Why do people act like linearity is inherently bad? In man you cases it works to the games favor...

Why do people act like linearity is inherently bad? In man you cases it works to the games favor. Having more options for the sake of having more options isn't necessarily a good thing. If a game is designed well being linear can be a positive.

It can be a hindrance depending on genre

Take the original Splinter Cell for instance, it's about as linear as games can get and when you compare it to the sequels you see that having those extra options within the linearity really made the game good.

The key word is "too" linear

Because games that claim to be non-linear are frequently linear.

Too much linearity and you have an interactive movie, too little linearity and you have to ask yourself why you're even playing the game.

Lots of great games are linear.

But wouldn't it be cool if you could choose a different path each time, or get different endings depending on how you play?

That's all people are talking about. "I want this game I enjoyed with all this extra stuff"

>Too much linearity and you have an interactive movie
What exactly do you mean by "linearity" here?
Is something like Gradius at all like an interactive movie?

On rails shooters are as linear as they come yet they are not interactive movies at all. It depends on how deep the games are not how linear.

One of my favorite games of all time was a very open game. Some of my best vidya memories of all time were me just dicking around and exploring the world, mesmerized by the beauty of it and all kinds of other shit. The next game in the series starts with a 20h hallway. I was hyped for that game for years, and the aspect I was most excited for was taken away. Linearity can be okay I guess (I'm sure there are linear games I would like, I'm sure games I like could be considered linear by some definitions) but to me that was a slap in the face.

>Why do people act like linearity is inherently bad?
Because "open world" is a marketing meme; even traditionally linear JRPGs are falling for it, like FFXV and Xenoblade X.

Open world games sacrifice pacing and story tension in order to give the player more freedom. Linear games can weave a tighter, more urgent narrative at the cost of restricting the play. There are pros and cons to each type of game design.

the player*

Who the fuck actually says that? Show me one god damn person who says linearity inherently bad.

Linear games are inherently GOOD, not bad, because it's a thousand times easier to create solid and interesting gameplay, and the player can only be in so many states.

Open world games promote unfocused, generic experiences with shitty gameplay mechanics and lack of pass/fail states. They're not games anymore at that point, they're just fucking cookie clicker.

Fuck open world games. Fuck quicksaving. Fuck "U CAN DO ANYTHING!!". Fuck "LOL HAHA I JUST KILLED THIS STRIPPER HOW FUCKING WACKY!!!1!! HAHAHA".

Fucking cancer.

>game promises you interracial if you do the quests right
>do everything by the book and get your dick ready for some throbbing race mixing
>end up sleeping with the girl from around the way

linearity can ruin games. believe it.

I think this is it right here. Many games have a strong pretense of non-linearity, but in reality you're stuck progressing on a simple linear path.
Most of my favorite games are short, linear, high difficulty arcade or arcade-like games, and I still find that incredibly frustrating.
It feels condescending.

No one goes around saying that linearity is inherently bad, but people do go around calling games linear as if that quality inherently makes them bad.
Linearity being bad is sort of axiomatic in a lot of discussions I have seen.

How about open-ended levels?

For a game to be linear, it needs to have deep mechanics that grow with the player.
Western developers aren't good at actually making deep mechanics so enjoy your sandboxes

Because like uh dude I just want a game to relax and get away from things. Your told what to do every day and we all just want like a game that lets us do that. Old games you had to follow the rules and they're railroading but with open world games I make the rules.

You can keep your handcrafted setpieces. I'll take dynamic and epic moments over that anyday.

What does that mean? Something like Thief? Something like Sonic, with its branching paths?

VIDYA HAS MANY ROUTES KEK BOY

People think linearity is bad because games following open ended gameplay were going linear for quite some time when they had no business doing so e.g. the Zelda and metroid series.

Now the opposite is happening where linear games that shouldn't be open world are going open world. Some benefit like witcher, others get fucked like mgs5 (Tbf it was unfinished tho)

Like the Wind Waker?

Sure that can work, but you have to do it right. Some of the best quests in Wind Waker are open ended, you can go back to them at any time and complete them in various ways. Other games take this idea and expand on it dialogue trees and story arcs.

But if you still end up sleeping with the girl next door, it just makes the whole thing seem unfulfilling. Not to say the experience is bad, but if you had a goal in mind, and were denied because of game mechanics, it just makes the game seem like shit.

>(Tbf it was unfinished tho)
tbf it probably would have been finished if it weren't open world

Like thief

The example that comes to mind for me is FXIII which didn't even try to pretend it wasn't linear with its level design. The game itself also sucked but I think it's a very easy blanket criticism to make. It doesn't necessarily mean that linearity is bad, but removing any amount of exploration or choice is.

Take Bioshock, for example. That game was essentially linear iirc, it's been years but I played the hell out of it. The amount of exploring you could do was still great, so it didn't feel as linear. I know I'm going to contradict what I said above, but I think it actually could have been better without the stupid fucking different endings. The game presenting you what appeared to be a huge moral choice felt like it should have some monumental effect on the game, where in reality all it did was change the ending cutscene a bit (and one option was disproportionately better than the other). If that game had been a tiny bit more linear I would have liked it even more.

I'm not sure what I'm getting at here, sleep meds are kicking in. I think linearity can be good and can help a game out, but I think it can also be a hindrance to the experience when taken to the extreme, and the point at which that occurs is different for everyone and so you see lots of people complaining about it.

It really depends on how you do it.

In Dark Cloud 2 it's good. In Metroid it's bad. In Final Fantasy X, the linearity is good. In Megaman Battle Network, the linearity is bad. It all comes down to execution and storyboard teams.

Would something like Dark Souls be open-ended levels? You can make the argument that it's open world but I see it as the former since most areas are self-contained with interconnecting paths to other areas.
It obviously depends on the game. GTA type open world means you lose some control of what happens next since in between missions you can massacre half the city and go do a mission like nothing happened. Personally, I'd like to see more DaS type level design. It has the linearity within each level, the metroid aspect of choosing which level you want to explore, there's more meaning to what happens around.
/blog

>People think linearity is bad because games following open ended gameplay were going linear for quite some time when they had no business doing so e.g. the Zelda and metroid series.
Eh... as far as Metroid is concerned, I'm not entirely sure I agree.

Metroid II was fairly linear, but it was able to use its structure to subtly convey ideas and story without any words and have a sense of continual progression beyond just getting more abilities. The linearity here seems like an effective design choice, rather than an attempt to simplify or dumb things down.

Fusion uses its linearity to do some things effectively (set-pieces like SA-X encounters, environments changing over the course of the game for narrative-relevant reasons, continual sense of progression in terms of weaponry and ability to stand up to SA-X) but is held back by tons of lengthy unskippable text and cutscenes in a game which recognizes and rewards speedruns and encourages replayability, and by having the level design of a non-linear Metroid and keeping things linear by railroading you with locked doors and other contrivances, which feels unbelievably shitty.
It's a bit of a mess, but the issue is the mismatch of linear and non-linear elements (game structure and level/world design), not linearity itself.