I don't remember when this weird gaming trend started, but it seems that linearity has become a staple on the 'con' side of a standard review checklist, especially from gaming critics. Points are always being marked off for games that are linear.
Linear storyline always have the ability to provide a strong and long lasting impact in people's experience. Like many good books and films, the creator can determine what they want the viewers to experience and shape it in a way that every viewers will experience it the same way. However, the gaming community always favor games that are 'open ended', 'sandbox', 'multiple endings', 'emergent gameplay' and devalue games that are linear in nature.
While I appreciate the unpredictable/open nature of these (comparably) new types of gameplay, I don't think their existence should come at a cost to those games that are more linear. This trend in gaming shows how immature storytelling is in video games - that the industry are still obsessed with what were popular back in the 60-70s with those 'choose your own adventure books' storytelling.
Linear storyline always have the ability to provide a strong and long lasting impact in people's experience. Like many good books and films, the creator can determine what they want the viewers to experience and shape it in a way that every viewers will experience it the same way. However, the gaming community always favor games that are 'open ended', 'sandbox', 'multiple endings', 'emergent gameplay' and devalue games that are linear in nature.
While I appreciate the unpredictable/open nature of these (comparably) new types of gameplay, I don't think their existence should come at a cost to those games that are more linear. This trend in gaming shows how immature storytelling is in video games - that the industry are still obsessed with what were popular back in the 60-70s with those 'choose your own adventure books' storytelling.