Linear shooters - good or bad?

Linear shooters are pretty popular today (Half Life 2 episodes, Call of Duty 4). Do you think this style is good or bad? Do you prefer a story and epic film-like sequences or do you think linear shooters lack creativity and are boring?

My take on this has changed dramatically since I've played some of these open ended shooters. Freedom is so awesome that I'll take any game with it over a linear shooter. Linear shooters tend to rely on the story and scripted sequences to drive the story, and I don't like that. I don't like being fed the game. I like going my own route, and having my own fun. That's what makes multiplayer so fun (and why I primarily play multiplayer).

Games like Crysis just totally rock (especially if I could run it at a better quality). Do whatever the hell you want. This is the same thing that makes GTA IV and Oblivion so popular - freedom. Sure, there are goals and objectives, but you can do anything, and you can do in any way you like. Asassin's Creed did this nicely, but lacked in other areas, unfortunately. Btw on the topic of Crysis, I thought it sucked after the aliens came in, cause not only was it no longer realistic, it no longer was open, and became very linear, so much so that on the boat you can only go through certain doors.

I came to this conclusion after playing the hyped up Half-Life 2. I wasn't really satisfied or had that much fun, except during the vehicle scenes and in the beginning, when I had the freedom to go anywhere, and explore. Then Ravenholm came, and it got progressively worse and worse. The story was great, but I could watch a movie or better yet read a novel to get the story. I wanted substantive gameplay, and apart from the gravity gun, few aspects could satisfy that. Same thing with Doom 3 - it was too linear and restricted. And this also makes the Halo series not that great in terms of single player.

I have to admit Call of Duty 4 did the linear thing expertly. It feels so awesome, and though it eventually falls back into the same feeling of linearity, the experience of fighting with your squad in this intense battlefield makes it well worth it. If a linear shooter can do it right like CoD4, then I'll tolerate it. But otherwise, I love freedom.

I love good linear storylines. I'm only going to play a game once or twice (for the storyline) so I could care less if I could go about it 100,000 ways because I'm only going to try 1 or 2. Crysis isn't really as open as people say it is. It's really just a large map with a linear based progression. I just don't enjoy the concept. All crysis really is (to me) is a Goal (say point X), a start (point Y), and a crap load of randomly placed units between Y and X.

Crysis is nothing like Oblivion, which is a true open game enviroment. I loved STALKER also, but Crysis is still a joke of a sandbox game to me. I enjoyed my first play through (took it slow and did everything), but the second time was way too dull. The multiplayer is decent (needs smaller team-based maps) except for the fact that if you install a mod, you can't play multiplayer on Punkbuster servers.

I like linear shooters, I usually ramp up the difficulty to get the most play out of them and give them one solid playthrough, a la COD4. They have a better pace and generally a lot more action than their sandbox siblings which makes for a great ride, but if you ever try to hop back in again, you'll feel a bit of deja vu since just about everything will remain the same (the sniper level in COD4 was so intense the first time I played it but when I played it again, it was boring).

You have to take the games on their merits. COD4, HL, HL2, Bioshock, etc were all great games, but once you've played it once you've seen about everything there is to offer. Crysis, STALKER, Far Cry, Boiling Point and just about any other sandbox shooter are a lot of fun to experiment in, but without a bit of luck, you're not going to get the same kind of rush out of them as you would a linear game.

In the end it's apples to apples, but there are more kinds of apples than you can shake a stick at and none of them taste quite the same, so it really just depends on what you really want to sink your teeth into.

I like linear shooters, I usually ramp up the difficulty to get the most play out of them and give them one solid playthrough, a la COD4. They have a better pace and generally a lot more action than their sandbox siblings which makes for a great ride, but if you ever try to hop back in again, you'll feel a bit of deja vu since just about everything will remain the same (the sniper level in COD4 was so intense the first time I played it but when I played it again, it was boring).

You have to take the games on their merits. COD4, HL, HL2, Bioshock, etc were all great games, but once you've played it once you've seen about everything there is to offer. Crysis, STALKER, Far Cry, Boiling Point and just about any other sandbox shooter are a lot of fun to experiment in, but without a bit of luck, you're not going to get the same kind of rush out of them as you would a linear game.

