Why Are Linear Games Frowned Upon?

Recommended Videos

Dyan

New member
Nov 27, 2009
135
0
0
Joccaren said:
True. Many of my favourite games have been ones that are, as you said "semi-linear". I think that this approach might be the best way to desing certain games.

Cutscene heavy games always give me the impression that they're trying to hide something behind pretty visuals.
 

TeapartyTokyo

New member
May 11, 2011
14
0
0
I pretty much agree with what people are saying here. I think players generally want at least an illusion of choice, and we definitely want to explore the game world at our own pace for the most part. FF13 was very linear, but it might not have been such a big issue if it hadn't been an FF-game, where we always look so much forward to exploring new villages and areas.

Games like Half-Life or Uncharted, while being actually very linear does give you the opportunity to explore areas while still keeping the story line tight and focused, which I think most players really appreciate.
 

Yuno Gasai

Queen of Yandere
Nov 6, 2010
2,587
0
0
TopazFusion said:
I have no problem with linear games. I like the way they're more story-focused.

A problem with non-linear games is that, there has to be contrived reason why the main story has to wait, and is put on hold, while the player character faffs about doing something else.
I really need to play more linear games because the issue I have with non-linear games is that I get distracted by all the sidequests, then get overwhelmed and completely forget what I was supposed to be doing.

I don't really like linear games because they don't offer as much replay value as non-linear games. Even if there are multiple branches you can take in the main story, it's still not quite the same as being able to roam around doing whatever you want. Like using your Alteration skill in Skyrim to throw cabbages at unsuspecting guards.. or putting buckets on their heads. :3
 

tsb247

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,783
0
0
Linear games aren't bad in and of themselves. However, I find games that drag the player through them and punish the player for straying off the beaten path quite annoying.

I suppose that the main reason linear games are frowned upon is that gaming is seen to be evolving past the limitations that spawned linear level design to begin with. With more powerful processors, gobs of memory, and flashy graphics technology, open worlds are becoming more and more common. Perhaps people see linearity as a step backwards? It's just fine if done right. Deus Ex: Human revolution was mentioned. Semi-open linear levels are fine. Heck, even Half-Life 2 style levels are fine. Call of Duty and Battlefield on the other hand have linear levels that punish players for straying from the cooridor. They truly are bad when it comes to level design.
 

Wargamer

New member
Apr 2, 2008
973
0
0
I feel the need to clarify that there is a difference between a linear game, and a game with only one path of progression.

Super Mario Bros has, for various reasons, become my go-to game for drop in console play. Yes, the original NES title "Super Mario Bros." I do not consider this a linear game. I consider the likes of Medal of Whatever: Borefighter to be a linear game.

This may sound like an oxymoron, but I'm going to give you some explanation as to why:

Mario never offers me freedom. I must go to the right. MUST - the game limits how far you can backtrack to the point where if something has moved off the left of the screen, it's gone forever. I can move up and down as much as I like, within the limitations of the mechanics, but there is no in-to or out-of the screen movement. For Anyone. That is quite important as well; I am stuck moving left and right, mostly right. My enemies are stuck moving (mostly) left and right, with left being the primary choice. Within this basic framework, the game is doing little more than presenting me an environment, hazards within that environment, and letting me work it out myself.

A prime example of just how NON-linear Super Mario Bros is is the infamous World 1-2 Warp Zone. You can beat that level, and indeed most underground levels, by running along the ceiling. This is a game where there is on the surface NO freedom for players to choose what they do, and you can LEAVE THE LEVEL and run along your status bar to bypass 90% of the hazards! That is BRILLIANT!

Compare that now to the joy of the SGWW genre. I am told by Generic Yank Twat that I have to press X in front of a door to make something interesting happen. It offers me a sweeping urban environment, yet won't let me into any building save the one the game decided is my objective. When I try to explore I am blocked by ankle-high walls that I cannot step over for some reason, or a piece of cardboard that can somehow withstand a 60mm grenade impact, or an invisible barrier that will insta-kill me five seconds after I pass through it if I don't turn back.

Super Mario Bros does not do this. There is nothing on the map that exists for the sake of looking nice. There are no platforms you cannot reach, no buildings you cannot enter, no power-ups you cannot collect. If you really want to take an obscure, potentially suicidal route through the level, you can. You might die because of your own poor judgement, but you won't die simply because that route is not part of the scripted course.

Finally, the linear master class of Spunkgargling differs from Super Mario Bros in another important way - At no point was control of Mario taken out of my hands. Linear games, especially Spunkgargle games, delight in taking the controller off the player and forcing them to watch some awesome pyrotechnics. They insist on denying us freedom of exploration, or even freedom to IGNORE THE SPECTACLE and they do so without any warning.

