By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why is the description "linear" used so negatively in gaming?

Okay, so I just beat Ryse:  Son of Rome yesterday on XBox One.  The game has received pretty medicore/poor reviews (60 meta), but for what it was, I enjoyed it.  It had already been out for a year by the time I got my XBox One this past Christmas, so I was well aware of the criticisms that had been lodged against it (linear, repetitive hack n' slash).  And, I was willing to try the game anyway.  It's a beautiful game (aside from some awfully rubbery CGI dancers in Basilius' den of iniquity).  I don't know how much more people wanted from a combat mechanic centered around ancient sword fighting and pilum (Roman javelin) throwing.  The combat suited me just fine (although calling for covering fire from archers while also controlling a rapid fire scorpio was a cumbersome task with the controller).  I found the voice acting to be very good as well.

Anyways, my question is, why does it seem like any game that is not considered an "open world" game get slapped with the description as "linear" in a very derogatory fashion?  I don't think there is anything wrong with a game that drives you along to a main objective when the very plot of the game itself calls for it.  In Ryse's case, what would people have preferred?  A game where the protagonist Marius frequently derails his own quest for vengeance to run errands for NPC townsfolk or go on a leisurely tour of the countryside of Europe?  The plot of the game doesn't call for free-roaming, so why is it expected or derided for not having it?  This applies to other games, but since I just finished Ryse and personally enjoyed it, it's the main example I choose to cite.  The Telltale games get frequently trashed as well, which I don't understand because the genre they are focusing on is in the very title of their company (Tell Tale)!  Wolf Among Us and Game of Thrones don't try to be anything they're not.  They are interactive storybooks.  Period.  I used to read "Choose Your Own Adventure" books as a child, so with that as the bar of my expectations, I enjoy them (although the awful drops in framerate can be annoying).  If you go in expecting anything more, then you are setting up yourself for disappointment, and that is not a failure on the part of the game itself.

I do enjoy open world games like Elder Scrolls:  Oblivion, Fallout 3, or Dragon Age:  Inquisition; but every single game doesn't need to match these in scope to be enjoyable.  Honestly, I get so lost in all the side quests of those games that I often don't finish the main story.  As I've gotten older, I find that I have a much shorter attention span for games.  So, for me, it is refreshing to play a game with one set narrative that I can follow from start to finish and feel the satisfaction of completing.  What do you think?  Do you think it's fair for a game to be referred to as "linear" in a derogatory fashion when linearity suits the games plot?



Around the Network

I actually prefer linear games....helps tell the story better and you never get lost doing something unimportant too the story.



Preston Scott

Its group thought really. People want to control what people are 'supposed' to like.



Linear isn't a problem all the time. But games can easily be too linear for my tastes. One annoyance I have with overly linear games are when they show you this sprawling area or all these awesome details off in the background that you never get a chance to interact with because the set path of the game doesn't allow it.

It's one reason I preferred the 2013 TR reboot over any Uncharted game. While TR at its core was still mostly a linear experience, there was a lot of room to explore and move around wherever you wanted in an almost open world setting.

Ryse is a good example of a linear game done well. I mean, there's really no reason for you to move around and explore in that setting.



Most game that are criticized for being linear have more things wrong with them than just being linear.



Around the Network

Because seizing or exploring a city shouldn't be seizing or exploring a hallway.



No, I don't think it's fair for a game to be called "linear" in a derogatory fashion since not every game needs to be an open world game. I enjoy both types of games in equall amounts .



Send a Friend Request On PSN :P

To me linear means focused and theres nothing wrong with that. I don't understand why some people cant appreciate different types of games >_>



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

Because there are a lot of narrow-minded people out there, basically. These people automatically equate "I don't like this" to "this is bad". It's an extremely childish mentality.

The funny thing to me is that some of these people will often reference other highly linear games as being superior, especially RPGs that would hide their linear-ness behind a thin facade.



It started with GTA III when "open world" became this buzz word.

Open world can be fun, but often I find linear means better level design as developers know where you'll come from. Open world enjoyment for me hinges on how fun it is to traverse the landscape. For example infamous was a blast to run around while Dragon Age: Inquisition was so tedious.