• Bansheebot - February 6, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    Linearity doesn't mean specifically imply structure though. The Crysis games, specifically C2 are completely linear games, but the games aren't linear in the sense that the game is saying "This is what we want to happen in this level" like CoD does. In a game like Crysis, you're given a setpiece and tasked with approaching it as you see fit based on what *you* think is the best way to handle it. In a game like CoD and other typical M-Fps, the way you approach the setpiece is predetermined, and you're often outright punished for straying from the dev-intended railroad tracks. I can think of numerous highly linear games (RE4, L4D2, Crysis WH, to name a few) that did not suffer for it just because the games allow a degree of fluidity, rather than the stonecold preset of a typical codlike singleplayer mode.
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    I don't think he ever argued against fluidity or allowing for flexibility in the way you approached an objective or task. I think he was mainly speaking about games that are completely open ended and don't have much linearity, if any.
  • garnsr - February 6, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    I question that Lords of Shadow was one of the best games of last generation. I had a number of times where it wasn't clear where the one path I had to follow was. with all the weird camera angles and movement that made it hard to tell which direction the game was moving. The linearity that pops up in open world games is really annoying. You're just tooling around in any Assassins Creed game, when you suddenly see a notice that you're going to be desynchronized if you keep going this way, and suddenly you're desynchronized, because they don't warn you soon enough to stop running. Or when you can see another viewpont on your map, but you can't get there, becase they've walled off that section of the map to keep you in the area they want you in for now.
  • Doctor_Pancakes - February 6, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    I prefer a linear structure over the bloated mission structured clusters that are in the GTA clones of today them being first or third person games. All open world means to me is wasted time between plot points and real gameplay. The best effort I have seen trying to change up the formula of linear games in new a desirable direction is A Link Between Worlds, there is a artificial sense of choice that was welcome to the series. I'd like to see it expanded upon.
  • Malakie - February 6, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    First off, not your buddy. Reserved for those I served with. Second off, what the heck does "Pro Tip" mean? You fancy yourself some kind of expert or professional regarding games? What a laugh. Second delusion has nothing to do with it on my end. Cannot speak for your end since you somehow seem to think I was talking about FPS games solely, which I was NOT. You know the word assume and what it means? I never mentioned multiplayer either. Could care less about that since multiplayer is a useless waste. Buy a game, play multiplayer for a few months and when everyone gets bored, the game and servers die and the game gets put away never to be played again because the campaign is linear. I have games from the 80's I still play.. oh wait you were not even born then I bet so you would not have a clue about what I am talking about in that regard.... I still play them because of the substance and NON-linear game play which makes them re-playable. Of course I have current games like that as well but more and more we see the release of cookie cutter linear stuff being pushed out the door for the bucks flash in the pan crap that is buggy as heck off the top and more expensive than it is worth. So, you can make all the insults you want. When you grow up, perhaps then you will understand the plain English I am typing and the meaning behind what I am saying without adding to or making assumptions about something I said nothing about.
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    Wow, you're so stupid you don't even know how to reply to a comment... I guess I shouldn't be surprised... buddy. Also, gotta love a random dude questioning another random dude's expertise in games, before claiming to be an expert himself... using his age as a parameter and using very non-specific examples. Yeah... ever heard of irony? Also, you're the one that stared heaping insults, so don't get all whiny and defensive when people start firing back at you... Buddy.
  • Malakie - February 6, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    Are you on crack? When did I EVER claim to be an expert as you are doing? Being an expert in games is like saying you are an expert on how to pick toilet paper. THEY ARE FREAKING GAMES.. You know? Entertainment? Thinks you PLAY WITH... kind of like some probably shriveled up parts you have probably forgotten about. I never insulted you.. I said you are NOT my buddy. And I commented about your claiming to be a pro... If you take that as an insult then you really must have an inferiority complex. You guys are hilarious. Getting all bent out of shape because someone stepped on your little fantasy gaming world and said something you did not like because it ruins the illusion. Instead of a debate, you get all hissy and try to turn this all around on me because I do not agree with you.. What a laugh.
  • Tyrlanae - February 6, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    Actually Bladed never called you buddy, that was Jack, nor did he use the protip line, also Jack. You can't even be bothered to keep the people you're debating with straight before you open the rage can and spray it all over everyone. Honestly you're the only person here getting bent out of shape, and you have been since your first post. "ALL LINEAR GAMES SUCK BECAUSE I SAY SO AND MY OPINION IS THE LAW, LOSERS!" is basically how you entered the discussion, and since then you have been completely uncompromising to anyone who didn't agree with your viewpoint. They're only turning this around on you because you're coming across as belligerent and close minded. It's like you didn't even read the article or understand its points, you just decided in your own brain that you hate linear games and that you're going to pick up the banner and carry the crusade against them on your shoulders because if you don't like them everyone must not like them. Linear games offer a lot in the way of structured, focused storytelling that is often lost on non-linear games. Often the focus is lost as you spend hours on end roaming and doing either nothing of a glut of side quests and by the time you get back to the main story its lost a lot of its impact. In linear narratives you don't have that drawback as the developers are able to strictly control the pacing of the game. Some of the best games of the last generation were linear in nature to varying degrees -- Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Tomb Raider, hell even Arkham is a structured, linear narrative with non-linear gameplay as Dave pointed out. And yes, games are entertainment but it's a sub-culture unto itself and one that many people do take very seriously. Otherwise sites like this wouldn't even exist. Don't try to demean gaming as a whole just as an escape to your failing argument. As a student of game design I can assure you there's a lot more to being an expert on games than you'd like to believe.
