When did linearity become a dirty word?

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

FFXIII filthied it up for everyone.

speak for yourself. i loved FF XIII

that's wonderful, that doesn't mean the game isn't linear to hell and back though.

the game is unanimously named with linearity when spoken by word of mouth now, you could basically label the game as god of linearity, at least among the RPG genre.

first; it's not all linear (gran pulse) and that's doesn't mean it's bad game. It's turned off some players yeah but i actually liked first 15 hours of linear stuff with character introduction and plot beginning it kept me focused and then on grand pulse it let me to run wiled with side quest and chocobo hunting that i enjoyed for many hours and then got back in story linear mode and kept me focused to deliver beautiful ending. everyone have different tastes.

....i never said it made it a bad game?

and "some" players? more like most, have you seen how many people sold back the game? it had utter ridiculous amount of trade ins.

and yeah, it gave it good back story and all, and i'm not saying it's not enjoyable to people, but i was just pointing out it is extremely linear for a good chunk of the game, especially since it's right off the bat.

most? metacritic says another story. it's pretty good reviewed and people liked it. 73 positive vs 1 negative critic reviews and 107 vs 58 user reviews and based on 1399 slice of peoples ratings 1,108 positive 220 negative.

first off, i didn't realize meta critic was the end all decide all of everything..

and do they keep track of everyone that traded in the game after they played it?

i never ONCE said that people didn't like it, i just said on how many traded it back in.

are we speaking different languages here or why do you keep dragging off what i was saying originally?

i liked assassins creed, both 1 and 2, that didn't stop me from trading the game back in as soon as i beat it never to see it again. same goes for bulletstorm and section 8.

please re read exactly what i posted, because what you are saying has nothing to do with my post...and please look around at other posts, i'm not the only one to mention ff13 under the same breath as extremely linear.

"It's turned off some players" and you replied "and "some" players? more like most, have you seen how many people sold back the game? it had utter ridiculous amount of trade ins." AS IN they didn't like it and sold it off and not played through and sold it off. pretty much say it all. i can read and comprehend pretty well thank you.

and in my last post i also showed 4 examples of great games that i traded right back in immediately because i found wanting to play the game at the very bottom of my list of things to do with the game.

most of my console games i have traded in, does that instantly mean that i didn't like them? I'd sure hope not, that'd mean people hate games according to how much business places like gamestop get profit, purely exist because of how much people hate games..

and i'll apologize for coming across like an ass earlier, but my main point isn't that ff13 is a bad game, far from it, the linearity of the game is of very extreme values through the majority of it though.

it's ok and i can understand why XIII extreme linearity can turn people off, i myself looked this flaw because i am such kind of player. different strokes for different folks i suppose.

agreed, there are plenty of games where i over look "flaws" (I personally don't see them as flaws but i recognize that others do) and find them to be the absolute perfect game for myself (DA2 i highly enjoyed, but i can see why people didn't like it.)

 

[Torrasque]

FFXIII filthied it up for everyone.

As someone else said, its pretty much the god of linearity.
As others have said, linearity is not a bad thing itself, it just depends on the game, and the degree of linearity it has.
For a game like MW2, its almost certainly completely linear; you start at A, and you end at B, and you have very little flexibility in the void between A and B.
For a game like Oblivion, it is almost completely anti-linear; you can do any quest in any order you want (excluding quest lines). Become head of the Dark Brotherhood, then become a Vampire, go ruin raiding, and then close Oblivion. It really doesn't matter, but in the end, you start at A, and end at B.
I think a game that focuses on quests and personal choice, should avoid linearity as much as possible, but its still nice to know that once you open the horrible imp dungeon of impishness, you can't leave till you kill every goddamn imp. It'd be weird if you could leave and come back.
But a game as fast paced as a shooter needs linearity, "go there! Kill that! Shoot this! Ramirez do everything!"

TL;DR: Linearity is only dirty if the context it is used in, is a game that has an "open world"
Just like necrophilia is only dirty if the context is not sexing up a Vampire.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

I dunno... kinda prefer linear games. When i played the original Dragon Age i didn't know what the fuck to do (do now) so i HAD to put the game down and panic about it. Twas weird.

