The main problem people have with this game is a couple lines of text. Big whoop. Most people are not too worried about sequence breaking, they just explore and see what happens.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why Do People Dismiss Linear Games?
- Thread starter PhantomHound
- Start date
The main problem people have with this game is a couple lines of text. Big whoop. Most people are not too worried about sequence breaking, they just explore and see what happens.
I think many people confuse the two 90% of the time ,and interpret interesting level design as non-linear.
To put it another way back in the day when you would go through an environment you would encounter varied scenarios that would change things up in an interesting way.
Now it's about going through pretty environments that have the same waist high cover plastered all over the place which doesn't change jack shit up.
Level design is at the bottom of most developers priorities these days.
Now it's about going through pretty environments that have the same waist high cover plastered all over the place which doesn't change jack shit up.
Level design is at the bottom of most developers priorities these days.
EightBitNate
Member
It was an attempt to be open, I guess. The forest level is just a big circle.
It probably wouldn't be so bad if they didn't try to make a stealth game. It's easier to complete tasks when the bots don't notice you, but they notice EVERYTHING. And they're not forgiving once they see you.
NaughtyCalibur
Member
Linear games are fine.
Linear games that make you feel bound to a small section of a seemingly explorable world are not.
This is why when FFXIII finally opens up it's this huge moment of awe, like the ride has come to a stop and you can finally get out and stretch your legs.
I didn't like FFXIII, but I appreciated what they tried to do there.
Linear games that make you feel bound to a small section of a seemingly explorable world are not.
This is why when FFXIII finally opens up it's this huge moment of awe, like the ride has come to a stop and you can finally get out and stretch your legs.
I didn't like FFXIII, but I appreciated what they tried to do there.
AdventureMike
Member
Linearity has become somewhat of a broad statement. As others have said, if something isn't linear, it doesn't necessarily make it open-world and vice versa.
For me, I complain about linearity in a game if I feel like it has taken decision making of all kinds completely out of my hands. In something like Half-life, I feel like I need to get from A to B, but how I get there is up to me. In something like the new Tomb Raider game, I complained about it being feeling too linear because I needed to get from A to B and I felt confined in how I made it there so that the game could preserve its cinematic presentation. Scenes were meticulously planned so that you could get the best angle of Lara struggling through tunnels/underwater passages/getting her shit kicked in/whatever. It is the feeling that if I were to watch someone else play the same game later, I would be seeing the exact same thing I did with maybe a couple slight differences like choice of weapon. If I watch someone else play Half-life, I know they'll be going through the same story sequences but they could have a vastly different experience with enemy encounters/puzzle solving/etc.
For me, I complain about linearity in a game if I feel like it has taken decision making of all kinds completely out of my hands. In something like Half-life, I feel like I need to get from A to B, but how I get there is up to me. In something like the new Tomb Raider game, I complained about it being feeling too linear because I needed to get from A to B and I felt confined in how I made it there so that the game could preserve its cinematic presentation. Scenes were meticulously planned so that you could get the best angle of Lara struggling through tunnels/underwater passages/getting her shit kicked in/whatever. It is the feeling that if I were to watch someone else play the same game later, I would be seeing the exact same thing I did with maybe a couple slight differences like choice of weapon. If I watch someone else play Half-life, I know they'll be going through the same story sequences but they could have a vastly different experience with enemy encounters/puzzle solving/etc.
Forsythia
Member
I love linear singleplayer games, but something like the Call of Duty campaigns are too much. You cannot explore, you cannot even stray off the main path for one meter and the game is constanly pushing you forward. I like the campaigns for the Baysplosion factor, but they're the definition of bad linear gamedesign.
If this is why people hate linear gamedesign, yeah, I can't blame them. They just need to play better linear games.
And there is of course this.
If this is why people hate linear gamedesign, yeah, I can't blame them. They just need to play better linear games.
And there is of course this.
n00bsauce87
Member
But hasn't that been that way in all Metroid/Castlevania (few exceptions of course)? I've heard few (if any) complainants on the fact that it's linear. In fact, wasn't SOTN arguably top 10 PS1 game? I can't imagine games being inherently bad or having a strike against it for being linear.
