Linearity versus Freeroaming games.

[Tom Salter]

Every once in a while a new gameplay innovation comes and freshens up the gaming industry. At the moment the current fad is to create games where the player is not guided by the hand through a game, and on paper it sounds like an excellent idea.

Traditional console RPG's have a linear (or semi-linear with branching sections) plot, with a set path through the game. The player is free to go along that path, be ushered through the various sections of the game, while levelling up and fighting occasionally.

Splinter Cell took the player directly through the game, with little opportunity for wandering from the beaten track. Reviews pointed the finger at this game for having a turgid structure, with little freedom for the player to act as a spy in their very own way. However, with such a narrow focus, the game was able to play on this and create a much more interesting environment in terms of cut-scenes, in game narrative and the amount of surprises the game throws up while playing.

Morrowind however, is a perfect example of a gaming environment where the player really is left to his/her own devices. You are put in a world, and given the opportunity to do your own thing. It's truly a marvel in terms of games design, on how the whole world is balanced in such a way that there's no single route to success. But in terms of gaming "fun", it's possibly the most boring, banal game I've ever had the "pleasure" of playing. Oh look, I've got no money, so it's a 20 minute walk to the next town. Oh look, my first enemy is a stupid cave rat and so far I don't have the power to kill it. Great...

So my point is, should games keep trying to give the player complete freedom in the gameworld? Or should they try to elevate tense situations by keeping the player tied on a leash?

[Salsa Party Animal]

I like freedom in game, but not too much as we doesn't want to much wandering around looking for something to shoot.

[JRMacumber]

For me, a game like Deus Ex is a perfect example of free linearity. The areas that you are placed in are wide and varied, but they do have boundaries, and within those boundaries you have complete and total freedom in how you accomplish your missions. If at all possible, that is how I prefer my games. I want a defined area of operation, but let me choose how I move in it. I'm hoping that Splinter Cell will lean towards that direction in the future, though I agree with you that focusing the path does allow the developers to make the routes more detailed and well scripted.

[Jason]

Whilst some people think linearity is a bad thing, I too think it can be excellent. I see it as like playing a book. I am currently playing Blood Omen II thanks to Play's ?9.99 sale price. Now whilst it is very linear, the story and the voice acting are quite superb which to me increases greatly a mostly poor game to above average.

Sometimes the big sprawling adventures can loose focus if not well structured. But the best examples such as Majora's Mask, can give the player perceived freedom but still retain a tight focus.

[srgbilco]

The original GTA and it's sequel were good examples of non-linearity. To progress to the next city, a certain money figure had to be reached. This could be achieved by completing missions, killing people, jacking cars, whatever. If you wanted, you could keep killing people and getting cop bribes for the whole of the game.

This was pretty amazing for the time, but I, like many others, found it a bit repetitive after a while. The missions were basically the same for most of the game, and it was hard to deviate from the path these missions wanted you to take, ironically for such a non-linear game.

With GTA 3, Rockstar made the game a bit more linear. Missions had to be completed to advance. But they added so many variables to each mission. A chauffer mission could be completed with a motorbike, if you were suicidal, or a helicopter, if you wanted the easy way. An assasination mission could be achived by merely killing the target with a katana, or sniping him from afar, or blowing up his vehicle or even doing a drive-by. This made each mission much more fun, and introduced a kind of scaleable difficulty, so the pain of having to complete each mission was reduced.

My point is that non-linearity can work hand in hand with linearity, to produce a good game. Right now, most games are mostly, if not completely, linear and so a lot of the non-linear games that are produced are a reaction to these uber-linear games. As a result, they proudly tout their non-linearity, with little thought as to whether it makes their game more fun, or overwhelming, or just tedious.

