What's wrong with linearity?

[deleted fren]

I feel as if YouTubers popularized this notion that a game being linear is automatically bad. It makes 0 sense. What makes a game good is the moment to moment gameplay. These people act as if being open is automatically better because FREEDOM. They'd rather have an open walking sim with occasional copy and pasted content that you can do in any order, over a focused and fine tuned experience with 0 filler.

It's utterly absurd and a mentality that didn't really develop untill the 2010s because fore mentioned YouTubers claimed linearity was outdated in their shitty essays.

Imagine Resident Evil 4, but instead of constant thrilling action scene after action scene, the game is a large open world where you can interact with three or four original sections and a ton of copy pasted mediocre content. Guarantee it would be praised as superior. Just like how people prefer Castlevania with backtracking, to Castlevania when it's pure action.

 

[bruhwtf]

cuz they think it's repetitive and monotonous

 

[deleted fren]

cuz they think it's repetitive and monotonous

LOL

As if walking sims are better

 

[BlueCore]

Yeah I never understood it either

 

[Midnight Animal]

Just like how people prefer Castlevania with backtracking, to Castlevania when it's pure action.

I love both metroidvania and classic approach tbh. Do people really shit on 'linear' platformers/beatemups? I might be out of loop but I didn't see it.

 

[Hoppipolla]

Years back I played Prototype and that's when I decided that I prefer linear games.

I was mostly comparing the awesome (mostly scripted) experience of FEAR 2 with the messier and less honed experience of Prototype.

Not that I think Prototype or any open world game is necessarily bad and I do think they can have very good areas and even potentially scripted ones, but yeah open world games generally lean into quantity over quality.

Freedom in a game is nice but it's not everything and it can even take away from the experience.

 

[starystulejarz]

Both can be good but since nowadays 90% of the games are open world i now prefer to play more of the linear games or at least semi-open world which is a perfect middle ground (Deus Ex, Bioshock, Dark Souls/Bloodborne and old NFS games)

 

[starystulejarz]

Years back I played Prototype and that's when I decided that I prefer linear games.

I was mostly comparing the awesome (mostly scripted) experience of FEAR 2 with the messier and less honed experience of Prototype.

Not that I think Prototype or any open world game is necessarily bad and I do think they can have very good areas and even potentially scripted ones, but yeah open world games generally lean into quantity over quality.

Freedom in a game is nice but it's not everything and it can even take away from the experience.

I liked combat of Prototype, however this type of game wouldn't work in closed environments

 

[Thugs-5-Less]

Linearity isn't bad, but predictable cliches that come with it often are.

 

[Wolnir]

It depends if it fits with the game or not. Hitman Absolution was garbage imo because hitman games aren't supposed to be linear, the freedom of being able to do a hit in multiple different ways is what makes the games great.

 

[Acorn]

I actually prefer linear games

 

[DreamCoper]

Late but I think Still Wakes the Deep is an example of pulling of a linear structure by just getting everything else right without bullshitting

 

[hopelessnormielit69]

I feel as if YouTubers popularized this notion that a game being linear is automatically bad. It makes 0 sense. What makes a game good is the moment to moment gameplay. These people act as if being open is automatically better because FREEDOM. They'd rather have an open walking sim with occasional copy and pasted content that you can do in any order, over a focused and fine tuned experience with 0 filler.

It's utterly absurd and a mentality that didn't really develop untill the 2010s because fore mentioned YouTubers claimed linearity was outdated in their shitty essays.

Imagine Resident Evil 4, but instead of constant thrilling action scene after action scene, the game is a large open world where you can interact with three or four original sections and a ton of copy pasted mediocre content. Guarantee it would be praised as superior. Just like how people prefer Castlevania with backtracking, to Castlevania when it's pure action.

That’s a very interesting point. The moment to moment gameplay is all that matters when you think about it.

I think the issue with those YouTubers is that their analysis is actually very superficial. There is no consideration for the open world games that have failed at a lower level. This is because they are only thinking about the good open world games and not the many bad ones that failed due to lower level design decisions. Stating “open world games good” is too simple and it’s not very productive analysis. Good reason to not take YouTubers seriously when it comes to game design analysis.

 

[based_meme]

It depends on what kind of linearity you're talking about. Some games are literally on-rails with zero movement (there are some arcade shooters that are like this), while others have limited exploration and variability in completion pathing (the order in which you do quests/missions). All games have a start point and an end point, so it doesn't matter how "open world sandbox" your game is, it has to have an end, unless it's an MMORPG, which would just have your standard endgame loops.

The concern with linearity boils down to replayability. If there are only so many ways to go from A -> B -> C -> ... ->Z, then the game will quickly get boring. And since games are fucking expensive, linearity becomes a legitimate concern.

 

[deleted fren]

That’s a very interesting point. The moment to moment gameplay is all that matters when you think about it.

I think the issue with those YouTubers is that their analysis is actually very superficial. There is no consideration for the open world games that have failed at a lower level. This is because they are only thinking about the good open world games and not the many bad ones that failed due to lower level design decisions. Stating “open world games good” is too simple and it’s not very productive analysis. Good reason to not take YouTubers seriously when it comes to game design analysis.

Excellent take. I agree completely. They'll cherry pick examples of good open world games and ignore what makes those games fun aka moment to moment gameplay. They'll ignore that in a lot of cases the open world actually makes these games bad.

They will praise blatantly bad games if they offer freedom.

It depends on what kind of linearity you're talking about. Some games are literally on-rails with zero movement (there are some arcade shooters that are like this), while others have limited exploration and variability in completion pathing (the order in which you do quests/missions). All games have a start point and an end point, so it doesn't matter how "open world sandbox" your game is, it has to have an end, unless it's an MMORPG, which would just have your standard endgame loops.

