I found this text document on my hard drive recently. It was part of a post that I was going to post to some forum, but I don't remember posting it. I find it kind of interesting...
---
“Linearity” has become quite a buzzword in modern gaming, at least from where I stand (having spent a few years with a Metroid community, that is.)
Nonlinearity means you are not always told what to do, forced down a fixed path.
…Or does it?
Everyone always cites Super Metroid as the model nonlinear game, but save for the unintentional sequence breaks and glitches, it was quite linear. You couldn’t go to Brinstar without the bombs, you couldn’t go to the wrecked ship without the grapple beam, you couldn’t go to Norfair without the Varia suit, you couldn’t go to Maridia without the power bomb, and you couldn’t go to Ridley without the space jump. You couldn’t just go wherever you wanted, you had to complete the game in a fixed order. Straying from the path and going your own way only rewarded you with a missile expansion or energy tank, but you’d eventually have to go back.
When I think of a nonlinear game, I think of the original Zelda. You had to complete all 8 dungeons, but you could do them in almost any order you wanted. You could do level 2 first, then jump to level 3, then come back for level 1. Then you could go right to level 6 and come back for level 4. The choice is yours. All you need to worry about is what you are capable of with the weapons, items, and hit points you have! In fact, if you’re playing the game for the first time, you’re going to venture into any dungeon you run across regardless of order and crawl them as far as you can go. A few of the bosses in the dungeons required weapons from the other dungeons to kill, but that doesn’t mean you couldn’t hop inside and grab the dungeon’s item from the treasure room while you were there.
Another example is the Mega Man series. You’re presented with 8 levels with boss robots at the end, each holding weapons which make all the other levels easier. The path is yours to choose. Sometimes a weapon will be required on another stage, but this is usually the exception to the rule – numerous different paths are possible.
Unfortunately, true nonlinearity is something that is completely vanishing from videogames today. Never again will you see a Zelda that will let you do a single dungeon out of order. Game designers want all potential gamers to be capable of completing their games, so they hold their hand lest the dreaded “where the hell do I go now” disease strikes them.
---
So, what do you think? Do your definitions of linearity and nonlinearity match with mine? What games do you think are model nonlinear games?
I didn't read most of the substance in that post, but I disagree with one thing. I've never heard Super Metroid being cited as "THE" nonlinear game.
Sure it's a good example, but the best one I can think of is: The Legend of Zelda, Majora's Mask. That game was nonlinear in almost every way possible, and this makes it really interesting for route planning and sequence breaking. Even if you took the "recommended" route, there is still a huge element of nonlinearity to the game.
Besides the fact that many of the later Mega Rock Man games actually give you fewer choices about the order of levels, I started to hate how every traditional Mega Rock Man game has to have an introductory level now. The beauty of being able to choose one of many levels to start on is that you don't have to suffer through the same old "happy green hills" easy first level that's already burned into your mind from all those other gaming sessions where you didn't get very far and didn't feel like using a password. It's actually more fun to decide through trial and error which level is best to start on, and the nonlinearity makes speedruns far more interesting because you don't know what to expect with all the route choices.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
I agree with the examples of LoZ and the MM series, and I'm quite sad to see where the Zelda series has been going in this respect. Sure, there was the possibility of not knowing what to do next, but that very thing made it so much more rewarding when you finally did figure it out. Now, it seems like the "helpers" in the Zelda games bug you about going to the next dungeon every five minutes. I find that this interferes considerably with side quests that the games may have, and I don't even consider myself a large fan of side quests.
DK64_MASTER wrote:
Sure it's a good example, but the best one I can think of is: The Legend of Zelda, Majora's Mask. That game was nonlinear in almost every way possible, and this makes it really interesting for route planning and sequence breaking.
LoZ was more nonlinear than MM. The fact that there are sequence breaks in the latter game attests to this.
Yeah, I'd argue that Majora's Mask only seemed nonlinear because of all the sidequests you could do at various times. The sidequests were even more fun than the main quest sometimes.
I think one of the problems with making newer games nonlinear is the trend of putting so much story into a game that it's half a movie. The player is then just playing to get from one part of the story to the next, and in a complex game engine with pre-scripted story sequences, the story can only branch out so much. Movie-to-game adaptations are popular, but it's hard for them to deliver both the movie's experience and a good gaming experience because either the movie's story is allowed to get wrecked, or the game doesn't give much freedom.