If someone is complaining about a game being linear, it's probably not really because the game is too linear. Most likely the problem is overly hand-holdy / cinematic presentation and bad level design. It's much easier to write a game off as being linear, than to write up a detailed analysis on why the level design is bad.
Yes, and that's a bad thing and one of the reasons I hate Other M.
It's very possible to accidentally sequence break in Super Metroid and Zero Mission.
And the main issue with Fusion is that it doesn't let you explore enough.
Metroid has been focused on non-linearity since the first game. Even Metroid 2 wasn't anywhere near as restricted as Fusion.
Bad level design means nothing without qualifiers. One of the ways level design can be bad is if it's linear to the point that you notice your lack of freedom.
It depends on how it's done. Some games have a linear setting, but don't suite it at all.
And others, such as TLoU utilises the linear setting very well.
It's mainly down to how poorly the linear setting was done, I don't think people hate it. And of course, taste. But even then, that wouldn't throw someone off a game completely.
And others, such as TLoU utilises the linear setting very well.
It's mainly down to how poorly the linear setting was done, I don't think people hate it. And of course, taste. But even then, that wouldn't throw someone off a game completely.
DoubleTake
Member
There's linearity in the sense of level design and then there's linearity based in story progression. I'll forever vote Bioshock 1 as the perfect meld of the two. Infinite was a huge let down in terms of level design aspect. Losing much of the exploration the original allowed.
However If a game wants to tell a straight to the point story linearity is not necessarily a bad thing if there is player agency sprinkled in throughout ala TLOU or Bio1.
Basically they work of each other story type and level design.
Im patiently waiting for The Order to show me its the perfect meld player agency linear story elements and level design. Not to compare it to Gears but if its like that in terms of progression ill be somewhat disappointed if the story isn't worth its salt.
However If a game wants to tell a straight to the point story linearity is not necessarily a bad thing if there is player agency sprinkled in throughout ala TLOU or Bio1.
Basically they work of each other story type and level design.
Im patiently waiting for The Order to show me its the perfect meld player agency linear story elements and level design. Not to compare it to Gears but if its like that in terms of progression ill be somewhat disappointed if the story isn't worth its salt.
prag16
Banned
Pretty much what I came in here to say. TLoU and Uncharted games were fun, but the story is 100% on rails, and exploration is very limited. The Mass Effect trilogy (NOT open world) I find drastically more interesting, fun, and fulfilling for these reasons.
I actually don't necessarily like "open world" games as I often myself bored and weighed down by laborious tedium (e.g. GTA games, AssCreed to an extent, Red Dead Redemption [so far, but haven't gotten very far yet], Sleeping Dogs, etc).
n00bsauce87
Member
A couple of good examples?
Also do you mean that non-linear level design could never be bad level design?
PrivateWHudson
Member
Even Super Mario Bros. wasn't nearly as linear as the OP suggests. You could take pipes down or vines up to the clouds and each time it not only rewarded you with a short cut, but most times there was treasure of some sort like tons of coins or a 1up. Then you had the secret rooms with portals to higher levels.
SoraanTribal
Member
I dunno. Some of my favorite games of all time are fairly linear experiences. And some of my least favorite games are non-linear. But that isn't to say I love all linear games and hate all nonlinear games. There's a lot of factors that go into whether a game is good or not, and being linear/nonlinear isn't one of them.
Ryunohadouken
Neo Member
linear games are the best games, when done right....most open world games have a bunch of filler that i dont partake in anyway
Well he gave one :
Metroid Other M.
In the game you literally follow the yellow dot for the whole game.
They even lock doors in case you would want to backtrack.
As much as I hate to agree with noobasuar on anything, I agree with this.
Some people just get incredible tired of the "do some walking bits, do some shooting bits, maybe interact with a big setpiece, watch a cutscene, repeat" cadence that a lot of modern linear games seem to have adopted. A friend of mine gave up on TLoU for that very reason, since the story failed to hook him and he found the pattern of the gameplay infuriating.
