Actually, Yahtzee doesn't mind linear games so long as they aren't excessively linear. He specifically said in one review "I don't think there's anything inherently bad about linearity in games," and if I remember corectly he considers it another way to tell the story.Flunk said:
This game is so linear - linear games are boring. (Linearity, is it the cool thing to hate now?)
- Thread starter ElArabDeMagnifico
- Start date
I think Mr. Jims has sort of the right idea saying that complete linearity is fine when the core gamplay is enjoyable. It always does and always will depend on the player and what they enjoy playing. It's just that simple.
Also I'm sure I've seen Yahtzee express a liking for point and click adventures, which are usually very linear, very fun as well.
Also I'm sure I've seen Yahtzee express a liking for point and click adventures, which are usually very linear, very fun as well.
I think it was more a liking for certain point-and-click adventures. He specifically complained about only being able to move forward if you follow the exact same train of thought as the designer. Valid complaint, actually. But I'm getting off-topic now. I'll stop.LordCraigus said:
On an unrelated topic, did you get the name "NotPidgeon" from homestarrunner.com, by any chance?
IMO BioWare are on completely the wrong track. The "illusion" of choice (Do A the Good Thing or B the Bad Thing) crowbarred into a scripted sci-fi movie isn't a rebellion against linearity, it's a gimmick. In general I think BioWare's one of the most overrated game designers in the RPG field today, but I know I'm in the minority there.Gooble said:
A game doesn't have to be finished by the player to function as a game. Having objectives isn't the same as "being linear." To point out that "all games are linear" because LIFE ITSELF is linear, because time is linear, because you're always moving forward and progressing in some way, is missing the point of the distinction and painting with an overly broad brush.
Games aren't novels; they aren't movies. They're games. I'm perfectly fine with a game having no end other than "it ends when you don't feel like playing anymore." Scripted objectives are overrated. Games should open the door to allowing you to create your own objectives, at your own pace, in your own way. As technology increases, there's more and more potential for that.
MASS EFFECT is a good example of how NOT to do that; or to do it very badly. It's just a bunch of boxed-in, pre-scripted chunks of disparate game taped loosely together into a whole. Just like Jade Empire before it. There's no real sense of mystery or discovery exploring the galaxy. There's no real question that the story is going to go anyplace unique; BioWare has a story to tell, and that's that. The variables are all superficial variables.
What I want from a game is a mysterious virtual world to explore and grow and have a lot of fun in. I don't really care about some gay story that a bunch of wannabe writers shoehorn into it. The less cut-scenes the better.
Take Oblivion or Morrowwind. The games have a story if you look for the story or follow your queues like a mindless robot, but all that really happens is that they deposit you on the shore of a vast world, and it's up to you to go and make merry. That specific freedom is the one thing that's entirely unique to gaming. That specific freedom is the one thing you can't get from a movie, novel, or TV show. That specific freedom is the important thing to exploit, examine, and nurture in development.
That said, I am not OPPOSED to linear gaming. Most games are linear, and there are tons of good ones. And some open-world games are sorely lacking yet. But I think the design philosophy of a company like BioWare, who purports to support the idea of open-world gaming, is utterly backwards. They're just telling a story and peppering it with cheesy Choose Your Own Adventure style dialogue trees. That's not non-linearity. That's just spending too much time on your story and not enough time developing a living, breathing world for the player to enjoy on their own terms.
.
That's largely just semantics. When people say 'this game is linear, thus bad' they really just mean 'it's TOO linear'. I suppose we kind of infer it - or at least i do. True freedom in a game will not be seen for a while and still be rare.
Linearity isn't as bad as the idiots who bash it seem to make it, whats bad is when developers and publishers call a game non-linear when in actual fact it is linear but you dont have to do the story, a great example of this is TES IV: Oblivion, because while yes it is free-roaming, it still has a linear story line that cannot change, i.e. you cannot become the emperor yourself, so it isn'r non-linear, just a free roaming linear storyline, but all the hype, if I remember correctly was how it was non-linear and you could do anything you want.
I sometimes prefer a good linear storyline, keeps me interested in the game, unless it is the shallow, 2-bit, plot hold glue of a JRPG.
I sometimes prefer a good linear storyline, keeps me interested in the game, unless it is the shallow, 2-bit, plot hold glue of a JRPG.