Didn't know wtf to do cause there were SO many quests early and no way other than reading them with my VERY out of date prescription glasses. Small words on a tv about 4 yards away that is 8 years old... kinda hard to do with my eye sight. (which is -8 i think)

I agree with this person. Don't get me wrong, I like open world games, but I am a very, VERY indecisive person(and I will spend an hour looking at games deciding which one I wanna get) and it's difficult for me to progress because there's so much to do at one time, I can't decide which path to take first. Games with a bit of linearity give me a clear path, and I like that. I don't think linearity is a bad thing, per se, it just has to be executed well.

As for the difficulty reading the quests thing, it sucks for people like you and I who have poor eye sight(I guarantee you that my eyes are many, many times worse than yours), and it doesn't help with the way these new games are designed with the expectations of an HDTV. I tried playing White Knight Chronicles II on my grandparent's TV over the weekend while I visited them, and holy hell I could see squat. The text was so small and blurry, subtitles were virtually useless and I couldn't tell what skill I used. This goes for the Halo games, too, with incredibly small text. Then I came back home and rehooked my PS3 to my fancy TV and holy shit the difference is so noticeable.

 

[thelastmccabe]

I don't have a problem with linearity at all. If I want a really well done story, interesting characters, and good pacing then it's probably going to be in a linear game. I think you can maybe also make a tighter, more satisfying combat in a linear game. God of War III was a masterpiece, one of my favorite games ever, and it was extremely linear. On the other hand, I haven't really ever gotten too much satisfaction out of a very open, sandboxy game like Oblivion, although Mount and Blade looks pretty awesome.

I think there's room for both types of games. I think the modern trend is towards an obsession with choice and openness in games, but it can come at the price of story and characterization, and, in some cases, game play.

I suppose that some of my favorite games have been sort of a hybrid--games like Deus Ex and VTMB or other RPGs or RPGesque games where there's some choice but really wrapped up in a linear shell.

I also don't personally give a crap about replayability. I've almost never replayed any game. But I did just replay FF7, which is pretty linear but with lots of side quests and exploration. And I might replay God of War.

Of course, you also have turn based strategy games like the Civ series which are in a way some of the most non-linear games of all, and I do find those very satisfying.

On the topic of FF 13, since replaying FF7, I've realized that the (biggest) problem with it was not so much linearity per se but that 90 % of the game is combat, and the combat isn't very interesting at all. The new system did make it worse, but Final Fantasy combat in general isn't really that great IMHO, except maybe for boss fights. FF7 has some combat heavy stretches, but, unlike 13, it also has long sequences with no combat and exploration or mini games instead. If you're going to have mediocre combat, then you better have less of it and mix it up with more exploration, more NPCs, etc. FF7 would have sucked too if it was just 30 hours of fighting with some cut scenes thrown in.

 

[DustyDrB]

It's not a bad word for me. Non-linearity is completely optional, and sometimes unwanted. Open world games tend to suffer in the gameplay department I think.

 

[F4LL3N]

There's nothing wrong with linearity. Imo, FFXIII wouldn't have been as awesome if it wasn't linear. If the story or overall game design doesn't need linearity, then it shouldn't have it - and vice versa.

 

[Deathninja19]

*cough*

Actually in the UK PS1 and PS2 era games settled on £30 and by the end of their lifespans that cost went down to £20. It was only the Nes era that stayed consistantly high in England. Though you're probably right about American prices.

So

*cough*

So you're saying the last time games were as expensive in the UK, they were also at the absolute height of linearity, oftentimes consisting of precisely one possible direction.

True they were linear but Nes games and the like were designed to be replayable and hightened difficulty rewarded memorisation and pattern recognition, modern linear games lack this replayabilty in my opinion (it's ok if you don't agree you're welcome to your opinion).

But again Linearity was fine when games were cheap because if you got bored there was the affordable option of getting a new game but linearity became bad when you have to pay a lot of money for something that is at best 8 hours long and with little or no replay value (Shadows of the Damned springs to mind).

 

[Ragsnstitches]

You have to look at the game as a whole.

