Linearity vs Non-Linearity

[Magical CC]

A damn good game is a damn good game whether it's linear or non-linear.

That is what she said.

[BrightBow]

Well, some of my favorite games are non-linear. Baldur's Gate, Gothic, TES Morrowind, anything Zelda.

But for games like Castlevania SotN and it's successors, TES Oblivion and any worldmap Fire Emblem except Gaiden, I don't see the appeal at all.

It's just a matter of execution. I like some of either category. I don't like others.

Like, I love the huge word of Morrowind with it's infinite possibilities.

I love the hostile world of the early Gothic games, where I have to work myself carefully up the food chain of Khorinis' wildlife, the tense feeling when I march through a forest, trying not to be noticed by the dangerous creatures that I can't tackle yet and the satisfaction when I can take them head-on later on. And it's gonna be later on because monsters in Gothic 1/2 don't respawn.

So levels really need to be earned in those games.

But in my book, non-linearity is pointless if there is no actual world and nothing to explore.

Hence, why I don't see it working in Fire Emblem. It's a strategy game. There is no world and no exploration. All you do is to shove units around on a grit and then it's back to the world map and to the next random encounter. And a "random encounter" in this game is nothing but a bunch of random monsters placed all over the map without any actual concept behind it. And it's the same monsters in every single encounter. Just with different numbers. And numbers alone are boring. It is effectively like a turnbased beat'em up. I really don't get it.

But there is even more stuff that makes it not only tedious but downright unpleasant compared to the average JRPG. Like the weapon durability.

In a linear Fire Emblem, I do find it satisfying to handle the inventory of 10+ units and replace used up weaons and stuff because I feel like I archive an actual progress from chapter to chapter.

But when all I do is to go from a random battle to another random battle, it feels like a chore and I wish I didn't have to do that. I'm confused why Gaiden is still the only non-linear FE that removed it.

And I don't get games like Oblivion either. In theory, that game has a world. But there is nothing in it. Enemies, treasure, whatever. Everything is randomly generated, depending on the character level.

Enemies are no fun to fight because they are always just strong enough to be a challenge. And loot is always going to be the same stuff as in the last container until you reach a certain level.

There is no reason to actual go anywhere because the stuff you find doesn't actually depend on where you are. There is no point in finding treasure because it's the same you find everywhere.

And there is no point in gaining levels because enemies will just level along with you. So I just can't find a reason to do anything in this game.

Oblivion has to be the most artificial world I every experienced. It doesn't feel like exploring a world. It feels like being the center of a bubble. Nothing outside of it really exists and everything in it exists just for your sake. In my opinion, it's kinda missing the point of an RPG. It should feel like you are part of the world and not like the world just exists for your own sake like it is some sort of toy.

[NinjaMonkey]

As long as I'm enjoying the game, I don't really care if a game is linear or if it's non-linear.

Hence, why I don't see it working in Fire Emblem.

Isn't Awakening non-linear to a degree? Sure, you have to do the main story chapters in order, but the Side Stories/Paralogues can be done in any order you want to.

Edited February 6, 2014 by NinjaMonkey

[Refa]

Well, some of my favorite games are non-linear. Baldur's Gate, Gothic, TES Morrowind, anything Zelda.

But for games like Castlevania SotN and it's successors, TES Oblivion and any worldmap Fire Emblem except Gaiden, I don't see the appeal at all.

It's just a matter of execution. I like some of either category. I don't like others.

But in my book, non-linearity is pointless if there is no actual world and nothing to explore.

That's why people like SotN though. The feeling of exploring Castlevania for the first time in forever and the steady progression of Alucard and being able to explore more after you get other stuff and man it's so good. Seriously, I can't see why anyone wouldn't like it, even if the later iterations had more issues due to being somewhat more copy paste (still think they were good games, especially the Sorrows, but w/e). There's so much I can say about SotN and why it's the best but I'll leave it at that for now.

