Quote:

Original post by Way Walker 1) Linear games provide a purposeful experience. I love the experience of playing American McGee's Alice. I love the experience of playing Deus Ex. I don't think you could get that experience from a non-linear game.

Is that really because they are linear? I love non-linear games, but I also loved Alice and Deus Ex. I can't get the experience of Alice and Deus Ex from a non-linear game, but then I can't get the experience from any other linear game, either. I can only get the experience of playing Alice or Deus Ex from Alice or Deus Ex.

Quote:

2) Linear games provide a purposeful challenge. When I hear people speaking of challenges in non-linear games, it generally comes from playing with some player-induced handicap. Basically, they create challenges by taking some subset of the entire experience. Linear games provide a challenge without limiting the experience.

I don't see that making any sense at all. Are you saying that it is impossible to fail in a non-linear game unless you voluntarily handicap yourself? My experience shows that to be patently untrue.

Quote:

3) I see real life as the ultimate in non-linear, permadeath, no save game. I haven't seen a non-linear game that can come any where close to creating an experiece as rich as a well crafted linear game nor as rich as real life.

Erm. So you play linear games because non-linear games are not an effective simulation of the real world? But neither are linear games, so you shouldn't be playing them either.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Ironically, this is why I prefer linear games. I see them as providing me just the interesting choices.

How can you be sure of that? Wouldn't it stand to reason that what the game's developer thinks is interesting might not be what you think is interesting?

Quote:

Again, I feel I prefer linear games because I see video games as an extension of board games into computers.

Are all board games linear, then?

Quote:

Original post by Sensei Maku I'm not as much an advocate of linear games as the OP appears to be, and in fact, my primary problem with non-linear games is that they seem rather shallow. Take NWN, for example. Sure, you have many places you can go, many things you can do, but do any of them provide you with a real purpose? Does it seem to even matter which way you go?

Are you under the impression that NWN is a non-linear game?

Quote:

Original post by Kevinator Okay, I want to dispel this myth that linear games inherently have no strategy. That's simply not the case, those of you who are claiming it are using this cop-out to try to bolster your argument. I can't count the number of times changing my strategy in a linear FPS has allowed me victory where other strategies failed. Even the slightest change can alter your chances of victory tenfold. This is especially obvious in the ironman games, which I enjoy, where you are not allowed to save anywhere you want. Usually you have a set amont of lives before you have to start over and try again.

You're wrong.

A perfectly linear game offers you two choices: continue watching the game unfold; or switch off the game. Which is to say: A perfectly linear game is a movie. When a game allows you choices as to what to do, it is no longer linear.

The irony here is that you are defending linear games on the basis that they may contain non-linearity: i.e. may not be entirely linear. Doing so whilst at the same time claiming that linear games are superior to non-linear games is confused at best.

Quote:

But then, if you hit quicksave every five seconds, I could see where you wouldn't think linear games involve any strategy.

So you're basically saying that anyone who doesn't like linear games is not playing them correctly?

Quote:

Original post by Nathan Baum Quote: Original post by Kevinator Okay, I want to dispel this myth that linear games inherently have no strategy. That's simply not the case, those of you who are claiming it are using this cop-out to try to bolster your argument. I can't count the number of times changing my strategy in a linear FPS has allowed me victory where other strategies failed. Even the slightest change can alter your chances of victory tenfold. This is especially obvious in the ironman games, which I enjoy, where you are not allowed to save anywhere you want. Usually you have a set amount of lives before you have to start over and try again. You're wrong. A perfectly linear game offers you two choices: continue watching the game unfold; or switch off the game. Which is to say: A perfectly linear game is a movie. When a game allows you choices as to what to do, it is no longer linear.

So, by your argument do you seriously consider Pong to be a sandbox game?

In defense of non-linearity

The first thing is that there are no perfectly linear games. They wouldn't even be games. Linearity is a continuum, and it's foolish to partition the world into 'linear' and 'non-linear' games.

