This is something that I've run into a whole lot, and a lot more recently, while reading fan-reviews for games. The reviewer will more often than not note a games lineality as a negative point. So, my question is whether this community, who prides itself on the enjoyment of old school games, most, if not the majority of which are linear, thinks of lineality as a taboo for games that must not be committed? Or; why is it such a bad thing these days?


I love a good open world game, emphasis on the good; however I'm a guy who likes a very deep and rich story so linear games are games I tend to love more. Recently I read in a review for Broken Sword 5 that the game was too linear, which gave me pause. Why should a game that is, in part, primarily about story not not be linear?

Also, in one sense, aren't all games linear? Sure the open world nature of some games gives the illusion of freedom, but everything you do in game was hand crafted, whether it's hand crafted to be random or not.

Just wanted to have a discussion about this. Maybe I'm in a bit of a gamer-philosophical mood this morning. ;)

Are you talking linear or lineal? Linearity or lineality? :-)

I don't mind a game going from point A to point Z, as long as the content is meaningful. Do I want a game on rails? No. I'll take good story any day over "Here's a bunch of blocks; go build stuff."

I'm fine with lineality in adventure games. Sure, it's much better in games like Blackwell - where you get two-three cases and you can work on them simultaneously or in any order you want - but I don't mind linear adventures as long as the story is good.

When critics are talking about "linearity" they usually don't refer to story aspects like a lack of a branching plot, but to the level design that sends you down a narrow corridor and punishes you whenever you deviate only a few steps.

And personally, I hate that kind of level design with its artificial boundaries, invisible walls, "you're leaving the combat area" notifications and all that crap. Completely destroys immersion for me...

The best example for linearity done right is Deus Ex. DX is usually referred to as a non-linear game, which it's actually really not. The whole of the story is set in stone from start from finish, apart from a few minor details like character deaths which have absolutely no impact on the story and 4 different endings which you can choose as you like right at the end.

But the levels themselves were designed so realistically that it created a feeling of openness that completely hides how linear the game itself is. It's a linear game with non-linear levels.

It's an interesting topic. Generally, the one thing that sets computer games apart from other media (like e.g. movies) is interactivity. A game _can_ give you an open world to roam freely, a movie cannot. Therefore, if a game is very linear, it is taking away from the main unique aspect of gaming.

Is that bad? Not necessarily. A well-crafted linear story can be very enjoyable as well. I had this experience very recently with "Murdered - Soul Suspect". Usually I prefer open world games, and that game was very linear, but I liked the story and the attention to detail, and the devs wouldn't have been able to tell that interesting story in an open-world game. What's bad, though, is that the game created an expectation to have a truly open world, when it's open-world aspects were pretty weak. You can roam freely in the city and do a handful of side quests, but that's it, you can't really influence the story in any way except progressing on the pre-determined path. But the problem is not that linearity is inherently bad, it's that the game created expectations which it then failed to fulfill.

So, in short, I don't think that linearity is necessarily bad. However, _if_ a game takes a linear approach and limits the interactivity and freedom, then I want it to have good, detailed, well-designed story. Unfortunately, many games are just linear because that's easy to design, and don't care much about story, which is regrettable imho.

I kind of disagree with your assessment of the current situation, though. You are saying that linearity is perceived as a "taboo", I don't see any indication for this. It's sometimes (not even always) mentioned in reviews, which _should_ mention it since it confines the player, and some players may not like that, so it's important information. I'm not seeing many reviews that perceive linearity as universally negative though.

I also don't think that "old games were mostly linear", in fact I think it's pretty much the opposite. For example, shooters tended to have large, open, explorable levels in the "old" games, whereas now we have lots of extremely linear corridor shooters. Games with inter-dependent mission trees (such as Wing Commander) have grown very rare - and so on.

And such games offer no replay value.