In the end it's apples to apples, but there are more kinds of apples than you can shake a stick at and none of them taste quite the same, so it really just depends on what you really want to sink your teeth into.

Crzy1

Nice analogy :P

I hate linear. I beat HL2, Ep1, Ep2, it was terrible. Overrated. AI was barely programmed in the game, just a bunch of cheating aliens, which left very little strategy in defeating them; actually made the game easier. The puzzles were obviously there to take a break from the boring gameplay. It was so linear, man that wasn't fun at all.

love open games, and most people obviously agree. Notice how high ratings open games get, such as WoW, Crysis, GTA series.

Linear is outdated. Never should they be made again.

It really depends on how "on rails" the game feels. Personally, I get far more replay value out of non-linear shooters, but the linear ones can have their own replay value. A lot of it depends on how well they communicate their story, and how unintrusive it is in its gameplay. Half-Life is one of the most linear shooters I've played, but also has plenty of puzzles, as well as never breaking POV. There's generally only one path to go down, but I rarely am left with the feeling of being pushed down that path.

Other shooters, it feels like I'm just following the action and going where the game takes me.

Herrick prefers open-ended FPSs over linear ones.

Besides the new S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Far Cry 2, & White Gold, do you mangs know of any other good ones that are coming out?

I think full blown linearity is never a good thing, and it's just us making the best of it. Nothing pisses me off quite like knowing that I can't open that door - can't even kick it in, or that I just know that that glass is going to be bulletproof.

There's no real difference between an invisible wall and a visible one. Developers can make them seem realistic and stuff, but the player is always going to how that he's being ushered down a narrow corridor with no choice.

My favourite style of design is the semi-linear game. Games like System Shock 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R that have persistent worlds and where you can go almost everywhere in the game environment.

I've tried my hand at level design, and if I can say anything it's that I completely understand why designers make such scripted, such linear games. It's because it's ****ing hard to do anything else. But I think developers should aspire to more.

I think that the core design of linear shooters is bad, but that certainly doesn't mean that all linear shooters are also bad. Most of my favourite shooters are linear.

Linear shooters are good, IF they're done correctly. HL2 series are an example of good linear shooters, though i must admit they were a little on th easy side. To a really moronic poster above who said the AI is really badly programmed. What the f**k do you know about AI programming? I think the AIs act accordingly, especially the NPCs.

shalashaska88

I know nothing about ai programming. I do know that HL2's combat ai is weak in comparison to COD 4 for example. The Combine usually just stand out in the open while COD 4's enemies behave more like real soldiers, using cover and leaning out to take shots.

I think they have their place. They are great on their first play through but usually don't have as much replay value as more open-ended games. Linear shooters are tighter and more focused so if I don't feel like meandering for a few hours in some huge sandbox game, they're the perfect fix.

Linear shooters are pretty popular today (Half Life 2 episodes, Call of Duty 4). Do you think this style is good or bad? Do you prefer a story and epic film-like sequences or do you think linear shooters lack creativity and are boring?

siddhartha211

It depends, too much freedom ruins a game, where not enough can ruin a game. Myself I like Linear with Very Smart AI(Read Far Cry/Fear), but I also like alternate routes. A good example of too much freedom is Crysis and Far Cry because if you wanted to, you can run through the game bypassing alot of good content, missing out on awesome firefights.

A good example of too much freedom is Crysis and Far Cry because if you wanted to, you can run through the game bypassing alot of good content, missing out on awesome firefights.

superkoolstud

How can that possibly be a bad thing, when you'd only miss out on the content if you, as you say, wanted to.

I think it's a good thing that the player has that choice.

[QUOTE="superkoolstud"]

A good example of too much freedom is Crysis and Far Cry because if you wanted to, you can run through the game bypassing alot of good content, missing out on awesome firefights.

fatshodan

How can that possibly be a bad thing, when you'd only miss out on the content if you, as you say, wanted to.

