what is wrong with linear?

Call me a late to the party, but I am currently working through the game Remember Me, and I must say, it is a brillant well crafted game. If by a weird chance a developer from Dontnod is reading this, hats off to you and I hope you keep making amazing games like Remember Me.

But ofcourse with my new found love for Remember Me I wanted to see what the internet thought of it. And I was shocked to see the mixed reviews. The game mainly being criticized for its linearity. And frankly I just dont get why that is so bad.

As some my know, I personally mark Bioshock Infinite as the hallmark of gaming completely creating a work of art while also being enjoyable and engaging, but looking back, it was an other game criticized for being linear. And I dont understand why a games a beaten and bashes for being linear.

Maybe it is my own opinion but I love games that are more linear in nature and hope the constant critical nature of linear games stops

Yeah I don't see why linearity is such a bad thing in a game... most of my favourite games are considered pretty linear. I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing.

And I agree about Remember Me. I liked it too.

Linear games are great, but everybody else has been spoiled by the freedom a lot of open-world or open-ended narrative games have given. Nothing wrong with either, it just depends on the game.

Nothing, it depends on what the game is and what it was suppose to be. Uncharted is suppose to play like an action movie experience, that wouldn't work in an open, non linear experience. Compare that to say an RPG which one expects a certain level of freedom, to be completely linear without any choice available like say FF XIII. I think with Remember Me(haven't played it yet myself, going on what I heard)the problem was the whole invading and changing memory thing was far more scripted than people were expecting. People probably thought they could take different approaches to that, change outcomes and then change the story and that wasn't the case. It didn't help that it was sort of advertised that way.

I have no problem with linear games as well.

MOHAA is one of my favourite games and it couldn't have been more linear. Of course, that was during the time that linear games were still the standard. But a more recent one of my favourite games is Metro 2033, which was also very linear. It's one of my most replayed games, even though I don't know why. I just kept replaying that game. Fear and Fear 2 were also two linear games I thoroughly enjoyed. Oh, and Alan Wake. Probably many more (and also more recent ones) I can't think of right now. As others have said, it depends on the game, but I certainly think it's a bit questionable to suggest non-linearity is better by default. It does seem to be the popular feature right now.

Oh, The Mass Effect games. Loved all three of them. I know there were explorable hub areas, but I always felt those games to be mostly linear. I'm disregarding the whole Mako planet exploration part in the first Mass Effect. Those planets were bare and empty (as I suppose most planets should be, but still). I guess most levels were more arena based with a few alternative routes on a very small scale.

Except for RPGs, I prefer games to be linear.

There is nothing wrong with linear games at all, and to be totally honest it pisses me off to no end that people criticize games for being too linear but you never hear complaints about the huge amount of endless walking to the next mission you do in non linear games. When I play a game I just want to go from mission to mission without boring downtime in the middle. I recently played through sleeping dogs, I enjoyed the game a lot, but a huge criticsm of it for me was the endless amount of driving I had to do just to start the next mission, I would much rather a linear experience than a 5-10 minute boring trek between missions.

There is nothing wrong with being linear. I like RPG when they are more linear.

If I had to guess it is more of a predefined downside, In other words linear games are not as good as open games so a their make a linear game worse than an open world game.

It could also be more overlooking good parts of linear games.

Linear games are okay, but I like open world games for the amount of things you can do in them. I'd like to one day make a game where it is open world, but still has the linear storytelling. I don't know how it would work, it's just a dream I have.

The problem I have is that increase number options from open world often hurts the game play. I find open world FPS parts are never as good as linear parts.

Agreed, that's why I don't understand why The Order 1886 is getting so much harsh treatment for being liner! I agree with some that it won't rewrite shooters, but it will make a solid addition to the platform!

Would you consider the actual gameplay in remember me to be well crafted, or the environments and visuals, while the gameplay is ok?

Theres nothing wrong with Linear....

However whats this about Bioshock being the Hallmark of creating a work of art ? The was pretty... very pretty... but the gameplay mechanics were average..... it was barely better than CoD and was a major step downwards in depth compared to its predecessors....

I'd love to get into this if you're interested.... its been a while since I've bitched about Infinite...

It is a beat them up where you have combos with slots for types of moves and you pick the moves of that type to fill them.

It's combat is like Arkham but the rest is not. Unlike Arkham, it gains nothing from being open world.

