I...dislike...free roaming. In my experience, Rockstar and Bethesda games have felt smaller due to their free roaming rather than the intended increase in perceived size. Okay I must admit I loved Morrowind though - can't explain it, just did. Now before I continue, I would like to state that I hate the way free-roaming has been implemented rather than actually the concept itself.
Now it is my understanding that non-linearity is defined as the ability to choose between doing something now, or doing something else first. The reason behind this definition is that non-linearity is fundamentally the ability to choose - but as games are limited in their ability to include content, the player is limited to the amount of content they can experience. As such, they will eventually experience everything.
If this is the case then Mass Effect 2, even though it did admittedly miss the nice landscapes that the Mako used to allow, is non-linear. After all, you can choose whom to save and in which order. There's even moral choices that makes you think. Legion anyone ;D?
Now as such, I must assume my understanding of linearity is wrong. Because I'm certain I saw someone calling Mass Effect 2 linear (or at least suggesting it). What is non-linearity then? The ability to go do things with no storyline significance? The ability to not have to do something important? I know the term 'free-roam' has been thrown around, but I fail to see how that makes the game non-linear. If free-roaming defined a game as being non-linear then non-linear and linear games would only be separated by the way they link together their acts. And I honestly see little advantage to spreading a few missions on a map for you to run/drive/ride to instead of...wait a second. That's still just the same thing as in my previous paragraph. The only choice involved is still that of the order of acting out the linear part...
In Oblivion, for instance, after becoming the head-honcho of every social club in the tiny world (wait for my reasoning behind the word tiny) and saved the world and whatnot, I felt no joy in walking in a world with no purpose. Everyone was safe. Just as safe as they would've been had the developers limited the order in which I saved them. So in that sense the world was tiny. Because the differing environments had no meaning.
I would like to draw a parallel here between games and art, by pointing out that there are many pieces of priceless art that are little more than Polka-dots on a canvas. The only reason why they have more value than some beautiful landscape painting is that they have meaning. The landscape may be utterly beautiful, but without the back-story or reason that the Polka-dots might have, they are little more than just another wall-ornament.
The same is true, to me at least, for this discussion. Even though the world of Oblivion had you running around spectacular landscapes, the fact that the story itself did not depend on the setting made it feel empty. In linear games, I often feel engaged because I am in the area for a reason - and that I know the reason. If I'm in a dramatic scene of a malfunctioning starship then even though there is only one path, if the path has an element of quality, it can be far more engaging than one where you run around freely. Because the linear path might allow for developers to make an effort in getting you involved in the situation.
To further justify my above statement, consider the fact that we live in the real world, and are only interacting with the surface of the fantasy world. As such, the knowledge or experience required to find the experience immersive isn't necessarily with the player. For instance, on the malfunctioning starship mentioned above, if you knew about the starship tech in that world, then the situation is different. You would know where to go to. Say, the maintenance area to get the specific tool you need to do something specific to the engine room. Or you would know where the armory is so you can steal stuff and get out
.
However, if you did not know all these things, you would need a guide in order to find any value in the game, and that would mean a mini-map with an objective marker. At this point, making it free-roam would seem silly. You are already telling the player where to go.
So in my honest opinion, a good non-linear game would be one that teaches you for the first 20-30 hours (or perhaps continually) simply so you can have the ability to make choices in an area that would normally require an objective marker. Otherwise the free-roaming, as I see it, aspect adds very little, if anything to the actual gaming experience.
Now it is my understanding that non-linearity is defined as the ability to choose between doing something now, or doing something else first. The reason behind this definition is that non-linearity is fundamentally the ability to choose - but as games are limited in their ability to include content, the player is limited to the amount of content they can experience. As such, they will eventually experience everything.
If this is the case then Mass Effect 2, even though it did admittedly miss the nice landscapes that the Mako used to allow, is non-linear. After all, you can choose whom to save and in which order. There's even moral choices that makes you think. Legion anyone ;D?
Now as such, I must assume my understanding of linearity is wrong. Because I'm certain I saw someone calling Mass Effect 2 linear (or at least suggesting it). What is non-linearity then? The ability to go do things with no storyline significance? The ability to not have to do something important? I know the term 'free-roam' has been thrown around, but I fail to see how that makes the game non-linear. If free-roaming defined a game as being non-linear then non-linear and linear games would only be separated by the way they link together their acts. And I honestly see little advantage to spreading a few missions on a map for you to run/drive/ride to instead of...wait a second. That's still just the same thing as in my previous paragraph. The only choice involved is still that of the order of acting out the linear part...
In Oblivion, for instance, after becoming the head-honcho of every social club in the tiny world (wait for my reasoning behind the word tiny) and saved the world and whatnot, I felt no joy in walking in a world with no purpose. Everyone was safe. Just as safe as they would've been had the developers limited the order in which I saved them. So in that sense the world was tiny. Because the differing environments had no meaning.
I would like to draw a parallel here between games and art, by pointing out that there are many pieces of priceless art that are little more than Polka-dots on a canvas. The only reason why they have more value than some beautiful landscape painting is that they have meaning. The landscape may be utterly beautiful, but without the back-story or reason that the Polka-dots might have, they are little more than just another wall-ornament.
The same is true, to me at least, for this discussion. Even though the world of Oblivion had you running around spectacular landscapes, the fact that the story itself did not depend on the setting made it feel empty. In linear games, I often feel engaged because I am in the area for a reason - and that I know the reason. If I'm in a dramatic scene of a malfunctioning starship then even though there is only one path, if the path has an element of quality, it can be far more engaging than one where you run around freely. Because the linear path might allow for developers to make an effort in getting you involved in the situation.
To further justify my above statement, consider the fact that we live in the real world, and are only interacting with the surface of the fantasy world. As such, the knowledge or experience required to find the experience immersive isn't necessarily with the player. For instance, on the malfunctioning starship mentioned above, if you knew about the starship tech in that world, then the situation is different. You would know where to go to. Say, the maintenance area to get the specific tool you need to do something specific to the engine room. Or you would know where the armory is so you can steal stuff and get out
.However, if you did not know all these things, you would need a guide in order to find any value in the game, and that would mean a mini-map with an objective marker. At this point, making it free-roam would seem silly. You are already telling the player where to go.
So in my honest opinion, a good non-linear game would be one that teaches you for the first 20-30 hours (or perhaps continually) simply so you can have the ability to make choices in an area that would normally require an objective marker. Otherwise the free-roaming, as I see it, aspect adds very little, if anything to the actual gaming experience.
