Current Events > Nonlinearity is not a positive and linearity is not a negative

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nothing wrong with linearity, nothing right with nonlinearity.

---

It game be

---

Linearity isn't inherently bad. Railroading is.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Linearity isn't inherently bad. Railroading is.

Define railroading

---

Nonlinearity are always my favorite since there are just so much stuff you can do it them.

---

Garioshi posted...

Define railroading

Forward-only.
It's passable (but still annoying) in older platformers like Super Mario Bros, or, you know, racing games, but terribad in RPGs and action-adventure games.

At least some of them bother with "oh no, that town blew up somehow". The lazy ones just have the guy shrug and pop up a "I can't go that way" messagebox, and the worst ones just pop up an invisible wall blocking off where you just were.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Linearity isn't inherently bad. Railroading is.

Half-Life wants a word with you.

The topic title is only accurate if you add the word "inherently."

"Nonlinearity is not inherently a positive and linearity is not inherently a negative."

A game can be very linear, and that can lead to better design. A game can be linear and that can drastically hurt the quality. A game can be made a lot better by being nonlinear. A game can be nonlinear in a way that makes it tedious without benefit.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Linearity isn't inherently bad. Railroading is.

Railshooters are great. One of my favorite arcade genres.

---

cjsdowg posted...

Nonlinearity are always my favorite since there are just so much stuff you can do it them.

On the contrary, nonlinear games can't tailor themselves to the ability set you currently have like linear games do. They may end up actually doing less because of it; everything being optional sounds great, but it means challenges can only be built around the things you're guaranteed to have, and therefore less engaging.

---

Agreed. However I'll pass on the corridor/hallway simulators thank you very much

---

Agree. Like story focused games to be mostly linear. It makes FFX better imo.

---

I miss the days of linearity. For some reason the gaming community has decided that if a game isn't 100% non-linear then it's not worth playing.

I always enjoyed having levels like in Goldeneye. Where there was no hub world and no exploring. Just levels for you to play.

---

Metal_Bug posted...

Half-Life wants a word with you.

Half-Life lets me replay segments at will. FF13 does not.

Garioshi posted...

On the contrary, nonlinear games can't tailor themselves to the ability set you currently have like linear games do. They may end up actually doing less because of it; everything being optional sounds great, but it means challenges can only be built around the things you're guaranteed to have, and therefore less engaging.

I agree with this, but you're making a lot of assumptions of what the poster is seeking in a game. Assumptions which very well could be faulty!

---

Garioshi posted...

On the contrary, nonlinear games can't tailor themselves to the ability set you currently have like linear games do. They may end up actually doing less because of it; everything being optional sounds great, but it means challenges can only be built around the things you're guaranteed to have, and therefore less engaging.

There's a third option, where there are multiple ways to take on a challenge, and equipment from elsewhere lets you do things in a different way. And not every game has puzzles.

There's scaling enemy levels, where the stronger YOU are the stronger they are, so regardless of the order you choose to do things the challenge increases.

Then there's layers for different areas. Time passes in the world, and an area will be very different if you do it sooner or later. This one is hard and not common, but great when done right.

Then there's an option that's usually neglected in modern game design. Let people go somewhere early. Let them get stuck if they don't have equipment to progress, and when that happens they have to turn back.

---

Both of them pose different challenges for developers, and the quality of the experience depends on how well-crafted the game and its challenges are, yes. In both cases, maintaining a sensible difficulty curve is essential.

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Agree. Like story focused games to be mostly linear. It makes FFX better imo.

Agreed

DarkChozoGhost posted...

There's scaling enemy levels, where the stronger YOU are the stronger they are, so regardless of the order you choose to do things the challenge increases.

this is probably one of my least favourite things in games, that sort of game scaling with you concept. It makes it feel like there is no value in improving your character / items / etc because the game scales up alongside you and you don't feel like you're getting any stronger. Or even that getting "stronger" is a net negative in how strong you feel ingame

---

FFX linearity = good
FFXIII linearity = insanely bad

---

Linearity is definitely better for fitting curves, though
---

It depends on the genre or type of game, yeah. If a game known for being explorative in nature suddenly railroads you to the point that even the area/level design heavily affects that, then yeah, that's a problem. (Skyward Sword)

Like, Twilight Princess is linear too but it doesn't feel that restrictive with how Hyrule is designed.