I always saw criticisms of linearity to be less a case of "linearity is bad" and more "I wish it weren't so linear because I really would have liked to explore this world more," and so on. I can't think of any games that benefited from its linearity being criticized for it.

Honestly, games can suffer from being too open. It makes it harder, for example, to deliver a coherent narrative that also responds in meaningful ways to player input/decisions. Because if you can just go anywhere at any time and interact with anyone the web of possible interactions all over the world needs to update to deliver that same deep experience and, in reality, the devs rarely try to make that happen or succeed if they try. So to preserve some modicum of depth to the story they usually just lock away certain special "story" areas until you've completed X and then fill out the rest of that huge world that you can freely wander with fetch quests and filler. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

TLDR: Linear =/= bad, open world =/= good... it's all in the execution. Both can rock or stink. Some of the best games I've played have been of both types.

@wiouds:

Neither does Arkham City.... don't get me wrong.... its a great but The Open World aspect had absolutely nothing to do with it.....

I can't believe I'm about tp say this but GTA and TES have much better open worlds.

Since people are spoiled with open-world games explains the reason people take issue with linear gameplay. It is not that diverse.

I actually prefer linear games to non-linear ones. I'm so busy most of the time with so many games that I actually like a game less when it provides me with more to do, because I get distracted. I seriously need to take a break from sandbox games.

There is a difference between linear story progression with the ability to customize character's statistics and equipment (i.e. more traditional JRPG's) and being shepherded down a corridor, doing nothing but the same thing over and over and over again, until the completely expected conclusion, with as little interaction (i.e just mashing a button or two) with what's going on as humanly possible (i.e. Knack).

The main thing people tend not to specifiy when criticizing linear games is whether they are talking about a linear narrative or linear game design. The former is fine, the latter is problematic.

None so long as I don't run into invisible walls or have a door close behind me as soon as I pass through.

Good points

@GamerNerdTalk: I think this is because open world games have been pushed so heavily since last gen, and open world is the only way many people feel they are "getting their money's worth". This is interesting, because games of the past (where majority were linear) are all praised and considered "worth more" by many people, sometimes even the same who bitch about linearity today.

I think the problem is that many single-player, linear games in the past decade have been short, underwhelming and just not worth the time or money people have put into them. Maybe it's up to the developers to make their games more crafted and worth the price of admission- take Naughty Dog and The Last of Us, that game is worth every penny and even it gets knocked as being too "linear" and "movie-like".

Ocarina of Time was linear, it was just hidden underneath the choices in which you could accomplish goals, items to collect, and side missions to do. Maybe developers of linear games can take note.

@MarcRecon: The problem with The Order is not that its linear, its just when you watch it played, it looks really boring. The Uncharted demo was linear and heavily scripted, but it looked fun.

I definitely have no issue with a linear story or linear gameplay, like I said in my first post, a linear experience works well from a story and gameplay standpoint for some games. I find with many open world games, not only does the narrative tend to suffer--but there's also an issue of the world having a lot of unneeded fluff or repetitive design to fill it out. A good example was Spider-Man 2, a solid game but to fill that open world, there was a lot of fat added to the experience.

linear is for those that dont want to have to think too much imo.

@ariabed:

Open World doesn't require that much thought either..... but that will change when The Phantom Pain comes out.

The problem with linearity in gameplay is that it's pretty immersion breaking. Sure, not every game needs an open world to explore with 5,000 useless collectables scattered in random places that you need to collect to reach 100% completion, but herding players down a series of hallways ala Final Fantasy 13 isn't good either. Few things remind me that I'm playing a game and not exploring a place than something like an artificial boundary to where I can do, or what I like to call "Velvet Rope Syndrome".

A game can have a mostly linear progression which still not -feeling- constrained, though. A lot of Survival Horror games are like this. Games like Alan Wake where your progression through the game is basically one way, but each area has detail and depth to it and you can potentially be rewarded for exploration (although it survival horror that's typically a risk/reward calculation you have to make). Half Life 2 was another game where it was pretty much point A to point B, but it didn't feel narrow.

The advantage of a linear gameplay experience is that it makes it possible for the developers to really tailor the pacing of the narrative, and if that's the most important element of the game then this can be really usefull. Spec Ops was a good example of this. The game was a mostly linear TPS which is a game type that I mostly couldn't care less about but the story made it worth the price of admission.

Regarding open world games not requiring thought, try a game like Divinity: Original Sin. Old-school open world games didn't have quest markers, so you had to read information in-game and figure out what the next course of action was.