Given that, I can identity three 'classes' of linearity in games: tactical, strategic, and freeform. I just invented these labels for the post.

Tactical

In a highly linear game, much of the time can be spent doing things that aren't remotely interesting to the player. A linear FPS might have a sudden rash of platform jumping challenges. I don't like platform jumping challenges, especially in first person perspective. (Third person jumpfests are slightly more bareable.) A non-linear FPS offers alternative ways of beating the challenge.

In my experience, the points where a linear game have particularly impressed me have been, in reverse order:

1. Eyecandy
2. Humourous dialog
3. Non-obvious solutions to problems

An earlier poster said that linear games are good because whilst non-linear games provide many possible choices, linear games only provide the interesting one. Ignoring the relative nature of interestingness, I actually find a choice more interesting if there were other choices.

For example, suppose there's a room full of badies. In a non-linear game you could rush in there guns blazing; you could knock out the light and sneak through whilst they're confused; you could tempt them out one at a time and take them down silently; you could sneak through the air ducts (which are always large enough for a fully grown human); you could break a water pipe, flood the room and shoot a desklamp off the table onto the floor and electrocute them (the fuse wouldn't flip because military bases in games are always deathtraps run by incompetent fools, hence the guns lying around everywhere and the excessive use of explosive barrels).

In a linear game, you'd be given precisely one of those choices, normally depending upon the basic mood of the game. For a Quake-style game, it would be the guns blazing approach. For a Splinter Cell-style game, it would be the sneaking through darkness approach. Anything else would either not be possible, or result in immediate death. Occasionally they'd make a room which had to be solved in some other way, to give the illusion of a varied gameplay experience. But then you'd be frustrated when you couldn't do that in any other room.

For me, the moments I enjoy are finding novel non-obvious solutions to challenges. This is only possible in a non-linear game. If a linear game required you to use novel non-obvious solutions, then you'd have little chance of completing the game, because you wouldn't know what to do. In a non-linear game, I can look for novel solutions to interesting challenges, whilst taking a workmanlike approach to challenges I don't find interesting (or finding some way to avoid them entirely).

Most FPSs and RTSs are in this category: you can solve each mission in slightly different ways, but you must usually play every mission, and must usually achieve the same goals in every mission. Of course they vary in how varied the tactical choices actually are.

People who don't like non-linearity probably aren't really complaining about tactical non-linearity. Kevinator, for example, has made his liking of tactical non-linearity clear, although of course he didn't call it that. [wink]

Strategic

Many 'non-linear' games offer "side quests". These are optional challenges which don't need to be completed to finish the game, but may make it easier. For example, in many games the most powerful weapons, armor or other equipment can only be acquired in side quests.

Side quests occupy a sort of middle ground in the linearity continuum. There is still a set of particular challenges which must be overcome to complete the game. All the side quest does is make it easier to solve those challenges, and, of course, offer additional gameplay experience for those who want it.

Side quests can also offer replay value if you can't take all of them. i.e. Accepting a 'Montague' mission may make it impossible for you to take 'Capulet' missions in the future, and vice versa. This is distinct from the main quests, where you must complete all of them.

Most RPGs are in this category. Neverwinter Nights is (for me) an obvious example. The main quest progression is decidely linear, even if you get to choose which order to complete the compulsary quests in.

Most FPSs and RTSs require you to play every mission and do not typically offer additional missions, or alternative mission objectives. Those that do (I don't know of any offhand, although I know they exist) belong in this category.

People who don't like non-linearity have no reasonable cause to complain about side quests. They can simply pretend they don't exist and play the linear main quests.

Freeform

The most extreme form of non-linearity is one where the game never ends, or where the ending is defined by some nebulous victory condition such as defeating a particularly powerful wizard, taking over the world, achieving Godhood, or something similarly epic.

These often have quests, but all the quests are side quests. These tend to be more complex than the side quests from strategic games, and will chain many missions together. Some freeform quests may be as long as the main quest in an strategic RPG.