  • Malakie - February 6, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    Yea I realized I replied to the wrong person but there is no way to correct it... Regardless the argument is pointless. These are games. Not something that is really that important in real life other than an escape for reality for a short time, entertainment to enjoy at others. Games are all they are.. no more no less.
  • Tyrlanae - February 6, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    Oh I dunno. I'm hoping to get into the gaming industry, and games have been a driving factor of my life for over 20 years. I'd say for a lot of us games are more than just entertainment, they're a passion that we care a great deal about. I mean yes boiled down they're just there to entertain but that's a lot of our culture these days, and people get just as passionate about other forms of entertainment as well. Look at how seriously Roger Ebert took the film industry.
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    If it's not that important, then why did you even bother replying to my first comment and straight up claiming I was wrong? Your own actions and words keep contradicting themselves every time you make a new post :/ I mean, your current stance sounds pretty fair, but then, if games are just games, then why did you come in to say with such a belligerent tone that a certain kind of game sucked, and then proceeded to rage all over when people called you out and made fun of you for it? I personally berated you and made fun of you precisely because of that kind of attitude, and sure, I acted like an asshole, but it was mainly in response to your own attitude, and an argument that YOU started by replying to my post and claiming all I said was flat out wrong. So again, if it's not even than important to you, then I advice don't bother starting fights you don't intend to finish, or bail out of them by hand-waving their importance just because they backed you into a corner.
  • Jackonomics2.0 - February 6, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Hey. Calm down. It seems your yelling angrily about games that you seem to think its purpose is to tell a story and thats it. I really dont care much, but usually a game lets you replay levels whether to complete it in a different fashion to maybe do some acheivements and stuff. It can be well worth it when it is designed well. Maybe you should try some other games than what your mind is hypnotised to bitch about. Look at Platinum Games, their games are barely about Story and are told in a linear sense, its all beat em ups and why do we replay them? To see ourselves get better and get a better ranking and there's nothing wrong with just flat out liking a game.
  • Jackonomics2.0 - February 6, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    Not every game has to be GTA or Skyrim. As long as you know what your doing linearity can do a magical and amazing experience, Story wise and Gameplah wise. Just look at that bastard Mario, people love to shit on his 3D Platforming because it doesn't have an Open World like Sunshine or 64 but at the end of the day, a shit ton of people are praising what? THE LEVEL DESIGN that otherwise makes the linearity in the galaxy games and 3D World worth it.
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    ...I wouldn't really call Mario 64 and Sunshine open ended at all... but I guess that's just me.
  • Vonter - February 6, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    Well to be fair those games let you choose a level freely to tackle. I know it's like Megaman and that game could also be considered linear (at least in how you traverse levels). But still most games are linear as movies in not letting you make choices to where to go.
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    ...Do people seriously think that letting you chose a level to tackle first counts as open ended? specially when they are still very clearly being funneled down the same path anyway? I mean, I just don't see how that can significantly increase or decrease enjoyment of a game.
  • Vonter - February 6, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    Keyword is choice and even if the end goal is Bowser in the Mario games I can go to the snow level, the water level or many others in the order I want. But come on, I know that doesn't work always. Only those games it worked. A counter example is Banjo Tooie because by being more big is more obvious what you're saying.
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    No, I'm saying that what you perceive as "choice" is superficial at best, because even if you choose the levels in the order you want, the levels remain exactly the same. whether you tackle the snow level first and then the water level, or you tackle the water level and then the snow level, what you experience in them is exactly the same. If the game made this structure linear and didn't let you choose, you'd have the same experience in-game anyway.
  • Vonter - February 6, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    I don't know Star Fox Assault did felt underwhelming because of the lack of choice. Although you could be right with the Mario Galaxy games.
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    Or MAYBE Star Fox assault just felt underwhelming because it was... well, underwhelming :P If a game is well designed, you wouldn't even MIND the lack of stage select choice, and in fact, a good linear design continuously builds over itself, making each level for challenging than the past one and keeping up with the increase of skill of the player. Something that allowing you to choose stages can't do, or if they do it, it'd leave a potentially unbalanced experience.
  • Vonter - February 6, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    Oh ok. I just don't mind if it's superficial, I think it also has it's advantages and commodities, because is intuitive for a game letting you pick either the desert stage or ice level. But well it isn't really a deal breaker and I think it'll be nice if more games returned to that format. Especially shooters given how plain they make some levels.

Showing 41-60 of 70 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.