Linear games.

[trilbynorton]

Game stories (like stories in any other narrative medium) don't depend solely on the actual events. Pacing also plays a vital role. (In fact, it could be argued that pacing is more important than events. Many narratives contain very little in the way of interesting occurrences, but all will pace their stories to keep the audience interested.) In a linear game, you are continually being pushed along the "rails" of the story, with cause and effect ensuring that events happen at the correct times and with the proper impact. (There are some exceptions, such as the points in Final Fantasy games at which you can hag around an area indefinitely training up your characters.) However, in a sandbox game, you an complete one section of a story and then abandon the main narrative in favour of some sidequest, with the result that the pacing of the story is knocked out of whack and loses its impact.

Long story short, linear games work better than non-linear games when strong narratives are involved.

As for my own opinion, I prefer games with a little of both worlds. As an example, Baldur's Gate 2 presents you with two opportunities (in Chapters 2 and 6) to (apparently) leave the main narrative and do your own thing. The difference here is that your abandonment is actually worked into the story, such as Chapter 2, in which you need to do sidequests in order to save up money. The problem with games like the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series is that when you go off and do sidequests it breaks the flow of the story and seems wrong. To me, at least.

 

[Keepitclean]

hmm well i'm not a fan of linear games as you define it
but if you are refering to level based games at all i think developers need to make more of them. The current fashion is to make open world games and unfortunatly in alot of cases they suck. look at farcry 2. some genres just cant be "non-linear"

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

I can't stand Guitar Hero. Its like one giant quick time event. I CANT EVEN STAND A FEW!

 

[omega 616]

I can't stand Guitar Hero. Its like one giant quick time event. I CANT EVEN STAND A FEW!

Yay, some body thinks the same as me!

A story needs structure. If you go to place C then F then B you are getting the story out of context. If you go to the wrong place first you could find out a "spoiler" before you were meant to and instead of that piece of the story having the emotional impact it should have is gone. Or miss out on a good part of the story. Prototype was a fairly linear game. Sure you could run around the city but you couldn't do the next mission and get the story until you finished the last. A game like Fallout 3 though is an open world game. *spoiler alert*

If you went and talked to the vampires before Andale you missed out on the impact of the citizens of Andale. And there is a million things like that. Hell 1 time in Fallout 3 I skipped 3/4 of the main story by accident just by going to Rivet City to early. How is that a good story if you aren't there for most of it?

Maybe thats a flaw in open games such as fallout 3, maybe if they made the game so that if you did manage to skip a part of the game (like you did), the game could be written so that you could either see the bit you missed or go on a different story path.

Can I just point out that I don't go out of my way to avoid linear games, I just prefer to take things at my own speed rather than being lead around like a dog going for a walk. Since most games out there are linear it would mean you avoiding a large percentage of games.

Rock Band is a fun game you can drink beers and get everyone in the room to play. Not everyone wants to shoot people in the face. My problem with sandbox style games even like Morrowind and games like that I just get bored because you kind of do the same thing over and over again. In my game every game is doing the same over again you just have to hide with different scenes and baddies to shoot or stab in the eye.

Is there a sense of hypocrisy in there? "Rock band is fun" .... "My problem with sandbox style games even like Morrowind and games like that I just get bored because YOU KIND OF DO THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN".

Rock band isn't varied, they could make you play every song in the game with no breaks and you would only stop cos you would think "god, this song seems to going on forever".

If I wanted a good story I would watch a movie, not play a game.

 

[Woodsey]

The idea that linear = bad is idiotic to say the least.

 

[omega 616]

The idea that linear = bad is idiotic to say the least.

To come on to a thread and post nothing but an insult is idiotic to say the least.

You have nothing positive and constructive to add to the thread but you still felt the urge to post? Isn't that breaking some kind of rule?

I think linear isn't all bad, I think it's a little dated.

With GH and RB defining linear and them being so popular, it doesn't bode well for the future of sandbox games.

 

[Woodsey]

The idea that linear = bad is idiotic to say the least.

To come on to a thread and post nothing but an insult is idiotic to say the least.

You have nothing positive and constructive to add to the thread but you still felt the urge to post? Isn't that breaking some kind of rule?

I think linear isn't all bad, I think it's a little dated.

