When did linearity become a dirty word?

[zehydra]

Linearity means restriction of choice, and as video games as a medium are all about choice.

Edit: this doesn't mean of course that linear stories in games are bad, since stories are irrelevant to gameplay value. Choice is primarily important when it comes to gameplay, and can be important to enjoyment of a story.

 

[Daffy F]

the original Rayman for example

This guy knows what he's talking about. The cartoony graphics meant that is still looks great to play, even now!
Er, on the Space Marine topic - I played a little bit of the campaign and found that it was quite repetitive and dull, being linear didn't really have much to do with why I didn't like it.

 

[Laser Priest]

Poorly executed linearity is bad.

Half Life 2 was linear and also fantastic.

Final Fantasy XIII was linear and akin to sticking ice picks in your eyes.

 

[Infernai]

It depends on the game: Something like, say, Metal Gear Solid is linear as hell but still a very engaging and excellent experience. However, for an RPG, even a J-RPG, you have to have some degree of freedom: For example, Final Fantasy 7 allowed you to atleast customize some abilities of characters via Materia and you had a big world to wander around in. Final Fantasy 13 took the oppposite route and forced you to keep running down corridors and gave you fuck all customization over characters (Until around the later parts of the game, and boy do i mean LATER).

So that's basically it: Linearity can work depending on the type of game you're making, but in others it's best to just keep it out and make it open ended.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

FFXIII filthied it up for everyone.

speak for yourself. i loved FF XIII

that's wonderful, that doesn't mean the game isn't linear to hell and back though.

the game is unanimously named with linearity when spoken by word of mouth now, you could basically label the game as god of linearity, at least among the RPG genre.

first; it's not all linear (gran pulse) and that's doesn't mean it's bad game. It's turned off some players yeah but i actually liked first 15 hours of linear stuff with character introduction and plot beginning it kept me focused and then on grand pulse it let me to run wiled with side quest and chocobo hunting that i enjoyed for many hours and then got back in story linear mode and kept me focused to deliver beautiful ending. everyone have different tastes.

....i never said it made it a bad game?

and "some" players? more like most, have you seen how many people sold back the game? it had utter ridiculous amount of trade ins.

and yeah, it gave it good back story and all, and i'm not saying it's not enjoyable to people, but i was just pointing out it is extremely linear for a good chunk of the game, especially since it's right off the bat.

 

[funguy2121]

I recently had a birthday and so had a bit of cash to get a new game. Now I used to be a big warhammer 40k geek so I decided I'd take a look at spacemarine reviews as I always look at reviews before buying a game new. The reviews I saw had somewhat average scores, the main negative people were giving was linearity, some even going as far as 1 or 2 out of 10 based soley on the linearity of the single player mode. I thought to myself well that's a silly reason and bought it anyway, I'm currently really enjoying it despite it being linear.

So, why has linearity become such a negative point these days? Given budget and/or time constraints I'd prefer a dev team to concentrate on story and gameplay rather than in making a sandbox world that is unnecessary for the game in question. I'm all for sandboxes in games if it is needed GTA style but really is a linear story in spacemarine such a damning factor?

Two problems.

1. The degree to which the game (which I know almost nothing about) is linear may actually be the problem, not the fact that it has a coherent story or doesn't focus on exploration. Or it may be as linear as a Modern Warfare game, literally forcing you over tall fences to proceed in some cases and arbitrarily disallowing you to mount smaller ones at others. Overall, linearity is becoming a problem with modern 3D games. It's rendering the 3D a mere illusion and it's cutting strategy, in some cases, off at the knees. But most sandbox games bore me pretty quickly. I think middle ground is in order, or at least fair to expect to find sometimes.

2. Gaming, more so than any other medium or art form, has a world of critique that is dominated by fanboys. Belligerent contrarians, eager fellat'ors of the newest Call of Duty/Rock Band/Madden, and idiots who claim that a 7 out of 10 = mediocre.

Which is the bigger problem in this instance, I honestly don't know.

 

[JohnDoey]

Bad linearity:

1. When a game feels like it forces you onto a path you do not want to go down. This can be story or game play based. This is typically called railroading. I say feels like because there are tons on linear games that don't feel like they are railroading you. For example, Uncharted 2 is a extremely linear game but it does not feel constraining.

2. When linearity doesn't make sense. B does not follow A. The game jumps all over the place like an 5 year old who just downed a pound of sugar.

Good linearity:

1. When a highly structured game uses linearity for strong pacing, story telling, and to establish causes and effect. Once again, Uncharted 2 is a fantastic example of this done very well. All of the levels lead naturally into one another, and each portion of each level fits into the overall game.

