Are Linear Games Inherently Bad?

[Netrigan]

The cool thing about non-linear is the sense of freedom they give you which more linear games have been incorporating. A great example is Arkham Asylum that requires you to complete all missions in exactly the same order... but let's you go back and re-explore previously played areas. It felt a bit like a sandbox game without being one. The original Bioshock did the same thing. I enjoy not feeling artificially cut off from earlierlevels. I'm sure all of us have had that situation where we walked through a door ending the level and thought "Im not through yet" but unable to simple walk through the door again.

Not for every game but I like games that work to sell the illusion.

 

[The Abhorrent]

There have been good, linear games made: the Half Life series, Portal (I assume Portal 2 fits this too, but I haven't played it yet), the Left 4 Dead games, Bioshock, Metroid Prime, and Super Mario Bros. (all of them) leap to mind. These are all excellent games; hell, Half Life 2 is commonly considered the greatest game ever made. Every game in this list brutally linear.

Metroid Prime is linear? I have to disagree on that one for a variety of reasons, though admittedly there is a semi-defined "path" you're expected to take in the game. The thing is that path overlaps with itself numerous times, and the series is very well-known for it's backtracking (exploring previously completed areas for upgrades & items). Sequence-breaking [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SequenceBreaking] is a common practice for experienced players of the franchise, which allows the player (using a minor glitch or two) to go around the expected path and acquire some key items much earlier than intended. Anyhow, the key point is that Metroid (referring to the series as a whole) is traditionally considered non-linear.



Back to the main question, linearity isn't objectively bad... but it does create some problems. The issue primarily arises when a game is obviously linear, especially when things start to get repetitive.

Ultimately, almost all players want some variety in their gameplay. If you're going to make a linear game, you can't have it consist of the same thing over and over again; things have to be mixed up a bit or else the player is just going to get bored of repeating the same task without deviation. In a non-linear game, the player is given the option to deviate from the main course at any time they want (how far they can get may be limited at first, but the game world opens up more and more as they progress). Sand-box games can be described as being primarily or entirely composed of these deviations, and quite often the entire point is for the player to just do as they please.

So yeah, you could say linearity is inherently bad for a game... but feeling linear is definitely a negative aspect for any game. Because games are interactive, players want choice (which leads directly to variety). If a game is going to be linear, variety has to be incorporated into the level design. In a non-linear or sand-box game, players have the option to make their own variety if need be (though overly repetitive level design and/or not enough variety is the possible activities can still be an issue).

 

[Outright Villainy]

The issue isn't of linearity, which most people accept in games, but of showing you its shackles. Homefront is a good example of this: Invisible walls everywhere, you can't go anywhere until your teammates go first, absolutely no scope to tackle anything your own way. Every game has its constraints, the fault is when it points them out so obviously.

Half life 2 and Portal 1 and 2 are good example of linearity done well, since you don't feel like the world is just out of reach, but that you're actively interacting with it, even on the straight path. As long as the world feels tangible and real, and not just some props on a roller coaster, then linearity is fine and dandy.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Linearity is only bad in RPGs. RPGs should allow for as much freedom as possible, as long as they don't let the story suffer in the process. This is why the old Baldur's Gate and Fallout games are so highly regarded: they provided a sandbox experience that was still story driven.

 

[plugav]

No, linearity is not inherently bad. When someone says that a game is too linear, it usually means that the linearity is badly executed.

BioShock, Half-Life 2 and even Mario let you make small choices that influence gameplay. Do I kill the Little Sister to harvest more Adam? Do I use the med-station now or save it for later? Do I risk my life to get more coins? A game that's too linear takes that away from you, becoming merely a test of skill.

 

[DustyDrB]

Eh, there's only a very few games that I enjoy exploration in. Mostly, I prefer linearity. How it usually goes for me, more freedom of exploration (geographical exploration AND narrative exploration) leads to more clunky storytelling.

Some people expect so much freedom where it was never promised.

 

[figday]

when done right. linear games can be awesome too.
sad thing is, most linear games are just..sad

 

[Jack Rascal]

Personally I prefer semi-linear games. Those are games like Dragon Age. You have a specific goal and you are limited in what you can do or where you can go at that specific time but you are free to accomplish those goals in any order you wish. You could go to the Circle tower first and go to the elves last. Or you could go to Redcliff first and go to the dwarves last.

