Support NeoGAF

[hooijdonk17]

I liked linear games like Splinter Cell and Halo. Even though the games are very linear, you can "solve" each encounter in many many different ways.

I think the core mechanics/gameplay is more important than if the actual game world is open or not.

 

[jsnepo]

I liked linear games like Splinter Cell and Halo. Even though the games are very linear, you can "solve" each encounter in many many different ways.

This is what I like. MGS4 and Halo nailed it. Not so with Splinter Cell though IMHO.

 

[M°°nblade]

A game shouldn't be more non-linear than Zelda, imo. You can play countless hours of Oblivion and Fallout 3 and still feel like you've achieved nothing.

I agree about Oblivion but Fallout 3 had very well-defined and rewarding side quests. Most side-quests gave you unique perks or equipment.

 

[hooijdonk17]

This is what I like. MGS4 and Halo nailed it. Not so with Splinter Cell though IMHO.

I thought Chaos Theory did a pretty good job with that. I remember replaying some levels to try different approaches. I haven't had the chance to play MGS4.
I can also add Hitman/Thief series. You are given a task and you can do it in different ways. Something like Assassin's Creed while impressive technically would have been better as a more linear and focused game because the traveling around and finding your way around parts got old very fast.

Another linear game which I think did it correctly was Mirror's Edge. You can approach the situation in different ways, take different routes and it makes you want to replay it.

I think it's hard for open world games to provide a reasonable sense of challenge and accomplishment.

 

[SPACECADET]

i love non-linearity in games. sandbox games are some of the best things around.

 

[Feep]

A discussion doesn't need to have a specific goal. It can be a discussion about a topic, in this case nonlinearity, and it's current applications in games historically and of recent time. In this discussion we can dissect where it works and where it doesn't work, to examine the value of the design itself. Someone who does not like "non-linear" games might not entirely be disliking it because it's non-linear, it could be a misconception associated with common traits found on games which happen to be non-linear, but not a direct result of being non-linear in itself. It's not really as simple an issue as an ice cream flavor.

Huh. My thread revived.

Duckroll's write-up was quite provoking. I think a lot of the problems I have with non-linearity might actually stem from the gaming industry as a whole pretty much sucking at it. From the empty world of Oblivion to the meaningless options offered in Bioshock, I've just not had a good time with these concepts.

It's still tough, though, to have the player's actions feel consequential. If the game offers choices, they may fall into one of two categories. In the first, the choices are momentary illusions, and the game will funnel the player to certain scripted events and endings. In this scenario, I feel that the choices are useless and frustrating, a gimmick instead a proper sense of freedom. The second, however, will see the game conclude in one of two or more unique ways based on the player's actions. Here, another problem arises: my own desire to "see it all", to 100% a game. I don't want to have to replay the game again to see the other ending sequences, and then, of course, the concept of "good endings" and "bad endings" comes up. Sure, we have YouTube, which is nice, but it doesn't give that same amount of satisfaction that comes from beating a game and being rewarded directly for your efforts.

I think I just prefer games that don't bother giving the illusion of freedom; I played Heavy Rain at E3 since writing the OP and, once again, I felt underwhelmed by the "choices" I could make. The creator claims that main characters can die, and that such an event would drastically alter the game's script. But in the end, I don't want to read five endings. I only want to read one.

 

[cornontheCoD]

"I don't think Jonathan Blow would agree with me, but I don't think he's really in touch with what the average or even average hardcore gamer wants.

It's not that games need non-linear storylines, it's that they need better storylines."

Uuuumm...what? I would put Braid in with "better storylines" rather than "non-linear storyline". How is Braid's storyline non-linear exactly?

And for me, Braid is exactly what I wanted. And you could consider me a hardcore gamer.



As for non-linear vs. linear, I would agree that linear is better most of the time. I feel like I am the only one with this way of playing games, but I NEVER replay games. Not even SotC, and that's my favorite game. So, putting choices in the game is not going to make me replay the game.

I think Infamous is the best open-world game in recent years, though. It got very close to perfection.

 

[Cryect]

As for non-linear vs. linear, I would agree that linear is better most of the time. I feel like I am the only one with this way of playing games, but I NEVER replay games. Not even SotC, and that's my favorite game. So, putting choices in the game is not going to make me replay the game.

I would hope people aren't making nonlinear games so people replay the games since while you have choice the variations they often aren't that different in general. Will say a pet peeve of mine is when there is multiple endings but the only thing that matters is what you do in the last few minutes of the game. Gives the illusion your choices matter but not really when it was only one choice.

 

[imail]

To summarise : Linear games are good only if they have a good story. If not then let me have fun goddamit. Note that I've entirely left the game play aside.

On a side note, I don't know why games now are either Linear or Non-Linear. What most of us like about non-linearity is the massive amount of side quests and gaming hours. Why don't we have a linear game with side quests , kinda like Zelda:Ocarina of Time. Plus few multiple endings where the endings are not specified in one point of the game. kinda like Infamous, but you won't know the ending you gonna get till you actually reach the freakin ending.

One more thing I hate about Linear and Non-Linear games. I noticed in the few recent games I've played , Game designers now don't give a dam about story. Instead they put some collectable Magazines , newspapers , Sound records. with too much god damn text and crap to tell the story instead of cut scenes or story narrator on the beginning of the game. They also started putting the story on the game manual and let you go on with the game not knowing shit.