Critics use linearity as a negative because:

1. Linearity is currently seen as "non innovative" and is therefore arbitrarily deemed bad for no good reason.

2. They don't like a game but all their complaints are difficult to put into words, so they get lazy and throw out a buzzword instead.

3. The game is linear when it should not be. Rarely the case.

The good doctor knows what he is talking about.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

To be honest every game is actually pretty linear if you think about it. How many games actually let you skip whole portions because you already figured something out(Mario does)? Now this a spoiler for those that have yet to play ME os if you haven't skip the box.

Spoiler

If say when you were playing ME and it let you stumble onto the MU relay through random exploration then go on to find the conduit before Saren that would be non linear. ME is actually quite linear. Choosing the order you doing things but still having to do everything regardless is not very non linear it is fragmented and like doing a puzzle.

Even KoTOR was like this. If you figured out the big reveal you could not skip portions of the game the exposes it even though you already know. Ridiculous moral choices and pseudo story line choices do not make a game non linear. By the way that does not make these games bad just no less linear than Mario, CoD, HL, Gears or FF.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Linearity is not bad, when you make a unique and innovative game. (Portal)

As much as the story is cliched, allow me to also submit one of my favourite games of all time, for this specific reason: The World Ends With You. Sure, like I said, the plot could be replicated by taking a whole bunch of anime box sets or random Square Enix games and mashing them all together, but the gameplay part is solid, and it's also one-of-a-kind.

Also, Mirror's Edge. I don't think anyone else did it before them, and the one game to do it after them (Brink) kinda flopped.

Edit:

Bad linearity:

1. When a game feels like it forces you onto a path you do not want to go down. This can be story or game play based. This is typically called railroading. I say feels like because there are tons on linear games that don't feel like they are railroading you. For example, Uncharted 2 is a extremely linear game but it does not feel constraining.

2. When linearity doesn't make sense. B does not follow A. The game jumps all over the place like an 5 year old who just downed a pound of sugar.

Good linearity:

1. When a highly structured game uses linearity for strong pacing, story telling, and to establish causes and effect. Once again, Uncharted 2 is a fantastic example of this done very well. All of the levels lead naturally into one another, and each portion of each level fits into the overall game.

Critics use linearity as a negative because:

1. Linearity is currently seen as "non innovative" and is therefore arbitrarily deemed bad for no good reason.

2. They don't like a game but all their complaints are difficult to put into words, so they get lazy and throw out a buzzword instead.

3. The game is linear when it should not be. Rarely the case.

(re)Quoted for truth.

 

[Skoosh]

I'd say since 3D came around was when critics started complaining about it. Without options, there's no need for the player. Now when I say linear, I mean there's 1 way to go and 1 way to solve it. Portal is not linear, there are numerous ways to go about beating each room. A game doesn't have to be a sandbox to be non-linear, just more than 1 solution. Sure, I'm going through the same gyms in the same order when I play pokemon, but someone else could play with a completely different team. The player affects the game. Too open, and you risk sacrificing pacing, story, etc. Too linear and it feels like you're not even playing, the game is backseat-driving.

It's hitting a healthy balance, and that balance is different for every game. Some need more linearity than others. When a game is too linear, that's directly the problem. If a game is too open, you can tell because pacing and story are bad, so people complain about that rather than saying "not linear enough."

 

[Casual Shinji]

Non-linearity doesn't mean sandbox.

Resident Evil 4 is a linear game, but it feels open and vibrant because of brilliant level design and diverse gameplay and enemy encounters.

Final Fantasy 13 on the other hand feels like your strapped to a mining cart.

 

[Deathninja19]

When games started to cost £40 (or $60)

*cough*

Games have always cost that much.

I owned one of the original Gameboys. The cost of a game significantly less advanced than you'd find on Kongregate cost 40-$50. A top-end title, like one of the Final Fantasy games, could be as much as $70.

I also owned a Balley's arcade console.
( http://www.videogameconsolelibrary.com/pg70-bally.htm )
And we also owned a 2600.

Video games have always. Always. Cost roughly as much as they do now.

----

To OP;
Linearity is not necessarily a con but it is never, ever listed in the pros column.

