Loading ...
Agree to Disagree 03: Linearity
Opinions. Everyone’s got ‘em. Especially the zany sexy staff of Spawn Kill. And we know every single one of you wants to share your own as well. So we’ve put together a way that you can give us your two cents — you know, other than leaving a comment or getting in touch with us in some other manner. Every Friday, we’ll be bringing you a hot topic that’s been cracked wide open for discussion. Your job is to load up and deliver your best opinions on the subject at hand in Spawn Kill’s Agree to Disagree column.
This week’s discussion could be a doozy. Basically we want to know your thoughts on the linearity present in games, or lack thereof. This particular discussion comes from thoughts revolving around a few recent releases, mainly Final Fantasy XIII and God of War III, though in many ways it relates to a multitude of games in the history of the medium. Final Fantasy XIII has been criticized for its lack of variation, it’s linearity, while at the same time God of War III has nearly universal praise despite gameplay nearly as straight lined as any you’ll find. What’s the difference? Why praise one and condemn another? Uncharted 2 is similarly linear, but nearly everyone loves it. Do RPGs have to have sandbox qualities in order to be enjoyed? Are they required to be side quest heavy? Do we dislike the story present in these types of games so much that we need constant distractions? Obviously these are just examples and discussion-provoking questions, so feel free to poke them with many holes and get to discussing!
And if this is all too heavy for you, check out last week’s controller discussion and throw your input into that melting pot!
I'll get the ball rolling! (hopefully)
My own opinion here is that a game's narrative should determine its linearity, not its genre or even its franchise. I enjoyed the first 25 hours of FFXIII. It wasn't like past Final Fantasies…but I also didn't expect or need it to be. Could they have made it less run from one point to another to watch cut scenes? Maybe, but it's not completely different from other games with a similar linear plot. God of War III for instance has very, very few instances where you ever divert from a straight line path. In ways, it fools you into thinking it does because of its set camera. It pans out and zooms in and you maybe don't notice the straight line as much, but it's still there. You're still walking on it, killing things and enjoying the pretty.
I certainly enjoy sandbox or open world games, or even game with side quests. I enjoy the point of FFXIII where things open up immensely. But do I feel every game needs that point or needs to be “off rails”? No. I think the flow of the game should determine it and we shouldn't go into any game with bias as to what should be there.
I agree. Games like God of War or bayonetta or dantes doesnt have to be this big open world experience. the action will speak for itself and i dont mind being told where and when i need to go somewhere. For RPGs it does bother me a little if i don't have too many choices on where to go but if it's fun than i wont mind it as much.
@David Stewart: I agree with you. I think in FFXIII in particular the story very much dictated the linearity. If you think about it, these people are on the run, are they really going to risk hanging around a town or off the beaten path when everyone hates them and wants them dead? I don't think so. The linearity is there because of that, and it actually boosts the story because it gives the player a sense of what the characters must be feeling - confined, restricted, running for their lives. That lack of freedom, to me, in this particular instance, is a plus, not a minus.
Do I hate non-linearity? Of course not. I enjoy an Oblivion, Fallout or Mass Effect game as much as the next person. But I do not in any way think it should make or break a game as much as people are making it out to.
@cHAD
AGREED
I feel the same. I sunk probably a hundred hours or more in Oblivion, and I actually have it on my do-do list still as I just bought the GOTY edition for PS3. I love open ended games, but those games also almost always lack a cohesive story. Bioware seems to be the exception to that rule as they always manage to incorporate an impressive story with open ended gameplay.
But I certainly don't mind being led along if it's reasonable.
I almost expect it from all games aside from RPGs. In RPGs it would disappoint me to have none of that because I expect to dive into that genre to assume a role, whilst having the ability to shape my own personality and adventure along the way when I am not on the beaten path. I would be upset if I was told which wimmenz I was supposed to fool around with in games like Persona, or removed the feature altogether in the effort to streamline me from start to finish and tell me a story. It's not so much a book when it comes to RPGs, like it might be considered with other genres. Since for RPGs the story is the most important part of it, you want to be able to put yourself within the world as best as possible and being given some sort of freedom to explore and become one with it is completely necessary, even if minimally offered through simple optional sidequests. It's still an option I get to make whether or not I dive that far into the lore and world.
I'm a little late to the party, since I was out of town, but here's my two cents.
I think, in general, most games lend themselves to linearity. I think open-world/sandbox games can be great, but the problem is they usually aren't done well (I think Oblivion can be a big example of how to do one well). As others have said, though, this open-endedness usually leads to a weakening of the story, because, how can you tell a traditional story if you don't know how people will approach the game?
In general, most RPGs are fairly linear affairs. Be honest with yourselves about this one, because it's the reality. Like Dragon Age (which got a lot of heat for this), you may have some flexibility in what to do or where to go, but in general, you have to do certain things in certain order (some RPGs are more strict about this than others).
Personally, I dislike an RPG that is TOO linear. For example, I just finished playing NOSTALGIA for DS, and I really enjoyed it, but it was mediocre, and part of the reason for that is that for the most part you MUST do things in a certain order. Your exploration is severely limited, and I found that disappointing. I haven't tried it yet, but this is part of the reason I'm not sure I'm going to play FF XIII. I understand what they're trying to do, but I like to explore!
I personally think Dragon Age had a nice mix of linearity (to keep the story focused) while still giving you some freedom (some choice in quest order, for example), plus the consequences of your actions/having to choose sides, etc. While many complained it wasn't as free as Oblivion, I think the way it was set up worked very well for the type of game Bioware was aiming for.
Right now I am playing Fragile, and I wish it were a little less linear, but in general, I would rather have a more linear experience and a good story/gameplay than something less focused that doesn't hold my attention.
Sorry if that was a bit rambling…