Poll: Linearity is good, don't kill it please
- Thread starter Ginnipe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Depends on the game, really. When you're playing as a soldier in a special operations unit, it makes no sense for you to have leave to go wherever you want--armies don't work that way. Games like Fallout 3 (or the first two, for that matter) wouldn't work if they were linear, since half the point is that you have a gigantic world to do pretty much whatever you want in.
Depends purely on the execution.
GTA as a linear world? No thanks.
Hal Life as a pure open world? No thanks, it'd lose it's intensity.
GTA as a linear world? No thanks.
Hal Life as a pure open world? No thanks, it'd lose it's intensity.
Linearity works better than open world for some game types and vice-versa. Why would we go about "killing" either when both can present favorable qualities in specific contexts?
I think it depends very much on the game, but most of the games I really enjoy are far more linear than open-world.
Open World games are a lot younger than linear games. I think they will grow in time and the things you do will have a larger and larger impact on the gameworld as it evolves. The problem with games like Oblivion for example, is that there's no long term effect of your actions. You save the world, and in the end it's pretty much the same as it was before. Even during the course of the game, the only thing that changes are the portals that randomly pop up. We want more interaction! Nothing neccesarilly wrong, but actions that can destroy a part of the game or change something. I think Fallout 3 was a step in the right direction on that note.
Bad company and Crysis is how I like it, Not open world but I choose my tactics.
Open world is the only way GTA4 would work though. It would be a fail otherwise.
Open world is the only way GTA4 would work though. It would be a fail otherwise.
Yeah I've been somewhat concerned in that it seems that people are more and more equating linear with bad. It's not. One isn't better than the other. There's room for both.
I feel like linearity gets a bad rap these days, but take a look at Half-Life 2. That game is incredibly linear, and it's actually a great argument for it. Linearity allows developers to show the player exactly what they want to show, exactly when they want to show it. Open world games' pacing can sometimes be weird, whereas Half-Life 2 has some of the best set-pieces and pacing in games.
This. It's the same deal with realistic graphics and cartoony graphics; it comes down to what you like more, but there's no reason why there can't be only one.ElephantGuts said:
50:50 with my vote, bloody hell that's interesting 
Anyway, some games work well with linearity, but for any FPS or RPG I love the feeling of open world. I'm aware most FPS games aren't open world, but I know Halo 3: ODST will be according to press releases. I just love the feeling of being able to explore rather than having the game dictate where I should go, but that said it does only work in certain types of game though. More FPS games need to be open world too, IMO.
Anyway, some games work well with linearity, but for any FPS or RPG I love the feeling of open world. I'm aware most FPS games aren't open world, but I know Halo 3: ODST will be according to press releases. I just love the feeling of being able to explore rather than having the game dictate where I should go, but that said it does only work in certain types of game though. More FPS games need to be open world too, IMO.
I like linear. Don't get me wrong, I still like some open world games but I prefer BioShock or Call of Duty over World of Warcraft. It's just my style. I like the stories of games and they're much more prominent in Gears of War than say Oblivion. I like both kinds of games but I would much rather play a linear game.
I like everything? It really depends of course. Although I never like too linear, like Call of Duty or Gears, where it goes from one killzone to another, rinse and repeat. I like games where you can explore around a linear world and experiment around e.g. Hitman, SWAT 4, Full Spectrum Warrior, Fahrenheit, and many squad shooters.
Neither.
Linearity is unimpressive when there are no branching paths.
Open worlds are boring when there's nothing to motivate the player.
Branching is best if done right.
I don't want the freedom to choose between non-descript A or equally non-descript B. Choices should always matter.
Linearity is unimpressive when there are no branching paths.
Open worlds are boring when there's nothing to motivate the player.
Branching is best if done right.
I don't want the freedom to choose between non-descript A or equally non-descript B. Choices should always matter.
For a majority of instances, I doth contest.
Open world multiplies playability directly proportional to how expansive the map is, how many different methods one is allowed to use in completing a task (I have seen compounds with three separate ways of breaking into them all with their own advantages,) and how hard the writers worked to make player decisions mean something.
On the last point - you mentioned that a player could kill everyone.
Yes... very true... and they could also COULD leave everyone alive. The player's CHOICE to kill everyone changes the dynamic of the continuing story. If the player does not like the effect of that route - they could load up a new game and take another route.
Concerning immersion: A linear game has conceptual walls. Wall within which the writer, designer, and producer expect the player to stay to allow the game to progress. The abrasive grinding of my face against that wall slowly chips away at the immersion that you speak of.
I think that my character would jump off the bridge into the water to escape his attackers. "No" says the level designer - the water is fake and there is an invisible wall. "No," says the writer, "your character is very brave and likes to kill people." "No." Says the producer, "You paid us $50 so we can tell YOU what happens next."
I fold my arms and tell them all that my character is a coward that wants to jump from a bridge into water - fake or not.
See the problem? My impression of who my character is doesn't mean anything unless the writer HAPPENS to agree with me.
Open world multiplies playability directly proportional to how expansive the map is, how many different methods one is allowed to use in completing a task (I have seen compounds with three separate ways of breaking into them all with their own advantages,) and how hard the writers worked to make player decisions mean something.
On the last point - you mentioned that a player could kill everyone.
Yes... very true... and they could also COULD leave everyone alive. The player's CHOICE to kill everyone changes the dynamic of the continuing story. If the player does not like the effect of that route - they could load up a new game and take another route.
Concerning immersion: A linear game has conceptual walls. Wall within which the writer, designer, and producer expect the player to stay to allow the game to progress. The abrasive grinding of my face against that wall slowly chips away at the immersion that you speak of.
I think that my character would jump off the bridge into the water to escape his attackers. "No" says the level designer - the water is fake and there is an invisible wall. "No," says the writer, "your character is very brave and likes to kill people." "No." Says the producer, "You paid us $50 so we can tell YOU what happens next."
I fold my arms and tell them all that my character is a coward that wants to jump from a bridge into water - fake or not.
See the problem? My impression of who my character is doesn't mean anything unless the writer HAPPENS to agree with me.