I think it's a good thing that the player has that choice.

Yeah but you might have a lower opinion of the game because you didn't challenge yourself and missed out on a great experience. Say they had 3 paths to the objective, one going straight through the base, one taking an indirect route through the base, or going completely around it bypassing all but maybe 3 KPA.

With Option 1 you could go in alerting the whole base and having a huge shootout which would be very linear. Option 2 you could Stealth crawl/crouch taking out a few enemies with a silenced weapon, or Snipe the towers, and blow up the MG nests with a frag, jump over a oncoming humvee shooting its gas tank, and mopping up leftovers with the shotgun, both providing fun and freedom. Lastly option 3 where you would just run around the base to the end of the level with little resistance having zero fun and setting yourself up for disappointment.

Options 1 is linear with avg freedom, Option 2 is Linear with just enough freedom, Option 3 is too much freedom.

Options 1 is linear with avg freedom, Option 2 is Linear with just enough freedom, Option 3 is too much freedom.superkoolstud

[QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="superkoolstud"]

A good example of too much freedom is Crysis and Far Cry because if you wanted to, you can run through the game bypassing alot of good content, missing out on awesome firefights.

superkoolstud

How can that possibly be a bad thing, when you'd only miss out on the content if you, as you say, wanted to.

I think it's a good thing that the player has that choice.

Yeah but you might have a lower opinion of the game because you didn't challenge yourself and missed out on a great experience. Say they had 3 paths to the objective, one going straight through the base, one taking an indirect route through the base, or going completely around it bypassing all but maybe 3 KPA.

With Option 1 you could go in alerting the whole base and having a huge shootout which would be very linear. Option 2 you could Stealth crawl/crouch taking out a few enemies with a silenced weapon, or Snipe the towers, and blow up the MG nests with a frag, jump over a oncoming humvee shooting its gas tank, and mopping up leftovers with the shotgun, both providing fun and freedom. Lastly option 3 where you would just run around the base to the end of the level with little resistance having zero fun and setting yourself up for disappointment.

Options 1 is linear with avg freedom, Option 2 is Linear with just enough freedom, Option 3 is too much freedom.

I understand the argument, but I don't agree with it. A player could choose to play the entire game just using a pistol - that choice may always be open to them. They wouldn't have the same experience as if they were using some of the cooler weapons, and they wouldn't get to enjoy the diversity, but it would be their choice, and their fault.

I would never dream of criticising the game simply for including more weapons besides the pistol, I would criticise the players who don't choose to make use of them.

The player is always in control. If the player chooses not to make use of that control, that's their own fault. The same rationale could be applied to any part of any game where the player has a choice to make. More choices are always a good thing until they become unwieldy, but Crysis' environments were mapped out in such a way that you (I, anyway) always ran into enemies - and if I didn't fight them, it was because I chose not to.

If the game had had to have had less freedom just so someone with no imagination could get more fun out of the game, and I (with my ability to make choices based on what I want out of a game) had had to suffer with a less awesome game experience as a result, I don't see how that could ever be justified as being a good thing.

[QUOTE="superkoolstud"][QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="superkoolstud"]

A good example of too much freedom is Crysis and Far Cry because if you wanted to, you can run through the game bypassing alot of good content, missing out on awesome firefights.

fatshodan

How can that possibly be a bad thing, when you'd only miss out on the content if you, as you say, wanted to.

I think it's a good thing that the player has that choice.

Yeah but you might have a lower opinion of the game because you didn't challenge yourself and missed out on a great experience. Say they had 3 paths to the objective, one going straight through the base, one taking an indirect route through the base, or going completely around it bypassing all but maybe 3 KPA.

With Option 1 you could go in alerting the whole base and having a huge shootout which would be very linear. Option 2 you could Stealth crawl/crouch taking out a few enemies with a silenced weapon, or Snipe the towers, and blow up the MG nests with a frag, jump over a oncoming humvee shooting its gas tank, and mopping up leftovers with the shotgun, both providing fun and freedom. Lastly option 3 where you would just run around the base to the end of the level with little resistance having zero fun and setting yourself up for disappointment.