That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with linearity in principle. You have to avoid some of the pitfalls I mentioned above, and there should be some effort to contextualize it (e.g. no blatant invisible walls that block places a player would reasonably expect to be explorable) but in the end it's just a tool that can be used very effectively in the right hands.
Personally, I think a lot of modern games are too polarized toward being "hallways" (extreme, monotonous linearity not backed up by great design) and "blobs." (Total open world with pointless filler and a lack of direction) We need more games shaped like "honeycombs" and "spiderwebs," like Deus Ex and the Souls series.
the main problem i've had is genres and series that used to be more open (shooters especially) moving more and more to a totally linear and scripted style
games that are designed to be linear and take advantage of that limitation to do interesting things are fine. shooter developers trying to ape call of duty (or bioware moving towards "press A for awesome" design, etc) suck.
games that are designed to be linear and take advantage of that limitation to do interesting things are fine. shooter developers trying to ape call of duty (or bioware moving towards "press A for awesome" design, etc) suck.
family_guy
Member
Linear games sometimes have less replay value. However I still like them. I've played Uncharted 2 multiple times and enjoyed each playthrough, but I think the only thing that changed on harder difficulties is the damage the enemies do to me. I would like different difficulty levels in games to alter enemy types and abilities, so even though I'm playing the same level the experience feels a bit different.
Final Fantasy XIII's hallway is easily the best. Very pretty, but zero exploration.
No, I never said that. Skyrim is non-linear and its map design is shit. Super Mario Bros is linear but for that game the linearity is fine because it's supposed to be an obstacle course.
AdventureMike
Member
Some gameplay variety with interactivity would be nice in shooters again. DOOM had level design that involved navigating mazes, finding secrets and collecting items in addition to mowing your enemies down.
Several modern shooters just involve aiming and holding down the trigger until your next cutscene or objective checkpoint. Stripping away the extra gameplay pieces start heading towards that tedium that I think many who complain about linearity feel.
They don't.
wtf kind of nonsense is this thread. Look in any GAF GotY thread or Metacritic's top-rated games and you'll find lists littered with linear games. They are by far in the majority of games released and get the vast majority of critical and community attention and praise. Good god.
wtf kind of nonsense is this thread. Look in any GAF GotY thread or Metacritic's top-rated games and you'll find lists littered with linear games. They are by far in the majority of games released and get the vast majority of critical and community attention and praise. Good god.
Red Mage
Member
This. I don't mind linear games, and in fact prefer some games to be more-so (Mario for example), but some genres do not do linear well at all. Action Adventure and RPG being two of them.
There's definitely a distinction to be made between good linear design and bad linear design. For me it comes down what it feels like. Does it break immersion by restricting me from doing things my character ought to be reasonably able to do. Do I feel like the game is playing me rather than the other way around. A linear game is just more at risk of having those effects on me than an open world game. But open world games have challenges of their own, so it really comes down to the quality of the game and level design.
COD campaigns, for as long as I did play those games (I think MW2 was the last) were the absolute worst. I don't think the game/level design of any other game has made me rage as much as they did.
COD campaigns, for as long as I did play those games (I think MW2 was the last) were the absolute worst. I don't think the game/level design of any other game has made me rage as much as they did.
MaverickHunterAsh
Member
I'll always take a well-made linear game over an open-world one. Every single time.
I agree with you that linearity being such a major anti-buzzword these days is really stupid, though.
I agree with you that linearity being such a major anti-buzzword these days is really stupid, though.
snoopeasystreet
Member
When people criticise a game for being linear, they're basically saying "the mechanics, systems and challenges weren't very well designed and/or didn't engage me during the playthrough".
BibiMaghoo
Member
This really does put things into perspective doesn't it? Every one of the games could easily be described as linear. Some certainly more than others - mass effect 2 is pushing it - but still, none are open world games and all are plot driven, with the possible exception of Journey, though I would still consider it so.