[MonkeyWrench]

I think it all depends on the game and the money thrown at it. Doing something as open-ended as GTA3, Morrowind and Deus Ex takes a lot of development time and oodles of cash. Though developers are now giving players a lot more freedom within the game world but still keeping them on a linear track. For example take IO Interactives Freedom Fighters. The story is set in stone, but there's a 101 different ways to tackle every situation. This is down to something as simple as giving the player the freedom to go almost anywhere in the level (see an airduct up the side of a building? You can probably climb it). It was those little things that really made that game.

[TEZBEK]

I prefer linear games. I dont have time for free roaming stuff. It usually means walking around aimlessly.

Linear games are much more fun and focused as well. I used to like free roaming but im bored of that stuff now. It gets kinda samey.

[Ish]

Personally I have no real preference for either linear or freeform games. I think they both have there place.

What I would add to the comments made is that I don't believe a freeform world precludes a really strong narrative. For great examples of this look at both Ultima 6 and 7. Those games were extraordinarily free (or at least felt so - which is all that matters!). You could do what you want, go where you want, when you want. And yet - they managed to have very strong (and mature) narratives that as well as being interesting stories tackled serious issues such as racism. In terms of freeform RPG design I really don't think those two games have yet been beaten.

[nips]

As long as I'm given a clear goal, I don't mind. If I'm told: "You should do this, by here, on your map." then I'm more than happy.

I hate the Super Metriod style of wander aimlessly until I stumble into the next part of the game... I much prefer to know what I'm doing and make my way there in my own time...

I found Fallout 2 to be a great example of this... You had one main objective from the start. They told you to search several places, and from those you could complete the game... The game could be over in 15 hours (if you were good enough). Or, you could spend 100 hours trying to get every piece of armour and doing all the mini quests etc...

Presently I'm enjoying the limited freedom of choice in KotOr - Light or Dark choices that has small effects on the game, which I'm sure, in the long run, will have a large effect...

Total freedom is bad, but open ended choices within a clear goal is great... Although I'm more than happy to play through FFVII which is the same everytime...

[JammyD]

Some non-linear PC type RPG games spoil the added freedom IMO by not giving the player much of a clue what to do next or not letting the player use their imagination to solve problems their own way like you might expect. However I personally avoid the the Morrowind/Diablo/Baldurs Gate type of game.

However, I've played some completely linear games myself very recently which pissed me off no end cos I knew exactly where I was supposed to go next(only one locked door ) except I was given no idea of where to find the all-important key, only to come across it in the bottom of a pool or on the body of another samey enemy half an hour later.
See non-linear games such as Deus Ex sidestepped these problems by letting you come up with your own way of preceeding. No key? You could use your lockpicking skills or I simply preferred to blow the door of its hinges.

I really don't like item-as-a-key Zelda type of non-linearity probably cos my problem solving skills suck in this situation. I'm stuck in A Link to The Past and Ocarina Of Time because I haven't a clue where I can progress next, there's too many options available to me, with each location as much a progressional dead-end as the next.

Halo's got a great balance of exploration freedom for an essentially linear FPS I think, then it didn't involve much character interaction did it?

Linear games have their place in arcade/action gameplay IMO but for more cerebral experiences, the extra freedom gives them a different dimension which makes Deus Ex one of my favourite games ever.

If every non-linear game took it's lead from Deus Ex, I think everyone would find their way okay(has anyone ever got lost/stuck for ideas in Deus Ex?).

[chevkoch]

There are so many aspects involved in a rich gaming experience. If story and atmosphere (to name two) feel right, present linearity might not be obvious enough to be perceived as limiting. Sometimes a mere A-B defined game structure is cleverly disguised by a smoke & mirror method, employing various game design assets (graphics, soundtrack, etc.) to make the player feel immersed in something greater.

Personally I'm prefering to be able to to choose from several paths that let me progress in a game. And I like vast, seemingly endless areas to explore, but there need to be challenges in that virtual environment or boredom might easily lurk behind the next polygon rock for me.

[Magnakai]

Hmm, an interesting thread.
Take the original Elite, for example.