---

BakonBitz posted...

Like, Twilight Princess is linear too but it doesn't feel that restrictive with how Hyrule is designed.

Twilight Princess is a game wherein railroady area-denial schemes lead to game-ending save/quit traps all over the place.
Woe be unto the fool who loads a save on the wrong side of the bridge.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Twilight Princess is a game wherein railroady area-denial schemes lead to game-ending save/quit traps all over the place.
Woe be unto the fool who loads a save on the wrong side of the bridge.

Yeah, that was a problem. I think all those glitches might have been fixed for the HD release on Wii U? If only it wasn't stuck on Wii U. >_>

Skyward Sword also had an awful bug like that, to the point Nintendo had to release a patch channel for it in case it happened.

---

bump

---

Shutting the fuck up is non-binary

---

zelda games suck

you know this to be true

Robot2600 posted...

zelda games suck

you know this to be true

Phantom Hourglass sucks

Ocarina of Time and A Link Between Worlds are some of the best games ever made

---

Garioshi posted...

Define railroading

Railroading is when you notice the linearity.

---

pegusus123456 posted...

Railroading is when you notice the linearity.

Better definition: Railroading is when the game appears to be nonlinear but contrives itself into being linear. "Sealed by the Great Lord's power" in Dark Souls or the ridiculous barriers in Pokemon Sun/Moon are railroading

---

BakonBitz posted...

Skyward Sword also had an awful bug like that, to the point Nintendo had to release a patch channel for it in case it happened.

Same with Metroid: Other M, though no one cared enough about that pos for it to get a patch channel.

---

Garioshi posted...

Better definition: Railroading is when the game appears to be nonlinear but contrives itself into being linear. "Sealed by the Great Lord's power" in Dark Souls or the ridiculous barriers in Pokemon Sun/Moon are railroading

Or its like they described previously ala FFXIII: one long hallway



---

Older I get the more I realize I prefer a more linear experience. The omg so open 400 hours of content crap is played out and the only one of those I have genuinely really enjoyed is Breath of the Wild, which I think was because there was so much fun to be had just dicking around with the game mechanics and engine. I always get hyped to buy these huge games and then just feel so directionless or uninspired that my interest wanes.

Now I dont mind some choice in where to go and when, but you can marry the two with a little railroading. I know thats used as a naughty word for game design, but I dont mind when a game says you can explore areas A, B, and C in whatever order, but you cant get to area D until you do at least two of A, B, and C or some such. Dark Souls 1 was really good at that where you had a lot of the world to play with but couldnt get to Sens until you hit certain thresholds. The great lords power seals were a little on the nose but Sens/Anor Londo was a good linear limitation on an overall more open design.

All that being said, Ive started to get over this feeling that I should want a huge open game with hundreds of hours by default. The vast majority of my favorite games ever are less than ~40 hours, some as little as 10. Theyre just tighter experiences.

---

kirbymuncher posted...

this is probably one of my least favourite things in games, that sort of game scaling with you concept. It makes it feel like there is no value in improving your character / items / etc because the game scales up alongside you and you don't feel like you're getting any stronger. Or even that getting "stronger" is a net negative in how strong you feel ingame

I just think of it as the game deciding it wanted to get better as I got better and thus the enemies simply exist in a better form as before

Especially if its an open world thing, in a linear game I guess I can enjoy an area being made being redundant or just null existence


---

i prefer linear games that manage to accomplish the illusion of non-linearity. in other words games like deus ex where there a number of solutions and pathways available to you to suit any given playstyle, but they are all utlitmately choices that have been planned for and presented to you intentionally by the developer.

---