Of course, you can still point at the sidequest-heavy games to show how you can get in a lot of predetermined story and still have a lot of choices, but that takes a lot of creative world-building.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Yeah, I'd argue that Majora's Mask only seemed nonlinear because of all the sidequests you could do at various times. The sidequests were even more fun than the main quest sometimes.
I definitely agree. But why do you want to differentiate between side quests and the main adventure? They all make the game. And yes, the sidequests were a lot more fun than the main quest in some cases.
When I bought LOZ: TP I was very disappointed with the lack of side-quests, and the fact that you couldn't explore very much. You had to follow a certain path in order to gain access to a new area, otherwise you were stuck in one single expansive, barren area. Without sidequests the main quest got very boring, and I still haven't completed the game.
But why do you want to differentiate between side quests and the main adventure? They all make the game.
I judge linearity by how much freedom the player has in completing the main adventure. Side quests are not essential to beating the game, so I ignore them in that respect.
I didn't played Oblivion but Morrowind, a modern game, is much much much more non-linear than Zelda and other games mentioned above.
In fact, I think modern games are less linear than they did.
Edit: And think of all those MMORPG... and others online games. I think what makes them popular are, ironically, their non-linearity. Such games didn't exist before.
I judge linearity by how much freedom the player has in completing the main adventure. Side quests are not essential to beating the game, so I ignore them in that respect.
Remember that some sidequests contribute to the main adventure. For example, in Metroid, sidequests can lead to finding energy tanks and missile expansions that make later portions of the game significantly less difficult. Heart containers and certain weapons from Zelda are similar (and in some cases, these expansions can be considered essential to beating the game since avoiding them all would make the later areas crazy insane difficult)
I think a sidequest is only truly a sidequest when the result is just some pointless collectible item that doesn't make the main adventure any easier or harder for you, it's only added in to increase the gameplay length.
Yeah, the average gamer will be coaxed into doing some of the sidequests (for example, everyone always wants to upgrade their sword in Majora's Mask). Majora's Masks' sidequests were unique as almost every sidequest (and there were a lot of them) served a true purpose.
Each mask would help advance the main plot story, and make the whole moon crashing into Termina scenario seem more dire. For example, you learn that the Butler's sun had died, you hear the sorrows of Anju and Kafei, and how the whole town revolves around the union of these couples. Sure you could just play all 4 temples, beat Majora, but I'm quite certain that the average gamer would want to explore. Techincally the side quests weren't part of the main adventure, but they surely made the game.
In that respect, I don't think you can apply your definition of linearity to games that expect you to be involved in a deep sidequest. Just my opinion. From a purely theoretical point you are completely correct, but I think taking view from the "average" gamer point of view would be more relevant to this discussion.
I think a sidequest is only truly a sidequest when the result is just some pointless collectible item that doesn't make the main adventure any easier or harder for you, it's only added in to increase the gameplay length.
By that definition, getting all of the heart containers in the Zelda games is not a sidequest. I disagree, since having all of the hearts is not essential to completing the game.
Another example is the Mega Man series. You’re presented with 8 levels with boss robots at the end, each holding weapons which make all the other levels easier. The path is yours to choose.
Personally I consider the Megaman series to be almost completely linear.
Often when people talk about linearity and non-linearity, they are referring to freedom of exploration, not so much to the freedom of performing a set of (completely linear) tasks in a free order.
One problem with the vast majority of modern FPS games is that they completely lack the element of exploration. You can't deviate from the main path designed in the level. Levels are basically long corridors which you run from one end to the other, with no possibility of exploration at all.
Many of the older 3D games had more of an exploration element to them. You had a large level which consisted of large open areas with tons of possible places you could go to. Passing the level usually consisted in actually *finding* the exit, which usually required you to first find the way to get to the exit through a series of puzzles and such. This was exploration. You had to find the way. It was not trivial. You had to explore the level and try things. You had to solve puzzles.
In modern FPS games there's no exploration, there are no puzzles, you don't have to find anything. You just run along a long corridor and kill all the monsters.
