There’s nothing wrong with a linear game

[Deep Shadow]

...provided, of course, that it’s a good one.

One thing I’ve noticed lately is a trend towards commenters on gaming sites, forums, etc. vilifying linear gaming as a negative thing. I personally love open world games or otherwise non-linear games - Dark Souls and BOTW being among my favorites - but also appreciate a more linear experience as well, such as Twilight Princess or 2-D Mario.

Honestly, as much as I love BOTW, I think Zelda is better suited to a linear progression with some choice, such as a Wind Waker. There is a joy to getting items like the Skull Hammer and the Hookshot and suddenly opening up portions of the world for exploration.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Mido]

While I may be making too large a generalization, it does seem to me in some cases that linearity has become something of a bad word in certain circles of gaming discussion, and it is unfortunate. I find linearity can provide games with a great sense of structure whether it be through narrative structure, gameplay structure, or both. It does seem from my perspective, however, that linear experiences often are under more pressure to be good because there is not much leeway to move outside the experience in theory. The benefit of more open experiences is that they are generally more flexible, yet on the downside can also lack structure that gives players a sense of purpose.

Going off of your Wind Waker example, I think it provides both good and bad examples of linearity and nonlinearity. I love being able to explore the islands at my leisure and finding out each's secrets. It is why I enjoy the Great Sea as much as I do. On the other hand, the player is landlocked by his own boat during the first visit to Dragon Roost, which can be frustrating if the player wants to explore more.

I think a game that strikes well the balance between the linear and nonlinear experiences is Red Dead Redemption. The story itself is linear, barring a few exceptions in the narrative and some missions; yet the player is free to do what he/she wishes within the confines of the areas that are able to be accessed. Sure, some areas are locked by mission prerequisites; but the game has enough for the player to do that it does not come off as restrictive from my perspective.

 

[Spirit]

I agree with Mido here that linear has become somewhat of a naughty word, especially during this open world movement.

I think linear based games suit people best who are interested in the story of a game. Yakuza is a good series for linear story and open ended gameplay you always have your ow agency but there is always one way to progress.

I honestly prefer linear games. I like the sense of progression and i play for story first and foremost in games.
A lot of open world and non linear games push the story into the background and some make the story entirely optional... i dont like that.

So yeah, I agree, there's nothing wrong with a linear game.

But tell other devs that.

 

[Cfrock]

There's nothing inherently wrong with linearity and it is a shame that so many people see it as a negative. Linearity has advantages and different games will benefit from it more than they would non-linearity.

For me, Breath of the Wild was too open. The lack of any kind of structure left me wandering around doing things that felt pointless with no sense of progression or success. A friend of mine didn't like Oblivion for much the same reason, he said he didn't know where to go so he went nowhere. Oblivion was fine for me, though, because it was based around quests, isolated little stories and objectives to occupy brief pockets of time and give structure to your otherwise structureless adventure. BotW completely lacked this for me. Instead of quests we had shrines and korok seeds, both examples of busywork with no substance or meaning. You can go anywhere, but why would you?

Generally, I prefer sandboxes. Games like Dishonored, Deus Ex, and Hitman progress linearly — they follow a strict sequence of missions and you cannot move on to the next until you have completeled your current objectives. But the player has full license to complete those objectives however they see fit. Do you want to sneak past the guards and leave no trace behind? Do you want to blow the door off its hinges and gun everyone down? Do you want to find a disgruntled maintenance worker and convince him to give you a keycard? Do you want to smash the window and climb through? Do you want to snipe from a distance? Do you want to lure guards outside and slip in behind them? Do you want to electrify a pool of water and push people into it? Do you want to use magic? Do you want to poison a sausage and feed it to the dog that won't stop barking?

Sandboxes are a wonderful middle ground. Their linear progression allows for well-told and satisfying stories while never leaving the player without a clear goal and direction, but their non-linear level and game design allows for masses of player expression and discovery. Exploring the levels and hubs of those franchises I mentioned above have been some of the most memorable and rewarding experiences I've ever had with video games and all three are some of my favourite franchises because of it. A dozen people could play those games and have a dozen unique experiences, while still engaging with the same story, characters, and themes. This kind of design also encourages replays as you try different methods and explore new areas.

Linearity shouldn't be a dirty word. There's value in it. It can help focus a player, focus a story, or focus level design. There are plenty of open world games out there that would benefit greatly from some linearity. Here's hoping more developers realise that in the coming years.

 

[Cartoonmaniac]

Thank you for this thread. Recently I've noticed that "open-world" has started to become the mainstream for many video games, even causing some great linear franchises to incorporate non-linearity into their games. I don't want to make a big speech, but I wanted to say that I agree with what all of you guys have said, and feel that there are certain aspects of narrative and game design that benefit from an open world, and there are those that don't.

 

[the8thark]

Linear can be bad - Wind Waker and Skyward Sword
Open world can be bad - No Man's Sky.

A good game is a good game, regardless of if it's open or linear.

On the Zelda side, I really think the open nature of BotW is where the series is at. The old linear style that started with Zelda 2 and grew with Ocarina of Time is done. Zelda as a series needs to move on. The public agree. The game sales prove it. Even the fans agree that SS was not a good game. The fans are split though on if WW was a good game or not.

The next Zelda game needs to be open but I think on a smaller scale then BotW. A game on the same scale would take so long that it'd be released on the Switch 2 at the earliest. However we do know that 2nd Zelda games on the same console never sell that well. MM on the N64, 4 Swords on GC and others both didn't sell that well.

