Linear Games
- Thread starter Sky57
- Start date
Recommended Videos
because then it would be like this...
"Ooh... this game is fun, and it has a great linear storyline!"
"Oh I've finished it. That was fun, what a great twist at the end!"
"Now to play it again... Oh... the exact same thing is happening"
"Ooh... this game is fun, and it has a great linear storyline!"
"Oh I've finished it. That was fun, what a great twist at the end!"
"Now to play it again... Oh... the exact same thing is happening"
Exactly. "Linear" games are usually far better written because the writers don't have to worry about the player's direct influence on the story. If the story is open-ended, usually there is one good ending and the rest are inferior because they are unrealistic ways for a story to develop. Sure, branching storylines are possible, but as soon as you stick a player influence into the mix, everything goes down the drain.Eggo post=9.72298.754566 said:
Just because the exact same thing happened doesn't make it a down side. People reread books all the time, why complain when you replay a video game. I mean I am not trying to say that having things nonlinear is bad. I just don't think that you should knock a game because the designer had a certain story line in mind.
I agree that linearity isn't bad, since some linear games and non-linear games can be like comparing a movie to a reality show - BUT - it's also very restricting and irritating. in CoD4 I had so many opportunities to change the storyline and change the world, but it said "fuck you and your "options" - you do it my way or get a refund, I don't give a shit if you are a main character who plays an important role!" Which is why I do not anticipate Fallout 3, Bethsoft doesn't like Options that are more than just "Black and White".
Non-linear games like GTA (they call them 'sandbox' nowadays, but sometimes I can't tell the difference between a sandbox, HUB, or Open world) that still have a lot of linearity in it, still let the player toy with a huge playground. RPG's can have lots of replay value, etc.
Also, people hate it when you can't jump over a bush or something, so they go and play Crysis and throw flaming barrels at people or into a house because they are sick of not being able to jump over 2 foot rocks because of invisible barriers, and being forced only to use guns and their fists/knife in weapon slot 1 and 2.
Non-linear games like GTA (they call them 'sandbox' nowadays, but sometimes I can't tell the difference between a sandbox, HUB, or Open world) that still have a lot of linearity in it, still let the player toy with a huge playground. RPG's can have lots of replay value, etc.
Also, people hate it when you can't jump over a bush or something, so they go and play Crysis and throw flaming barrels at people or into a house because they are sick of not being able to jump over 2 foot rocks because of invisible barriers, and being forced only to use guns and their fists/knife in weapon slot 1 and 2.
Games get bad when they feel linear. For example, when whatever choice you get is in vain. Ever played an RPG where you get to answer Yes or No to a question, but if you choose No the question just repeats until you say Yes? That gets on my nerves (Zelda for example does this all the time... why even bother giving me a choice?).
Also, First Person Shooter games nowadays are far too linear for my taste. It's mostly just a single corridor you can go down on, and any objective is reduced to stop and press a button, or stop and fight some enemies. It get's very repetitive since 99% of all FPS today are designed like that. Some games, like Half-life 2, manage to hide the fact pretty well by using pretty enviroments that seem open, but most games don't even try to conceal it, like Quake 4 or Prey. It all reminds me of old sidescrolling platformers, your only mission is to go from left to right. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a game in 3D if you progress in a 2D fashion, doesn't it?
Compare to older games like Doom 2 or Duke Nukem 3D, those games were linear but level progression was not so restricted, you could travel down several different paths in a level, finding keys and items, eventually reaching the end. Nowadays, it feels like FPS have gotten dumbed down, and considering how straight forward the genre has always been, that's saying something.
Linearity is good to a point. I don't mind having just one ending, or not having multiple choices all the time. But when FPS play more like rail shooters than actual 3D games, it gets on my nerves, and that's when I start critisizing.
Also, First Person Shooter games nowadays are far too linear for my taste. It's mostly just a single corridor you can go down on, and any objective is reduced to stop and press a button, or stop and fight some enemies. It get's very repetitive since 99% of all FPS today are designed like that. Some games, like Half-life 2, manage to hide the fact pretty well by using pretty enviroments that seem open, but most games don't even try to conceal it, like Quake 4 or Prey. It all reminds me of old sidescrolling platformers, your only mission is to go from left to right. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a game in 3D if you progress in a 2D fashion, doesn't it?
