In gaming circles, "linear" has become a dirty word indeed, a black mark against an otherwise fine videogame. In this age of choice and sandbox experiences, those games that stick to a more rigid path are often looked down upon by a sneering crowd who wishes for every title to be about freedom and overwhelming possibility.
These people, of course, are wrong.
Linearity is not a bad thing, and can even be a most powerful tool in the right hands. Those who would accuse a game of being "too linear" often confuse a strength for a weakness. Indeed, the unwavering path can be as beautiful a route as the one with many winding branches, and I'm going to tell you why.
Not every game has to be Grand Theft Auto or Oblivion to be worth your time. Indeed, if every game was a huge open world, you would soon find yourself growing bored, or at least overwhelmed as you struggle to find time in the day to explore sandbox after sandbox. After hours spent in the hustle and bustle of Liberty City or Tamriel, a game with clearer focus and a set beginning, middle and end can be just what the doctor ordered, providing some experiences that total freedom just can't manage.
The Half-Life series is one that Edge magazine once held up as an example of linear gameplay's worth. Half-Life 2 in particular offers no freedom whatsoever, to the point where it becomes part of the story itself. Gordon Freeman, ironically known as "The One Free Man," is anything but, as he is forced to travel from point A to point B, following a path from which there is no divergence. Of course, the story of Half-Life is that Gordon never does have a choice. The game's linearity is an important plot device.
More than that though, Half-Life's linearity is part of what makes the game so thoroughly enjoyable. It's a rollercoaster ride, taking you from breathtaking set pieces to thrilling challenges. It's a modern day adventure, broken into a series of chapters that flow into one another at an absolutely perfect pace. Everything has its place, and is positioned just right. Imagine if you could choose to complete Ravenholm at your own leisure, for instance, rather than have its horrors hinted at earlier in the game before you find yourself forced to deal with it. It was Half-Life 2's linearity that made Ravenholm such a memorable experience. It was able to build a sense of foreboding about the place before you saw it, but you knew that thanks to the path of no divergence, you would see it.
Of course, for a linear experience, one need look no further than the majority of Japanese RPGs and, in particular, Square Enix's legendary Final Fantasy series. Some of the most memorable moments of gaming have come from some of the most linear games. Sure, Final Fantasy titles often have optional quests and hidden items to discover, but the framework they hang upon is rigid and unchanging, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Like Half-Life, it is their unwavering paths that make them so effective. They ensure you spend the right amount of time with characters to grow attached to them, and that you truly remember their most spectacular moments.
It's almost a cliché to bring up the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy VII, but it is a perfect example of the power of linearity. Setting its own pace, Square Enix led the player along before waiting for the right time to strike. After forcing you to spend time with Aeris, to get to know and like her, it took her away from you at a crucial moment, and there was nothing that could be done.
RPGs have an epic story to tell, and like most stories, they have a beginning, a middle and an end. While more free-form games have their own stories, they lack the pacing that can make for some of the most heart-wrenching moments in gaming. Even Grand Theft Auto IV, with its brilliant story, suffered from the lack of focus that comes with the sandbox genre. It did no detriment to the story, but it also didn't provide truly deep characterization and the cohesive exposition that comes with a path of no divergence. There are things that happen in GTA IV that could even have entirely no effect on you, depending on how much time you spent with the characters involved. Being able to choose your own path is rewarding indeed, but it is not always the best way to produce a powerful and affecting experience.
Silent Hill 2 is a masterpiece of not only the survival horror genre of games, but of horror as an umbrella form of entertainment. Once again, it is a game tightly bound by its restricted path, and is all the more effective for it. James Sunderland's deep and depressing journey takes you from one grisly, haunted locale to another, and each one is a highly memorable place, from the apartment complex to Toluca Prison. These environments are so memorable because they follow one another, each more twisted and terrifying than the one that preceded it. If you had the freedom to go anywhere you wanted, the game would lose all suspense. Instead, it feeds you only the information it wants you to have, lets you see only the places it wants you see, and is able to craft a deeply engaging experience that builds and builds to a shocking culmination. It is the inability to diverge from the path that allows for Silent Hill 2's psychological suspense.
A more recent example of linearity would be 2K's BioShock. Despite the choices that present themselves, BioShock is essentially a very linear experience. Its gameplay is actually quite free, but you are still treading the same path, no matter how you play. Very much like the games already cited, BioShock works because of its well-placed set pieces that arrive with perfect timing -- not possible if the game gave you all of Rapture from the start and told you to have fun. BioShock drip-feeds you its story, slowly unraveling the madness of Andrew Ryan's underwater city in a way that would wouldn't be as effective if you weren't treading the path that the developers wanted you to tread.
