Are Linear Games Inherently Bad?
- Thread starter Nickompoop
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, FFX was INCREDIBLY linear. Thing of it, it hides that linearity with towns, minigames, sidequests that weren't monster hunts, etc.bahumat42 said:
innocentEX said:
Perhaps I should explain why I say that Half Life 2 is commonly considered the greatest game made. Here are my sources:MaxPowers666 said:
Number 8 on Metacritic out of every single game ever rated. http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all?view=condensed&sort=desc
Number 1 on Steam. http://store.steampowered.com/search/?sort_by=Metascore&sort_order=DESC&
Number 1 PC Game on IGN. http://pc.ign.com/articles/101/1011624p26.html
Number 6 Xbox 360 Game on IGN. Technically, it's the Orange Box, but I think it still counts. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/104/1045042p21.html
Number 4 Best Selling PC Game on Wikipedia, not including expansions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games
Number 4 on Gamefaqs.com. http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/top10/2288.html
Number 2 on Destructoid. http://www.destructoid.com/the-top-50-videogames-of-the-decade-10-1--155591.phtml
I believe I've made my point.
Linearity is only bad if the function of the gameplay feels limited in a way that only more freedom can provide. Being given a limited mechanic is a good thing in a lot of ways, as a focused experience is the heart of gaming. This being said, some genres have more issue with this than others. If an RPG does not have enough freedom to move and grow, then the player's investment is lost, since the primary idea and all mechanics in RPGs tend to be about growth and exploration. Conversely, if a shooting gallery has too much freedom and too many ways to be lost, the punchy nature of the genre currently would be completely lost due to frustration.
Basically, linearity isn't bad. However, if it's being brought up as a point against a game, it probably means that the developers needed less of it. If you notice it, there is a problem.
Basically, linearity isn't bad. However, if it's being brought up as a point against a game, it probably means that the developers needed less of it. If you notice it, there is a problem.
Can you expand a little on how ME represents the pinnacle of non-linearity, given that it conforms neatly to the old RPG trope of:iDoom46 said:
"Doom is coming, you must hurry to save the world! But, whilst you're out, can you pop down the shops and pick me up a snickers? and a healing potion? Oh, and the various misfits you've collected together to save the world have some issues from their past they'd like to waste your time...er...resolve."
Not that I'm massively knocking ME for being hideously linear or anything. I just think that it's a long way from being truly non-linear.
Back on topic:
Linearity is not inherently bad - indeed sometimes, it's awesome. I cite Metro 2033 as an example of when leading the player down the road to the ending and offering them little choices along the way that you barely notice creates a truly cinematic experience. Metro isn't a game with an awful lot of replay value, but it does a particularly good job of telling a compelling, atmospheric story without distracting you and itself from that story with a lot of fluff and padding intended to draw out its playtime by sending you off on sidequests.
Linearity is good when its employed as a tool that keeps you, the game and the story moving forwards to the climactic ending. FPS, by their nature fast-paced, benefit from tightly drawn, linear storylines that take you from the beginning to the end, revealing little bits of their plots along the way.
RPGs, on the other hand, tend to sprawl a little more and move slower than their shooter brethren, and in general, any levels-based system tends to acquire a large amount of non-vital XP and loot gathering quests in your quest to hit the games level cap.
Sandboxing is good when it provides extension to the game/depth to the world/fun activity and bad when it distracts you from how bad the metaplot you were meant to be following is.
yeah the PoP games are the perfect examplefarq1414 said:
PoP SoT was linear but was excellent
PoP(2008) was terrible because it's open world destroyed story possibilities and ensure that the entire world had the same difficulty because people had to be able to go where ever they wanted
There is no true right or wrong with these games, open world sandbox-inesss can bee good but so can linearity.
I think the real issue is when you have a corridor game though, in that you play a shooter and theres only one way ever to approach a situation because the game dictates it, theres never the option to cut through this back alley and come around behind an enemy it's just keep on chugging forward.