[Psych]

I beat ALBW in about three days when I got it, and while I liked the concept of the item rental, I do think they could have probably figured out how to make the dungeons more difficult. Most the time I was annoyed by some puzzle that seemed really simple, but actually required something like the item, a time switch, and flipping to 2D and you don't assume all this when you first get it. It was more like they tried to hard to integrate the 2D mode, even though I actually really liked it and the concept after playing through while at first I thought I would hate it. I think they should have had maybe a path you could go, such as complete the ice dungeon first and you have to do them in this order whereas if you complete the water dungeon first you have to do them in this order. That's the type of non-linearity I prefer, where you have a choice how you complete it.

Something like Skyrim, however, is actually really displeasing to me. While I like the game, there's just too much to do. Sure the open world is cool, and you can do quests or just wander around all day looking for ruins to loot, it feels like there's always more. So you never really get a sense of completion since you can always be upgrading your character. I think a large part of that for me also comes from the ability system, where you wouldn't even be able to cap everything if you tried, so you require a second/third/fourth character if you want a mage, a thief, and a warrior too. Or you can mesh them together, but then it doesn't really feel like you might be a specialist. Maybe if they added another way to steal and lockpick besides just thieving skills, but that's not here or there.

Of course, once you have these other characters, then you feel compelled to do the quests you already completed in order to progress, so it just feels like a massive time sink and you don't get the same sense of accomplishment.

[BrightBow]

Isn't Awakening non-linear to a degree? Sure, you have to do the main story chapters in order, but the Side Stories/Paralogues can be done in any order you want to.

It most certainly is one of the games I meant. Along with Sacred Stones and Tear Ring Saga.

I can't play that game for very long partly for the above reasons mentioned, so I have no idea how people manage to get hundreds of hours on a single save file here since every random encounter is effectively the same or even entirely pointless because enemies are too weak to even do any damage at all.

That's why people like SotN though. The feeling of exploring Castlevania for the first time in forever and the steady progression of Alucard and being able to explore more after you get other stuff and man it's so good. Seriously, I can't see why anyone wouldn't like it, even if the later iterations had more issues due to being somewhat more copy paste (still think they were good games, especially the Sorrows, but w/e). There's so much I can say about SotN and why it's the best but I'll leave it at that for now.

I originally had a comparison between Castlevania and Metroid in my above post but I ended up cutting it because I wasn't sure if those rants were even in the spirit of the topic.

My issue with Castlevania is that it focuses grinding and farming above actual exploration.

It makes one enter and reenter the same room again and again, to kill the same enemies that you've already proven you can kill dozens of times until they drop some ice cream (Castlevania has stupid drops) or the ability to sit on a chair entirely on random.

Yes, there are still actual hidden items. But those are usually the same items you already own, just with an unique icon and different numbers attached.

They will most of the time be replaced by another item with even higher numbers after around the same time it took to find it in the first place.

Metroid on the other hand doesn't have grinding. Neither for items or levels. All upgrades come from actual exploration and they always remain useful because Energie tanks and Missle Packs all add up to each other. It's pretty much the same for games like Zelda or Mega Man X.

SotN is probably the best of the bunch but every game afterwards seems to introduce an ability system that exists specifically as an excuse to have the player kill every enemy in the game over and over.

Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow both got the Soul system. As you know, this system applies to literally every single enemy in this one. Dawn even went as far as requiring one to farm the same soul several times for weapon and ability upgrades.

Circle of the Moon has the cards, which are exclusively gained by random drops.

Portrait of Ruin is the worst. It has "sidequests", which are mostly around random drops and never give any direction of where to find an item. So effectively you have no choice but to farm every single random drop from every single enemy and to hit any wall in the castle for a secret area because you don't even know if you are even looking for a random drop.

And then there is the Sub Weapon EXP system. Use a Subweapon to kill a few hundred enemies so that it can be used to actually progress in the game.

All that stuff got a lot better in Order of Ecclesia. For the most part, Quests have actual direction and most abilities are found by exploration or absorbing them from enemy attacks. But even with that direction, there is still lots of tedious farming which doesn't challenge anything but one's patience.

