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.
most popular
RSS feed
MORE IN OUR 
More from this author:
I agree with this entirely, I hate it when people bash a fun experience for being too linear, especially when game reviewers make a point of saying a game is not realising its full potential by being too linear. Would MGS4 be so fucking incredible if it wasn't linear?
Interesting write up Jim, I think early in the last generation I certainly felt like I needed an open sandbox type game to get my money's worth. But then again I was a poor starving student with way too much time on my hands.
I enjoy linear experiences far more than completely non-linear ones. I've gotten bored of GTAIV about 13% in, I played maybe 5 hours of Oblivion, etc.
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.
I agree that sometimes people rag on linear games too much, even to the point of shunning games with linear game play. All I have to say to these people is that you shouldn't buy it, but rent it and give it a chance. It may have the most awesome story you've seen in a video game, and it may not.
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.
I'm glad you pointed out [i]Bioshock[i/], because of the fact that the linearity of it becomes a HUGE plot device. But, you don't realize it until that point in the game (for the sake of no spoilers, I shan't mention it here) where the story makes it's own linearity a plot device.
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.
I guess I'm more into linear games, mainly I just start to lose interest. I'm 11% into GTAIV, and thats longer I've evered played one of the series games. But I'm finding myself wanting to play Lost Planet/Lost Odyssey. Which both are excellent games.
The quasi-linear- that's great. No More Heroes wouldn't have worked if it was completely sandbox, but wouldn't have worked if it was totally linear either.
I love linear games; it provides a clarity of experience that's not possible with open-ended games. If a game lacks structure, I tend to get bored with it; I suppose that's why I prefer shmups, fighters, puzzle games and retro gaming.
Good article, completely agree - there are of course many horrid uses of linearity, but for the most part there is no reason to slate a game purely because it's linear. If it uses linearity badly, that's when you call it into question.
P.S. Minus points for incorrect use of the word "crescendo" :-P Sorry, but it drives me nuts!
"Open-ended games are great, you'll never see me debating that."
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 definitely agree that linear video games have their place next those more open ended. I just think when people are designing linear video games they need to focus on the benefits of the medium. As you pointed out, Half Life and Bioshock are great examples of linear gameplay because they create a world for you to experience. I think too many times linear games focus too much on trying to create very specific and complex stories when they should be focusing on creating an experience that the player partakes in. This isn't to say the story is less important, but too many times the players hand is held as they're told the story via cut scenes and whatnot, instead of the player actually making the story happen. I hope that makes some sense.
CALkulon : I changed it just for you.
I actually just mentioned something like this in a blog a little bit back. I actually tend to prefer linear games such as God of War, Resident Evil 4, and currently MGS 4. While MGS4 does give choice a fair amount of choice, in the end you're always going to go the same way. Uncharted is another great linear game.
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.
Non-linear games are just "good" in terms of marketing and lifetime.
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.
Thanks again, Jim, for saying that which others were too retarded to say.
Everything has its place in the world - even linear game structure. To hell with the idiots.
holy shit I commented before reading. You said the same thing.
I love you, Jim Sterling.
Agreed.
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!".
Very good Sunday read; I never understood why "linear" has become a bad thing with some gamers.
I am officially in love with this article. I don't think I've ever finished an open world game ever. I just get bored with them like about half way through. I prefer a solid linear game that's 10 hours long vs. 60 hours of dicking around in a sandbox. That's just me.
Jim, for writing this article, I declare that a winner is you
Half-life does an amazing job disguising linearity, though. You never feel artificially constrained- the game does such a great job making you want to go where it wants you to go that there's no question of it forcing you on a linear path.
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 think that when linear is used as a negative, it refers to the options given to a player in terms of gameplay, not progression. In Bioshock, you followed a linear path in terms of progression (gameplay), but your means of progression—plasmids, weapons, use of the environment—were nigh infinite.