With GH and RB defining linear and them being so popular, it doesn't bode well for the future of sandbox games.

Alright, let me rephrase:

To dismiss linearity is idiotic.

The success of Guitar Hero (not a clue what RB is) won't affect sandbox games in the slightest - they're very different. Call of Duty is unrelentingly linear, yet they didn't stop the rise of sandboxing (I know it was around before but not like it is now). Racing games are linear (for the most part), yet don't impact on sandbox games. Your fears are, and will remain to be, unfounded.

I'd much rather have a tightly perfected story then this whole moral choice system which is often poorly implemented (unless you're playing an RPG), detracts from the story and doesn't really do much. GTA IV for example, I don't understand why they bothered.

Then of course there's the gameplay side - again, the CoD series is so full of set pieces you can't turn away, and HL2 is possibly the best game I've played in terms of pacing. Pacing in a sandbox game is generally very hit and miss.

Sandboxing gives you freedom but it'll never deliver squeaky-bum-time like a well directed linear game. Each has their merits and failings.

Hence, to say linear = bad is idiotic to say the least.

 

[TPiddy]

Calling music rhythm games linear because the notes are confined to a track is like saying CoD is linear because your bullets only fly straight...

Last I checked you could choose what cities to visit and what songs to play in those music rhythm games. You're not confined to playing what they want all the time. You need to re-check your definition of 'linear' when applied to gaming.

 

[omega 616]

Calling music rhythm games linear because the notes are confined to a track is like saying CoD is linear because your bullets only fly straight...

Last I checked you could choose what cities to visit and what songs to play in those music rhythm games. You're not confined to playing what they want all the time. You need to re-check your definition of 'linear' when applied to gaming.

I think you need to recheck what it means, I was saying rock band (BH) and guitar hero (GH) were linear cos all you are doing is pressing buttons when the games tells you to.

It doesn't matter what song you pick, it's still the same. The button prompts may be quicker on some than others but in the end it boils down to press blue ... NOW!

Alright, let me rephrase:

To dismiss linearity is idiotic.

The success of Guitar Hero (not a clue what RB is) won't affect sandbox games in the slightest - they're very different. Call of Duty is unrelentingly linear, yet they didn't stop the rise of sandboxing (I know it was around before but not like it is now). Racing games are linear (for the most part), yet don't impact on sandbox games. Your fears are, and will remain to be, unfounded.

I'd much rather have a tightly perfected story then this whole moral choice system which is often poorly implemented (unless you're playing an RPG), detracts from the story and doesn't really do much. GTA IV for example, I don't understand why they bothered.

Then of course there's the gameplay side - again, the CoD series is so full of set pieces you can't turn away, and HL2 is possibly the best game I've played in terms of pacing. Pacing in a sandbox game is generally very hit and miss.

Sandboxing gives you freedom but it'll never deliver squeaky-bum-time like a well directed linear game. Each has their merits and failings.

Hence, to say linear = bad is idiotic to say the least.

I wasn't saying rhythm based games would be the end of of sandbox games but if the fickle game "devs" see these story-less linear games then they MIGHT pump more of them into the
industry and MAY stray away from sandbox games.

it is all about opinion though, isn't it? I prefer a few mediocre stories, great gameplay, average graphics, sounds and voice acting etc. Some may prefer a story masterpiece and the rest average, some want awe inspiring graphics and the rest average and a select few want the sounds and voice acting to be top notch.

Linear as a principle IS bad, what if you could get an amazing story (no matter what you do) combined with sandbox format? That would be better than just pure linear?

 

[Woodsey]

Calling music rhythm games linear because the notes are confined to a track is like saying CoD is linear because your bullets only fly straight...

Last I checked you could choose what cities to visit and what songs to play in those music rhythm games. You're not confined to playing what they want all the time. You need to re-check your definition of 'linear' when applied to gaming.

I think you need to recheck what it means, I was saying rock band (BH) and guitar hero (GH) were linear cos all you are doing is pressing buttons when the games tells you to.

It doesn't matter what song you pick, it's still the same. The button prompts may be quicker on some than others but in the end it boils down to press blue ... NOW!

Alright, let me rephrase:

To dismiss linearity is idiotic.