Open-ended games are great; you'll never see me debating that. Being able to go anywhere, do anything, and experience the game at your own leisure -- these are all terrific parts of a good gaming experience. They are not the only parts of gaming, however, and it's a shame that so many people overlook the true power that a linear game can wield. After all, books, plays and movies are still highly popular, despite the fact that each one will always end the same way. A well-crafted story is all about the pace, and nowhere is a pace more ably set than in a linear form -- after all, Lord of the Rings wasn't a "choose your own adventure" book.
Next time you accuse a game of being "too linear," try to ask yourself if you really want that game to be just like Oblivion. After all, you already have Oblivion, do you not? Sometimes, we all want to just sit back and be taken for a ride. If every game was a sandbox, we'd never have that ride again. That familiar story with familiar places and people that show up at just the right moment. The path of no divergence is not something that should be avoided, but walked along with glee.
Linear games, like the characters and experiences in them, have their own perfect place.
Contest:
7:51 PM on 06.15.2008
| 
Whereas games like MGS4, or Bioshock, which are completely linear, but allow you to approach levels in different ways, that is the kind of game I like best. Sure, running around a massive city can be fun, but if it's done well, a linear experience will always be more cohesive and ultimately more immersive than an open world.
But then again, some people just stick to the genre they like. I somewhat pride myself on being a gamer, not just an FPS, sports, driving, or sandbox gamer.
Also, as far as linearity goes, I'd rather play something more defined than open, because, while having the choice to do anything in a game is fun, no real direction isn't fun at all. It's like when you're assigned a paper in English class. You want there to be given a topic to write upon, not a "do whatever you want to do" paper, because you'll keep second guessing your decisions for the topic.
P.S. Minus points for incorrect use of the word "crescendo" :-P Sorry, but it drives me nuts!
Just wanted to quote that real quick for those who will undoubtedly waltz in and claim that the author is a OMG HATUR OF SANDBOX GAMES AND GAVE GTA AN 8!!!111
I liken them to a perfectly edited movie or the perfect song. They are more focused and driven, and a game's storyline will usually benefit from this. Not only the storyline but also the pacing, which is very important.
I love me some hand-holding, go he and do this gameplay any day of the week. Fuck Oblivion.
People can spend more time around them than just playing a linear game.
This results in a somewhat lie in terms of durability.
A player spends more time in a non-linear game trying to accomplish all goals.
While in a linear game, those goals are all well segmented.
I find that non-linear games can be bad for a company, if that company expects to release a new game the same year; or good, if they want to have some time to themselves and release a new game in 2 or more years to come.
I'm yappin' too much, I should go to sleep.
Everything has its place in the world - even linear game structure. To hell with the idiots.
I love you, Jim Sterling.
I think, though, that a good linear game makes you walk the right path while pretending you have a say in the matter. If the player figures out on their own that they should turn left, it's so much more engaging than a big red sign that says "Don't go right!".
Jim, for writing this article, I declare that a winner is you
Not to knock linearity as a whole, but the reason it's a dirty word of sorts is poorly implemented linearity- artificial and arbitrary level boundaries, a failure to properly direct your attention where it's needed, and a failure to keep your devotion to the task at hand. Linearity FAILS if the game is boring, or levels poorly designed, or events poorly scripted, bottom line. GTA would be horse shit if it didn't give you freedom between the pre-scripted, preset, super linear missions. Same thing with a great number of open ended games, like Oblivion or Assassin's Creed.
I agree with this write-up completely. In my experience it just seems that when people say linear in a negative they usually refer to the games' pigeon-holing them into a certain style of play.
I do like the idea of more games using scripted events like Half-Life 2 to tell stories; I really like that idea, especially for first-person games, over the (rumored) 90-minute cutscenes of Metal Gear Solid 4. Not that they're bad (granted I have yet to play the game, so I wouldn't know), but how much more awesome would it be if you were right in the middle of them?
@AdultSwim: Are you crazy? That's totally a sandbox game. You can go forward and backward!
The idea behind "non-linear gameplay" is to give the player some sense of "freedom"-the feeling that they could do whatever they pleased in an environment. Anyone who even has a remote knowledge of programing knows that the idea of freedom in games is not only impossible, it's downright unreasonable.
