I recently thought about this: Is linear gameplay doomed? With our MMO generation, and with VALVe's upcoming Half-Life 2: Episode 2, do you think the game industry will start pumping out more non-linear games? Here's my theory: Gamers probably want to get more for their money when they buy a game. Linear games stifle that, since there's less variation in the gameplay each time you play it; so, ultimately, the game will always end the same way. MMO's are beating this problem by creating a world where a person can have multiple characters, and also where the player plays until he or she gets tired, instead of them winning or losing the game. With non-linear gameplay ideas, I believe that we can get the player to play longer than with linear gameplay, even if the game is "beatable", because I think that the player will go back and play it differently, thinking "Well, what happens if I do this part first?". If we can make alternate endings depending on the circumstances of what the player chooses to do first, then I think players will have a bigger immersion level and play games longer. What do you guys think?

Quote:

Linear games stifle that, since there's less variation in the gameplay each time you play it

This assumes players actually replay all of their games. Easily false.


You're also discussing multiple ideas. There is non-linear gameplay (where players can do various things in various orders) and multiple path gameplay (where players can reach different areas/endings based on decisions).

A good distinction because non-linear gameplay adds to the game length but not particularly the replayability (since the player can touch everything). Multiple path adds to the replayability, but not the length (since the game is just as long no matter what ending you take).

Personally, I dislike multiple path since it almost forces replaying where most of the replay is the same stuff. Plus it tends to detract from the game since more dev time is spent on game bits I don't see.

Ignoring that distinction though, no. Linear gameplay is perfectly fine and just something different. It's a choice that developers can make to put all of their dev time into the game rather than the sideshow. If you're going to make the 'bang for the buck' replayability argument, why not make all games sandbox-ish games with random map/campaigns? (sim city, roguelikes, x-com)

Non-linear games are hobbies.

I think that explains it, people play games to win or lose, people play MMOG's to develop their characters, and complete goals... basically bragging rights.

MMOG's are the collection aspect of TCG's, where games are the game aspect of TCG's.

Quote:

Half-Life 2: Episode 2

If it's as linear as the original Half-life 2 then it's extremely linear. Show me one place in HL2 where you can make a decision which matters after you have killed all enemies currently on the screen. Show me a single place which you can enter, but you don't have to. They don't exist, HL is as linear as a line, but it's still extremely fun.

Quote:

If we can make alternate endings depending on the circumstances of what the player chooses to do first, then I think players will have a bigger immersion level and play games longer.

How will it result in bigger immersion levels? In linear games the designer know the player has to see every part of the world and makes sure to do it well. The most immersive games I've played were linear. Do you think a generic "Kill 12 raptors and bring me their claws"-mission in WoW is more immersive than a Half-Life 2 "mission"? Some of the Half-Life 2 missions were pretty immersive, but from what I remember of WoW the missions were of one of the following formats:
[Something happened]. So I want you to retrieve N [weird item] from [creature] at [place].
[Something happened]. So I want you to contact [Person] at [place].
Not exactly immersive, especially since it was all text.

Also linear games tend to be longer since all the content is explored, not just 1/10 of it.

I haven't seen many truly nonlinear games outside the RPG genre to be honest. Once in a while you see other games where your decision matter, but they are rare. Most of them have non-linear sections like RTS missions are choices which matter for 1/2 hour and then you will be on the same linear track as you were before.

I even think that just the illusion of non-linearity can add something to games. For example in Deus Ex you get to make a major decision in an airplane (you know what I'm talking about if you played it) and I believed that choice really mattered, but when I went back and tried to do the other thing then I saw that one or two missions later on I would be back on the same linear path.

I don't think linear games are doomed at all. If that was the case then the whole FPS and RTS genre as we know them were also doomed.

VALVEe has said that HL2: EP2 is not going to be nearly as linear as their past games, that's why I mentioned it. Take, for instance, this quote.

Quote:

"You'll have to manage your cover carefully and pay attention to where all the enemies are," explains Valve's director of marketing, Doug Lombardi. "They'll tend to circle around and expose you from multiple sides, so you find yourself moving around a lot more and rushing forward a lot less. You also have a lot more choice from moment to moment. We're working on scenarios in which we present the player with a set of high-level battle goals and a large nonlinear space in which to fight. These scenarios play out very differently for different players as they make choices about how to fight the battle: 'Should I make my ambush here, or 100 yards up the road behind these rocks?' It's fun watching players formulate a strategy, execute it at a tactical level, and then revise their strategy based on the outcome."

I think it's going to be better in the fact that there's more choice (as mentioned in the quote), and it's (somewhat) more strategy based; if the player screws up the first time they can try again a different way.

Absolutely not.


I actually like linear gameplay much, much more than non-linear typically. The reason is that when I am presented with so many choices on what to do, the game starts frustrating me because I have no idea of the benefits and consequences of each action (read: The Paradox of Choice). Take for example FFX-2. That game was extremely non-linear, and I hated it as a result.

I get the feeling that more "hard-core" gamers want non-linearity, because they have the time and desire to dedicate to a game to figure everything out. I consider myself more of a casual gamer these days (although I was hard-core in my childhood) and I don't wish to pour my time into these never-ending games.

Personally speaking, I like games that are mostly linear, allowing for side-quests and more open-endness toward the latter parts of the game. I prefer games that tell me a story, because it motivates me to keep playing to find out what happens next in the story. Story-telling is incredibly difficult in a non-linear fashion.

There are different uses of the terms "linear" and "nonlinear". Most people think of linear and nonlinear as applying to the game as a whole; whether you follow a fixed stage or plot progression, or you have the choice to do things out of order.

That Half Life 2 quote is not about that. It's still going to be an overall linear game, with a set progress through a bunch of levels and a set plot. There are just "small" nonlinearities within the stages; more open space and multiple paths rather than one long funnel that you run through. Honestly, I would hardly call that nonlinearity; I think they're just saying "nonlinear" because they know it's a buzzword.

So on the one hand, I would hope (but sort of doubt) that the small nonlinearity that the HL2 quote is about does take over. Being consistently railroaded is not fun, and leaves very little room for strategy. As AI and physics get better, this small scale of nonlinearity will hopefully become more prevalent. I doubt there are that many people who would actually complain that there are two hallways to walk down instead of one.

But overarching linearity will be here for a long time. Some games work well with nonlinearity; some work better with linearity. Until AI gets so good that computers become better game devs than humans, linear games will always be better able to deliver a deeper storyline and a tighter artistic vision. The freedom of nonlinearity requires the artists and writers to relinquish a lot of their control.

No. Enough said.

Quote:

VALVEe has said that HL2: EP2 is not going to be nearly as linear as their past games, that's why I mentioned it. Take, for instance, this quote. [...]

What they're describing there is a small non-linear section of gameplay within a linear game. You may have freedom in choosing how you're going to clear some warehouse of enemies, but you're still going to discover the same important fact when you kill the leader and then head to the same destination through the same exit every time.

Quote:

Original post by destron VALVEe has said that HL2: EP2 is not going to be nearly as linear as their past games, that's why I mentioned it. Take, for instance, this quote. Quote: ...snip... I think it's going to be better in the fact that there's more choice (as mentioned in the quote), and it's (somewhat) more strategy based; if the player screws up the first time they can try again a different way.

With all due respect for the folks at Valve, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the gospel according to the Director of Marketing; it's his job to make the mundane seem like an absolute must-have.