The success of Guitar Hero (not a clue what RB is) won't affect sandbox games in the slightest - they're very different. Call of Duty is unrelentingly linear, yet they didn't stop the rise of sandboxing (I know it was around before but not like it is now). Racing games are linear (for the most part), yet don't impact on sandbox games. Your fears are, and will remain to be, unfounded.

I'd much rather have a tightly perfected story then this whole moral choice system which is often poorly implemented (unless you're playing an RPG), detracts from the story and doesn't really do much. GTA IV for example, I don't understand why they bothered.

Then of course there's the gameplay side - again, the CoD series is so full of set pieces you can't turn away, and HL2 is possibly the best game I've played in terms of pacing. Pacing in a sandbox game is generally very hit and miss.

Sandboxing gives you freedom but it'll never deliver squeaky-bum-time like a well directed linear game. Each has their merits and failings.

Hence, to say linear = bad is idiotic to say the least.

I wasn't saying rhythm based games would be the end of of sandbox games but if the fickle game "devs" see these story-less linear games then they MIGHT pump more of them into the
industry and MAY stray away from sandbox games.

it is all about opinion though, isn't it? I prefer a few mediocre stories, great gameplay, average graphics, sounds and voice acting etc. Some may prefer a story masterpiece and the rest average, some want awe inspiring graphics and the rest average and a select few want the sounds and voice acting to be top notch.

Linear as a principle IS bad, what if you could get an amazing story (no matter what you do) combined with sandbox format? That would be better than just pure linear?

You're right about it being all opinion, although surely the principle of linearity is redundant considering it works (often exceptionally well)?

Like I said, I think the two are a little mutually exclusive. Pacing plays a big part in making a good story, and as the pacing in a sandbox game is generated by the player (concerning what you do and the time spent between missions) it will always be off the mark.

Perhaps it is the way things have been tied together thus far; sandbox in a lot of people's minds = GTA and Just Cause, whereas linearity = HL2, CoD and Halo (and I'm certainly not using Halo as an example of the best linearity has to offer).

Maybe dev's need to cross over more; maybe they can't for the reasons I've said or because it's just so hard to balance.

It would leave me with an unsound mind should games such as HL2 disappear with their beautiful linearity however.

 

[TPiddy]

Calling music rhythm games linear because the notes are confined to a track is like saying CoD is linear because your bullets only fly straight...

Last I checked you could choose what cities to visit and what songs to play in those music rhythm games. You're not confined to playing what they want all the time. You need to re-check your definition of 'linear' when applied to gaming.

I think you need to recheck what it means, I was saying rock band (BH) and guitar hero (GH) were linear cos all you are doing is pressing buttons when the games tells you to.

It doesn't matter what song you pick, it's still the same. The button prompts may be quicker on some than others but in the end it boils down to press blue ... NOW!

Exactly... you're calling a game 'linear' based on a game play mechanic. You can't do that. That's like calling a racing game linear because you have to drive around the track... that's the point of the game. Linearity in games has a broader scope than that.

GH and RB do not tell you what venue to go to, what song to play or even what mode to play in. Not linear. The end goal of GH and RB is to play at the final venue. What order you do the venues in and what songs you do at each venue do not matter. Just like any RPG. The ultimate goal is to beat the final bad guy. How you get there does not matter.

Left 4 Dead, on the other hand, IS linear. The goal is to get from point A to point B, and there's only one way to get there. Linear.

 

[omega 616]

You're right about it being all opinion, although surely the principle of linearity is redundant considering it works (often exceptionally well)?

Like I said, I think the two are a little mutually exclusive. Pacing plays a big part in making a good story, and as the pacing in a sandbox game is generated by the player (concerning what you do and the time spent between missions) it will always be off the mark.

Perhaps it is the way things have been tied together thus far; sandbox in a lot of people's minds = GTA and Just Cause, whereas linearity = HL2, CoD and Halo (and I'm certainly not using Halo as an example of the best linearity has to offer).

Maybe dev's need to cross over more; maybe they can't for the reasons I've said or because it's just so hard to balance.

It would leave me with an unsound mind should games such as HL2 disappear with their beautiful linearity however.

The more I think about it, the more I think linear games, such as C.O.D, are like interactive movies or a visual representation of those books were you choose what page to turn to.

