- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
I've had to defend both sides of the aisle of linearity for a while. So I thought I'd write an absurdly long editorial on the subject mostly to create a round table discussion about it. I am trying to include both level design and storytelling mostly because it's hard to include one without the other.
First off, linearity is in video games when the player more or less goes from point A to point B. Where there is usually very little going off the beaten path. There are numerous examples of games that are linear but have slightly more open levels to include things like secret areas.
Non-Linearity in video games is slightly harder to define. Some games have complete non-linearity and drop you in a world where you have objectives but are expected to do them in whatever order you like. Others might have a set path but completely let you get there any way you like through the level design. There are numerous examples of unique interpretations on non-linearity and I'll list just a few that come to mind later.
To streamline this sort of discussion I'm limiting it to shooters. Things like RPGs and plat formers tend to conform to different rules with regard to the player's objectives.
The case for linear levels and objectives
Linear game design has been around since games have been created, and it's by no means a bad design philosophy in practice. There are numerous games that benefit from linear design because they focus on things like complex set pieces and scripting. A great example is Half Life, where they streamlined the game to be linear to avoid confusing level testers and to showcase the skeleton animation and AI scripting. There are numerous games I have played that I still replay to this day with linear game design. Great examples are the aforementioned Half Life, Quake 4, Condemned Criminal Origins, Star Wars Jedi Outcast and Red Faction.
You can have a very traditional storyline that focuses on the player going from A to B and subvert the player's expectations at the same time. Bioshock in terms of storyline is very linear but in terms of gameplay is very non-linear due to how the levels are hub based. It's very much an anomaly and the great aspect of linear design is it's usually more flexible and more modular than non-linear.
The case against linear levels and objectives
One thing you might notice about all those games I mentioned above is they're all from years ago. The latest game on that list is from 2005.
Well one thing that is noticeable with games recently is linearity is a necessary evil you expect from shooters. It's to the point where I've had debates with players of games where they equate linearity with "more story focus".
Most games that are linear do so for a specific reason. Mostly because it's significantly easier to test a game if they know exactly how strong the player could potentially be, and adding scripted sequences/cutscenes just streamlines production even further. I should probably stress this point but lots of cutscenes does not equate a more complex storyline or a better told story. Rather it creates a storyline that the player does not control but merely watches.
I'll bring up an example of games telling storylines that aren't directly told to the player. In Deus Ex (spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't played it yet), the player kills his partner Anna Navarre fairly early in the game. Another agent Gunther Hermann then swears vengeance on the player and regularly threatens him throughout the game. The important thing to note about him is that Gunther Hermann isn't seen till many levels later. But the player is aware Gunther is following him regularly through optional NPC conversations. Many NPCs regularly tell the player of a "cyborg asking questions" and the player is taunted numerous times in his infolink that Gunther is following him. This tells a story completely without having the action stopped or the player's control wrestled from him.
Why am I sperging about Deus Ex? Well Deus Ex does something in terms of it's writing that most modern games do not do. It implies significantly more than it could ever show or tell.
This is more or less leading up to where I introduce a linear game that annoyed me more than any else. That game is Tomb Raider 2013. A game I was very bored by due to it's linearity.
In Tomb Raider 2013 the game is given the illusion of sandbox game design. When in reality it simply lets the player backtrack through prior levels to obtain collectables. TR2013 is plagued regularly by QTEs, it stops the action regularly to tell the player a cutscene to progress the story, the storyline itself portrays the player character as a weak defenseless girl who is growing more confident while the gameplay portrays the player as a murderer who massacres hundreds of people every time you pull the trigger of your gun. All of this sort of stuff I expected but the level design moves entirely in a straight line.
By that I mean in prior games in the series you were more or less expected to find an item to open a door in a prior area, this usually involved you branching out and viewing other parts of a level from where you started. In TR2013 you go in a straight line at all times. Traps the player triggers are predetermined to trigger no matter what you want to do, and all these scripted sequences do is lead you toward the next shooting gallery where you kill more people.