What troubled me with Dragon Age was that I somehow felt disconnected. I didn't like "travelling in a map" and that somehow tore the story a little apart for me. But boy was I surprised the first time I was ambushed during my journey! I had no idea that my travels could be stopped while between locations (yes, I was that naive). I ended up in some patch of forest with arrows coming from all directions. All I could think was "Where am I and who are all these people!? I needed to see the elves, I come in peace!"

But I guess my point is, I don't mind linear as long as it's well done. I even enjoy linear RPG's. Sandboxes are great fun, but I tend to get distracted too much and easily wander around doing menial tasks for hundred odd hours and never finish the game. This is what happened with Oblivion. But someday, I will finish it. Don't know when, but I will. And I will keep buying both types of game. Sometimes I get disappointed, but that's life. Only when linear in a game means pulling me forward with a fish hook through my eyelid will I stop playing it.

 

[shasjas]

i dont mind linearity, however it does for me often severely decreases replay value. one simple way of fixing this in a game like cod, is to make each level more open to give you different ways of getting to the objective. this increases replay value without impacting on the story.

 

[Talydia]

Just to jump on the bandwagon. No, linear doesn't mean bad. A linear game just needs work in different areas than a sandbox game and not all dev teams may be able to recognize/do both well.

Personally, for me to enjoy a linear game it needs an engaging story that ties everything together.

 

[Inkidu]

Nope it is not. It depends on the experience. Some sandbox games are utter crap.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Linearity is definitely NOT a bad thing.

A lot of the best games are linear. If you have a linear story, but allow the player to go and explore past areas, and mingle with NPCs and the like, then you did it right.

HOWEVER, if you allow the player no freedom to do anything but march ahead and see cutscenes and the occasional battle...You did it wrong. In fact, the game is no longer linear but rather ON RAILS! And unless it's an arcade shooter, that's a bad thing.

 

[Ace of Spades]

If you mean linear in the sense of walking the player along a predetermined path from set piece to set piece, a la Half Life 2, no. If you mean making the entire game one long corridor with endless repetitive random encounters, a la FFXIII, then yes.

 

[PlasmaFrog]

Depends on the style. Having a supposedly "open" world, only to constrain it with a sense of linearity is a bad thing. This is why Fable: The Lost Chapters fell on deaf ears for most individuals that were expecting a more exploration type of game.

 

[Kotep]

Linearity isn't inherently bad but a linear game runs the risk of losing interactivity. If there's a set path you have to follow, there's a greater possibility that there's nothing else but the path to follow. It can also contribute to bad level design where exploration is replaced with almost a slide show of interesting locations.

For instance, the issue with FFXIII wasn't that it was just linear, but that it was a razor-thin rail with no content outside of that narrow path for 30 hours until you can hop off the story railroad and hop on the mark quest railroad instead.

 

[Pseudopod]

The issue isn't of linearity, which most people accept in games, but of showing you its shackles. Homefront is a good example of this: Invisible walls everywhere, you can't go anywhere until your teammates go first, absolutely no scope to tackle anything your own way. Every game has its constraints, the fault is when it points them out so obviously.

Half life 2 and Portal 1 and 2 are good example of linearity done well, since you don't feel like the world is just out of reach, but that you're actively interacting with it, even on the straight path. As long as the world feels tangible and real, and not just some props on a roller coaster, then linearity is fine and dandy.

I agree with this a lot. A lot of my favorite games are extremely linear, but due to good design you don't notice/care about the limitations. For example, the Ace Attorney series are about as linear as they get, but you don't mind because of the great storytelling and the investigation sequences making you feel more free than you are. If you're having fun or engrossed in a story, you often don't give the rails a second thought.

It's a design choice, and some games implement linearity better than others. Invisible walls in illogical places can do a lot to frustrate players.

 

[iDoom46]

No, because there's no such thing as a [truly] non-linear game.

The closest thing to true non-linearity in gaming would probably be Mass Effect (or maybe L.A. Noire, but I haven't played it yet and I hear whether or not certain criminals get away is scripted in anyway) and even that works more like a "choose which corridor you'd like to take this linear story down." game.

Even GTA games are just linear story missions spread across a sandbox where you can do whatever you want.
For more of what I'm talking about, see:

 

[FalloutJack]

I never bother with such judgements.