Well, every game has a certain amount non-linearity, I think. Even in Super Mario you could always choose to head to the wrong direction...
But seriously, the whole non-linear thing is still in its infancy. It'll take a lot of time for games to establish the kind of freedom everyone's expecting and that's why it's, like a lot of you already mentioned, just a matter of how non-linear it feels.
But as much as the "decision aspect" in videogames appeals to me, I still like games that just straightforward tell me their story and I still play Time Crisis or Apocalypse once in a while. Brains Off, get ready to shoot. Videogames can be fun in a lot of ways. Linear and non-linear.
By the way: Hello everyone.
But seriously, the whole non-linear thing is still in its infancy. It'll take a lot of time for games to establish the kind of freedom everyone's expecting and that's why it's, like a lot of you already mentioned, just a matter of how non-linear it feels.
But as much as the "decision aspect" in videogames appeals to me, I still like games that just straightforward tell me their story and I still play Time Crisis or Apocalypse once in a while. Brains Off, get ready to shoot. Videogames can be fun in a lot of ways. Linear and non-linear.
By the way: Hello everyone.
i think some games are to unlinear, like oblivion or for me it is anyways because i go out to kill things before i do the first quest because killing stuff is fun and by the time im done killing things i have no idea where to go or why i was even going there to start with other than "the game wants me to go here"
That depends on how much you want to invest in a game like that.
A friend of mine for example hated Morrowind just for the same reason but eventually loved Oblivion after he played for a few hours.
A friend of mine for example hated Morrowind just for the same reason but eventually loved Oblivion after he played for a few hours.
In a certain light having a game that is linear can actually be a good thing. Imagine the following, you've returned to playing a game you stopped playing a few monthes ago because it was getting slightly boring and now your ready to give it another run through, so you now have the choice of continueing from wherever you were last time (a good few months ago remember) or starting fresh, if you choose the former you now have to remember where you were in a game or what you're supposed to be doing etc. which again, means you'll have to look through whatever files/reccord/journals/mission lists etc. that a given game has. Linear games tend to be more simple in this respect of you have a very clear and established goal to accomplished where in more open games this tends to be overcomplicated by numerous side quests, bonus missions etc.
The point about books and movies is a great one, as they're still enjoyable even after you've been a gamer, and you can reread a story and still enjoy it. Games Like fallout 2, remove themselves from movie like linear progression through the storyline, but are fun from the start to the still limited end. A brilliant masterpiece of an RPG unsurpassed personally in the choices it gave you and entirely fun all the way, even though the initial game ran like a dog until 18 bazillion patches and two doses of loading screen induced narcolepsy found you.
Fallout 2 and MGS3:Snake Eater are to me, two standout games that I love to pieces. One shows what the gaming medium can offer in terms of choice, and how enjoyable that can be, even when Sulik opens fire with an SMG when a kid throws a stone at you before the brick headed neanderthal leaves the party because I'm a child Killer.
The other is a brilliantly detailed adventure that shows how a movie like experience can be tied into an entirely enjoyable game experience. The storyline while somewhat affected by your actions, is mostly unchangable in the progression of events. I see it as an equally valid game even though you're essentially playing a movie. And that's the point. It does more than most games to make you feel the atmosphere of the situation and give a movie like experience but with more interaction.
But a JRPG for example, needs awesome story and some less linear gameplay because typically, the game aspect is typically the puzzles and combat, and the puzzles are usually heavily dispersed through the game leaving the combat to form the bulk of the 'game'. And this is usually tedious. With a lack of linearity, you might as well make a comic book with cut scenes on CD, with a sudoku or similar puzzle locking each chapter.
Which as a kid is why Secret of Mana appealed, as the story suited my age group and it was active combat that was fun and simple with colourful graphics and good music for the era. But to play it now, it's not an engrossing enough story and the combat is a bit simple and not too challenging.
I could be here for hours...
Fallout 2 and MGS3:Snake Eater are to me, two standout games that I love to pieces. One shows what the gaming medium can offer in terms of choice, and how enjoyable that can be, even when Sulik opens fire with an SMG when a kid throws a stone at you before the brick headed neanderthal leaves the party because I'm a child Killer.
The other is a brilliantly detailed adventure that shows how a movie like experience can be tied into an entirely enjoyable game experience. The storyline while somewhat affected by your actions, is mostly unchangable in the progression of events. I see it as an equally valid game even though you're essentially playing a movie. And that's the point. It does more than most games to make you feel the atmosphere of the situation and give a movie like experience but with more interaction.