In essence the game plays more like a movie than an actual game where the player does something that is different than someone else might do. To quote a Jontron video: "The game is playing itself".
The case for non-linear levels and objectives
Non-linearity is a state where the player does not generally go from point A to point B. An example is Doom, where the player is expected to get to the exit of the level, but there are usually dozens of different routes the player can take. Not to mention hidden areas where the player can find more powerful weapons and/or secret levels. Doom is an example at it's most extreme of non-linearity. At the other end of the extreme is something like Bioshock. Where the player is shown a quest marker and you're given a general sense of where to go. But the levels are large hubs and you regularly get distracted by something else. Likewise you usually backtrack through these hubs to get to different areas.
Non-linear level design does have it's faults but it is in my opinion a superior way to tell a story and engage the player. The example I'm going to sperg about right now is Thief: The Dark Project.
The third level to Thief is called "Down in the Bonehoard". It involves the main character Garrett, attempting to search a local crypt for buried treasure. The most notable aspect of this level is how it is built vertically. When the player enters the level, he starts from the very bottom of it in a series of tunnels created by creatures called "Burricks". Inside these tunnels the player can find other crypts, and several corpses of other thieves. Many of these thieves mention they came to the crypt in a group and later split up, and they mention they saw signs of a prior thief earlier. Not only can you find all the corpses of these thieves in the level, but you can find their journals that mention solutions to some of the puzzles. Once you do worm your way through the labyrinth-like burrick tunnels you find the crypt, and it's infested with zombies. What's notable about Thief's gameplay is the player is not able to kill the zombies conventionally. Rather the player is expected to use disposable holy water, or alternatively run away from them. Indeed much of the level at this point is a lot more claustrophobic and really adds to the player's tension, without saying a word of exposition the player is told a story and he/she never has to stop the action.
I could go on from here but a non-linear approach to the player's objectives I feel adds to the experience more than stopping the action with a cutscene. In essence, less is usually more.
The case against non-linear map design
Now not all games benefit from non-linear map design. A lot of games actually get really confusing and don't really tell the player very much. The example I am going to cite is Deus Ex Invisible War.
In the original Deus Ex, the map design was familiar enough that players could intuitively know weaknesses they could exploit. A good example is very early on in the game in the 'Ton hotel hostage situation. The player is told there are hostages in a hotel, and while they could charge in through the front. They could also double back outside the hotel and find a fire escape, which will lead the player inside one of the hotel rooms and flank the terrorists inside much faster.
In Deus Ex Invisible War, the world the player explores could be easily compared to something like the Jetsons. The architecture is foreign and "futuristic". While the player might be able to find a second way through an objective, it is through something convoluted like the building looping in on itself. The game doesn't usually reward the player for finding creative outlets through their objectives either, and for the most part the world is confusing to navigate. There is no real "straight line" the player is expected to traverse and it's easy enough to get lost in the world or lose sight of the objective.
Open World titles
Like most people, I love an open world game. I think they're awesome and combine the best bits of both systems.
The reason open world games have become more popular in recent years is entirely due to how they last longer. A linear FPS might last you 10 hours, and will turn into trade in credit so you can buy something else. Wheras an open world game can last you significantly more. I know many people, myself included, that have clocked more than 300 hours into Skyrim.
I think people might get burnt out on open world games and developers might shirk away from them in a few years, mostly due to costs. I do love a good sandbox game and I hope they stay around.
There are of course weaknesses to sandbox games. Many sandbox games don't really employ good health/ammo balance and usually have regenerating health to compensate. Other times the player gets impatient and ignores a great deal of the level design and simply wants to fast travel and skip a lot of it.
~~~
There are dozens of other examples of bad non-linearity, but Invisible War more so comes to mind simply because it doesn't really familiarize the player with it's world.
