was that naive). I ended up in some patch of forest with arrows coming from all directions. All I could think was "Where am I and who are all these people!? I needed to see the elves, I come in peace!"

But I guess my point is, I don't mind linear as long as it's well done. I even enjoy linear RPG's. Sandboxes are great fun, but I tend to get distracted too much and easily wander around doing menial tasks for hundred odd hours and never finish the game. This is what happened with Oblivion. But someday, I will finish it. Don't know when, but I will. And I will keep buying both types of game. Sometimes I get disappointed, but that's life. Only when linear in a game means pulling me forward with a fish hook through my eyelid will I stop playing it.

 

[shasjas]

i dont mind linearity, however it does for me often severely decreases replay value. one simple way of fixing this in a game like cod, is to make each level more open to give you different ways of getting to the objective. this increases replay value without impacting on the story.

 

[Talydia]

Just to jump on the bandwagon. No, linear doesn't mean bad. A linear game just needs work in different areas than a sandbox game and not all dev teams may be able to recognize/do both well.

Personally, for me to enjoy a linear game it needs an engaging story that ties everything together.

 

[Inkidu]

Nope it is not. It depends on the experience. Some sandbox games are utter crap.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Linearity is definitely NOT a bad thing.

A lot of the best games are linear. If you have a linear story, but allow the player to go and explore past areas, and mingle with NPCs and the like, then you did it right.

HOWEVER, if you allow the player no freedom to do anything but march ahead and see cutscenes and the occasional battle...You did it wrong. In fact, the game is no longer linear but rather ON RAILS! And unless it's an arcade shooter, that's a bad thing.

 

[Ace of Spades]

If you mean linear in the sense of walking the player along a predetermined path from set piece to set piece, a la Half Life 2, no. If you mean making the entire game one long corridor with endless repetitive random encounters, a la FFXIII, then yes.

 

[PlasmaFrog]

Depends on the style. Having a supposedly "open" world, only to constrain it with a sense of linearity is a bad thing. This is why Fable: The Lost Chapters fell on deaf ears for most individuals that were expecting a more exploration type of game.

 

[Kotep]

Linearity isn't inherently bad but a linear game runs the risk of losing interactivity. If there's a set path you have to follow, there's a greater possibility that there's nothing else but the path to follow. It can also contribute to bad level design where exploration is replaced with almost a slide show of interesting locations.

For instance, the issue with FFXIII wasn't that it was just linear, but that it was a razor-thin rail with no content outside of that narrow path for 30 hours until you can hop off the story railroad and hop on the mark quest railroad instead.

 

[Pseudopod]

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.

I agree with this a lot. A lot of my favorite games are extremely linear, but due to good design you don't notice/care about the limitations. For example, the Ace Attorney series are about as linear as they get, but you don't mind because of the great storytelling and the investigation sequences making you feel more free than you are. If you're having fun or engrossed in a story, you often don't give the rails a second thought.

It's a design choice, and some games implement linearity better than others. Invisible walls in illogical places can do a lot to frustrate players.

 

[iDoom46]

No, because there's no such thing as a [truly] non-linear game.

The closest thing to true non-linearity in gaming would probably be Mass Effect (or maybe L.A. Noire, but I haven't played it yet and I hear whether or not certain criminals get away is scripted in anyway) and even that works more like a "choose which corridor you'd like to take this linear story down." game.

Even GTA games are just linear story missions spread across a sandbox where you can do whatever you want.
For more of what I'm talking about, see:

 

[FalloutJack]

I never bother with such judgements.

 

[Ekonk]

It isn't, next question.

 

[NickFury90]

everyone says that of 13
but i remember a lot of 10 being corridor-ey aswell.

Am i just remembering wrong

No, FFX was INCREDIBLY linear. Thing of it, it hides that linearity with towns, minigames, sidequests that weren't monster hunts, etc.

 

[Nickompoop]

Half Life 2 is commonly considered the greatest game ever made.

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?