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'm glad to see that others feel similarly. I've heard others say that linear games make them feel like they are just jumping through hoops at the command of the designers, but I've always felt like it was a dialog between them and I. I prefer that.
As much as I do enjoy the Open-endedness of games like GTA and Oblivion, I do feel that Linear games have a strong foundation in Gaming, and further reinforces the 'games as art' idea, as it is oftentimes a great means to tell a story that opens up a new way to interact with fictional characters and locations. You can read about Frodo going to Mordor, you can watch Neo as he becomes "The one", but games can have you experience it, be a part of it, and literally put you in the shoes of a character in a story.
Excellent article, I agree with every word.
linear games can be great but a game can still be TOO linear. like if there was "HALLWAY: THE GAME"
Wholeheartedly agree, Jim. Fine write-up. Get yourself a beer.
Excellent article, Jim. Have a beer, on me.
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!
People who complain about games being too "linear" really should be complaining that "this game feels too restrictive on my actions" or "this game feels so game-y, with all of these artificial limitations on my progression.
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.
That was extremely well written Jim.
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.
I've never played a non-linear shmup before. I don't get why this is even an issue.
Well put man, I was just thinking about this. Some of my best friends are linear.
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.
all I know is, Ravenholm was fucking scary.
I believe another commenter made a point that is spot on - it's not necessarily linearity that's the problem, but restrictions. Take, for example, a first-person shooter set in a city. If the city feels artificially constrained, with numerous dead-end alleys for example, then it seems off-putting because it doesn't really make sense for a city to be like that and normally logical choices are taken away from the player. The onus is on the designers to make their games seem more natural, and hopefully provide immersion by extension. In the case of boundaries, this usually means providing some sort of logical barriers usually integrated into the terrain.
"It's almost a cliche' to bring up the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy VII"
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.
There was a comment touched upon here that I would like to emphasize, which was on the possible replay value of linear vs. sandbox games. I find that sandbox games usually have much higher replay value- unless a linear game is truly exceptional without being restrictive (Half Life 2, Beyond Good & Evil), I probably won't visit it again.
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.
As a rule, I hate sandbox games. I generally get a couple of % points into the game, and then get bored and stop playing, because there's nothing to drive me forward. It has to be a REALLY special experience(Like Romancing SaGa, which if you think about it, isn't really all that sand-boxy) to get me to play a sandbox-type game for very long at all.
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.
@ Gen Eric Gul
I feel your pain regarding Sandbox games. They get boring as hell, imo.
Hey it doesn't gets much more Linear than The World Ends with you and its still has me hooked right now, the 1.5 months hunt to actually find it here was worth it.
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. )
great, great article - glad to see some people agree on this. i tend to favor linear experiences too. in fact, i don't know if i can name a 'sandbox' game that i have ever finished in its entirety - somewhere along the way i start feeling like i am missing too much of the game because of my choices and it makes me not want to play. a linear game avoids this pitfall by making sure that each and every player gets the same, core experience (plus optional content of course). but then again, doing away with the world map in FF10 was a huge loss too, so just like this article implies, everything has its place.
I think that, in the end there are two types of linear games.
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.
The way I see it, if a game is going to be totally linear, it must have an immersing story. Well, I guess in any game you would like a great story, but games like Mercenaries don't have much of a story, but are still really fun. For this reason I can't wait for the Force Unleashed, it has sooo much potential.
wow. lot of comments. but i remember in at least (and at most) final fantasyX2, not 12 that certain things you did or didn't do really had a role in what happened later and in fact it was in a way non-linear once you hit a certain point shortly in. i thought the mechanics on that one were actually better than 10 but the whole pop girls gone wild theme was a downer. and riku was way hotter in 10.
Kudos Jim, great right up.
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.
I've always kind of preferred linear games; but I did grow up playing games like castlevania and super mario.
I hat just about everything you write but this is a great article using some of the greatest games as examples minus FF7.
