Are Linear Games Inherently Bad?
- Thread starter Nickompoop
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree - a lot of good games are linear, and there are a lot of bad games which are sandbox. Some games do like to even out the linearity though. There's a really interesting thought about that in this article - http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1349/the-making-of-goldeneye - which says that early in development, Goldeneye was meant to be an on-rails shooter like Virtua Cop - about as linear as it gets. When they changed this, they fleshed out the levels so that the player was able to essentially explore outside of the set path that was designed before.
It's probably likely that there'll be good games doing one or the other, but a lot more good games striking a balance IMO. Mass Effect features linear levels set in an Open world - the first level on Crysis features a sandbox area with no linearity aside from a start and end point (and a few funnels), and eventually moves into focused gameplay. Without linearity there's no compulsion to move ahead.
Of course there's also FFXIII, which was 20 hours of running through corridors. Fun.
It's probably likely that there'll be good games doing one or the other, but a lot more good games striking a balance IMO. Mass Effect features linear levels set in an Open world - the first level on Crysis features a sandbox area with no linearity aside from a start and end point (and a few funnels), and eventually moves into focused gameplay. Without linearity there's no compulsion to move ahead.
Of course there's also FFXIII, which was 20 hours of running through corridors. Fun.
For me, it's not overly-linear unless it is just running down a corridor with no other rooms to enter like the doors are painted on the fucking walls, making you stop every now and then to fight some enemies and has a huge glowing neon sign saying "Go straight in this direction you stupid ****!" every 5 meters
Since When? I have never heard of anyone say this sentence in real life, sure people say its good, but do people really think its worthy of that title?Nickompoop said:
Not at all. Linearity is a story telling technique (for want of a better word) and works really well when the game has a powerful and compelling story. In sandbox games it's easy too easy to be sidetracked.
Linear storytelling has to be done well and no linear story telling has to be done REALLY well. Bar story telling. Sandbox for sandboxes sake is needless. In fact needless exploration or stupi side quests/jobs for upgrades is a big minus in my eyes.
A big issue is some games give you too much of one or the other. Other get the mix right. There's liniar game play and storytelling. You can have an open world and a set story with side bits or a closed world with an open story, or vice versa.
A big issue is some games give you too much of one or the other. Other get the mix right. There's liniar game play and storytelling. You can have an open world and a set story with side bits or a closed world with an open story, or vice versa.
"Too linear" means the game feels overly constrained. Someone tried to draw a contrast between Halo and Call Of Duty which kind of illustrates the principle, but Call Of Duty features fairly large levels that allow for slightly different approaches. It's linear but I can move around and approach fights differently.
But there are games that restrict you to a very narrow corridor where you are always aware of the boundaries of the level. That's too linear. It's one think to bump up against the limits here and there (either the obstruction or invisible wall) but when I'm going through a forest and its all I see in a level as narrow as an indoor level, the game has failed to immerse me. That's too linear.
But there are games that restrict you to a very narrow corridor where you are always aware of the boundaries of the level. That's too linear. It's one think to bump up against the limits here and there (either the obstruction or invisible wall) but when I'm going through a forest and its all I see in a level as narrow as an indoor level, the game has failed to immerse me. That's too linear.
At the end of the day, any game which attempts to tell a semi coherent story is linear to some extent. There's no point in allowing the player to do the final mission before the opening one. Even the Bethesda games, though they claim (and can back up to some extent) to allow you to do whatever you want, whenever you want, start to beat you around the ears if you consider doing the main story missions out of order.
I find that heavily linear games tend to allow for the more immediate Call of Duty adrenaline rush type scenario's, so to answer your question: No, not at all. Linearity can be effectively used to push the story, presentation and more importantly; pacing.
It's been mentioned before, but many (not all, but most) open world games are pretty poorly paced, simply because of the fact that the game isn't constantly pushing you along and so it needs to find other methods, usually pointless gimmicks, to fill in the extended gaps between missions.
Still, at the end of the day, both methods have their uses.
I find that heavily linear games tend to allow for the more immediate Call of Duty adrenaline rush type scenario's, so to answer your question: No, not at all. Linearity can be effectively used to push the story, presentation and more importantly; pacing.
It's been mentioned before, but many (not all, but most) open world games are pretty poorly paced, simply because of the fact that the game isn't constantly pushing you along and so it needs to find other methods, usually pointless gimmicks, to fill in the extended gaps between missions.
Still, at the end of the day, both methods have their uses.
As with all games, this is simply a design decision. If you make a game that needs to be linear open, it will feel too thin, and if you make an open-world game linear it'll feel restrictive.
Games like Bioshock only really work as linear games, because they are incredibly story-focussed. However, if you were designing something with an overarching story but not a lot else (say, a straight-up RPG) then you'd want to make it open-world.
Neither is inherently better or worse than the other - it just depends on the type of game you're making. And if the game is badly written, then even the right choice won't save it.
Games like Bioshock only really work as linear games, because they are incredibly story-focussed. However, if you were designing something with an overarching story but not a lot else (say, a straight-up RPG) then you'd want to make it open-world.
Neither is inherently better or worse than the other - it just depends on the type of game you're making. And if the game is badly written, then even the right choice won't save it.
Non-linear games aren't all that often non-linear in the first place.
Lets take Mass Effect 2 for example.
My playthrough is totally different from yours.
But is it really non-linear?
No.
You still have exactly the same missions as I do, with exactly the same way from A to Z. Only you get the decide the sequence of those linear paths.
Games like Oblivion, Fallout, give a bigger feeling of non-linearity, but in the end, you're still following that one road the developers made for you to finish that quest, and that story line.
Lets take Mass Effect 2 for example.
My playthrough is totally different from yours.
But is it really non-linear?
No.
You still have exactly the same missions as I do, with exactly the same way from A to Z. Only you get the decide the sequence of those linear paths.
Games like Oblivion, Fallout, give a bigger feeling of non-linearity, but in the end, you're still following that one road the developers made for you to finish that quest, and that story line.