People who don't like non-linearity obviously don't like freeform games, since there is no well-defined path to victory, if there is victory at all. I haven't actually played many freeform RPGs, but many RTSs support freeform gameplay, or gameplay with the aforementioned nebulous victory conditions. To keep the linear fans happy, they usually also include a plotted series of missions with particular objectives which unfold within the playing of each mission.

Conclusion

I'm a fan of all forms of linearity.

I greatly enjoy having tactical freedom, and can forgive a game for having a storyline which must be rigidly adhered to every time I play if it offers me interesting tactical choices.

I like strategic games because I like having a well-written story unfold as I play the game, but I also like to be able to play a slightly different game each time.

I like freeform games, but prefer it when there's also a selection of engaging storylines I can follow. The lack of any narrative structure was my principle problem with Frontier: Elite II, which was otherwise an excellent game.

I would certainly say that a freeform game should start you off in a storyline, so that you can get used to the game's world. Then, when you've completed that storyline, you can have the choice of going it alone, or continuing on another storyline. Choosing to join some kind of military force is a good way that could be achieved. Although you could try to leave at any time, the penalties for going AWOL would mean that either the player would have to stick it out, or continue the game in a different part of the world.

Quote:

Original post by Nathan Baum Quote: Original post by Way Walker 1) Linear games provide a purposeful experience. I love the experience of playing American McGee's Alice. I love the experience of playing Deus Ex. I don't think you could get that experience from a non-linear game. Is that really because they are linear? I love non-linear games, but I also loved Alice and Deus Ex. I can't get the experience of Alice and Deus Ex from a non-linear game, but then I can't get the experience from any other linear game, either. I can only get the experience of playing Alice or Deus Ex from Alice or Deus Ex.

I meant that I do not think it is possible to create a non-linear game that can guarantee that experience. In other words, I don't think Deus Ex would've been Deus Ex if it were non-linear. If we were to find that experience in a non-linear game, it would be by taking a linear subset of that game. Of course, there is no guarantee we will find that subset.

Quote:

Quote: 2) Linear games provide a purposeful challenge. When I hear people speaking of challenges in non-linear games, it generally comes from playing with some player-induced handicap. Basically, they create challenges by taking some subset of the entire experience. Linear games provide a challenge without limiting the experience. I don't see that making any sense at all. Are you saying that it is impossible to fail in a non-linear game unless you voluntarily handicap yourself? My experience shows that to be patently untrue.

My experience shows it to be true. You cannot fail at SimCity, you can only "enter a recession". To fail, you have to impose some outside condition, like deciding "I'll call it failure if there is no net-population growth over the past year".

Quote:

Quote: 3) I see real life as the ultimate in non-linear, permadeath, no save game. I haven't seen a non-linear game that can come any where close to creating an experiece as rich as a well crafted linear game nor as rich as real life. Erm. So you play linear games because non-linear games are not an effective simulation of the real world? But neither are linear games, so you shouldn't be playing them either.

No, it's more like I don't play non-linear games because I find the overall quality of the choices provided to be below what I find in real life and in linear games.

Also, non-linear games tend to claim to create a "world" to interact with while linear games make the more modest claim of creating an interesting "game" to interact with. I don't fault linear games for not living up to something they never claimed to be.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Way Walker Ironically, this is why I prefer linear games. I see them as providing me just the interesting choices. How can you be sure of that? Wouldn't it stand to reason that what the game's developer thinks is interesting might not be what you think is interesting?

This would be a serious problem if there were only one game developer creating only one kind of game experience. A trip to your favorite source of video games (e.g. Best Buy, Wal-mart), or even browsing a few of the ideas offered on this very forum, will show why I have no fear of this situation coming about.

For what it's worth, I was going to respond negatively to Kylotan's comments about the quality of choices in linear games vs. non-linear games, but I thought it was irrelevant to the main point of my post and didn't want people to respond to that aspect and miss my real point.