It can be a significant con depending on how it's handled.
Red Faction: Armageddon is a perfect example of linearity handled very poorly:
* It's a followup to a sandbox, making the sudden linear focus both jarring and tremendously disappointing, especially for those people expecting (and wanting) another sandbox. (strike one!)
* the game's rails takes us through bland, boring, samey, cramped cave corridors that each look and feel exactly the same as the last, turning what should be a sense of progression into a bland, boring, samey slog. (stee-riiiiike two!)
* Instead of invisible walls, the devs decided that leaving the 'game area' should be punishable first by warning and then by instant death coming from nowhere. (stee-riiiike THREE! GTFO!)

Generally speaking, games only get points off for linearity if the game itself does not have much going on. Bland games, mediocre games tend to get called out for being too linear, as a code for "there's nothing good enough in here to warrant suggesting this game for purchase, but at the same time it's not terrible enough to completely slag the fuck off."

That is what 'too linear' means: 'this game is not terrible, but may bore the piss out of you.'

*cough*

Actually in the UK PS1 and PS2 era games settled on £30 and by the end of their lifespans that cost went down to £20. It was only the Nes era that stayed consistantly high in England. Though you're probably right about American prices.

So

*cough*

 

[MisterDyslexo]

When there are no redeeming value for it, it became dirty.

Personally, I wish you could basically fly.hack everywhere in a game using levels or chapters once you've beaten it the first time on that difficulty, just to check everything out, or think of new approaches to solving a problem.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

I recently had a birthday and so had a bit of cash to get a new game. Now I used to be a big warhammer 40k geek so I decided I'd take a look at spacemarine reviews as I always look at reviews before buying a game new. The reviews I saw had somewhat average scores, the main negative people were giving was linearity, some even going as far as 1 or 2 out of 10 based soley on the linearity of the single player mode. I thought to myself well that's a silly reason and bought it anyway, I'm currently really enjoying it despite it being linear.

So, why has linearity become such a negative point these days? Given budget and/or time constraints I'd prefer a dev team to concentrate on story and gameplay rather than in making a sandbox world that is unnecessary for the game in question. I'm all for sandboxes in games if it is needed GTA style but really is a linear story in spacemarine such a damning factor?

Some games feel cheap because of their linearity when there is clear potential for openness. An example of a linear game that did a good job of adding variation is mirror's edge. Linear but you can do the levels slightly differently.

 

[xvbones]

*cough*

Actually in the UK PS1 and PS2 era games settled on £30 and by the end of their lifespans that cost went down to £20. It was only the Nes era that stayed consistantly high in England. Though you're probably right about American prices.

So

*cough*

So you're saying the last time games were as expensive in the UK, they were also at the absolute height of linearity, oftentimes consisting of precisely one possible direction.

 

[cookyy2k]

The problem with spacemarine though is their is very strict lore involved so moral choice systems and alike would wreck the immersion of being a spacemarine. I can't actually think of any moral choice style decisions that could work.

As for the multiple strategy thing, there are many ways to kill enemies, you can charge into melee combat, shoot as many as you can until they get there then smack them down, shoot them and keep backing up til you kill them all, lay mines and lead the enemy hoard into the trap, shoot from long range undetected and startle your enemy often sending them into disarray. So combat is varied aslong as you look for the appropriate options.

As for the maps, ok they are generally linear corridors but that's not to say they're all the same. They are brilliantly detailed depending where you are and their is a little exploration to be had that usually turns up some ammo.

So i'd say it's no more linear than a lot of very popular games, but then a lot of games get slated by a significant minority for linearity. This level of contempt for a linear game has only occurred in recent years and is becoming more pronounced, hence the when did it become a dirty word?

Also to those who say linearity = no replay value. If you enjoy a game linear or not why wouldn't you want to experience it again? You don't have to be able to play the game another way for it to have replay value. A good experience is a good experience if it's the same again or not so linearity meaning no replay is just not true, and I'll bet everyone saying that has played a linear game more than once because they enjoyed it the first time.

 

[Arina Love]

FFXIII filthied it up for everyone.

speak for yourself. i loved FF XIII

that's wonderful, that doesn't mean the game isn't linear to hell and back though.

the game is unanimously named with linearity when spoken by word of mouth now, you could basically label the game as god of linearity, at least among the RPG genre.

first; it's not all linear (gran pulse) and that's doesn't mean it's bad game. It's turned off some players yeah but i actually liked first 15 hours of linear stuff with character introduction and plot beginning it kept me focused and then on grand pulse it let me to run wiled with side quest and chocobo hunting that i enjoyed for many hours and then got back in story linear mode and kept me focused to deliver beautiful ending. everyone have different tastes.