I don't think a new Zelda game is needed any time soon. Just give it a few years and lessen the scope of it and you have a nice smaller open world game.

 

[YIGAhim]

Yes, linear has become a bad word, because more or less, linear is a thing of the past.

In ice skating, I am sure the very first olympic ice skater could only do a double axle and some what is now considered to be basic moves. As soon as another skater learned the triple axle, I am also sure that a double axle was no longer at all impressive and all the other skaters needed to learn to do that or top that and fast. The game had evolved.

Linear games were acceptable and impressive at the time, but when large scale open world games started showing up, everyone tried to match and copy it, leaving linear games totally in the dust.

However, that is where my skating example stops. It's absolutely a preference thing to whether someone likes linear games or not, and whether or not linear games fit a game genre or series.

Linear D&D games are fun, not not quite as fun as open D&D games with minimal railroading. Linear Zelda games, honestly work better in my opinion, however, at least until I can see that Nintendo knows how to make a proper open world game. This means we need a smaller scale, or an equal scale with much more and much better content so that we dont just have emptyness.

Linear is not a bad word. I happen to love linear progression. Makes it a little bit more about the story, and shows you exactly what the devs wanted you to see. However, I also love open world, and since I love nintendo and Zelda, and that is where the market is, I think they should just follow the Skyrim wagon

 

[Cfrock]

The game had evolved.

Ice skating isn't a 'game', though, it's a a form of dance. The goal for everyone doing it is to perform with as much grace and skill as possible. Different genres of video games have different goals, some even have different goals within single games. Open world isn't a triple axle to a linear double axle. It's not an upgrade or more impressive version of what came before. They're two different things altogether. We've had open world games for almost as long as we've had games. The original Legend of Zelda is open world, Shadowrun on the Sega MegaDrive is open world. They're two different designs aimed at achieving different goals with advantages and disadvantages. A triple axle will always be more impressive than a double, but open world and linear aren't directly comaprable in the same way. I don't think this is a particularly apt analogy.

leaving linear games totally in the dust.

I wonder how true this is considering some of the most well received and successful games of recent years are almost painfully linear. God of War 2018 and The Last of Us come to mind immediately. I don't think open world games have left linear ones in the dust. Developers are still experimenting and innovating within both open world and linear design formats, and finding success. Certainly there's been an infatuation with open world, and too many games have shoehorned it in in recent years, but linear games have never exactly fallen out of fashion.

I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with either format, but I'd add that a shortcut to a bad, or at least disappointing, game is to use an open world format for no other reason than appealing to a perceived market. I'd say that Zelda shouldn't follow the 'Skyrim wagon' and that going more open world is what made Breath of the Wild such a let down for me, but, honestly, BotW is far more comparable to the design of something like Far Cry 3/4 than Skyrim. BotW is all about an open world and systemic, emergent gameplay. It's Nintendo's version of Ubisoft's "anecdote machine". Skyrim is far more restricted in terms of mechanics, and its design is geared around quests and not minute-to-minute interactions. While it didn't work for me, that kind of systemic design is what Nintendo wanted to achieve and is a big contributor to the game's success. Future titles will probably continue down that path.

 

[YIGAhim]

Ice skating isn't a 'game', though, it's a a form of dance. The goal for everyone doing it is to perform with as much grace and skill as possible. Different genres of video games have different goals, some even have different goals within single games. Open world isn't a triple axle to a linear double axle. It's not an upgrade or more impressive version of what came before. They're two different things altogether. We've had open world games for almost as long as we've had games. The original Legend of Zelda is open world, Shadowrun on the Sega MegaDrive is open world. They're two different designs aimed at achieving different goals with advantages and disadvantages. A triple axle will always be more impressive than a double, but open world and linear aren't directly comaprable in the same way. I don't think this is a particularly apt analogy.


I wonder how true this is considering some of the most well received and successful games of recent years are almost painfully linear. God of War 2018 and The Last of Us come to mind immediately. I don't think open world games have left linear ones in the dust. Developers are still experimenting and innovating within both open world and linear design formats, and finding success. Certainly there's been an infatuation with open world, and too many games have shoehorned it in in recent years, but linear games have never exactly fallen out of fashion.

I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with either format, but I'd add that a shortcut to a bad, or at least disappointing, game is to use an open world format for no other reason than appealing to a perceived market. I'd say that Zelda shouldn't follow the 'Skyrim wagon' and that going more open world is what made Breath of the Wild such a let down for me, but, honestly, BotW is far more comparable to the design of something like Far Cry 3/4 than Skyrim. BotW is all about an open world and systemic, emergent gameplay. It's Nintendo's version of Ubisoft's "anecdote machine". Skyrim is far more restricted in terms of mechanics, and its design is geared around quests and not minute-to-minute interactions. While it didn't work for me, that kind of systemic design is what Nintendo wanted to achieve and is a big contributor to the game's success. Future titles will probably continue down that path.

By Skyrim wagon I simply meant open world.

 

[Hero of Pizza Time]

I never actually understood the hype about non-linear games as opposed to mostly linear ones. Why do people want a game where you have to spend hours doing random things by trial and error just to get even a little bit of progress?

 

[YIGAhim]

I never actually understood the hype about non-linear games as opposed to mostly linear ones. Why do people want a game where you have to spend hours doing random things by trial and error just to get even a little bit of progress?

Because it has more content, meaning the game is longer and keeps them entertained longer