This game is so linear - linear games are boring. (Linearity, is it the cool thing to hate now?)

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Well Seldon I think that's one of those "fine line" subjects and if you tip-toe on either side you get an uproar - but I think either side would still have "choice" in the matter, whether the character is "your user generated character" or "Solid Snake" - I don't think it makes a huge difference in "linearity" as long as you are in control of the person, then there shouldn't really be a problem.

 

[shadow skill]

It's about the illusion of non-linearity. Anything with a plot has to be linear in nature, the question is whether or not the progression of the game is fun on some level. It's exactly the same with repetition.

 

[privatehuff]

Yeah I once read this book, and it was just this old guy fishing and jabbering on about Joe DiMaggio... Seriously, page 3 came right after page 2, page 17 came right after page 16, and this shit continued for like over 100 pages!! (wtf man!?!?)

 

[klarax]

Yeah I once read this book, and it was just this old guy fishing and jabbering on about Joe DiMaggio... Seriously, page 3 came right after page 2, page 17 came right after page 16, and this shit continued for like over 100 pages!! (wtf man!?!?)

nuff said, its like: ppl get born and ppl die.

Everything has a start, and an end.

It's all about how entertaining the journey between them is. In short: Everything is linear, even life.

 

[neems]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a correlation between liking linearity (and the whole "the characters drive the story, not me" concept) and using an inverted Y-axis in shooting games. One explanation I've heard for y-inversion is that if you see yourself as being in the front of the head of the character (and thus actually *are* the character) you'd use up to be up. If, however, you see yourself as being outside of the character, you see yourself behind the character, so pushing up on the back of the head causes the character to look down.

Well I've always used an inverted Y-axis, but I see it as being more in character - I lean forward to look down, lean back to look up... otherwise all you are doing is moving a cursor around rather than actually looking.

 

[Archaeology Hat]

I've no problem with linear games. I quite enjoy a fair few of them. I don't enjoy games where the character I play isn't me, or isn't controlled mainly by me, because more often than not I can't empathise with them. I do however love a good sandbox game. Especially if there alot to do in it.

 

[guyy]

Pretty much all games are linear in the sense that there's something you're supposed to do, and you have to figure out a way to do it within a varying amount of restrictions. Sandbox things like Gmod aren't really "games" at all because the game itself doesn't define any goals; they're more like simple game-creators, because they only become games once you think of something (wacky) to do in them.

Linearity isn't a bad thing unless it gets to the point where the player isn't making any decisions at all; then it's like watching a painfully long movie with terrible CGI. Some people need games to let you make many drastic changes to the storyline, but as long as the game isn't so structured that you can't choose how to attack an enemy, linearity isn't really an issue for me.

 

[Piorn]

I'm just gonna throw this question in:
Did people complain about the linearity in Super Mario? or Pac-man?
Think about it.

 

[Mother Yeti]

I'm just gonna throw this question in:
Did people complain about the linearity in Super Mario? or Pac-man?
Think about it.

Er, I'm not so sure you thought about it, because that's a comically irrelevant point. Video gaming has made huge strides as both as a technology and an art form in the past two decades, and therefore people expect more depth from it than they used to.

(By the way, what's up with the thread title? Is there a joke that I'm missing?)

 

[zen5887]

Games need a bit of linear-ness to keep the whole thing running.. I've allways said a game where you can do anything would fail due to a lack of goals. Even games like GTA, The Sims and oblivion, which have massive amounts of free roam elements have that line to pull things along.

Like Guyy said G-mod is more a simulation or a tool then a game, because of the lack of goals.

 

[stompy]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a correlation between liking linearity (and the whole "the characters drive the story, not me" concept) and using an inverted Y-axis in shooting games. One explanation I've heard for y-inversion is that if you see yourself as being in the front of the head of the character (and thus actually *are* the character) you'd use up to be up. If, however, you see yourself as being outside of the character, you see yourself behind the character, so pushing up on the back of the head causes the character to look down.

Well I've always used an inverted Y-axis, but I see it as being more in character - I lean forward to look down, lean back to look up... otherwise all you are doing is moving a cursor around rather than actually looking.

I usually play on consoles, and I'm used to inverting the y-axis. When I play a PC shooter, I don't. For me, it just seems natural. So, according to you, I'm more involved in my console games then in my PC games... Fair enough.

 

[Knight Templar]

Saying a game sucks for being linear is like yelling at a dog for not being a cat.

 

[666thHeretic]

It's not such much how linear the game IS as how linear the game FEELS.

 

[chaostheory]

What makes a game linear is defined by its genre. A FPS is linear when there are not enough options for how to tackle a problem. An action/adventure game or a RPG is linear when there is not enough side quests or places to explore. Still linear games can be fantastic, and every game with a story is essentially linear because all stories are linear.

 

[Flunk]

Linear games can be fun, it allows for a much more complex story. Linearity is one of Yahtzee's pet peeves so it's natural to see a lot of people on this forum mindlessly echoing his opinion.

To put this post in perspective, I love jRPGs despite the fact that I acknowledge that they may very well warp the mind and allow you to understand Japanese logic. Sou desu ne?

 

[Mr. Jims]

The backlash against linearity isn't particularly surprising, as many people have fallen in love with "sandbox gameplay," due to Grand Theft Auto and other games that became famous in that respect. Since that style is so much fun, it's pretty easy to start railing against linearity.

In my opinion, linearity only becomes a problem if the core gameplay isn't fun enough to support it. When you're forced to sit through the game in same way every single time, the fun-factor of the gameplay doesn't really have anywhere to hide behind. Well, except for graphics sometimes. If the gameplay is ridiculously fun already, then it's not a problem at all. You just play through the game several times, going through the levels in exactly the same order. Would being a less linear game necessarily be a good thing? Probably, but it's not as big of a deal, since it's already a fun game.

It's also tough to defend linear games, because what are you really going to say? "Yeah! I love not being able to make those kinds of choices!" Argument lost.

 

[shadow skill]

It's easy really choice based systems don't exist because computers are completely incapable of simulating that aspect of reality.

 

[iamnotincompliance]

Didn't we just have one of these?

Since I'm pretty sure we did, I'll reiterate: Lack of linearity would be damn near impossible to do, immersion is the problem. If the game doesn't suck you in, all is lost.

Okay, the thread was about repetition, and it was again started by ElArab, but I still think the point stands. Complete lack of linearity yields Garry's Mod, as many have already pointed out. A game has a beginning and an end: Somehow, you must get from one point to the other. Whether it be line, a curve, a Mobius strip, a sphere, what have you, somehow those points are connected. Perhaps the sphere will immerse you more, as the choices leading to the end are up to you, but inevitably the end will be reached. Such is life (in more ways than one).

 

[Copter400]

All games are linear. No exceptions. The point of all games is to eventually finish the game. There's never been an option to completely destroy the game in its entirety. Case closed.

 

[Gooble]

As everyone has said, games have to be linear in some shape or form, because otherwise you'd never complete them. The only way to give an illusion of non-linearity is to have some really complex choice system which affects everything later on in the game.

Mass Effect are started to get the idea of this, although you could see where your choices were heading, and this just goes to show how difficult it would be, and how much development time it would take to have truely unique gaming experiences to each gamer.

The other thing is in games where text choices alter future events, you'd have to probably have fairly unprovocative statements affecting future events, as the stuff you're saying is what you as a gamer mean; for me personally I'd be very conscious of the fact that I'm doing the opposite to what I want to say, which would ruin the experience for me.