 

[gamergirly]

Well, linearity(or lack thereof) is mostly associated with action and rpg games. Because in many other types like RTS, strategy, simulation, arcade-ish, etc. you have main objectives you have to follow even with a simple storyline. And like somebody said above, you just have "different" ways of solving those type of objectives. Even in genres like fighting you're given a "list" of people to defeat and have thousands of ways of doing so(or NOT doing so LOL) before the outcome of a battle. There's really no linearity in a game such like that. You do what you're told

I like linear games with a solid plot but open-ended exploration and side quests. Most FPSs are linear with openended gameplay too. As far as rpgs go, only a few rpgs have pulled off that non-linearity well. I felt Chrono Trigger, for example, was simplistic enough that didnt make you wonder "WTF Am I doing in the game? How the hell am I supposed to know what I need to do next when the story and characters are so spread out!"

There were also extreme versions like Dragon Quest VII and I remember Dark Cloud being a headache too. I couldn't tell you how many times I ran around for at least 30 minutes when I picked the game back up to figure out where I was suppose to go and do. Most MMORPGs are non-linear(Elder Scrolls, FFXI, Maple Story, etc.) but also are not single player as far as the world goes so they're a special category all together. You can form clans and groups and follow side quests that are linear but overall, it would be non-linear and optional

 

[M°°nblade]

I would hope people aren't making nonlinear games so people replay the games since while you have choice the variations they often aren't that different in general.

That's one of the mistakes Vanillaware made when they developed Odin sphere. It's an awesome game but you have to replay each level with 5 different characters to complete the game.

Will say a pet peeve of mine is when there is multiple endings but the only thing that matters is what you do in the last few minutes of the game. Gives the illusion your choices matter but not really when it was only one choice.

Seiken densetsu 3 (Secret of Mana 2) is one of the few brilliant non-lineair games I've ever played. Based on the main character and partymembers you picked in the beginning (rather than in-game choices), it had three different main plotlines. It was worth replaying because the 6 characters had their own goals, storylines and a branching class change system.

 

[Sydle]

Crackdown invalidates your opinion.




Seriously though, I don't mind open games. Prince of Persia was another one I enjoyed because I could complete each area as I felt like it.

 

[jonnyp]

I don't hate non-linearity and it does provide more replayability than linear games, but I have to say that linear story-driven games are my favorites by far. They tend to stick out a lot more and a lot more memorable than non-linear games.

So I guess what I'm saying is that MGS and Uncharted over GTA anyday for me, even though I probably put A LOT more hours into GTA than the two aforementioned games combined.

 

[gameboya]

Originally Posted by Andrex:
I agree, to a point. I like sidequests in long games like RPGs.

RE4 is almost entirely linear, and I think that's why it gets such high accolades (as you said, the developers chose to streamline a single path as much as possible instead of letting you decide).

RE 4 is the pinnacle of perfection when it comes to a linear game. It sometimes creates a feeling of a non linear game due to how the games conbat is constructed and the layout of the areas. This is the type of game I love to play. I also don't typically like the full freedom do whatever you want games.

 

[jrricky]

I dont like sandbox games much but I still like nonlinearity (in the gameplay department), and I also like linearity so I can finish the game. We can have both when they work.

 

[Smelly Tramp]

I echo the sentiments in this thread, i enjoy both types of games, but linear games are a far more enjoyable and memorable experience.

I loved Fallout 3 but i found the plot completely forgettable. Same with Oblivion, same with Morrowind, same with every GTA game.

 

[imail]

I loved Fallout 3 but i found the plot completely forgettable. Same with Oblivion, same with Morrowind, same with every GTA game.

Oh so there was a plot.
I knew I'm forgetting something.:lol :lol

 

[kitzkozan]

This thread was a waste of time. :lol

The conclusion I came up with even before reading most posts was:

Nothing is perfect

Which is pretty much what you can take from most post.There is not one true way in which you can make a great game,since both linearity or non linearity both have positive and negative.

I think the majority of the greatest game ever made are somewhere in the middle,which just prove that talented game designer perfectly know the pros and cons of game designing.

This quote pretty much demonstrate what I think: As for the topic, I want linearity but with a bit of nonlinearity. I want sidequests but I don't want them to drastically alter the main plot unless it gets you a better ending or something. I also don't want sidequests to take hours each unless the player chooses to spend hours at a time on it (triple triad anyone?)

Mmorpg hardcore fan hate World of Warcraft,but it's the most popular mmorpg so far and when you think about it: it's linear since you will level up to 80,follow a logic quest path.You do however have a couple of options,as you can level from 1 to 60 in a different manner every time since the vanilla Azeroth does offer you some choices as to how you level from 20 to 30 for example(along with talent trees).

The majority of gamers prefer linear games with some non linearity injected in them.

 

[truly101]

I don't remember Oblivion really having a non linear story, not the main quest anyway, it was pretty much on rails. The side quests had some choices but only a few had direct impact on the gameplay. Oblivion was pretty much non linear in exploration, you could go where you wanted to go, explore what you wanted to explore for the most part. Thats where I got a lot of enjoyment from it. Leveling scaling enemies are a non issue when you have it on the easiest difficulty