JimmyRustler
Member
I love it most when linear level design is combined with a little bit of exploration. RE4, TR and Last of Us for example. You know, nothing too big to stray away but enough to make you check every corner of a level. Except from maybe Skyrim I usually don't like Open World gameplay as I tend to depend way too much on the game map for those and end up exploring only little of the actual game world. Like for any given GTA. Played each for hours but still couldn't find my way without the game map.
certainly not the case when they're posting image macros of maps
flatearthpandas
Member
The OP mentions TLOU so I'd like to throw in my $0.02 about negative linearity of that game as opposed to other games. I can only speak to the first half of the game.
First, I would agree that most games are linear. So when people are complaining about linearity, instead of imagining fedoras we should perhaps be imagining exactly what it is this person is really complaining about.
I think this can be pretty generally summarized as the ability to do things besides move forward in the story.
In my experience with TLOU, there was nothing to do but move forward and there were very few places to go. I would run off to the side whenever I could but very rarely felt rewarded for doing so. Unless looking at pretty roadblocks is a reward in and of itself.
.
Compare this with a game like Tomb Raider 2013 or Final Fantasy X, which, to be fair, also receive their own share of linearity complaints. However, one can make arguments as to why they may get passes where other games are condemned. Tomb Raider grants challenges and Tombs for players to do if they want and, more importantly, allows them to backtrack to previous areas and dick around if they feel like it. You can run back down the hallways of Final Fantasy X all the way back to Besaid for a large portion of the game if the notion takes you. NPCs have different things to say to you, Blitzball is available, and you can even just run around grinding if the notion takes you.
It isn't really a question of linearity but of how much agency you have to play the game on your own terms. How many ways can you get somewhere and how many things can you do if you don't feel like going there quite yet? Many people don't enjoy being shuffled down a straight line toward the next encounter.
First, I would agree that most games are linear. So when people are complaining about linearity, instead of imagining fedoras we should perhaps be imagining exactly what it is this person is really complaining about.
I think this can be pretty generally summarized as the ability to do things besides move forward in the story.
In my experience with TLOU, there was nothing to do but move forward and there were very few places to go. I would run off to the side whenever I could but very rarely felt rewarded for doing so. Unless looking at pretty roadblocks is a reward in and of itself.
not to me
Compare this with a game like Tomb Raider 2013 or Final Fantasy X, which, to be fair, also receive their own share of linearity complaints. However, one can make arguments as to why they may get passes where other games are condemned. Tomb Raider grants challenges and Tombs for players to do if they want and, more importantly, allows them to backtrack to previous areas and dick around if they feel like it. You can run back down the hallways of Final Fantasy X all the way back to Besaid for a large portion of the game if the notion takes you. NPCs have different things to say to you, Blitzball is available, and you can even just run around grinding if the notion takes you.
It isn't really a question of linearity but of how much agency you have to play the game on your own terms. How many ways can you get somewhere and how many things can you do if you don't feel like going there quite yet? Many people don't enjoy being shuffled down a straight line toward the next encounter.
There's bad linear and great linear as much as there's bad open world and great open world.
As long as the story itself is moving, the gameplay is enticing, and set pieces or areas of interest are paced well enough, then the linearity or openness is not an issue.
To me, posting a sample, like ff13, and going, "linear games suck" is not really explaining why they can. A shitty story in an open world game can expose how boring open world games can be. Goes the same with linearity...
It all boils down to how captivated you are.
As long as the story itself is moving, the gameplay is enticing, and set pieces or areas of interest are paced well enough, then the linearity or openness is not an issue.
To me, posting a sample, like ff13, and going, "linear games suck" is not really explaining why they can. A shitty story in an open world game can expose how boring open world games can be. Goes the same with linearity...
It all boils down to how captivated you are.
prag16
Banned
The false dichotomy that keeps being repeated here seems to be the idea that a game is either linear or open world. There are many levels in between (e.g. Mass Effect games).
There's also differences between linear in terms of game play and linear in terms of story.
Mass Effect and Uncharted are both highly story based. But they could not be more different in terms of the players agency in the story. Then you have games that are more off the beaten path like Heavy Rain. The flow of the game is extremely linear, but the actions and consequences related to the story prevent it from justifiably being simply called "a linear game".
Basically, saying "open world games suck, so I prefer linear" doesn't really tell the story.