Why is pacing so important? I assume it means how fast the story is going then what does it matter what speed it going?

 

[Woodsey]

You're right about it being all opinion, although surely the principle of linearity is redundant considering it works (often exceptionally well)?

Like I said, I think the two are a little mutually exclusive. Pacing plays a big part in making a good story, and as the pacing in a sandbox game is generated by the player (concerning what you do and the time spent between missions) it will always be off the mark.

Perhaps it is the way things have been tied together thus far; sandbox in a lot of people's minds = GTA and Just Cause, whereas linearity = HL2, CoD and Halo (and I'm certainly not using Halo as an example of the best linearity has to offer).

Maybe dev's need to cross over more; maybe they can't for the reasons I've said or because it's just so hard to balance.

It would leave me with an unsound mind should games such as HL2 disappear with their beautiful linearity however.

The more I think about it, the more I think linear games, such as C.O.D, are like interactive movies or a visual representation of those books were you choose what page to turn to.

Why is pacing so important? I assume it means how fast the story is going then what does it matter what speed it going?

Pacing is, well... The pace xD

Alright I'll try and give an example, it's not the speed as such.

Think of your heartbeat if you're working out/running/whatever, if you're doing it properly, it should be pounding. Say you do 20 minutes of excercise then you have your 5 minute cool down. It's like that.

HL2 is so good because it's relentless - it pushes you and pushes you, you're always on the move. Then right when you think you need a break, you come across some friendlies - you'll be with them for no more than 5 minutes, but you recompose, heal, stock up on ammo and then head back out.

To play HL2 (I don't know if you have) would actually be the best way of explaining. Games like CoD and Half-Life should push you to the brink of "I need a break, there's too many", and right when you hit that point, it should push you just that little further. Then you hit your resting place.

Maybe someone else can explain it better, but that's the general idea. Games where the pacing is off will just lull for no apparent reason, or induce stop/start sections of actions every few minutes.

It's also a matter of how thick and fast they deliver the story. Far Cry 2 had AWFUL pacing. You would hit camps every 5 minutes, get chased down for no apparent reason, etc. etc. And the story only appeared at the start, the middle and the end.

 

[omega 616]

Exactly... you're calling a game 'linear' based on a game play mechanic. You can't do that. That's like calling a racing game linear because you have to drive around the track... that's the point of the game. Linearity in games has a broader scope than that.

GH and RB do not tell you what venue to go to, what song to play or even what mode to play in. Not linear. The end goal of GH and RB is to play at the final venue. What order you do the venues in and what songs you do at each venue do not matter. Just like any RPG. The ultimate goal is to beat the final bad guy. How you get there does not matter.

Left 4 Dead, on the other hand, IS linear. The goal is to get from point A to point B, and there's only one way to get there. Linear.

The story mode sounds linear aswell though. yes, driving games are linear, in both gameplay and story.

Maybe we can have a game were we choose who to race and how to race, just to take a small step away from such a linear a format and add a little more freedom to it.

Maybe rhythm games could let you choose which venues to play, which has an effect on how big you are, so you can decide to stay underground or break out and make millions.

Would these be such bad things to add to these games? Just to take it away from such a ridged straight line.

 

[Rand-m]

Really, when it all comes down to it, rhythm games aren't linear in my opinion. you really can choose what songs you want to play, in what order, just like choosing the order in which you do missions in GTA4, You can even go back and play a song that you really like, all while progressing further in the game. Call me crazy, but rhythm games are NOT linear.

 

[TPiddy]

Most racing games have that freedom already. You don't have the freedom to drive off the track, but you can choose races, circuits, car types, who to race against, what type of race, etc.

Racing games and music games are not linear games. What would be the point of staying an underground band in a game like Rock Band? The progressive format is that you get better, you unlock more and better songs and perks. As you win races, you unlock more cars and more races. It's the same formula in both genres. Neither are linear because neither have a story to progress. Just like sports games. You play the game, you win, you lose, someone gets hurt, someone signs somewhere else.... there's no story here.

This is what people want from these types of games because the game play mechanic is more important than the whole thing. Playing a song is more important than how big your band is. Driving the car is more important than where your car is. You can't apply the terms 'linear' or 'sandbox' to these types of games.