There were perhaps... 3 or 4 scripted missions in the whole game. Actually, depending on which version you played, there might be less, or none at all.
Yet the open sprawling feel and amount of freedom to make your own adventures has rarely been bettered.
I'm with Ish when he says that Ultima 6 & 7 represent one of the highest points of freedom mixed with a strong narrative. I'd consider adding Ultima Underworld 1 (never played 2) to this. Arcanum or Fallout 2 (or maaaaybe Baldur's Gate 2) have probably come closest in recent years.

Personally, I found Morrowind to be absolutely fascinating, with almost far TOO much to do. I constantly stumbled upon new quests, even long after I completed the main quest. (it lets you carry on afterwards. YES!)
I may actually be a bit too fond of free-roamingness, finding KotOR too linear, although curiously I never felt the same way about the FF games, even 10. I guess I had different expectations.

However, I wouldn't like every game to be free-roaming. Can you imagine Ikaruga where you could go where you want? No, me either. Or some strange combination of Ridge Racer and GTA? It'd likely be lame.
I consider Metropolis Street Racer, and especially it's sequels to be an excellent example of restraint in game design. I have every faith that the developers, Bizzare (right?) could've made a sorta free-roaming racing game. Look at the city design... Sure, it would've taken work, but if they'd really wanted to, they could've done a Midtown Madness, or something. But, damn, am I glad that they didn't.

To me, the two best compromise between the two extremes are Deus Ex and Thief 2.
Deus Ex led you down a very linear path, but allowed you to approach it's objectives in any way you wanted. Sure, you had limited potential to return to older places, but they could've added Level 1, Level 2 screens, and it wouldn't have been any different.
Thief 2 set you down in very particular, closed missions. It gave you a list of things to do, and told you to get on with it. Offhand, I can only think of one mission that was really linear, and that one barely counts as a proper mission. Every other one just gave you this big location, and you approached it however you wanted, which was lovely. In some ways, it worked better than Deus Ex, due to your limited skill set and tighter focus.

[Brats]

There's a big difference between having a non-linear plot and having non-linear gameplay mechanics. The former can cause a great deal of confusion as it did with Morrowind, but the latter can be superb fun if handled correctly.

KOTOR has a linear story (except for the two different endings) and there are set tasks that must be completed in order to progress that keeps the story on track. But how those tasks are completed is pretty much up to the player. The non-linearity made the game for me.

Likewise, Halo is very linear in its overall structure, but the combat engine allows individual areas to be approached in different ways.

Overall, I prefer this "sandbox" style approach. Give me a goal and some tools to do the job and I'll work out my own way of getting there. Splinter Cell was a great game, but it would have been even greater if it had allowed the player a bit more freedom. They gave you all these great toys to use, but more or less decided for you when you ought to use them. The good thing is that developers seem to have acknowledged this point and are making the sequel less prescriptive .

[sithlordx]

I think the Shenmue games got the balance between these two perfectly
anyone else?

[chevkoch]

Give me a goal and some tools to do the job and I'll work out my own way of getting there.

That about sums it up. If you'd pitch a game to me with that sentence, I'd definitely gravitate toward buying it.

I like it when I'm treated as an individual when presented with challenges in a title. Gameplay should allow many different ways to go about finding solutions for in-game goals. It's great when people get together and discuss how everyone took on tasks and you realize after hearing all those different approaches that there still might be other ideas possible that noone has thought of yet.

Often you find this experience within simulations, I remember one interview with Wayne Imlach from Mucky Foot about Startopia. He got almost philosophical when pondering various styles of playing their game: [quote, translated from the German official strategy book] We're proud to say we ourselves don't know exactly how many different possibilities there are to be successful as an administrator in Startopia. Does a society system need to be extremely varied? Or can you base a community primarily on agricultural production? Or is success also possible if you head a pure militaristically structured station?[/quote]

If you're too much led by the hand in a game, it leaves no place for your own imagination, your personal input or shall I say, your individual expression.