Pretty much all games are linear. The only ones that aren't usually tend to be simulators. Yeah I'm a kill joy.

i only know one game that does that almost perfectly, red dead redemption 

There are both good and bad games in both genres.

A mix of both.

First of all, all linear games need some non linear aspects to the game. It's can't be like FFXIII where you follow one set path during the entire game, you need some freedom. XenoBlade Chronicles has a set path during the game, but various sidequests, some as interesting as the single player itself, require you to go back to other cities. Games like Mass Effect are fairly linear (well 3 and 1 were), but you can re-arrange the order of some missions.

The point of a game is to tell a story, but tell a story that follows a logical path. If you think going in X direction makes more sense then going in the Y direction, but the game physically prevents you from going in the X direction, that's bad structure. That's one thing I hate about most FPS's, is that there is a set path which is governed by invisible walls or baracades. Crysis was good in this aspect because you always got to choose how you went to your next target.

However at the same time too much non-linearity can ruin a game. Fallout 3 is an excellent game, but not because of it's main plot. It's a fun game because of the unique atmosphere, diverity in the game, and the quality of the side-quests, many being more interesting then the main game itself. Still an amazing game, but it could have been better had there been more emphasis on the main plot. Same with Mass Effect 2, the game is so focused on gaining the loyalty and aquiring the crew for the final mission, that it doesn't really emphasis the importance of the mission much, and really the main plot is kinda short and shallow. I mean what is a Human Reaper, why would the Reapers use organic DNA to make a Reaper when they can just make regular Reapers fine on their own.


The thing is, as long as the game sets out to do what it's suppose to do, then it's good. Lost Odyssey was linear, but when you reached a city, you were tasked to explore the city on your own before you discovered the main objective, and most of the time, you could still finish the side quests before going on with your main quest. Lost Odyssey was linear, but had no invisible walls, and no baracades. You can go to the first area in the game anytime you want after you finish it. FFXIII was linear, but it was terrible because the entire game you run down a narrow coridor. There aren't any branching paths, and obsticles required you to go around them in 1 way every time (e.g You can't scale a cliff, you have to walk around or use the ladder, and you can't stray from your path on branching pathways because people or obstacles block your way).

At this point in tech and development, it just comes across as super lazy to me.

Any game that lets players proceed at their own pace is fine with me. I enjoy the rather linear Prince of Persia series because I can normally take the time to take in my surroundings and take time to carefully observe the challenges in my way. I don't exactly feel the same way about rollercoaster rides like Call of Duty or any game trying to shove me along through a series of story scenes as if I'm an actor in a movie, as opposed to letting me appreciate the narrative when I feel ready.
On the other hand, I adore the Metroid series for letting me ignore much of the story. I can scan items in Metroid Prime to glean a few details that capture my imagination, or on my tenth playthrough I can focus on speedrunning through the game's cleverly designed, interconnected levels. Even the more linear Metroid games (I'm looking at you, Prime 3) are still fine in my book, as long as the narrative presented still leaves enough for me to imagine or find out on my own (Other M... and Fusion to a lesser extent). Most of the games in the series are pretty good at visual and audio storytelling, too. The atmosphere is astounding.

Replayability can be an issue for most linear games though, so my final answer is non-linear.

Apples and oranges I say. Both are good, but how good they are, or can be, depends on what kind of "dish" they're being prepared in. IMO certain genre's to lend themselves best to nonlinear, open, structures, adventure games being the chief among them. At the same time, I couldn't imagine having a truly nonlinear Mario game. It would totally kill the appeal. 

Speaking of which, just today I saw someone on N4G suggesting that Nintendo turn Mario into some sort of open world adventure game with karts used as a form of transportation. I couldn't believe it.

Dragon age origins or dragon age 2.........( I wish someone would say dragon age 2 that piece of....). lol j/k giving me the freedom to choose my next course of action is far more entertaining imo.

It can be seen that way. Another way is that it can increase the immsersion levels, because it involes the mind forcing to work at an interactive level.

I know many play games to relax. This is just another way of looking at gaming in general.

I tend to like linear games a lot better. When you're making 500 quests like Skyrim, it's hard to make them all compelling.