Edited February 6, 2014 by BrightBow

[Ike-Mike]

Well-executed non-linearity > well-executed linearity.

[Dwarfishh]

I don't really have a preference in how linear a game is as a whole, but linear level designs annoy me, as it really reduces replay value. I love the elder scrolls (Still finding new things in Skyrim, having had it 2 years) and non-linear games are really cool when done well. I do prefer non-linear stories as a whole though, or at least having some variation (Eg Mass Effect, ending aside).

Totally linear RPGs (Only game genre I spend a lot of time on) are pretty poor as a whole, IMO, as they defeat the point of the genre somewhat. Dark Souls is the only 'linear' game of the genre I particularly enjoy, and that did have a lot of secrets and replay value.

The Assassins creed games are a good example of how a linear story can be broken up in various ways, giving freedom and an open world, but still having great coherency to the story.

[Cowboy Karimov]

Linear. I like to know what I'm doing, where I'm going and how I should do it.

[Narga_Rocks]

What is non-linearity? Is there a line beyond which a linear game is no longer linear? Morrowind has a main quest but there is so many other things to do it's almost like the main quest doesn't exist. I'd call that non-linear, but what about ffvi? Finding friends in the wor is as non-linear as it gets, but the game ends when you beat the final boss and there aren't that many things to do before you have to go to the final tower so I'd almost want to call it linear, but maybe it's a mix? Anyway, I like mixes. Dark Souls and FFVI and LTTP are pretty much the kind of linearity I like. In LTTP, once you get to the Dark World and start getting the items from dungeons, you technically don't even have to clear half the dungeon and can move on to the next. Some dungeons you can even skip until it's time to get the crystals. Dark Souls you can choose the order to get the lord souls and some of the other stuff is a bit non-linear as well, but there's enough linearity that I still feel like I'm working towards a goal. Not that I didn't like Morrowind. >200 hours. But Morrowind mostly feels like I'm just dicking around for 200 hours.

[RJWalker]

If the vast majority of stuff that you do is required to get through the game, it would be a linear experience.

I really don't care. The mark of a truly amazing game, for me, is if I get the urge to replay it immediately after finishing it, even if absolutely nothing will change significantly in terms of story or gameplay in a second playthrough.

A few games have made me feel that way. Warcraft 3's campaign (and it's expansion pack), Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, a couple of others. All of them very linear.

Non-linearity has its advantages but I don't care enough to specifically prefer non-linear games.

[Roivann]

It all depends on the aesthetics and mechanics of the game. Whether or not a game should be linear should be based on how the game is played. Like, imagine if a game like Just Cause 2 (for those of you who don't know, your main method of transportation in that game was using a grappling hook) was confined to a linear path, even if doing so would allow the devs to focus on fine-tuning the combat mechanics and creating a streamlined, more story-driven experience. It would have totally ruined the fun of the game. Being nonlinear has ruined many a game as well. Take the Alone in the Dark reboot, for example, which may have been a pretty good game had they not forced in open world exploration. Or the 2009 Wolfenstein "reboot" (I hesitate to use that term, as it really hadn't been that long since Return to Castle Wolfenstein), which I actually enjoyed, aside from the token free roaming segments and not knowing which missions to do next, which, unfortunately, were a good chunk of the game. Honestly, I like both kinds of games about equally. My favorite game series (Elder Scrolls, Half-Life, Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Fire Emblem, Kirby, Mega Man, The Legend of Zelda, and Dragon Quest, to name a few) are split pretty evenly between linear and non-linear game design.

[HeroMaster47]

Linear for me. I really can't get into games that just throw you in to a massive world and don't really tell you what to do. For me, I need guidance and order, I need a specific goal to do and I don't like going out of my way to explore to maybe run into a sidequest. I'm not opposed to freedom and exploration, but I find that too much of it overwhelms me and makes me not want to play. That's why I don't play things like Skyrim, as a game like that just throws you into a massive world with a vague goal to work towards, but is more of a "find your own fun" sort of deal. It doesn't really explain why I like Minecraft or Terraria, but there are always going to be exceptions.