Sure, in a game like Megaman there's a certain element of non-linearity because you can complete levels in a free order. However, since the levels are completely linear and there's no exploration element in them, I do not consider it very non-linear. You just have a very long corridor split into 8 parts, and the only thing you can choose is the combination from which the one single corridor is built from those parts.
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
Is this a good time to praise the recent Grand Theft Auto installments which offered players plenty of opportunities to explore the environments? While the "missions" were relatively linear (you had to complete one mission to start the next), there were a variety of bosses to work for and working for one would sometimes prematurely end a relationship with another.
Each mask would help advance the main plot story, and make the whole moon crashing into Termina scenario seem more dire. For example, you learn that the Butler's sun had died, you hear the sorrows of Anju and Kafei, and how the whole town revolves around the union of these couples.
Oh yeah, I forgot. The masks change the videos you see in the ending. So they are good for something.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Nonlinearity means you are not always told what to do, forced down a fixed path.
The reason your point is moot is, when taking it to some extreme value, you're left with "you start the game at point A and finish it at point B, what nonlinearity is that?" And indeed, the games that disregard that formula can likely be counted on one hand, all of them RPGs or something similar to them. LoZ isn't one of them either, as you start always on the same screen, and end the game by killing Ganondorf. It's only a matter of shifting links (bad pun, yeah) in a chain without actually changing its length. As such, Megaman games, especially NES ones, will always seem like autoscrollers for me because for any of them, a regular playthrough will consist of plain and simple "go right" with some insignificant exceptions.
Nonlinearity, as Warp pointed out, is indeed the matter of not forcing you to go anywhere or keep this aforementioned chain at a certain length. In your example of Super Metroid, there was a lot of sequence breaking tools implemented officially, like walljumping, shinespark and IBJ, and you know it very well how much freedom those allow with just completely basic usage. Even then, following the natural collection path, you could take different routes to reach a certain room, depending on your current abilities or item set. As the players become more experienced, they choose other paths by skipping items or picking them out of order, which is why it's usually praised as a highly nonlinear game.
Metroid Zero Mission is an even better example in this context, as pretty much all of its routes are open from the start and you could "sequence break" without even knowing it! I guess that constitutes some nonlinearity.
GTA games mentioned by feitclub are also a very good example of it, though they actually possessed those traits right from the first installment of the series.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
What I can say is that I prefer linear games, which may explain why I like zelda 2 so much and never had any interest on the first one. I DID enjoy super pitfall's liberty in the dungeon, but that was the second NES game I had ever played so it doesn't count.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
Ghostbusters, which I played to exaustion and never finished...
That was the game that was bundled with brazilian's most successful nes clone, 'Phantom System'. Kinda menacing name :)
Ghostbusters is also non-linear...
If linearity can be described as "needing x to get to y with no exceptions", then no game can truly be nonlinear.
I agree fully on the idea of exploration and being able to find your own, non-trivial path to be nonlinear.
I suppose you could place it as "number of things that you can do that are non-essential to the completion of the game". e.g. You must beat 1-8 in Zelda 1, but it is not essential to beat them in any order.
<shrug>
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Ghostbusters? The same Ghostbusters that Angry Video Game Nerd made a movie about? No wonder you didn't finish - that game is impossible to beat. I would actually be careful saying it's non-linear, some people doubt whether this qualifies as a game at all...
For me, a game has to have at least two different endings to be able to qualify as truly "non-linear". Otherwise the non-linearity within the game is really just an illusion that leads you ultimately to the same goal. Of course, the middle point of the game can be non-linear, but if all threads end at the same point, then the game, as a whole, is not linear. Or something like that. I haven't really thought about this, so my reasoning could be flawed.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
If you value non-linearity, games like GTA2 were really top notch. It puts you in a world, and you are allowed to join any gang, or play both sides of the street. There was no right way to do it, so it turned out to be a lot of fun.
An element that was lost with its sequels.
If linearity can be described as "needing x to get to y with no exceptions", then no game can truly be nonlinear.
Any game with multiple final bosses or victory conditions? Games with no goals? No end? Shadow the Hedgehog, maybe? Civilization? Sim City? Pacman? Tetris?
Rhetorical questions?
