The danger of a linear game is that it may leave the player feeling powerless, like s/he's just along for the ride and doesn't really have any control. The player feels herded and restrained, and it's not a very fun experience.

The danger of a game that's too open is that the game may feel aimless. Presented with so many choices, it's hard to feel like any of them have much meaning. An NPC says, "Hurry up and do this story mission," but the player wanders around doing whatever s/he pleases with no real urgency. It leaves the game feeling unfocused and detached.

The trick is to strike the right balance between the two extremes for your game, then mix in other elements that combat the weakness of too much openness or linearity. If your game is linear, take measures to ensure that the player feels powerful and free, rather than strung along by the game designer. If your game is open, make sure to give the game a sense of structure and meaning, so that the player doesn't get lost is a sea of choices, indecision turning to apathy.

FFX was pretty damn linear and I still loved it...so i'm not really worried about it

I'm pretty much torn on this issue. Sometimes huge open world games scare me... and it boils down to the fact that I hate to miss anything important when playing a game. For example when game worlds were relatively small and linear and I was exploring a dungeon in an RPG i might come to a fork in the road. Next I would try to determine which path might advance the story or take me out of the dungeon and which path was more likely to have a secret chest, item, weapon or a character/boss to encounter. If I choose one path and saw that was taking me further away or leaving the area, I would turn back. I would always try to explore all paths before preceding so as not to miss anything.

In an open world game it is much much harder to explore everything and I always have the feeling that I am easily missing stuff. Anyone able to find all the bobble heads in fallout 3 without a guide? Probably not.

That being said I also have problems with an RPG being too linear. I feel like an "RPG" needs to have some exploration whether its exploring towns or a world map. Personally I loved the world map back in the PS1 days with FF7, FF8, & FF9. Gave me the excitement of basic exploration to find new places and the freedom to wander around and ability to go back and revisit places later on (in a airship, on foot or by chocobo) to get something you may have missed. Those were the best.

In FFX, I was pretty disappointed with how linear that game was. You basically just walked on a path for the first 3/4's of the game until Zanarkland. It was too easy to find the secrets, just look at your map and you see a small branching dead end path to the left. Oh, I bet there is a treasure chest there. Sure enough there was.

I know I would knock points off Final Fantasy XIII review score for being little more than a straight path for 30 hours, but hopefully the story will still be good enough to keep me entertained. Final Fantasy X has my 3rd favorite story in final fantasy game so I still was able to enjoy it. The narrative was much tighter as a result.

In conclusion, if I can go back and and return to areas that I missed in a open world game then I'm okay with it. And if a linear game delivers excellent pacing and story than I more than fine with it. However, if I had to walk everywhere in Fallout 3 without fast travel I may be signing a different tune today about open world. I don't like to waste that much time wandering around in game.

[RPG's I'm playing in the near future: Final Fantasy XIII, Red Dead Redemption, and Fallout 3: New Vegas]

I'm going to work off this one, because I think this is an awesome opinion that is far more human psychology stretching and explorative. This sentiment happens in the PnP RPG environment as well not just VG.

This seems to be linked with quick adaptable creativity. In relations it would be the difference between a classic actor or an improtu actor. A classic stand up comedian or Robin Williams. From a playing perspective it seems to come down to. Can/Does the player require a pre designed entertainment or can/do they create their own entertainment. Pre-designed Experience or Creation. Open gaming is about Creation while Linear is about pre-designed experience. To be fair though majority of forms of entertainment since recorded history of man has been about pre defined experience. Songs, stories, books, radio, stage, movies, TV, Video Games. It has only been in the last 30 years where interactive entertainment has come around. Offering with RPG(ugg I hate saying this Pen and Paper) and finally Video Games. This is a relatively small blink of the eye time period in human history where the player is encoureged to start participating with the creation of the story.

Is there something wrong with this. No and critics do really need to stop bitching about this. Those same critics are hypocrits within in the same day. After whining about linear FF13 they go on to play something like Pheonix Write, HaloX, CoD... Then there as pointed out the illusion of freedom as pointed out.