Options 1 is linear with avg freedom, Option 2 is Linear with just enough freedom, Option 3 is too much freedom.

I understand the argument, but I don't agree with it. A player could choose to play the entire game just using a pistol - that choice may always be open to them. They wouldn't have the same experience as if they were using some of the cooler weapons, and they wouldn't get to enjoy the diversity, but it would be their choice, and their fault.

I would never dream of criticising the game simply for including more weapons besides the pistol, I would criticise the players who don't choose to make use of them.

The player is always in control. If the player chooses not to make use of that control, that's their own fault. The same rationale could be applied to any part of any game where the player has a choice to make. More choices are always a good thing until they become unwieldy, but Crysis' environments were mapped out in such a way that you (I, anyway) always ran into enemies - and if I didn't fight them, it was because I chose not to.

If the game had had to have had less freedom just so someone with no imagination could get more fun out of the game, and I (with my ability to make choices based on what I want out of a game) had had to suffer with a less awesome game experience as a result, I don't see how that could ever be justified as being a good thing.

Okay lets use another FPS. Like say Morrowind(Yes I know, there is no guns, but its still the same to me), that game had too much freedom to the point where it would become boring after a few hours, because there was so much to do, and so many choices that one didn't know where to begin. Where if it were more linear and had more direction it could have been alot better which is how we got Oblivion.

Okay lets use another FPS. Like say Morrowind(Yes I know, there is no guns, but its still the same to me), that game had too much freedom to the point where it would become boring after a few hours, because there was so much to do, and so many choices that one didn't know where to begin. Where if it were more linear and had more direction it could have been alot better which is how we got Oblivion.

superkoolstud

I'm not a huge fan of Morrowind, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that exploration is a fundamental element of most roleplaying games.

depends entirely on the quality of the game.fireandcloud

I agree. I've played some linear games that were good, but not good enough to say, "**** yeah! I want to go down this predestined path!" But I've also played some excellent linear games *cough* Half-Life 2 last night *cough* that are so enjoyable that at times you can't even tell that it's linear, and when you can tell, you embrace it because it is used to heighten your gameplay experience.

Yeah, I'm still running on the high that I got last night from playing Half-Life 2 as you can probably tell. After hearing so much about this game for years, last November I finally became a PC gamer and bought a nice rig of my own. Now I finally see what all the talk about this game was for. I just got past the part where you have to stay off the sand and I have to say, that was quite possibly one of the coolest game mechanics I've ever seen. Valve, I applaud you.

[QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="superkoolstud"][QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="superkoolstud"]

A good example of too much freedom is Crysis and Far Cry because if you wanted to, you can run through the game bypassing alot of good content, missing out on awesome firefights.

superkoolstud

How can that possibly be a bad thing, when you'd only miss out on the content if you, as you say, wanted to.

I think it's a good thing that the player has that choice.

Yeah but you might have a lower opinion of the game because you didn't challenge yourself and missed out on a great experience. Say they had 3 paths to the objective, one going straight through the base, one taking an indirect route through the base, or going completely around it bypassing all but maybe 3 KPA.

With Option 1 you could go in alerting the whole base and having a huge shootout which would be very linear. Option 2 you could Stealth crawl/crouch taking out a few enemies with a silenced weapon, or Snipe the towers, and blow up the MG nests with a frag, jump over a oncoming humvee shooting its gas tank, and mopping up leftovers with the shotgun, both providing fun and freedom. Lastly option 3 where you would just run around the base to the end of the level with little resistance having zero fun and setting yourself up for disappointment.

Options 1 is linear with avg freedom, Option 2 is Linear with just enough freedom, Option 3 is too much freedom.

I understand the argument, but I don't agree with it. A player could choose to play the entire game just using a pistol - that choice may always be open to them. They wouldn't have the same experience as if they were using some of the cooler weapons, and they wouldn't get to enjoy the diversity, but it would be their choice, and their fault.