....i never said it made it a bad game?

and "some" players? more like most, have you seen how many people sold back the game? it had utter ridiculous amount of trade ins.

and yeah, it gave it good back story and all, and i'm not saying it's not enjoyable to people, but i was just pointing out it is extremely linear for a good chunk of the game, especially since it's right off the bat.

most? provide proof please. Here is my proof for "some". metacritic, it's pretty good reviewed and people liked it. 73 positive vs 1 negative critic reviews and 107 vs 58 user reviews and based on 1399 slice of peoples ratings 1,108 positive 220 negative.
yeah it's linear right of the bat and i see nothing wrong with it. As i get to know characters and beginning of story i don't need open spaces to distract me form immersing and investing in to said story and characters.Beginning of XIII main characters on track with on pretty much same goal and there is no time to spare for characters in story. It made perfect sense to me since i'm ok with sacrificing freedom for narrative especially in the beginning.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

FFXIII filthied it up for everyone.

speak for yourself. i loved FF XIII

that's wonderful, that doesn't mean the game isn't linear to hell and back though.

the game is unanimously named with linearity when spoken by word of mouth now, you could basically label the game as god of linearity, at least among the RPG genre.

first; it's not all linear (gran pulse) and that's doesn't mean it's bad game. It's turned off some players yeah but i actually liked first 15 hours of linear stuff with character introduction and plot beginning it kept me focused and then on grand pulse it let me to run wiled with side quest and chocobo hunting that i enjoyed for many hours and then got back in story linear mode and kept me focused to deliver beautiful ending. everyone have different tastes.

....i never said it made it a bad game?

and "some" players? more like most, have you seen how many people sold back the game? it had utter ridiculous amount of trade ins.

and yeah, it gave it good back story and all, and i'm not saying it's not enjoyable to people, but i was just pointing out it is extremely linear for a good chunk of the game, especially since it's right off the bat.

most? metacritic says another story. it's pretty good reviewed and people liked it. 73 positive vs 1 negative critic reviews and 107 vs 58 user reviews and based on 1399 slice of peoples ratings 1,108 positive 220 negative.

first off, i didn't realize meta critic was the end all decide all of everything..

and do they keep track of everyone that traded in the game after they played it?

i never ONCE said that people didn't like it, i just said on how many traded it back in.

are we speaking different languages here or why do you keep dragging off what i was saying originally?

i liked assassins creed, both 1 and 2, that didn't stop me from trading the game back in as soon as i beat it never to see it again. same goes for bulletstorm and section 8.

please re read exactly what i posted, because what you are saying has nothing to do with my post...and please look around at other posts, i'm not the only one to mention ff13 under the same breath as extremely linear.

 

[Arina Love]

FFXIII filthied it up for everyone.

speak for yourself. i loved FF XIII

that's wonderful, that doesn't mean the game isn't linear to hell and back though.

the game is unanimously named with linearity when spoken by word of mouth now, you could basically label the game as god of linearity, at least among the RPG genre.

first; it's not all linear (gran pulse) and that's doesn't mean it's bad game. It's turned off some players yeah but i actually liked first 15 hours of linear stuff with character introduction and plot beginning it kept me focused and then on grand pulse it let me to run wiled with side quest and chocobo hunting that i enjoyed for many hours and then got back in story linear mode and kept me focused to deliver beautiful ending. everyone have different tastes.

....i never said it made it a bad game?

and "some" players? more like most, have you seen how many people sold back the game? it had utter ridiculous amount of trade ins.

and yeah, it gave it good back story and all, and i'm not saying it's not enjoyable to people, but i was just pointing out it is extremely linear for a good chunk of the game, especially since it's right off the bat.

most? metacritic says another story. it's pretty good reviewed and people liked it. 73 positive vs 1 negative critic reviews and 107 vs 58 user reviews and based on 1399 slice of peoples ratings 1,108 positive 220 negative.

first off, i didn't realize meta critic was the end all decide all of everything..

and do they keep track of everyone that traded in the game after they played it?

i never ONCE said that people didn't like it, i just said on how many traded it back in.

are we speaking different languages here or why do you keep dragging off what i was saying originally?

i liked assassins creed, both 1 and 2, that didn't stop me from trading the game back in as soon as i beat it never to see it again. same goes for bulletstorm and section 8.

please re read exactly what i posted, because what you are saying has nothing to do with my post...and please look around at other posts, i'm not the only one to mention ff13 under the same breath as extremely linear.

"It's turned off some players" and you replied "and "some" players? more like most, have you seen how many people sold back the game? it had utter ridiculous amount of trade ins." AS IN "they didn't like it and sold it off" and not "played through and sold it off". pretty much say it all. i can read and comprehend pretty well thank you.