But a JRPG for example, needs awesome story and some less linear gameplay because typically, the game aspect is typically the puzzles and combat, and the puzzles are usually heavily dispersed through the game leaving the combat to form the bulk of the 'game'. And this is usually tedious. With a lack of linearity, you might as well make a comic book with cut scenes on CD, with a sudoku or similar puzzle locking each chapter.
Which as a kid is why Secret of Mana appealed, as the story suited my age group and it was active combat that was fun and simple with colourful graphics and good music for the era. But to play it now, it's not an engrossing enough story and the combat is a bit simple and not too challenging.
I could be here for hours...
Yea, you have to fear games companies will act like politicians hearing this and decide' linear' is the one thing we dont want in our games , to the detriment of all others. To hell with common sense, lets just go with what we read on the front page.
Books , Tv, Movies, all 100% linear, you start at the beginning, finish at the end, and some of them are truly excellent.
Keep stuff linear if you like, so long as its fun, entertaining linear.
Books , Tv, Movies, all 100% linear, you start at the beginning, finish at the end, and some of them are truly excellent.
Keep stuff linear if you like, so long as its fun, entertaining linear.
Linearity isn't a problem. Railroading is. Most people seem to use the terms as the same thing nowadays, which is wrong.
The difference is that linearity has to do with the story. GTA is as linear as it gets. It is however not railroading the player, that much (except when you're on missions). As another example is Spellforce. It's supposed to be a rpg/rts, which should involve choices. The only choices you usually have is what units to build, because there is, in the whole game, always ONE way to go. You can't go around the enemy and attack them in back, you can't attack someone else. There is always one way, and one way only to your goal. That is railroading.
And there are non-linear games as well, and some games that fall a bit in between. Fatal hearts is a great example of a non-linear game, especially since that game is all about the story. You can't escape the story at all, everything about the game is that story, and still, it's not linear. Sure, you do many of the same things on a second playthrough, but in some cases your choices really matter. You can choose which side to join, for one thing, and it's done in a very discrete way, on your first playthrough you wouldn't be able to tell that you could, you'd think that there only was one possible way.
Neverwinter nights also has a good example. It's awfully linear. It has one alternative about how things can go. It doesn't railroad you into this however, but lets you choose how you go about it, very freely. A lot of things depend on your choices as well, you don't have to kill everyone.
I've never had a real problem with linear games, as long as they're good, I don't care. But railroading games however are really bad. If there is always only one way to go, always only one solution to every puzzle, and you're punished by trying anything else, then it's a bad game, unless it has an amazing story and gameplay.
The difference is that linearity has to do with the story. GTA is as linear as it gets. It is however not railroading the player, that much (except when you're on missions). As another example is Spellforce. It's supposed to be a rpg/rts, which should involve choices. The only choices you usually have is what units to build, because there is, in the whole game, always ONE way to go. You can't go around the enemy and attack them in back, you can't attack someone else. There is always one way, and one way only to your goal. That is railroading.
And there are non-linear games as well, and some games that fall a bit in between. Fatal hearts is a great example of a non-linear game, especially since that game is all about the story. You can't escape the story at all, everything about the game is that story, and still, it's not linear. Sure, you do many of the same things on a second playthrough, but in some cases your choices really matter. You can choose which side to join, for one thing, and it's done in a very discrete way, on your first playthrough you wouldn't be able to tell that you could, you'd think that there only was one possible way.
Neverwinter nights also has a good example. It's awfully linear. It has one alternative about how things can go. It doesn't railroad you into this however, but lets you choose how you go about it, very freely. A lot of things depend on your choices as well, you don't have to kill everyone.
I've never had a real problem with linear games, as long as they're good, I don't care. But railroading games however are really bad. If there is always only one way to go, always only one solution to every puzzle, and you're punished by trying anything else, then it's a bad game, unless it has an amazing story and gameplay.