As to how I can be sure, I can't. However, some publishers (e.g. Blizzard), series (e.g. Final Fantasy), designer (e.g. Sid Meier), etc. have reputations for putting out games that I like. Also, I have friends with more money to spend on games who can make recommendations.

Quote:

Quote: Again, I feel I prefer linear games because I see video games as an extension of board games into computers. Are all board games linear, then?

I'd say board games (in general) are more like linear video games than non-linear video games "in spirit" (in other words, I enjoy board games in the same way that I enjoy linear video games, which is really all I meant). Chess has a few strict rules and a distinct beginning, end, and winning conditions. In that sense, I'd say it's much more like Serious Sam than Morrowind.

Quote:

Are you under the impression that NWN is a non-linear game?

I've never played it. However, if it isn't a non-linear game, it seems that thinking it to be non-linear is a common delusion.

Quote:

A perfectly linear game offers you two choices: continue watching the game unfold; or switch off the game. Which is to say: A perfectly linear game is a movie. When a game allows you choices as to what to do, it is no longer linear.

And a perfectly non-linear game is a compiler. As I said in a different thread, all games are non-linear to some degree (or else there is no game) and all games are linear to some degree (or else there is no game).

Quote:

The irony here is that you are defending linear games on the basis that they may contain non-linearity: i.e. may not be entirely linear. Doing so whilst at the same time claiming that linear games are superior to non-linear games is confused at best.

I don't think that either "The more non-linear a game the better it is" or "All games should strive to be less linear" follows from "All games are non-linear to some degree".

It's as if my parents said "The irony here is that you are defending turning down the temperature in the car on the basis that it should be warm in here: i.e. that it may not be entirely cold." Of course, they also see temperature control to be all or nothing: full blast cold or full blast hot. It may be a little cool, but if we turn the heat full blast we'll soon be too hot.

Basically, the perfect balance for me is more on the linear side, just as I may prefer a slightly cooler temperature than you.

Quote:

Quote: But then, if you hit quicksave every five seconds, I could see where you wouldn't think linear games involve any strategy. So you're basically saying that anyone who doesn't like linear games is not playing them correctly?

No, he's saying that anyone who quicksaves every five seconds will need less strategy to win in a linear game. Just like I would have an easier time beating you at chess if you had to give me a truthful answer (e.g. enforced by a judge) to the question "Where would you move if I moved here?" (in particular if I were under no obligation to answer the same question, which is basically the case with quicksaving in a game).

I love customizing, but only when it's obvious what any changes mean. There shouldn't be a need to have played the game to understand anything.

On the same token, I hate non-linear games because it usually takes to long before anything makes sense/matters.

Quote:

Original post by Nathan Baum In defense of non-linearity The first thing is that there are no perfectly linear games. They wouldn't even be games. Linearity is a continuum, and it's foolish to partition the world into 'linear' and 'non-linear' games.

After reading this post, I think my definition of linear is much nearer you definition of non-linear. For example, I think Deus Ex is a linear game, but it has situations like your proposed baby-slaughtering situation (modest or otherwise [lol]).

Quote:

Original post by MSW Quote: Original post by Nathan Baum Quote: Original post by Kevinator Okay, I want to dispel this myth that linear games inherently have no strategy. That's simply not the case, those of you who are claiming it are using this cop-out to try to bolster your argument. I can't count the number of times changing my strategy in a linear FPS has allowed me victory where other strategies failed. Even the slightest change can alter your chances of victory tenfold. This is especially obvious in the ironman games, which I enjoy, where you are not allowed to save anywhere you want. Usually you have a set amount of lives before you have to start over and try again. You're wrong. A perfectly linear game offers you two choices: continue watching the game unfold; or switch off the game. Which is to say: A perfectly linear game is a movie. When a game allows you choices as to what to do, it is no longer linear. So, by your argument do you seriously consider Pong to be a sandbox game?

No. That's a false dilemna. It's not "linear" or "sandbox". Linearity is a continuum.