This isn't saying cutscenes are bad, or cutscenes are linear. However, a lifetime of gaming has taught me that a cutscene is what happens when Bowser is dropped into the lava. I defeat the boss, and my reward is a cutscene that explains what I have accomplished (or not), and sets me up for the next bout of gaming. Super Mario Bros does cutscenes very well, given its limited nature, and never have I felt they were contrived, or forced, or breaking my immersion or in any way lessening my enjoyment of the game. On the other hand, just about every "GIVE ME THAT CONTROLLER!" scene in your typical Linear Game has left me infuriated. Yes, that scripted event is very impressive BUT I DON'T CARE! I was BUSY, thank you very much, now return my fucking character to my fucking control!

This, really, is a triple-A fail on the part of game developers worldwide; they spend millions on producing a 3D-rendered game using machines with specs nobody twenty years ago could even imagine existing, and yet the games they produce are more restrictive and more linear than games that are now considered primitive by the standards of a mobile phone app.
 

excalipoor

New member
Jan 16, 2011
528
0
0
I don't think most people have an issue with linearity. All the game needs is the illusion of choice, and when the player character might as well be on rails for all the interactivity it offers, the illusion is broken. Most levels in e.g. Halo are linear, but there's an infinite amount of ways you can go about any given encounter.

Of course a game can also offer a completely linear cinematic experience a la CoD, but that only works because it's still an interactive experience. You're not getting from point A to point B as the crow flies just to watch a cutscene. Even when their actions are heavily scripted, it's still the player who has to press the button. Hell, Spec Ops does exactly this and people thought it was brilliant. And no, a cutscene with a QTE on top of it isn't the same thing.

Wargamer said:
Super Mario Bros does not do this. There is nothing on the map that exists for the sake of looking nice. There are no platforms you cannot reach, no buildings you cannot enter, no power-ups you cannot collect. If you really want to take an obscure, potentially suicidal route through the level, you can. You might die because of your own poor judgement, but you won't die simply because that route is not part of the scripted course.


What's that? It's called a... "backdrop"? Oooooh.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
I'd like to point out that Bioshock Infinite was pretty linear, and yet everyone's saying it's the sexiest thing since sex. :p

Honestly not sure where you got the idea that people don't like linear games. If a game receives a complaint "It's too linear" then chances are that it's noticeably too linear, such as the Call of Duty games. You're walking through brown corridors of clutter and debris shooting terrorists as they pop up. Throw in the random vehicle-control bit here and there so the players and go "PHWOOOOOAR!" and that's about it.

I think for a game to be "too linear" it takes a combined effort of a linear map design, linear gameplay, and linear story telling. Nothing unexpected or eventful happens, nothing ever changes with the gameplay, and all you're doing is walking through various hallways.
 

Vern5

New member
Mar 3, 2011
1,633
0
0
"We're living in the future and you want games that only have one ending and NO sandbox?"

I'm pretty sure that's how the argument goes. There's nothing wrong with linear games but, the more linear a game becomes, the more it ceases to actually be a game as opposed to a visual novel or a movie. There are some games that are literally linear as well and they end up becoming the most oppressive environments ever conceived.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
It's not inherently a bad thing...

It just seems like a poor use of the medium.

The more linear a game is, the less actual reason there is for it to be a game rather than, say, a film.

Although it might be rather hyperbolic, a linear game kind of feels like making a film whose entire presentation revolves around showing people a long stream of scrolling text to make it as book-like as possible.

It might work. With creative editing and a few touches that are only possible on film, it might even be interesting.
But it doesn't seem like a particularly good use of the medium.

The unique point about games as a medium is interactivity. The more you try and restrict player choice, and control, the more it seems like you're trying to accomplish a goal that is diametrically opposed to what gaming as a medium allows for.
Who cares what the medium's strong points actually are! I want my games to behave more like films!

Anyway, that's overstating the matter a little, but that's the general reason why linear games seem... Wrong somehow, for a lack of a better way of putting it.
 

El_Duderino

New member
Nov 30, 2012
20
0
0
There's a difference between linearity and needless corridor segments, y'know? When you restrict the player to a point where that restriction is not needed, the player notices and gets a bit upset, perhaps. Linearity is fine, as most games need ot be linear in order to tella coherent story.
My point is, there's a difference between linearity in games such as Bioshock or Half Life where that linearity is necessary to tell a story, and games like CoD or the latest Medal of Honor ''Shitstain'' Warfighter, where you feel like you're riding a cart and clicking your mouse in order to progress.