If you really look at it, all games are linear with some giving a better appearance than others at err... non linear. (I hate the term 'sandbox')
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.
Yes I'm drunk and have no idea if that ^^ makes any sense.
Bonus points for SH2 mention!
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 agree with you whole-heartedly on your write-up, Jim. The way people harp on about choice, we seem to be spoiled already, and not realise it.
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...
Thanks Jim, you're now back up to 11/10 marks ;-)
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!
@Detry
Also, missions in GTAIV are mostly extremely linear. Try and do anything the developers don't expect and it becomes obvious how scripted a lot of the missions are.
About time someone else realizes BioShock was a linear game.
Totally agreed, but that means the strength of a linear game almost totally lies with the writing, direction, and overall storytelling ability of the production. If that fails, the whole structure falls apart.
In sandbox or open-world games however, you make your own story, so that's not generally as crucial.
I realize you drew the comparison for plot devices and progressive story arcs, but how about the constraints of games without amazing stories?
Certainly Pokemon Snap (or possibly even Afrika) is a game completely designed to constrict player actions. How about the linearity of racing games? Do you think the more off-color allowances really bring anything to the experience?
I agree with your thesis, but I wonder if mechanically safe and decent games that possess linearity could be improved if at least the illusion of control was given to the player.
Great read! As much as I do love a good sandbox now and again, the stories provided in linear games are a real treat.
The feeling of freedom in a linear game is what I value most in a game actually. Shadow of the Colossus did this very well. So do all the Zelda games pretty much. There is a set order and things will happen as intended but you can still look around and explore a little bit during the journey of point A to B.
Love the mention of Choose Your Own Adventure books, lol.
Great read, I agree fully! I think in future generations there should be a place for linear and open ended games. The story and pacing of linear games is generally something a more open ended game can never match (unless you get the balance of open endedness and linearity perfect- something I hope Fallout 3 will achieve).
Linear ftw. Sandbox games bore me typically.
When I use the word linear, I mean it as, "For its genre, this game is giving me less freedom than the norm." It's all relative and based on what the player is used to.
Like no one really expects a shooter or straightforward action game to be open-ended. But if they're particularly horrible about making you take a very specific, restrictive path, with no side paths or nooks and crannies. Then they may be called linear.
I think the term applies more to RPGs. Here players expect some freedom to explore. In Western RPGs they generally want be able to wander as they please. Even in JRPGS they want to be able to walk around a world map, go on detours, and go on side quests, even if the overall plot is fairly straightforward.
I think that's why Final Fantasy X seemed so bad. It was an RPG, but it was forcing you down a tunnel as if it was a Metal Gear game. You didn't really get to just explore the world and screw around until the very end.
I find usually with sandbox games ill pop in the disc and spend hours mucking about and getting absolutely nowhere. Then after a few days of that i end up getting bored and dropping the game. I'd liken it to running on a treadmill. I think the only open world game i've finished in recent memory is probably GTAIII.
I completely agree.
I usually much prefer linear games to sandbox because I like having direction instead of wandering.
I think a good linear game is one that gives you a feeling of an open world but leads you down a predetermined track. Also I think people look down upon linear games when the core game is fairly poor or unsatisfying because the linear nature of the game forces you to repeat tedious actions over and over again whereas in sandbox games you can at least go do something else for a while.
As usual, Jim, you've managed to write an article that echos something I've been thinking about over the last week. Damn you and your evil british carny powers of ESP.
To be honest, I've always felt more like I was having my hand-held during GTA's zero-teolerance, zero-freedom missions than during the entirety of Metal Gear, or Persona 3.
Wonderful article, Jim. I also find myself getting bored with sandbox games — I wasn’t compelled to do much in GTA: San Andreas after completing the main story because the game was just too expansive.
Time to go back to Half-Life 2!
The "leap of faith" in Ico is another good example. You have but ONE choice, but it's epic.
I agree 110%
tooo-- 120%