What about you guys? What are your opinions of linearity vs nonlinearity? I am by no means an expert on the subject. Like I've mentioned there are strengths to both systems and while I might prefer one over the other. I'd like to see other opinions.
First off, linearity is in video games when the player more or less goes from point A to point B. Where there is usually very little going off the beaten path. There are numerous examples of games that are linear but have slightly more open levels to include things like secret areas.
Non-Linearity in video games is slightly harder to define. Some games have complete non-linearity and drop you in a world where you have objectives but are expected to do them in whatever order you like. Others might have a set path but completely let you get there any way you like through the level design. There are numerous examples of unique interpretations on non-linearity and I'll list just a few that come to mind later.
To streamline this sort of discussion I'm limiting it to shooters. Things like RPGs and plat formers tend to conform to different rules with regard to the player's objectives.
The case for linear levels and objectives
Linear game design has been around since games have been created, and it's by no means a bad design philosophy in practice. There are numerous games that benefit from linear design because they focus on things like complex set pieces and scripting. A great example is Half Life, where they streamlined the game to be linear to avoid confusing level testers and to showcase the skeleton animation and AI scripting. There are numerous games I have played that I still replay to this day with linear game design. Great examples are the aforementioned Half Life, Quake 4, Condemned Criminal Origins, Star Wars Jedi Outcast and Red Faction.
You can have a very traditional storyline that focuses on the player going from A to B and subvert the player's expectations at the same time. Bioshock in terms of storyline is very linear but in terms of gameplay is very non-linear due to how the levels are hub based. It's very much an anomaly and the great aspect of linear design is it's usually more flexible and more modular than non-linear.
The case against linear levels and objectives
One thing you might notice about all those games I mentioned above is they're all from years ago. The latest game on that list is from 2005.
Well one thing that is noticeable with games recently is linearity is a necessary evil you expect from shooters. It's to the point where I've had debates with players of games where they equate linearity with "more story focus".
Most games that are linear do so for a specific reason. Mostly because it's significantly easier to test a game if they know exactly how strong the player could potentially be, and adding scripted sequences/cutscenes just streamlines production even further. I should probably stress this point but lots of cutscenes does not equate a more complex storyline or a better told story. Rather it creates a storyline that the player does not control but merely watches.
I'll bring up an example of games telling storylines that aren't directly told to the player. In Deus Ex (spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't played it yet), the player kills his partner Anna Navarre fairly early in the game. Another agent Gunther Hermann then swears vengeance on the player and regularly threatens him throughout the game. The important thing to note about him is that Gunther Hermann isn't seen till many levels later. But the player is aware Gunther is following him regularly through optional NPC conversations. Many NPCs regularly tell the player of a "cyborg asking questions" and the player is taunted numerous times in his infolink that Gunther is following him. This tells a story completely without having the action stopped or the player's control wrestled from him.
Why am I sperging about Deus Ex? Well Deus Ex does something in terms of it's writing that most modern games do not do. It implies significantly more than it could ever show or tell.
This is more or less leading up to where I introduce a linear game that annoyed me more than any else. That game is Tomb Raider 2013. A game I was very bored by due to it's linearity.
In Tomb Raider 2013 the game is given the illusion of sandbox game design. When in reality it simply lets the player backtrack through prior levels to obtain collectables. TR2013 is plagued regularly by QTEs, it stops the action regularly to tell the player a cutscene to progress the story, the storyline itself portrays the player character as a weak defenseless girl who is growing more confident while the gameplay portrays the player as a murderer who massacres hundreds of people every time you pull the trigger of your gun. All of this sort of stuff I expected but the level design moves entirely in a straight line.
By that I mean in prior games in the series you were more or less expected to find an item to open a door in a prior area, this usually involved you branching out and viewing other parts of a level from where you started. In TR2013 you go in a straight line at all times. Traps the player triggers are predetermined to trigger no matter what you want to do, and all these scripted sequences do is lead you toward the next shooting gallery where you kill more people.
