Should games remain linear?

[caz105]

Many developers claim to have a variety of endings to their game depending on the players decisions in game (I'm looking at you PM), but in reality most only have two or three choices: Good evil and neutral. Should games keep trying to be nonlinear or should these have assed attempts at being player controlled continue?

 

[stinkypitz]

There really isnt a way to be truly open ended, unless you write a lot of different endings and give the player a lot of choice, which is a hard thing to do because for each choice you basically have to make an entirely different game for one person than for another. The Good/Bad/Neutral endings may seem limited, but its the only practical way of doing things.

 

[Susano]

Are you talking about being linear or having different endings depending on your karma?
Because I'm all for games staying non-linear, but I'm not a huge fan of the different endings, mainly because they will always have a limit to how many there can be.

 

[xenxander]

There's nothing inherently wrong with liniarity, it gives games a purpose, a goal, and a path.

Almost all cartridge titles of the day were linear in all or most of their game play. When you try to offer non-linear choices, it tries to become a sandbox title in a free-forming world such as Saint's Row 2, or GTA series and all of which do it with some pros and some cons.

Space Siege was a decent example of a linear game that also played rather well for being a "siege" game.
Space Siege was also linear but had three different endings based on choices though all stages in the game happened in the same order, just different cut scenes, etc...

Long-winded answer for, "it doesn't matter, but I don't mind if it's linear."

 

[darkcow55]

As processing power improves open ended games will continue to proliferate. Mass Effect offers a 'taste of things to come' but... there will always be a place for a nice casual pick up and play action fest.


Just look at geometry wars; it largely kept the 360 afloat till Gears was launched....

 

[Internet Kraken]

Half-Life 2 was linear. Was it a bad game? No. Games that are linear are perfectly fine.

However if a game claims to be non-linear and it does boil down to just good or evil I get mad. But that's only because the game claimed it was non-linear.

 

[Mockingjay]

They can only improve really... But atm they just seem like a cheap selling point yeah...

 

[xenxander]

Half-Life 2 was linear. Was it a bad game? No. Games that are linear are perfectly fine.

However if a game claims to be non-linear and it does boil down to just good or evil I get mad. But that's only because the game claimed it was non-linear.

Take "Fable" for example - only two endings and you could get either one simply by saving just before the end and paying to have your age reversed (once), and of course to alter your alignment. (when you realize that, there's little point to playing other than a power - gamer and just changing yourself right before the end based on what ending you want to see).

 

[M.A.D]

Silent Hill(1-2-3-4, didnt bother to get through homecoming) is linear and yet it offered what, 5 different endings per game? each very different from one another(not ALL that interesting mind you...), sure you had to look it up on the net if you wanted to have a chance to find what the hell to do to get each but...yeah that was a pretty interesting idea, no particular definition of good or bad just...different stuff
But i think when it comes to a good ending, one should always go for a more linear game, it's only logical that all endings when given multiple choices can't all be the best, i prefer when writters can concentrate on their own vision of the story rather than having the player influence it.
That being said i did enjoy many ''open-ended'' games, but for different reasons than the scenario.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Call me a crazy iconoclast, but I think there is room enough in gaming for both approaches.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Call me a crazy iconoclast, but I think there is room enough in gaming for both approaches.

The question is whether both types of gameplay can be produced well enough, not that it matters, us gamers are fickle bastards.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Call me a crazy iconoclast, but I think there is room enough in gaming for both approaches.

What is this meaning of different types of games for different players? What madness is this?

The truth is all games must have some type of linearity, even if it is very hard to see, it's there.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Call me a crazy iconoclast, but I think there is room enough in gaming for both approaches.

Basically what I was going to say. It's yet another situation where we have to take it one a case-by-case basis.

Also, I think this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOXAtPvMDk] might be somewhat relevant.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Call me a crazy iconoclast, but I think there is room enough in gaming for both approaches.

What is this meaning of different types of games for different players? What madness is this?

The truth is all games must have some type of linearity, even if it is very hard to see, it's there.

Madness?, THIS IS THE ESCAPIST!!
*kicks vxicepickxv down a well*

 

[NeutralDrow]

There's nothing wrong with linearity, unless it's in a game that claims to be open-ended.

 

[pakker]

Well depends on the game really...
Multiple endings in Max Payne or Half-Life? erm no thanks.
Multiple endings in Fallout 3? Sure thing.

Mostly I prefer a game with a clear ending that has something relevant to do with the story, so if done well, as Bioshock did imo opposed to what many say, multiple endings are fine, especially when its based on a moral choise that is not -that- important to gameplay (here I might want to highliht Bioshock again, getting powers one way or the other, it all adds up)

2 to 5 endings, fine by me, aslong as it ties up the story well enough.

As one who doesn't care much for online guides and never replayed Silent Hill games, I have been happy with my version of the story.

Have different endings, aslong as it is not dependant on one overpowering choise a few minuts before the final boss fight... A game like Jedi Academy did this entierly silly and stupid thing.. Being pumped up with Dark Side powers, throwing people off into lava and flinging lighting everywhere, I could still chose not to kill Ross and get a good ending.. Different endings shouldnt be decided by one choise.

Ow and an idea, stop making it a selling point, infact, stop telling us there is multiple endings at all, just make them, and make sure they somewhat play according to the individuals way of playing the game, so when the guy sneaking around talks to his friend, who played the hammerswinning maniac, talks about the ending, they are actually suprised somehow...

Aaaand i've ranted long enough.. hope i made some sense...

 

[xenxander]

Let's not forget that "Fallout", the original, really did non-linearity quite well. And there were multiple endings for that game, multiple paths to take, but there was a tiny bit of linearity to the game in general (obviously).

Fallout 3 isn't so far off of the mark, but of course smacks of Oblivion to no end.