Compare to older games like Doom 2 or Duke Nukem 3D, those games were linear but level progression was not so restricted, you could travel down several different paths in a level, finding keys and items, eventually reaching the end. Nowadays, it feels like FPS have gotten dumbed down, and considering how straight forward the genre has always been, that's saying something.
Linearity is good to a point. I don't mind having just one ending, or not having multiple choices all the time. But when FPS play more like rail shooters than actual 3D games, it gets on my nerves, and that's when I start critisizing.
Heavy Rain is quite unlike ANY game I have EVER played or seen before.Indigo_Dingo post=9.72298.754863 said:
If I had to compare it to something, I guess Indigo Prophecy would suffice, but even THATS stretching it.
Open world gaming can get quite dull if there's nothing to do in the environment. A liner story can feel tight and immersive if you are completely drawn into the experience and only have to concentrate on getting from A-B.
A game like God of War would lose all it's impetus if you were allowed to 'faff' about in between missions.
A game like God of War would lose all it's impetus if you were allowed to 'faff' about in between missions.
I LOVED this
The first time(s) I played, I was way to serious to consider chosing No, so it felt like an awesomne choice. Years later when replaying for the Nth time, I chose No, and had to laugh ^^
I feel it's an appropriate fake choice, as you don't want the other side anyways. Sure you want to save hyrule. If not, you should've already stopped playing. (I would agree if the fake choice had 2 desirable outcomes)
Linear games give the developers a chance to create a great story and background and are usually better and making the player feel immersed in the gameplay. The big draw back is once you've completed it theres very little replay value as it will end exactly the same way each time.
I loved the story in Cod 4 and Bioshock but i just cant bring myself to play through the single player again as i know whats going to happen and when. Which is shame as i really loved playing them the first time through and felt compelled to finish the story.
I loved the story in Cod 4 and Bioshock but i just cant bring myself to play through the single player again as i know whats going to happen and when. Which is shame as i really loved playing them the first time through and felt compelled to finish the story.
I'd dispute the fact that a linear story means little replay value.
Just like with books, if the story's good, I'd happily experience it again!
Bioshock, Half Life 2, and Golden Sun are some examples I can think of
Just like with books, if the story's good, I'd happily experience it again!
Bioshock, Half Life 2, and Golden Sun are some examples I can think of
This.Humanfishboy post=9.72298.754970 said:I'd dispute the fact that a linear story means little replay value.
Just like with books, if the story's good, I'd happily experience it again!
Bioshock, Half Life 2, and Golden Sun are some examples I can think of
I'm going through all the games I played a few years ago because they were far more enjoyable than any of the AAA titles I picked up for the PS3.
What's wrong with that ? did it ever prevent you from playing Sonic YET AGAIN ? or Super Mario ? or Mega Man ? or ZELDA ?The Iron Ninja post=9.72298.754571 said:
It's just another new form of nitpicking from people who got spoiled by the abuse of "freedom" and "branching storylines". Everybody and their dog started to make games when YOUR decisions were important, where YOU were in CONTROL (yet another fallacy), and people assumed it was the new black, and the new norm, just like Halo ruined their shield concept by making it Wolverine-type health, and now people have almost forgotten about games with life gauges...
In the end, linearity is not a problem, as long as it's not sold as "vast, freeroaming world with CHOICES", but choices are just a list of fetch quests.
So the entire purpose of this thread is for MMORPGers to whine about a game having an ending? I think some gamers are getting too sandbox happy. Where's the sense of accomplishment when all you do is keep going? Linearity or not, a game has to end and the only way to reach the end of something is to follow a pre-set path. Sure there can be different routes but the destination remains the same..........
Article on linearity. [http://www.destructoid.com/the-path-of-no-divergence-why-linear-games-have-their-place-90753.phtml]
Silent Hill 2 wouldn't be remembered as it is today had it not been linear.
Silent Hill 2 wouldn't be remembered as it is today had it not been linear.