Of all growing trends in videogames, the one I've noticed the most is the insistence upon open-world settings or nonlinear adventures. I'm not complaining for the most part, I tend to like Open-world action games like
inFAMOUS and
Prototype because they give you the option to go off the beaten track and collect orbs or do side missions; break the tension between story missions. However, sometimes, it can be quite bothersome, such as in
FarCry2 and
Red Faction: Guerrilla where the driving becomes absolutely tedious and obsolete.
However, I'm not here to talk about Open-world games, but quite the opposite; linear adventures. It seems that the biggest complaints levied against purely single player experiences is the lack of multiplayer or the linear design. Now, the lacking multiplayer is a purely economic complaint, as the lack of said multiplayer has no effect upon the narrative and gameplay of the single player game. However, since it's a critic's job to "review" a game, a part of which is measuring it's economic value, I won't complain too much.
However, it blows my mind that people carp about overtly linear design. Many people say they feel constrained or "on rails" when playing a purely linear game, which is an odd complaint to me. When I play a game, the way I approach it and play it is based upon it's design concepts; I don't go into
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune hoping that I'll get a helicopter to surf above the jungle. In
Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction looking for an open-world space setting. I'm looking to play a game that is very specifically designed and paced, which I feel is an advantage of linear experiences.
I recently played
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (I don't own it, but I played about 4 hours of it), which is a purely linear adventure. The game is paced in a way that it gives you these incredible set pieces with great action mixed with kind of quiet parts based upon fun platforming and some minor stealth (The purly stealth section is awful...). It's the changes in pace that really highlight why linear games still have a place in today's market; they are able to control/illicit certain emotions and such much more effectively since they have complete control over where you go and what occurs around you.
The freedom is in the player to accomplish these tasks however they like, and that I think is something that open-world games often advertise but don't really capitalize on. A very big complaint of
FarCry 2 is that the game is laconically paced, and as such gets very tedious very quickly. This is because there are basically no set piece moments or areas that are specifically designed for certain actions. Sure, you can take the route of "you make your own set piece", but these moments, while more spontaneous and natural, don't feel as nuanced or frequent.
Take for example
Uncharted 2: Among Thieve's train section, where you have to take out enemies by taking advantage of the curving of the train tracks. It's brilliant, and it's extremely fun and exhilarating, and it's just one of the many moments of the game that do such an action-packed set piece. Since the game is designed around the set pieces, they flow and play incredibly well, where as in open-world games, the missions are made to fit the game, meaning there is much more freedom in how you can accomplish the goal more often than not, but the variety and spontaneity of the moments is severely lacking compared to linear games like
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves.
Now, I am not a person that judges a game's merits off of graphics alone or really almost at all, but nonetheless, the linear experience also allows developers to create a much better-looking, bug-free experience that will not distract players form the gameplay. Take
Prototype for instance, which is a very fun, if not flawed, open-world game. Even though it was released in 2009, it looks much worse than
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, which was released in 2007. Now, many games do not look anywhere near as good as
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, but that's the beauty of it.
With a linear game, developers are able to accomplish much more than open-world games because of the games singular nature. Take
Grand Theft Auto IV for instance; as it stands, this is easily one of the best-looking open world games, if not the best-looking open world game, of 2007. However, even still, it couldn't compare to other linear games in many respects; textures, especially inside environments, were mushy and blended into one another, animations were sometimes down-right terrible (playing pool, executions, etc.)
Now, these days, they're looking much better, like
inFAMOUS, which is probably the best example, but even that game has it's problems; pop-in textures plagued collection, characters looked blocky and unnatural up close, and then there are the glitches. This is the biggest problem with almost any open-world games presentation; bugs and glitches. I don't think I need to go into the many times people would walk into/onto one another in
Grand Theft Auto IV and
inFAMOUS, or how often in
inFAMOUS you would get stuck between geometry.
The main point is that linear games still have a place in today's market; not everything has to have a nonlinear/open-world aspect. Most of the time, the mechanic just feels tacked on anyways, like
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood's
two (count 'em) open-world areas where you can do side missions. Why wasn't this applied to the rest of the game? Because linearity is still valid. NOt everything has to offer up this element of freedom, which basically amounts to a drive between story missions.
When done well, open-world design is an attractive thing, but in the same way, so is linearity. While non-linearity gives the player freedom to do what they want, when they want, linearity gives the designer the freedom to do the what they want, when they want, and just like film and music, it's always a treat to experience something that someone else's creative mind can bring us. Not every game has to be a Choose you own adventure affair; sometimes when the adventure is given to you, a pre-determined path can offer up some of the most brilliant gameplay and scenarios you'll play in a game.
Many linear games these days tend to have some stuff on the side to do, although usually not right away. In Batman: AA, there’s the Riddler Challenges to do, although more become doable as you progress throughout the game. Since you mention Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, there are some stuff to do on the side, like collect plans for the ultimate weapon, find golden bolts, or earn skill points. I can hardly think of any games that are strictly linear and allow no extra stuff to be done on the side at all.
Uncharted 2 sounds like it could be a blast for me to play the first time, but what about re-playing it? For people like me, I’m not quite able to enjoy doing something very similar again and again. I get a lot of fun from games from not knowing what to expect next. I also like having more than one way to do something. If I replay Batman: AA, there’s not much different stuff that I can do that I haven’t done when I first played it. Based on this logic, I can also barely stand to re-watch the same movies over and over.
I don’t think it’s entirely fair to compare the graphics between the two. Open world games tend to have to process a lot more stuff going on at once and can't produce the same graphics while keeping the frame rate out of single digits. I would like to debunk your example of open world games having more bugs than linear games, but since that’s really the case, you have a point there.
And that’s all I got for now without dragging the comment out longer with repeated stuff.
Nice post, man!
When i play an RPG I expect some degree of freedom but I do like have a scripted story to follow along.
Games like fallout 3 don't really appeal to me but at the same time Eternal Sonata was the other end of the spectrum which just shuffled you along, where open looking areas where just narrow corridors in disguise.
I'm not huge on stories unless they are told well, but the lack of one for Left 4 Dead actually made me kind of stop playing it. It just got boring to me once I knew all the spots for 25 damage pounces, or to defend against everything (I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU CLOSET NEAR ELEVATOR). I mean damn, at least provide a backstory. I guess I went in expecting the wrong thing (again), seeing as Team Fortress and Counter-Strike are basically pure multiplayer games.