Because it is, inherently, a program, a game needs to make sure the player(or the user, in the case of a normal program) doesn't do anything to make the code bug out and die. To prevent this, programmers literally need to check for every single possible thing that the player could even THINK about doing that might have the slightest possibility to cause a crash. Good programmers will right code that is ready for any possibly contingency(i.e fucking around) that the player throws at the program.
There is no freedom in video games. There is only more linear and less linear. Even an "open world/sandbox/freeform/other cliche" game like Grand Theft Auto had to have been programed to deal with any possible situation the player tries to replicate in the environment.
That's a pretty technical response. Personally, I feel like GTA IV is the major exception to the power of storytelling in an open world game. Indeed, I sometimes thing that the greatest addition to GTAIV, gameplay wise, was the ability to instantly teleport to mission locations and date stops. I played GTA IV to completion pretty much as a linear game. Certainly the open world dicking around is still there if you want it, but GTA IV knows, in its bones, that the heart of the game is not in Liberty City, but in Nico and the people he encounters on his trip to the bottom.
Ive always enjoyed both types of games. Roaming free in GTA worlds is great fun, and the feeling of doing something cool entirely by yourself is fantastic. However, you'll never be able to do things quite as cool as can happen in scripted events; and i enjoy linear games for that reason.
Especially considering Half Life 2. At this point, I almost just want off the ride, but I know there's a good story and two more episodes of allegedly great experience left for me to go through. I didn't creep through Sandtraps. I ran through it like a lunatic because I couldn't stand the plodding "don't touch the lava" trip that the game was begging me to take.
WHAT?! AERIS DIES?! DAMMIT, I DODGED SPOILERS FOR 11 YEARS AND YOU RUINED IT!
I love how Valve masks how linear their games are. There's an illusion that you can do whatever you want, but certain circumstances prevent you from straying too far. You'll never be stopped by an invisible wall "just because". It keeps the level structure on course but keeps the believability intact.
I think the key is for linear games to really look at providing just enough alternative experiences for each playthrough- it shouldn't be exactly the same for every person. It's one of the many differences as a medium as opposed to books or movies, which are strictly linear.
And Silent Hill 2 was fail. Too much whining and crying, not enough Harry Mason. The original Silent Hill is where it's at, Jim.
I feel your pain regarding Sandbox games. They get boring as hell, imo.
I love both linear JRPG games and western sandboxes just as much. Ideally i'd love to see games that combined the two successfully more often, I haven't seen that since Baldur's Gate II ( Can be as linear or as open as you want to with any point in between and it makes for one hell of a ride any way you wanna play it. )
1) Those that you know are linear, where you are basically going down a set of hallways, just going from check point to check point.
2) Games that you may kinda know are linear, but give the impression of freedom. I think that games like Half-Life fall into this category.
In the case of the later, it is important to note that the story plays an important role in this. It is all based on how you ignore something that is happening. You are so distracted by the base being blown up that Ravenholm seems natural, and linear is the last thing you can think of.
I think that FEAR is the opposite of this. Basically it is linear to the point that it screams this. Sure it allows for tight, intense situations, but there is nothing that distracts you from the fact that it is linear.
And since you just ruined FFVII, it's only fair that I tell you Liquid Ocelot's arm is Fontaine and if you let Vamp live, he kills Roman.
Though some are a lot more 'on rails' than others.
To beat the game, any game no matter how 'sandcuntish' you have to beat all the required levels. Some games allow you to have a bit of fun running around like an idiot and have fun without really doing anything but the point is the same. To advance you HAVE to fetch this package or kill this fuck.
Some games now even allow a 'choose your own adventure' element. Like GTA IV. Kill this guy, let him live. Take this money or have to kill the same ammount of ppl by not taking it in a different locale...
Point being, even today you still have very limited choice in the missions you have to take.
It just comes down to what sort of entertainment the game is trying to provide.
You can run around like an idiot for hours in a 'linear' game like FF but I doubt you'll have much fun doing it.
I don't mind non-linear gameplay, but I always like some form of linear events in games. It's kind of...more natural.
I read a magazine about the possibility of non-linear stories, but I'd think that would be nigh on impossible. It would be like trying to make an AI construct a story. And AI is still at an embryonic stage...
But back on topic, I think another good example would be Splinter Cell (and MGS!), or at least the ones I've played. A great series, which ever so slightly fools you by allowing you to go about the mission in slightly differents ways, i.e killing people or stealthily avoiding them, but at the end of the day you're forced to always go down the same main path. And it rocks!