Of course pong is not perfectly linear, although it is very nearly so in those variants where the ball either bounces or misses the paddle.

If you can control the ball by having the paddle in motion when it hits it, then it is somewhat less linear. (I would class it as 'tactical' in my scheme.)

Linear games can (and do) have a million choices in them. What makes linear games different from non-linear games is that the choices aren't branching. There's a right choice and a wrong choice (if not, the choice doesn't really matter).

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker My experience shows it to be true. You cannot fail at SimCity, you can only "enter a recession". To fail, you have to impose some outside condition, like deciding "I'll call it failure if there is no net-population growth over the past year".

You can, in fact, be booted out of your job if you do really badly.

Edit: And of course there are scenario modes where you must achieve objectives of varying complexity in order to win. It seems unreasonable to criticise SimCity for not providing clear victory and defeat conditions, when it will only do so if you choose to make it so.

Quote:

Also, non-linear games tend to claim to create a "world" to interact with while linear games make the more modest claim of creating an interesting "game" to interact with. I don't fault linear games for not living up to something they never claimed to be.

This seems rather irrational. I don't decide to like a game on the basis of what its creators say it is. I decide to like it on the basis of what I find it to be.

Quote:

This would be a serious problem if there were only one game developer creating only one kind of game experience. A trip to your favorite source of video games (e.g. Best Buy, Wal-mart), or even browsing a few of the ideas offered on this very forum, will show why I have no fear of this situation coming about.

This justification doesn't fly with me because I don't believe that even if there were hundred of Deus-Ex-quality games being produced every year, there'd be even one that I thought was just perfect. A linear game will always have some aspect that could be improved. Of course this is also true of non-linear games, but there's a greater chance that I can bypass the parts of non-linear games I don't like, or in some manner augment them so that I do like them.

Quote:

I'd say board games (in general) are more like linear video games than non-linear video games "in spirit" (in other words, I enjoy board games in the same way that I enjoy linear video games, which is really all I meant). Chess has a few strict rules and a distinct beginning, end, and winning conditions. In that sense, I'd say it's much more like Serious Sam than Morrowind.

I genuinely find this baffling. It is plainly obvious to me that chess is not at all linear. A linear game is marked by having only one main path to victory.

Chess, on the other hand, has been estimated to have 10^(10^50) possible games where each move is unique (you have infinitely many possible games if the players just keep cycling between four configurations). That's a lot of possible games: the number is about the square root of a googleplex, and has a sedecillion digits.

Chess is, so far as I am concerned, the very definition of a non-linear board game.

Quote:

Quote: Are you under the impression that NWN is a non-linear game? I've never played it. However, if it isn't a non-linear game, it seems that thinking it to be non-linear is a common delusion.

NWN isn't non-linear in the way that you appear to be using the world: i.e. it isn't a 'sandbox' do-anything-you-like game.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker After reading this post, I think my definition of linear is much nearer you definition of non-linear. For example, I think Deus Ex is a linear game, but it has situations like your proposed baby-slaughtering situation (modest or otherwise [lol]).

I don't think I proposed a baby-slaughtering situation...

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller I love customizing, but only when it's obvious what any changes mean. There shouldn't be a need to have played the game to understand anything.

Well, I vaguely agree.

You shouldn't have to have played the game to be able to finish it. For example, if there are three doors and two lead to instant death and there are, in the normal course of play, no clues as to which one is safe, or even that two of them aren't safe (yes, Sorceror, I'm thinking of you), then that isn't fair.

But I don't mind if customization, or other 'non-linear' aspects of a game, can make the game easier, or simply different. This gives the game replay value.

Quote:

On the same token, I hate non-linear games because it usually takes to long before anything makes sense/matters.

I think what you really mean is that you hate badly made 'non-linear' games. It's perfectly easy to make a bad linear game where nothing makes sense and you've no clue how to proceed. This is particular bad if there's only one way to proceed, which is typically the case with 'linear' games.