Just because Mass Effect follows lots of RPG tropes doesn't make the game linear.trouble_gum said:
Just to be clear, I never said that Mass Effect was the pinnacle of non-linearity, you just misquoted me. I probably should have been more clear, allow me to rephrase; Mass Effect is the closest to non-linearity in a AAA main-stream title that immediately comes to mind.
What I meant was that Mass Effect offers tools that give the player the chance to approach obstacles in a variety of different ways, be it going in guns blazing, disabling the enemy with tech/biotic powers, or sometimes even talking yourself out of a sticky situation. BioWare specifically engineered it so that virtually no two players will have the same experience.
You can also choose your missions as they come, and doing one and not another will result in some sort of consequence for you. Ultimately, these consequences have little to no effect on the end result of the game, but at least it is something.
Yeah, the plot is linear, but the gameplay mechanics are far from that. As a matter of fact, I'd think you'd have a hard time finding a non-linear story in ANY game.
Similar to I said before, Mass Effect is like a mountain biking/ski resort, you can choose which path you want to take, but when you're done you're always going to end up in the same spot every time.
Sure, its nowhere near the pinnacle of non-linearity, but neither are sandbox games (and Mass Effect works sort of like a sandbox RPG). If you want true non-linearity, I suggest learning how to play Dungeons and Dragons.
No, linearity in a game isn't bad and I think usually when people claim a game is "too linear" what they usually mean is that the game is "noticeably linear". It the same way a game is "noticeably non linear" when in sandbox games when you can't figure out where you are or where you need to go.
When someone complains that a game is too linear, it's usually within the context of the game, in that the game would've been improved by a more dynamic gameplay.
You mentioned Left 4 Dead as linear gameplay, and while the movement and level design certainly is linear, it works very well because the experience is never the same each time. The enemies are randomly generated, creating a brand new experience every time you play, which is why few people complain about Left 4 Dead's linearity.
Super Mario Bros, on the other hand, is the pure definition of linearity, without the kind of randomization found in Left 4 Dead. Nobody complains about this game either, because it makes the linearity part of the gameplay itself.
You mentioned Left 4 Dead as linear gameplay, and while the movement and level design certainly is linear, it works very well because the experience is never the same each time. The enemies are randomly generated, creating a brand new experience every time you play, which is why few people complain about Left 4 Dead's linearity.
Super Mario Bros, on the other hand, is the pure definition of linearity, without the kind of randomization found in Left 4 Dead. Nobody complains about this game either, because it makes the linearity part of the gameplay itself.
I think the problem is in the presentation. If the game feels like it's forcibly restricting your options so it would get you to play it the way developers imagined and to hell with you - then it can rub people the wrong way. But if you do it masterfully the way Valve does it, most people won't mind and might even end up praising it.
But no nothing bad with linearity, a lot of time I prefer it over direction-less open world games.
But no nothing bad with linearity, a lot of time I prefer it over direction-less open world games.
thisZhukov said:
a game on the DS i got recently is, linear, pretty short to, but there's lots of nooks and crannys to explore, >.> probably doubled my play time exploring em all with each new transformation dance i got, and still not done poking around XD (its Shantae btw)
also
see::Devil May Cry 3
linear game, not alot of exploration, still owns much face
No, just look at the Half-Life series, L4D, pretty much everything by Valve. As long as the levels are well designed they're fine.
However I find it in my own personal experience that the level design has to be that the player is given the illusion that it is an open world and that there are logical and easily explained boundaries. Otherwise you just get pissed because you can't go past a barrier
However I find it in my own personal experience that the level design has to be that the player is given the illusion that it is an open world and that there are logical and easily explained boundaries. Otherwise you just get pissed because you can't go past a barrier
All games are nonlinear to a degree, and have some sort of limitations. I say whatever you gotta do to tell the story the way you want to tell it.
No, I generally prefer linear games over sandboxes. No sandbox game has yet convinced me that their style of play is better. Sure, there are some gems (Fallout 3, Oblivion, Grand Theft Auto [sort of]), but these work because as soon as you're bored of the sandbox, they let you immediately revert to a high-quality linear objective.