In essence the game plays more like a movie than an actual game where the player does something that is different than someone else might do. To quote a Jontron video: "The game is playing itself".
The case for non-linear levels and objectives
Non-linearity is a state where the player does not generally go from point A to point B. An example is Doom, where the player is expected to get to the exit of the level, but there are usually dozens of different routes the player can take. Not to mention hidden areas where the player can find more powerful weapons and/or secret levels. Doom is an example at it's most extreme of non-linearity. At the other end of the extreme is something like Bioshock. Where the player is shown a quest marker and you're given a general sense of where to go. But the levels are large hubs and you regularly get distracted by something else. Likewise you usually backtrack through these hubs to get to different areas.
Non-linear level design does have it's faults but it is in my opinion a superior way to tell a story and engage the player. The example I'm going to sperg about right now is Thief: The Dark Project.
The third level to Thief is called "Down in the Bonehoard". It involves the main character Garrett, attempting to search a local crypt for buried treasure. The most notable aspect of this level is how it is built vertically. When the player enters the level, he starts from the very bottom of it in a series of tunnels created by creatures called "Burricks". Inside these tunnels the player can find other crypts, and several corpses of other thieves. Many of these thieves mention they came to the crypt in a group and later split up, and they mention they saw signs of a prior thief earlier. Not only can you find all the corpses of these thieves in the level, but you can find their journals that mention solutions to some of the puzzles. Once you do worm your way through the labyrinth-like burrick tunnels you find the crypt, and it's infested with zombies. What's notable about Thief's gameplay is the player is not able to kill the zombies conventionally. Rather the player is expected to use disposable holy water, or alternatively run away from them. Indeed much of the level at this point is a lot more claustrophobic and really adds to the player's tension, without saying a word of exposition the player is told a story and he/she never has to stop the action.
I could go on from here but a non-linear approach to the player's objectives I feel adds to the experience more than stopping the action with a cutscene. In essence, less is usually more.
The case against non-linear map design
Now not all games benefit from non-linear map design. A lot of games actually get really confusing and don't really tell the player very much. The example I am going to cite is Deus Ex Invisible War.
In the original Deus Ex, the map design was familiar enough that players could intuitively know weaknesses they could exploit. A good example is very early on in the game in the 'Ton hotel hostage situation. The player is told there are hostages in a hotel, and while they could charge in through the front. They could also double back outside the hotel and find a fire escape, which will lead the player inside one of the hotel rooms and flank the terrorists inside much faster.
In Deus Ex Invisible War, the world the player explores could be easily compared to something like the Jetsons. The architecture is foreign and "futuristic". While the player might be able to find a second way through an objective, it is through something convoluted like the building looping in on itself. The game doesn't usually reward the player for finding creative outlets through their objectives either, and for the most part the world is confusing to navigate. There is no real "straight line" the player is expected to traverse and it's easy enough to get lost in the world or lose sight of the objective.
Open World titles
Like most people, I love an open world game. I think they're awesome and combine the best bits of both systems.
The reason open world games have become more popular in recent years is entirely due to how they last longer. A linear FPS might last you 10 hours, and will turn into trade in credit so you can buy something else. Wheras an open world game can last you significantly more. I know many people, myself included, that have clocked more than 300 hours into Skyrim.
I think people might get burnt out on open world games and developers might shirk away from them in a few years, mostly due to costs. I do love a good sandbox game and I hope they stay around.
There are of course weaknesses to sandbox games. Many sandbox games don't really employ good health/ammo balance and usually have regenerating health to compensate. Other times the player gets impatient and ignores a great deal of the level design and simply wants to fast travel and skip a lot of it.
~~~
There are dozens of other examples of bad non-linearity, but Invisible War more so comes to mind simply because it doesn't really familiarize the player with it's world.
What about you guys? What are your opinions of linearity vs nonlinearity? I am by no means an expert on the subject. Like I've mentioned there are strengths to both systems and while I might prefer one over the other. I'd like to see other opinions.