"Linear" is one of the most useless and lazy words one could use to describe a game. It's meaningless. Or rather, it means something different to everyone. There is no objective definition for what "linear" means with respect to game design, and it's a peeve of mine to see it used by game critics. It tells me that they haven't actually thought about a game very deeply if all they can say about it is that it's "linear." The OP seems to be using "linear" as a stand-in for "narrative" or "story-driven." Frankly, I think "linear" needs to be stricken from the gaming vocabulary. It's as useless as a word like "immersive." It's a sign of lazy thinking.
Exactly. Calling a game "linear" often really just means "I didn't like it." It's used as a value judgment rather than as a description of a game's design.
Chill Penguin
Member
There's nothing wrong with linear. However what is unacceptable imo is the horrible, lazy, boring game design which is the corridor after corridor trend in games. I swear i'm never buying a shitty corridor third person shooter again.
Go tell that to speedrunner.
It is mostly this. Poorly done (the majority) linear games which are also not open world lead to a lack of exploration and interaction within the actual game (not story). This limits the play through and replay options of a title. Non-linear games typically allow for different approaches or actions in various sequences expanding upon the exploration element already present within the game. Open world games also promote the exploration aspect giving rise to the notion of a lot of hidden things to be found or a large world to be immersed within allowing for different methods and order of attempting different challeneges as the player deems needed (outside of fixed plot elements).
Poorly done linear games can also extend into the world design leading towards cooridors removing the illusion of choice and moving closer to just watching a movie instead of playing the game (as there are fewer mechanics involved typically, due to other restrictions involved).
These reasons also lead to the bias towards multi-player games since the interaction with others creates randomness and variability within fixed environments leading towards greater replayability and, in many instances, a more broad base of game mechanics to work with retaining attention over time through (usually) a steeper learning curve and mastery.
flatearthpandas
Member
Disagree on every account. "Linear" has an incredibly clear-cut definition. It's just a matter of whether people are applying the word to the narrative (which can be done for most games) or the level design (which can be done for fewer).
How many ways can you move the narrative forward? vs. How many places can you go / how many things are there to do at any moment?
I agree there is probably a better word out there to describe this though.
Death Penalty
Member
I don't think linear is inherently bad in any way so much as people will rag on a linear game for being linear if they did not like the game. FFX came out and nobody cared that it was essentially a corridor- or at least I didn't see much griping at the time. FFXIII was an entirely different matter, and everybody's slinging insults at the game for being a corridor. I feel very comfortable in saying that XIII's linearity had little to do with its failings.
For my two cents, I absolutely love linear games. They seem able to deliver a more polished experience than open world when the games are of equal quality, and even open world games that do deliver extremely polished presentation tend to do so largely in linear segments.
For my two cents, I absolutely love linear games. They seem able to deliver a more polished experience than open world when the games are of equal quality, and even open world games that do deliver extremely polished presentation tend to do so largely in linear segments.
I dont know man, dragon age's invisible walls everywhere mostly dragon age 2 was terrible just so bad. I love a nice tight story game and also a good open world as long as they have nice paths for me to take or easy ways to find out what to do next.
FFXIV does this well I can get missions and track them very easily. I dont know if its because I'm older but I enjoy linear games more than I did before. like Metro or TLOU, but I love me some stalker and fallout too it all depends on keeping my attention.
I disagree right back. What is "linear" narrative? Is it a narrative without choices? Is it a narrative that goes at a constant pace? What about the decision to skip cutscenes? Or the ability to defer triggering a cinematic scene? What about interactive cinematics (as in HL2)? And so on. And I don't think these are splitting hairs. These are all just examples of the ways that "linearity" just doesn't make sense as a way to describe game design--even when dealing with something like a scripted narrative.
Take a simple example like Super Mario Bros. (mentioned in the OP). There are lots of ways to move the "narrative" forward and nearly infinite ways to do a handful of different actions at any moment. It doesn't make sense to describe SMB as a "linear" game, yet people seem to have no problem referring to it as the epitome of linear design. It makes no sense.
Lots of them, in fact.