I dub thee Frankenstein sir! Why? Because of your obsession with bringing the dead back to life!SenseOfTumour said:
not at all. much like Plato's allegory of the cave, we game players have had our eyes opened, we can now see contrived linear level design from a mile away. the problem isn't that games are linear, it is when the linearity of the game design becomes apparent to the player making them feel like they are traverssing down some inevitably doomed gauntlet of ass kick.ElArabDeMagnifico said:
CoD4 is insanely linear but it doesn't matter since the player motivation is so specific and linear anyways. but if you create a "find Betty" mission, and i find myself coralled into an alleyway by non penetratable shrubbery... then i call bullshit and shitty level design. too many people are allowing for archaic game conventions under the false guise of genres and familiarity.
I love linear games that don't try and hide their linearity. Pretty much every good 2d game is like this, as well most shooters. However, I really dislike the feel of linearity in Silent Hill 2. The game gives you whole town to explore, but everything must be done in the correct order. Sure you can go to one room before another, but you can't solve any puzzles out of order.
I actually prefer the feel off Silent Hill 4. Before you go and accuse me of catching the retard virus, hear me out on this. Silent Hill 4 doesn't even attempt to hide its linearity. It confines you to your fricken apartment and everything you do is in an attempt to get out of your room until the plot thickens. I think it's brilliant storytelling. The ability to tell a story in a very precise manner is perhaps the greatest benefit of truly linear gameplay.
I have nothing against linearity, but Castlevania: Symphony of the night is one of my favorites, and it's not very linear at all. Still, I think GTA3 really started the whole concept of linear games being bad. Honestly, I don't think gaming has been nearly as fun since.
I actually prefer the feel off Silent Hill 4. Before you go and accuse me of catching the retard virus, hear me out on this. Silent Hill 4 doesn't even attempt to hide its linearity. It confines you to your fricken apartment and everything you do is in an attempt to get out of your room until the plot thickens. I think it's brilliant storytelling. The ability to tell a story in a very precise manner is perhaps the greatest benefit of truly linear gameplay.
I have nothing against linearity, but Castlevania: Symphony of the night is one of my favorites, and it's not very linear at all. Still, I think GTA3 really started the whole concept of linear games being bad. Honestly, I don't think gaming has been nearly as fun since.
Linearity isn't a problem when the game is engaging and the story is engrossing. You didn't hear ANYONE complain 'this is too linear' throughout the first half of Indigo Prophecy because you were on the edge of your seat the whole time, wanting to know what happened next. This is the effect of a good story well told.
Linearity has become something of a negative buzzword for the shit stained masses who use buzzwords rather than actually, you know, thinking for themselves because there's this mistaken notion that allowing players to do whatever they want is fun. This may be an effect as game graphics and controls approach the uncanny valley, any kind of restriction on the player in terms of what they can do and where they can go snaps the suspenders of disbelief. When playing Jehovah's Witness: the Game, where the point is to knock on people's doors and bother them while their eating dinner or fucking their dogs, complaining that the game is not realistic since you can't jack cars or break into old lady's homes to rape them and steal their silverware may be irrefutable, but completely misses the point since you're supposed to be playing a pious tit who is trying to convert people to his religion, not my cousin Bill who is in jail again.
Yes, I would say that the current 3D polygon texture mapping shit is what brought this on. No one complained about linearity in Super Mario Bros. And why would they? It was a game where you walked to the right, avoiding obstacles, until you run out of right to walk to. Then you go to the next section where you walk right some more. No one wondered why you couldn't go to those colorful hills you saw in the background. No one who matters, anyway. Only nerds who thought they were being clever and whose cleverness got them properly shunned until even squirrels wouldn't touch their nuts.
Linearity is not really a bad thing because it when playing a game, you want to play a fucking game, not stumble around for hour trying to figure out what the hell you're supposed to be doing. The sooner Peter Molyneux and the rest of the anti-linearity coalition learn that, the better.
Yes, I would say that the current 3D polygon texture mapping shit is what brought this on. No one complained about linearity in Super Mario Bros. And why would they? It was a game where you walked to the right, avoiding obstacles, until you run out of right to walk to. Then you go to the next section where you walk right some more. No one wondered why you couldn't go to those colorful hills you saw in the background. No one who matters, anyway. Only nerds who thought they were being clever and whose cleverness got them properly shunned until even squirrels wouldn't touch their nuts.
Linearity is not really a bad thing because it when playing a game, you want to play a fucking game, not stumble around for hour trying to figure out what the hell you're supposed to be doing. The sooner Peter Molyneux and the rest of the anti-linearity coalition learn that, the better.