Linearity is not bad, when you make a unique and innovative game. (Portal)
Linearity seems cheap, when you make a Gears of War Clone (Space Marine)

Not saying SM would be a bad game, but I can sort of see the point when a linear game is also a pretty bland cookie-cutter of it's genre.

You clearly didn't play space marine or are at least speaking in the mind of someone who hasn't played it. It's a fairly unimpressive game yeah, but it plays more like God of War then Gears of War. It's also rather fun when you stop expecting it to be like Gears of War and more like... well, 40k.

OP: Linearity allows for a more solid Narrative, since it confines a player down a fixed route, much like a viewer watching a film. Here in lies the issue.

Most "linear" games don't achieve a narrative or visual standard (not talking about pixels or textures here) compelling enough to cut down on the interactivity and gameplay variety. This is usually remedied by giving players choices via sandbox or free-roam or plot choices, or customisation options via RPG elements, or comprehensive multiplayer features. CoD is successful not for it's engaging single player *snort* but for it's highly addictive adrenaline fix multiplayer. Gears isn't famous for broad reaching narrative or sprawling set pieces, but for it's intense gun play, satisfying violence and competitive multiplayer.

I must admit that recent trends (recent being the last 6-8 years) in games has left Linearity in games with a sour taste... some people still find it appealing, others gag at it. We're spoiled for choice it seems.

Some great games, like Bioshock, ICO, Half-Life 2, Halo etc... are all strictly linear but still much loved. Personally I don't think Linearity is bad word, or is even broadly considered bad... but the reviewers who marked Space Marine as bad for that reason alone, are god awful reviewers.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I agree with you. I love linear games, I often can't be bothered with all the side quests and exploration of all those dirty non-linear games.

It's more of a chore for me... I do them eventually, but not eagerly.

 

[SpaceBat]

Linearity it's not bad by itself, it only becomes a dirty word when:

1) The game is not only linear but it has a bad script, making the player not only feel the lack of choice but to disagree with the choices the character makes.

2) It looks like the game was not supposed to be as linear but there wasn't enough time/money.

3) The game just sucks, period.

This might be our interpretation of the word, but it is certainly not used in such a way. So many idiots bash games for linearity, regardless of the quality of the story and the game itself. It seems that unless a game is open-world with tons of horseshit sidequests and empty areas and lifeless city's to visit and doesn't follow a set storyline, it must be a bad game because LINEARITY IS DA DEVUL.

 

[KaiusCormere]

The problem with spacemarine though is their is very strict lore involved so moral choice systems and alike would wreck the immersion of being a spacemarine. I can't actually think of any moral choice style decisions that could work.

As for the multiple strategy thing, there are many ways to kill enemies, you can charge into melee combat, shoot as many as you can until they get there then smack them down, shoot them and keep backing up til you kill them all, lay mines and lead the enemy hoard into the trap, shoot from long range undetected and startle your enemy often sending them into disarray. So combat is varied aslong as you look for the appropriate options.

As for the maps, ok they are generally linear corridors but that's not to say they're all the same. They are brilliantly detailed depending where you are and their is a little exploration to be had that usually turns up some ammo.

So i'd say it's no more linear than a lot of very popular games, but then a lot of games get slated by a significant minority for linearity. This level of contempt for a linear game has only occurred in recent years and is becoming more pronounced, hence the when did it become a dirty word?

Also to those who say linearity = no replay value. If you enjoy a game linear or not why wouldn't you want to experience it again? You don't have to be able to play the game another way for it to have replay value. A good experience is a good experience if it's the same again or not so linearity meaning no replay is just not true, and I'll bet everyone saying that has played a linear game more than once because they enjoyed it the first time.

Actually, regarding Space Marine lore, it would have been pretty viable to have Titus decide between going by the Codex or improvising, or using Chaos granted abilities. In fact, if they do a sequel it's likely going to be a part of it. Consider that Relic did this exact kind of moral choices in Dawn of War : Chaos Rising. So, I would say that the lore of 40k in no way prohibits moral choices.

Regarding linearity, I actually like it. A well-crafted experience beats blundering around in a samey-sandbox.