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

Recommended Videos

Splitter

New member
Jul 10, 2008
234
0
0
Linearity is really present in all games. I think what a lot of people get confused with linearity is when the game is essentially one long corridor, after you do one thing, you move straight onto the other, with no choice about where you go in between.

Devil May Cry is a classic example of that. But I don't consider that a bad thing, I love DMC (I own but have yet to play the sequels so that may change). In a game like that, that amount of linearity is necessary. I mean you're in a castle full of monsters, all of which want you dead and if you don't sort this shit out Mundus is going to rise again and take over the world. So, what are you hoping to do in between kicking the shit out of hellish freaks? Although many people dislike this sort of game, essentially DMC is a "go and a get a key, killing stuff on the way, open the door, go find the next key, kill some more stuff" kinda game. I don't really have a problem with it. I don't see how free-roaming could be incorporated into a game like that and I wouldn't want it to be. (See also Max Payne, Abe's Odysee/Exodus, Most FPS campaigns and Prince of Persia Series)

Then the step up from that is games like Ratchet and Clank, Spyro the Dragon, Super Mario 64, etc. Where there is a clear path, but you do things in what order you like, within reason. In those sorts of games theres no sort of illusion that there is a final goal and you often have a good idea what that is. There is also a path you follow but you're often presented with something like 5 things you have to do and you do those 5 in whatever order you like, and so on. Theres also often optional things to do which aren't necessary to advance with the storyline, but completely them gives you a nice item (like all the extra stuff in R&C) or it is required for 100% completition (note how you can defeat the final boss in spyro without 100%).

Finally there are games which are still linear but because they include free-roaming people think they aren't. Examples which spring to mind are FFXII and Black and White. In both of these you can spend as much time as you like messing around doing whatever you want whether it be side-quests or just wandering aimlessly. It often pays to do both of these but eventually you'll get bored of wandering around like an idiot and get on with the story. Note that although both the above mentioned games let you do things in your own time, they both have a very clear storyline which can't be altered, no matter how much you spend wandering around like a lost drunk, eventually you have to get on with it, even if only to give you wandering pastures anew.

I would say the games which have provoked this anti-linearity are not much different from this. Although I haven't played the GTA series much from what I can see there is some sort of story to them, although the main appeal seems to be that you can wander around doing whatever the hell you like and blowing shit up, there are missions to be done, and eventually you'll have done all of them and the game will be complete, whether the game ends here or whether you're simply allowed to get back to the important business of blowing shit up I don't know. But the fact remains that even GTA has an element of linearity in it.

When it comes down it, every game is linear whether it be a clear story of just a final goal. Hell even AoE and Civilization are linear, eventually you want to wipe everyone out or wipe everyone but your allies out and then you've won. Without that the game has no purpose, and in that aspect it is indeed linear.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
ElArabDeMagnifico said:
Just like "repetition" - linearity is now a popular thing to condemn a game for.

All games are linear in one way or another, only game I can think of that isn't linear is Garry's Mod, or skirmish in RTS games, but in general, aren't all games linear? Why is "this game is linear" considered a problem now? Maybe "This game is too linear, it isn't dynamic enough" makes more sense, lets compare "Stranglehold" to "Bioshock".

Stranglehold: Same guys pop out of the same places, and you shoot the same things that are above their heads to fall on them, using the same john woo skills. That is too linear because not only is it repetetive, but you can repeat the same thing every time and get the same result.

Bioshock: The AI is a bit more dynamic even though they respawn in the same places and such, but there are a variety of ways to do things, therefore making it less linear, but it is still linear.


Even Crysis is linear, but since you can replay it and do many different things, it still makes it feel like a sandbox game, even around the rail-ish sequences near the end (except that aircraft carrier level, not much you can do except kill aliens) - so even though the same events happen, you can replay them in different ways.


When is linearity a problem? -or is it even a problem?
The problem is that games are getting away from being well-crafted challenges that the player has to beat, and going more towards being "experiences" where the player basically just experiences some stuff while going from point A to point B. Linearity worked well with the former, but with the later the game starts to feel restrictive since there isn't as much actual gameplay to keep the player entertained. The player expects to be able to make decisions and choices in return, but can't, so the game starts feeling like a chore.
 

karpiel

New member
Apr 18, 2008
141
0
0
I don't really mind gameplay designed to bring you from point A to point B, but at least leave some creativity in how to get there. To me, Gears of War is a cardinal offender in this respect. The fact that the game actually stopped you and said "DO YOU WANT TO GO THIS WAY OR THAT" struck me as being really bizarre, and that coupled with the cover system ultimately made me think that it was some sort of bizarre Time Crisis clone, albeit sans the funny plastic gun to point at the television. At the opposite end of the spectrum are games like System Shock 1/2 and Deus Ex, which cleverly allowed a lot of natural replayability thanks to number of ways to try out dealing with every sticky situation. That sort of thing is yet another thing that was superior about gaming in the 1990s, in my opinion.