I would never dream of criticising the game simply for including more weapons besides the pistol, I would criticise the players who don't choose to make use of them.

The player is always in control. If the player chooses not to make use of that control, that's their own fault. The same rationale could be applied to any part of any game where the player has a choice to make. More choices are always a good thing until they become unwieldy, but Crysis' environments were mapped out in such a way that you (I, anyway) always ran into enemies - and if I didn't fight them, it was because I chose not to.

If the game had had to have had less freedom just so someone with no imagination could get more fun out of the game, and I (with my ability to make choices based on what I want out of a game) had had to suffer with a less awesome game experience as a result, I don't see how that could ever be justified as being a good thing.

Okay lets use another FPS. Like say Morrowind(Yes I know, there is no guns, but its still the same to me), that game had too much freedom to the point where it would become boring after a few hours, because there was so much to do, and so many choices that one didn't know where to begin. Where if it were more linear and had more direction it could have been alot better which is how we got Oblivion.

Non-linear shouters in general don't have a good story but they ofer you a choice, so you can be creative and use your tactics, but

linear shouters mostly have the most involved story line and the most intense moments. For me it doesn't mater because more and more games produced that are like a hubrid of linear and non-linear (eg. Cysis), and i think we shouldn't decide how good the game is by it's structure , because every good game has it's own genies moments.

[QUOTE="superkoolstud"][QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="superkoolstud"][QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="superkoolstud"]

A good example of too much freedom is Crysis and Far Cry because if you wanted to, you can run through the game bypassing alot of good content, missing out on awesome firefights.

Vfanek

How can that possibly be a bad thing, when you'd only miss out on the content if you, as you say, wanted to.

I think it's a good thing that the player has that choice.

Yeah but you might have a lower opinion of the game because you didn't challenge yourself and missed out on a great experience. Say they had 3 paths to the objective, one going straight through the base, one taking an indirect route through the base, or going completely around it bypassing all but maybe 3 KPA.

With Option 1 you could go in alerting the whole base and having a huge shootout which would be very linear. Option 2 you could Stealth crawl/crouch taking out a few enemies with a silenced weapon, or Snipe the towers, and blow up the MG nests with a frag, jump over a oncoming humvee shooting its gas tank, and mopping up leftovers with the shotgun, both providing fun and freedom. Lastly option 3 where you would just run around the base to the end of the level with little resistance having zero fun and setting yourself up for disappointment.

Options 1 is linear with avg freedom, Option 2 is Linear with just enough freedom, Option 3 is too much freedom.

I understand the argument, but I don't agree with it. A player could choose to play the entire game just using a pistol - that choice may always be open to them. They wouldn't have the same experience as if they were using some of the cooler weapons, and they wouldn't get to enjoy the diversity, but it would be their choice, and their fault.

I would never dream of criticising the game simply for including more weapons besides the pistol, I would criticise the players who don't choose to make use of them.

The player is always in control. If the player chooses not to make use of that control, that's their own fault. The same rationale could be applied to any part of any game where the player has a choice to make. More choices are always a good thing until they become unwieldy, but Crysis' environments were mapped out in such a way that you (I, anyway) always ran into enemies - and if I didn't fight them, it was because I chose not to.

If the game had had to have had less freedom just so someone with no imagination could get more fun out of the game, and I (with my ability to make choices based on what I want out of a game) had had to suffer with a less awesome game experience as a result, I don't see how that could ever be justified as being a good thing.

Okay lets use another FPS. Like say Morrowind(Yes I know, there is no guns, but its still the same to me), that game had too much freedom to the point where it would become boring after a few hours, because there was so much to do, and so many choices that one didn't know where to begin. Where if it were more linear and had more direction it could have been alot better which is how we got Oblivion.

I Personally like Morrowond+Bloodmoon+Tribunal, I was just trying to get my point across with a different example.

I think it depends on the game and what devs are trying to get the gamer to experience. CoD4 would not have been as intense as it was if it was an open world shooter, while Crysis would have been a lesser game if it was a corridor shooter (people whine about the endgame for a reason).

