Linearity, in the gaming world, has become a really dirty word. Reviewers will call a game "linear" when they think it restricts the freedom of the player. Now, sometimes this is true. Sometimes games that are linear ARE a bad thing and restrict the player. But I think the idea of linearity gets a bad reputation because of it. In this discussion I will talk about what defines a linear game and how it can be good and bad.
Alright, first things first: what do we mean when we say linear? Now, there's a few different things that this could be referring to. We could be either referring to: A. the story or B. the level design/gameplay. First lets talk about linear story. Linear story is in almost every game you play. Linear story simply means that the story you are being told in the game is set in stone. You don't have a choice int he outcome of the story. Now I'm not trying to make this sound like it's a bad thing. It really isn't, in fact like I said many games have this and are fantastic for it. Games like Half Life 2, Limbo, and Psychonauts all had amazing stories, and all of them were linear storytelling. Next up we have linear level design/gameplay which will be the main focus of this discussion. This essentially means the game goes in a straight line. There are varying degrees of linearity in games, but for the most part you are channeled along a path to the goal. Still a bit confused? Here's a few that are like that real fast: any 2D mario game, RAGE, Alan Wake, Metro 2033.
 |
| Linear Gameplay |
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is an old platformer from back in the day of the PS2 and Gamecube. You play as, you guessed it, the Prince of Persia who is trying to undo a magical apocalypse that he brought about through his own pride. The main gameplay was navigating through a castle, getting from point A to point B with all your body parts accounted for. To do this, the Prince has to jump, wall run, climb, swing his way through obstacles in his way.
However, what the game did was essentially funnel you from one trap set to the next combat encounter to the next trap set, etc. Sounds a little tedious right? But it wasn't. It still holds up, even today, as one of my favorite platformers, and possibly games, I have ever played. In this case, the linearity of the game enhanced the experience. By channeling you through the traps, you actually HAD to solve the puzzles of figuring out how to navigate through the next room to your goal. And figuring out that perfect series of jumps, wall runs, and other maneuvers is incredibly satisfying when you get it right. If these puzzles were left open ended in how you were supposed to complete them, it would not be nearly as satisfying as finding that one right answer.
So if linearity in games is not such a bad thing, then why do game reviewers give it such a negative connotation? Well, the truth is whenever it DOES pop up as being something noteworthy, its usually not a good thing. If a game is linear, you shouldn't NOTICE that its linear. If you are, then there's something wrong with the game you're playing. Here's a good example: the Red Faction series, specifically Red Faction: Guerrilla and Red Faction: Armageddon. Red Faction: Guerrilla was a giant open world game where you got to go where you wanted, pick up missions as you liked, and cause lots and lots of destruction.
Sounds great doesn't it? And it is. Red Faction: Guerrilla is a great game and very fun. Now the problem with linearity kicked in when Red Faction: Armageddon came out. Red Faction: Armageddon went in the complete opposite direction of Guerrilla. Instead of being out in the open on the surface of Mars like Guerrilla was, letting you go where you wanted and blowing up buildings at your leisure, Armageddon took you underground into a series of tunnels under the surface of Mars. These tunnels essentially are just a means of funneling you from one shooting segment to the next. And where Guerrilla gave you tons of stuff to destroy and see their hilarious physics engine at work, Armageddon severely limited you in that regard. See, the problem in this case was not the linearity. As we said before, games can be great when they're linear. The problem here was that not only did Armageddon take away the amazing freedom that Guerrilla offered, but it didn't offer a good experience to make up for it. This is the sort of thing that makes game reviewers say "linear' like its an evil demon child that is to be shunned and kicked out of the house.
Linearity isn't bad. It can be done badly, but it is not bad inherently. Now you may ask why we need to discuss this as players. Shouldn't this be something for the developers to worry about? Well, yes and no. The developers are the ones who are making the games. And as such they do need to know how to make a game linear and good at the same time. But we as players need to understand what we are playing. We need to let the developers know that we DO like linear games, but ones that are done well. We need to say yes, we love mario and Prince of Persia, but don't do things like Armageddon. Our voices are heard as a community, and to better influence the games we play, we must first understand what we play.
I also agree that linearity isn't always a bad thing. There are both good and bad ways of doing it. I love the pictures and videos embedded into your blog post! Keep on blogging. :)
ReplyDelete