It's a strange odditiy, but the Illusion of Freedom is so important to developed countries(like North America, Europe...) including the players. Is the choice of not doing something really a freedom of game play. Is the choice of when you do a linear story freedom. Is the choice to have a character on your team freedom. To an extent yes, but at the same time these small choices hide the fact that if you boil down many CRPG to it's core story you find that there is no freedom and the game is very linear. In many regards levelling is meaningless since you progress you are forced to the same level appropriate to the area/monsters. This also stands the same for equipment. Your equipment is forced to equal the current challenge area. If you try to RP in an CRPG like FF it quickly becomes a game where the player cannot progress until the player acquiesses to the experience the developer wants you to do. Higher level, better gear. This also includes the story. Levels, towns, optional characters all provide an illusion.

I have been PnP paper gaming for 20 years. I have been in the seat of a GM for the last 20 years. I can say from first had that the difference between Creator and Player is distinct. As a GM my group are all Players. When I propose an open sandbox environment for them to play in they become paralyzed. They sit in their homes and wait until I provide them with the next adventure. At the same time all of them make poor GM's. 4/5 of them have tried and just can't do it. When I turn to become the player I get frustrated with the rail roaded nature of the fifth person. (Yes the term for linear in gaming is called Rail Roading. It's been around for a while). The best is the illusion of freedom with some small options. It's a video game.

Personly I think everyone needs to drop this ridiculous argument. It's stupid. I like to read, but I also like to write. Just because I like to write does that mean I need stop reading? no. I like to watch movies, just because I want to act does that mean I need to stop watching movies. Do I start shitting on the idea of a provided experience over creating my own? no, no I don't.

People just need to stop. FF13 is done away with all the pretense crap of being an RPG and is exactly what JRPG are. Entertainment. Enjoy it for what it provides because it sounds like it is doing a marvelous job to those who want or have an open mind to it. There will always be games of both styles. Though I suspect based on cycle of evolution FF13 will become more rare and ME2/FO3 will become more common. Then swing back like a pendulem.

I think games like GTA and Bioware titles have really changed the Western mindset. With GTA linearity was destroyed and more and more games since have created a more open world environment and gotten away from linear gameplay.

WRPGs have also pushed to get away from linear gameplay and offer a true 'role playing' experience where you can actually play the role however you want.

JRPGs have always been linear. Very linear. There's no role-playing at all. To Western attitudes, it's a sign they haven't evolved.

At least that's my guess.

ok, now after 40h (I guess you guys will arrive there after 30-35h - I have to translate the jpn after all) I left Cocoon and now the game finally opens up a bit

Sounds like 100% of the combat based missions in Mass Effect 2, which gets praised for it, praised for non-traditional leveling and praised for getting rid of or dumbing down as many RPG elements as possible.

A JRPG does a similar thing and gets slammed for it.  It's funny how things work...

Just gott say. When you leave the area where the Goron knocks you down, the Native Americna looking guy stops you and tells you exactly what to do. Also, in pretty much every Zelda since OoT there's a character with you at all times who will tell you what to do if you get stuck. I understand how you could not know to talk to Midna, but the other guy tells you exactly what to do and there's no way to avoid talking to him. I don't see why you'd lie about that so it's very confusing.

OT: People like to make choices, even if the choices are meaningless (hence dialogue trees with one result). Linear games limit the ability of the palyer to make choices. Genrally speaking ofcourse.

I don't think you understand just how linear the thing is... You'll see when you try it...

ugh  dialogue tree are useless, the story it's hurt alot for RPG i dont think giving player choice (and giving sex a reward) it's right thing to do, it damage the story, since it's so random, character never develop from what they went at the begining at much doign something "heroic" at the end

but you simply don't care about the character.

one game that have this and kinda failed it WKC, they add a user character but since the game it's story based, the character it's just there as add never do something important.

WRPG will never have a "sephiroth" or a "Aeris".