Give me a linear but well-executed storyline over a sandbox devoid of meaningful content anytime! Non-linearity is so overrated and there's a great deal of pressure on developers to include as many choices in their games as possible. We've played lots of linear games in the past and loved them for it.

Too much non-linearity can make me uncomfortable. With a completely open game world I often feel ovewhelmed, so I welcome a sense of steady progression. Also, in open worlds gamers are liable to miss out on quite a bit of game content accidentally.

Depends on the game.
I don't play Doom for open ended choices and unlimited path options. In turn I don't play BG or Divine Divinity so that I can be told where to go and how to get there.

Just BTW, when I saw the thread I was a little hesitant, but a big hand to the OP on this one. Nice topic.

well, as somebody has already said, there are two kinds of linearity: plot wise and level design

about the first one, well, I really like open-world games... but I also like "story on rails" ones. I think I have played too much (skyrim)* morrowind recently; right now I prefer a good, linear story. (In fact, I played morrowind concentrating on one quest at a time... or else I would get lost wandering around. although I didn't even finished the main quest, but that's another story.... )

about level design, I have grown tired of wandering around in circles just to find the exit that is there, hidden in plain sight. or something. even worse is when you have to backtrack a labyrinth to find a key, or something...
quick example: I didn't bother to complete overlord due to the extremely labyrinthical level design. I spent like two hours trying to find the right path. and there was no map. so I gave up.

so, in the end... linearity for me is good. whenever I say a review about a game saying that it's "too linear", I think, "hmm... that's good" . but I won't say no to a GOOD open-world game.

oh, and about replayabilty: it's true that an open-world game can last literally hundreds of hours... but I think that many of that time is spent wandering around, and not actually playing for the story. a fun sandbox? yeah. a bad thing? of course not. but in the end, storywise, it doesn't really mind if is open-world or not, since it's only that long. then you finish the quests, and right, you can keep wandering around.... but for me the REAL game, which is about the story, is over. I like stories.

* I can't find the strikethrough code....

IMO, recent games suffer from too much sandbox too little story/game


edit; I meant w.r.t to storyline linearity

As long as the narrative and interaction is good, I don't care but I enjoy variety so I don't want one and the same all the time.

I never get this.

Take one of my favorite games, Resident Evil 4. It's almost entirely linear, and I've finished it two times now--soon to be three--because it's incredibly fun to play. That's it's replay value; being good enough that I want to play and experience it again.

I prefer linear story driven games but I also enjoy some open-world sandbox games such as the Fallout series and Elder Scrolls. I don't like open-world games such as GTA and Assassins Creed. They suffer from a sort of "forced" exploration aspect, where the game stops giving you story missions to do for a period of time in order for you to explore their boring and empty worlds. Like you've got to wait 20 minutes for a phone call to trigger the next mission on the map. I'd rather linearity than a shallow, lifeless world to explore with boring activities and hundreds of collectibles to find.

I'm of the opposite opinion of most modern gamers.

I hate "freedom".

Most of the time, it's PERCEIVED freedom that people like. And the open-end sandbox gaming style that does exist gives you the freedom to do very mundane, repetitive things.

I'm all about carefully crafted scenarios to overcome in gaming, not let's program systems and AI, and see what happens.

It's the difference between going to a restaurant w/prix fixe menu and having every dish be the chef's vision & execution vs. a choose your own salad bar. If I wanted the latter, I would have just stayed home.

I agree to that, this "linearity" issue is tied to freedom of choice. In my opinion there more than one way to make things linear :
- The obvious way is what is used in corridor-shooters and old shmups, you are forced down one path and that's it.
- The "wasteful way", is giving options (you can go there, here, over there, and here ...) and only one real choice (.... but there is probably only something to do here). This is what happens in many MMOs and some FPS, you have whole slices of instances/levels that are just empty and their only purpose is to give surface/volume (this game equals the UK in size !)

The thing with old games, linearity was somewhat accepted I think (technical limitations and things) and today, because many things are technically feasible, well, everything become expected.