-Byshop

@Lulu_Lulu: says someone who's not a game designer. I dare you to attempt making an open-world game and claim it doesn't take much thought. Or any game for that matter, and have it be acclaimed.

Witcher 2 is a good example of linear gameplay done well (aside from debatable combat mechanics). The story is linear, yet branches down different lines based on your input. So yes, you're always moving towards a goal as you play (as opposed to randomly wandering the Hinterlands), but the experience is deep and sensitive to your input.

Linear games can be great, especially when the story is important to the game (indeed if you care about the story, open world often detracts). Where it hurts is when it leads to overly repetitive or simplistic gameplay.

If anything, I prefer linear games. I have never played an open-world 3D game that I liked, and the only nonlinear 2D games I liked were Mega Man ZX and ZX Advent (and Yoshi's Island if that counts), and even those were fairly linear within the areas. In my experience, open-world games mostly just tend to make me lost and force me to do a lot of backtracking and repetition, two things that will kill my enjoyment of something very quickly.

The areas are also more constrained than a game like Skyrim but there's enough exploration that it feels like an open world game for all intent and purpose. Witcher 2 was great in many ways but yeah the combat left something to be desired in some ways. I'm actually stuck on the last boss because I wasn't properly prepped for the last battle and while I can win it it'll probably take like 30 minutes of fighting without making a mistake. Also, the dependency on oils and potions is cool from a tactical standpoint, but there are too many instances where these durations will run out in the cutscene immediately prior to a scripted fight. It's realistic, but it's also a pain in the ass.

-Byshop

Doesn't have to be open world, can be stages with multiple paths to complete the objective.

@GamerNerdTalk: Are we talking about linear gameplay or story? I cant decide if i would prefer non linear gameplay and a linear story or vice versa.

Yeah, frankly, the Witcher games are quite imperfect. But it eats its way into your heart anyway.

Witcher 2 was a huge improvement over 1, though. One's combat system wasn't nearly as well refined and figuring out where to go and what to do was a massive pain in 1, even using a walkthrough.

-Byshop

You’re scary. Really Scary...

Do you have some kind of cognitive bias ?

No, no, I mean How many cognitive biases do you have ?

Your tendencies are quite something.

Lulu_Lulu you have my permission or rather my attention.

Go forth, Destroy Bioshock.

@acp_45:

Hang on.... I can't juggle two debates at once.... when I'm done bitching about Dark Souls I'll come back for Bioshock.

internet people was expecting arkham/ assassins creed game....

I don't think he was saying it doesn't take thought to make an open world game, he was saying it does not necessarily take thought to play an open world, and considering most open world games have quest markers telling you exactly where to go, he is correct.

@pook99:

He already knows that.... he's just blinded by idealism and his undying contempt for me.

Linear games usually have better story-telling/a better storyline. Personally I like linear games and games with more choice and open worlds as well.

The combat is dull and you don't get all of your powers until the end of the game. The memory sequences were underused.

I don't want to be guided down hallways, i want to go it my own way. Not every game has to be open world, but i don't really like linear games because they restrict me

@Lulu_Lulu: @pook99: in that case, most open world games give you the option of turning off the markers to mix things up.

As for Lulu, I just don't agree with your ideas. I don't know you, so I don't really know if you truly believe what you say or are just that bored and need to counter everybody's opinions for some odd reason. Either way, idealism isn't a bad thing. I'm using my idealism to create a game.

@mastermetal777:

You do realise you've never said any bad thing about any game we've debated over..... if someone is wrong.... its the guy who can't form any critism let alone take one from someone else....

I hope your game is awesome.

@Lulu_Lulu: we've never talked about games I don't like. I have many games I hold with either contempt or just a general meh feeling. We just never talk about them. I even have an overrated games list of those I don't find particularly awesome while others lavish them with praise.

@mastermetal777:

And yet when we argue you make each game sound like its completely flawless

@Lulu_Lulu: I acknowledge a game's flaws every time. I just don't think they deter from my enjoyment of them. So to me, they're criticisms of the game's inherent problem of being designed by humans, but if the whole of the product is excellent, why let the problems get to you? Unless you're that cynical about everything.

@mastermetal777:

One must first be able to spot a flaw before one can acknowledge it.....

@Lulu_Lulu: I always spot flaws in games. I just ignore them if I'm enjoying the game enough. But I list them in every review I write no matter the score (I don't really use scores, but Gamespot won't let me post without one)