The concern with linearity boils down to replayability. If there are only so many ways to go from A -> B -> C -> ... ->Z, then the game will quickly get boring. And since games are fucking expensive, linearity becomes a legitimate concern.

Genuine replayability stems from fun gameplay. I can replay Super Mario Bros 3, Halo CE, or Resident Evil 4 a million times and not get bored. Why? Because the moment to moment gameplay is extremely fun and it's hard to get bored of it. If you a game needs freedom to have replay value then it was never that great or a game.

 

[based_meme]

Genuine replayability stems from fun gameplay. I can replay Super Mario Bros 3, Halo CE, or Resident Evil 4 a million times and not get bored. Why? Because the moment to moment gameplay is extremely fun and it's hard to get bored of it. If you a game needs freedom to have replay value then it was never that great or a game.

You're right, that's generally true, but "genuine" replayability is something that will always exist in games (and other media) that have a dedicated, hardcore fan base. It's the same with movies and shows. A good example is Lebowski fest. That movie is almost 30 years old and peole have a fucking festival every year about it.

But novel variability (the feeling of newness or freshness i.e., the game giving you new/different stuff to do that you didn't the first time around) when replaying a game is something that is desired by a lot of gamers. It goes without saying that the game has to be fun initially. If your game sucks dick, then the people will probably not even do a first playthrough (or do it once for completionist's sake and then never touch it again). But if your game is fun, then people will want to replay it anyway. Adding replayability as a design feature ensures that your game stays fresher for longer than it would otherwise be and also attract more players. That's especially important in this economy of attention where people easily get bored with shit.

 

[deleted fren]

You're right, that's generally true, but "genuine" replayability is something that will always exist in games (and other media) that have a dedicated, hardcore fan base. It's the same with movies and shows. A good example is Lebowski fest. That movie is almost 30 years old and peole have a fucking festival every year about it.

But novel variability (the feeling of newness or freshness i.e., the game giving you new/different stuff to do that you didn't the first time around) when replaying a game is something that is desired by a lot of gamers. It goes without saying that the game has to be fun initially. If your game sucks dick, then the people will probably not even do a first playthrough (or do it once for completionist's sake and then never touch it again). But if your game is fun, then people will want to replay it anyway. Adding replayability as a design feature ensures that your game stays fresher for longer than it would otherwise be and also attract more players. That's especially important in this economy of attention where people easily get bored with shit.

It's short term replayability because in the long term once people are done experimenting with all the different outcomes they'll leave it. I think having a certain amount of freedom when it comes to finishing a game is good. It ensures you can change your playthrough up each time.

 

[Fantasea]

linearity can be good or bad as long as the devs make an effort to entertain u enough so that u don't notice ur in a hallway. good dialogue, plot, cutscenes, music, and unique level design (even if giga linear) go a long way.
good linearity: tales of berseria and FF7 remake
bad linearity: GOW reboot (shit puzzles and dialogue), FF13 (mid plot, obvious corridor design).

 

[Regenerator]

I prefer linear games to open world games where it takes like 5 minutes to get to a mission.

 

[ToBurble&Pine]

Yeah I never understood it either

 

[ToBurble&Pine]

I prefer linear games to open world games where it takes like 5 minutes to get to a mission.

 

[Alexander400]

I agree 100%

While open worlds games are not bad there is also nothing wrong with having linear games because this means you are getting a constant experience every level instead of wandering around often empty worlds trying to find the next trigger for something to happen. A good example of open world gone bad is peripeteia, great concept but i couldnt fucking stand wandering around those giant maps trying to figure out what the dev wanted me to do. A game can be linear but also be open at the same time, think about dishonored its technically a straight arrow to your objective but there is always sidepaths and optional obj you can do that keep it interesting

 

[poorenglishcel]

I play whatever mane. Linear, quadratic whatever i feel like.

 

[erenyeager]

Linearcel

 

[Kelok]

I feel as if YouTubers popularized this notion that a game being linear is automatically bad. It makes 0 sense. What makes a game good is the moment to moment gameplay. These people act as if being open is automatically better because FREEDOM. They'd rather have an open walking sim with occasional copy and pasted content that you can do in any order, over a focused and fine tuned experience with 0 filler.

It's utterly absurd and a mentality that didn't really develop untill the 2010s because fore mentioned YouTubers claimed linearity was outdated in their shitty essays.

Imagine Resident Evil 4, but instead of constant thrilling action scene after action scene, the game is a large open world where you can interact with three or four original sections and a ton of copy pasted mediocre content. Guarantee it would be praised as superior. Just like how people prefer Castlevania with backtracking, to Castlevania when it's pure action.

I liked DS3 more than Elden Ring for the same, Elden Ring copy pastes zones and bosses too much to fill the giant open world.

 

[deleted fren]

I liked DS3 more than Elden Ring for the same, Elden Ring copy pastes zones and bosses too much to fill the giant open world.

Normies never have any issues with copy pasted content. No clue why. They seem to love such recycled and stretched out games

 

[DPRKcel]

Developers don't know how to make linear games anymore, whenever they try it ends up like nu-God of war where it feels like a theme park train ride

 

[BasedGoyslopReviews]

just what i thought about earlier today. I miss games with linear levels. I miss games with 0 difficulty settings. Just give me one balanced difficulty and clearly defined levels. Like Cuphead or Enclave.
I especially struggle with 2D open world games. They are just so hard to navigate. Hollow Knight for example. I would love it if it had linear levels. But now I have to backtrack, study map, get a movement ability, backtrack again, mentally keep track of the layout 5 screens away. Blergh.