One other thing that plays a huge role is what game I want to play then and there. I love sandbox'y games, but you can't play Stalker for half an hr and then feel like you accomplished anything in the game. If I want instant action and just shoot some dudes, I won't pop Mass Effect into the DVD-drive, I'll play Doom 3, Quake 4 or Call of Duty instead.

We should have both imo. Call it "dumbing down", "consolization" or whatever. I think we need simple games with a lot of action as well as the huge, deep games that take a lot of effort to get into. I might have the time to play Baldur's Gate on a weekend, but if I come home after a 19 hr workshift, sleep for 5 hrs and sit down in front of my TV or PC, I'm usually not in the mood for deep gameplay at all. Just let me blow **** up and I'm happy.

I don't understand how non-linear shooters get boring. Linear shooters often have crappy parts to them (Ravenholm ugh) that just ruin the flow of the gameplay. A linear shooter is only good when it gives the illusion of free-roaming or offers some revolutionary gameplay mechanic. Linear shooters also tend to be tedious - that is, you feel like all you're doing is shooting the same monsters over and over again. Otherwise, the ability to explore your environment yields potentially a lot more playback and a lot more time invested into the games. Much more rewarding. As said, open games have some of the biggest followings - and its no surprise. And whoever said HL2 is overrated, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I think it depends on the game and what devs are trying to get the gamer to experience. CoD4 would not have been as intense as it was if it was an open world shooter, while Crysis would have been a lesser game if it was a corridor shooter (people whine about the endgame for a reason).

One other thing that plays a huge role is what game I want to play then and there. I love sandbox'y games, but you can't play Stalker for half an hr and then feel like you accomplished anything in the game. If I want instant action and just shoot some dudes, I won't pop Mass Effect into the DVD-drive, I'll play Doom 3, Quake 4 or Call of Duty instead.

We should have both imo. Call it "dumbing down", "consolization" or whatever. I think we need simple games with a lot of action as well as the huge, deep games that take a lot of effort to get into. I might have the time to play Baldur's Gate on a weekend, but if I come home after a 19 hr workshift, sleep for 5 hrs and sit down in front of my TV or PC, I'm usually not in the mood for deep gameplay at all. Just let me blow **** up and I'm happy.

artur79

yeah, i started playing SS2 recently when i thought i'd have time to get really involved in it, but after a couple of abortive starts i got busy in my 'real life' again so right now i'm more in the mood for fast-paced scripted stuff, hence my loading up COD and loving every minute (though i've been gunned down about a million times already trying to defend that bridge...)

likewise Q4 as you say is a c-lassic linear game which is very entertaining

I don't understand how non-linear shooters get boring. Linear shooters often have crappy parts to them (Ravenholm ugh) that just ruin the flow of the gameplay. A linear shooter is only good when it gives the illusion of free-roaming or offers some revolutionary gameplay mechanic. Linear shooters also tend to be tedious - that is, you feel like all you're doing is shooting the same monsters over and over again. Otherwise, the ability to explore your environment yields potentially a lot more playback and a lot more time invested into the games. Much more rewarding. As said, open games have some of the biggest followings - and its no surprise. And whoever said HL2 is overrated, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

siddhartha211

HL is about the only series I play that's built like that, although I'll be all over the next Doom and Quake and Wolf when they come out.

I have to say though, the first 2/3rds of Crysis have spoiled me in the open ended department, I can replay those levels over and over and it's still fun. Something can be said about that...

Oh, and I've grown tired of many FPS's over the past year to the point I won't even think about buying. I've skipped many bland looking FPS's like Timeshift, Area 51 Blacksite, Jericho (horrendous), Turning Point, and many more etc..I just don't have the drive anymore, at least they aren't appealing to me. CoD4, Crysis, and Orange Box were the only FPS's I jumped on, even passed on Fronlines too.

Linear shooters are pretty popular today (Half Life 2 episodes, Call of Duty 4). Do you think this style is good or bad? Do you prefer a story and epic film-like sequences or do you think linear shooters lack creativity and are boring?

siddhartha211