I don't hear people complaining about how they couldn't do a line of coke before a show in Rock Band or how they couldn't retire from football in Madden and sell portable grills. These games aren't made for stories.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I really like linear games because there more like a movie. (I don't like guitar hero and rock band though because your not really playing, your just pressing buttons.)

Stop! Grammar time. You're*.

OT: I like linear games like Splinter Cell. Where you have a clearly defined mission structure, but options on how you can get to the goal.

Personally my fave games are the System Shock games (massive open-world settings with missions that you can complete in any fashion, if not order, that you like). But I'm also a huge fan of Half-Life 2 (linear shoot-em-up that takes place in a fantastically-realised world with great characters and settings).

It's not what you do, it's how well you do it.

 

[omega 616]

Pacing is, well... The pace xD

Alright I'll try and give an example, it's not the speed as such.

Think of your heartbeat if you're working out/running/whatever, if you're doing it properly, it should be pounding. Say you do 20 minutes of excercise then you have your 5 minute cool down. It's like that.

HL2 is so good because it's relentless - it pushes you and pushes you, you're always on the move. Then right when you think you need a break, you come across some friendlies - you'll be with them for no more than 5 minutes, but you recompose, heal, stock up on ammo and then head back out.

To play HL2 (I don't know if you have) would actually be the best way of explaining. Games like CoD and Half-Life should push you to the brink of "I need a break, there's too many", and right when you hit that point, it should push you just that little further. Then you hit your resting place.

Maybe someone else can explain it better, but that's the general idea. Games where the pacing is off will just lull for no apparent reason, or induce stop/start sections of actions every few minutes.

It's also a matter of how thick and fast they deliver the story. Far Cry 2 had AWFUL pacing. You would hit camps every 5 minutes, get chased down for no apparent reason, etc. etc. And the story only appeared at the start, the middle and the end.

Right ok, but I have played HL2 (I had the orange box aswell) and I have played alot of other FPS games and I see no difference in either of them. Maybe it is just my young mind but I just don't notice that.

The only thing that struck me about HL2 is below average graphics, I always had enough ammo and health ... maybe I should have cranked up the difficulty?

 

[Rotating Bread]

There's a lot of love for linear games in this thread. I too like playing through a linear story, Half Life 2 is a prime example of how good a completely linear game can be.

I do think however that the arrival of non linear open-world games in the past few years is an excellent innovation. Being able to explore a world and peice togethter your own story is a great experience, for me Fallout 3 is the best exponent so far.

I think both play styles bring variety to gaming which is something that should be welcomed. There does seem to have been a rush to develop 'sandbox' games since the success of GTA, but I'm sure there will always be a place for more linear games.

 

[Woodsey]

Pacing is, well... The pace xD

Alright I'll try and give an example, it's not the speed as such.

Think of your heartbeat if you're working out/running/whatever, if you're doing it properly, it should be pounding. Say you do 20 minutes of excercise then you have your 5 minute cool down. It's like that.

HL2 is so good because it's relentless - it pushes you and pushes you, you're always on the move. Then right when you think you need a break, you come across some friendlies - you'll be with them for no more than 5 minutes, but you recompose, heal, stock up on ammo and then head back out.

To play HL2 (I don't know if you have) would actually be the best way of explaining. Games like CoD and Half-Life should push you to the brink of "I need a break, there's too many", and right when you hit that point, it should push you just that little further. Then you hit your resting place.

Maybe someone else can explain it better, but that's the general idea. Games where the pacing is off will just lull for no apparent reason, or induce stop/start sections of actions every few minutes.

It's also a matter of how thick and fast they deliver the story. Far Cry 2 had AWFUL pacing. You would hit camps every 5 minutes, get chased down for no apparent reason, etc. etc. And the story only appeared at the start, the middle and the end.

Right ok, but I have played HL2 (I had the orange box aswell) and I have played alot of other FPS games and I see no difference in either of them. Maybe it is just my young mind but I just don't notice that.

The only thing that struck me about HL2 is below average graphics, I always had enough ammo and health ... maybe I should have cranked up the difficulty?

Below average graphics? Were you playing on the 360 or PC version? Considering it's now 5 years old, I still wouldn't call the graphics below average.

And you should, it'll definitely change it.