Half Life 2 is commonly considered the greatest game ever made.

I think you mean to say worst. Honestly just because some random wackjob calls it the greatest game ever that does not mean its true.

Perhaps I should explain why I say that Half Life 2 is commonly considered the greatest game made. Here are my sources:
Number 8 on Metacritic out of every single game ever rated. http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all?view=condensed&sort=desc
Number 1 on Steam. http://store.steampowered.com/search/?sort_by=Metascore&sort_order=DESC&
Number 1 PC Game on IGN. http://pc.ign.com/articles/101/1011624p26.html
Number 6 Xbox 360 Game on IGN. Technically, it's the Orange Box, but I think it still counts. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/104/1045042p21.html
Number 4 Best Selling PC Game on Wikipedia, not including expansions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games
Number 4 on Gamefaqs.com. http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/top10/2288.html
Number 2 on Destructoid. http://www.destructoid.com/the-top-50-videogames-of-the-decade-10-1--155591.phtml

I believe I've made my point.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Linearity is only bad if the function of the gameplay feels limited in a way that only more freedom can provide. Being given a limited mechanic is a good thing in a lot of ways, as a focused experience is the heart of gaming. This being said, some genres have more issue with this than others. If an RPG does not have enough freedom to move and grow, then the player's investment is lost, since the primary idea and all mechanics in RPGs tend to be about growth and exploration. Conversely, if a shooting gallery has too much freedom and too many ways to be lost, the punchy nature of the genre currently would be completely lost due to frustration.

Basically, linearity isn't bad. However, if it's being brought up as a point against a game, it probably means that the developers needed less of it. If you notice it, there is a problem.

 

[Auxiliary]

Corridor gameplay such as every bioware game is generally what is considered too linear.

 

[trouble_gum]

The closest thing to true non-linearity in gaming would probably be Mass Effect.

Can you expand a little on how ME represents the pinnacle of non-linearity, given that it conforms neatly to the old RPG trope of:

"Doom is coming, you must hurry to save the world! But, whilst you're out, can you pop down the shops and pick me up a snickers? and a healing potion? Oh, and the various misfits you've collected together to save the world have some issues from their past they'd like to waste your time...er...resolve."

Not that I'm massively knocking ME for being hideously linear or anything. I just think that it's a long way from being truly non-linear.

Back on topic:

Linearity is not inherently bad - indeed sometimes, it's awesome. I cite Metro 2033 as an example of when leading the player down the road to the ending and offering them little choices along the way that you barely notice creates a truly cinematic experience. Metro isn't a game with an awful lot of replay value, but it does a particularly good job of telling a compelling, atmospheric story without distracting you and itself from that story with a lot of fluff and padding intended to draw out its playtime by sending you off on sidequests.

Linearity is good when its employed as a tool that keeps you, the game and the story moving forwards to the climactic ending. FPS, by their nature fast-paced, benefit from tightly drawn, linear storylines that take you from the beginning to the end, revealing little bits of their plots along the way.

RPGs, on the other hand, tend to sprawl a little more and move slower than their shooter brethren, and in general, any levels-based system tends to acquire a large amount of non-vital XP and loot gathering quests in your quest to hit the games level cap.

Sandboxing is good when it provides extension to the game/depth to the world/fun activity and bad when it distracts you from how bad the metaplot you were meant to be following is.

 

[alinos]

are you calling PoP sand of time bad because it's good. linear games are good because your actions are planed around a line of where you have to go making interesting story

yeah the PoP games are the perfect example

PoP SoT was linear but was excellent

PoP(2008) was terrible because it's open world destroyed story possibilities and ensure that the entire world had the same difficulty because people had to be able to go where ever they wanted

There is no true right or wrong with these games, open world sandbox-inesss can bee good but so can linearity.

I think the real issue is when you have a corridor game though, in that you play a shooter and theres only one way ever to approach a situation because the game dictates it, theres never the option to cut through this back alley and come around behind an enemy it's just keep on chugging forward.