Why is everyone associate "shitty" with "linear"?

TheSomeone

Newbie
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
2,186
Reaction score
0
If I got half a penny every time I heard "shitty" and "linear" paired up, I'd be richer than if Alyx sold her body.
Have we all forgotten that some of the best games ever made are linear? Why is it that ever since GTA, every time something is linear people jump to the conclusion that it's boring?

And yes, I'm asking those questions because I want answers.

EDIT: Typo in the title, I don't want to hear about it.
 
I don't associate shitty with linear.

:thumbs:
 
I dunno. Linear games are perfectly fine with me. In fact linear games have the best immersion in games because developers have thought of every aspect of your path through the game. Non-linear games almost always lack a sense of direction and are just filled with side quests and random stuff to do.
 
Ain't nothin' wrong with linearity.
 
That's not how I see it either, but it is always a laughing riot when you can do nearly anything you want to, but I love scripted scenes if they're done in the right way and not some crappy crap way...
 
Because linear gameplay sucks. I don't want to follow a path some mapper made for me because I may think of a different way to get passed an obstacle than the mapper, resulting me pressing "use" on every object in the level to try and get something to happen (->MGS: although a great game). Where in Deus Ex I just shoot a rocket at a door, blow it up, and continue. Someone else in that same situation may use a vent, if the mapper made it so that you have to hit a switch, both of us would be stuck for 20 minutes trying to figure out what to do. People perceive solutions to obstacles differently, non-linear gameplay is better for everyone.
 
Maybe be cause 0.99.. doesn't equal 1?
 
Because 100% linear games are boring. Especially FPS's. Even Doom 3 had areas where you had to double-back to get to a door that you didn't have the keycard for previously.
 
operative x said:
Because linear gameplay sucks. I don't want to follow a path some mapper made for me because I may think of a different way to get passed an obstacle than the mapper, resulting me pressing "use" on every object in the level to try and get something to happen (->MGS: although a great game). Where in Deus Ex I just shoot a rocket at a door, blow it up, and continue. Someone else in that same situation may use a vent, if the mapper made it so that you have to hit a switch, both of us would be stuck for 20 minutes trying to figure out what to do. People perceive solutions to obstacles differently, non-linear gameplay is better for everyone.
Then WTF are you doing on an HL2 site?
 
Because HL2 is msotly run'n'gun with a few physics puzzles, nothing show stoppingly bad like the old medal of honor games (although MOHAA was pretty good).
 
operative x said:
Because HL2 is msotly run'n'gun with a few physics puzzles, nothing show stoppingly bad like the old medal of honor games (although MOHAA was pretty good).
That doesn't change the fact that it's 100% linear.
 
But as i said, not to the point that it annoys me, i really like HL2's premise and style so they make up for a fairly linear game.
 
it's just overrated.

I prefer a great linear game than a just ok linear game where basiclly you have more bad stuff to do.

That and there's just alot of bad non-linear games like Boiling Point for example, it's just not good enough and no , no extra points for the non-linear gameplay. The game isn't good.

Good linear games are great and so are good non-linear games but there alot of examples of bad games in both types.
 
operative x said:
But as i said, not to the point that it annoys me, i really like HL2's premise and style so they make up for a fairly linear game.
In other words, a linear game can still be fun if the premise and style and gameplay are all good.
Now the question is:
Isn't that the case for all games, linear or non-linear?
 
I don't associate linearness with shittyness, I associate it with boringness. Why? Because it's my opinion.
 
Top Secret said:
I don't associate linearness with shittyness, I associate it with boringness. Why? Because it's my opinion.

Just for the sake of our curiosity, do you care to support your opinion?
 
MiccyNarc said:
In other words, a linear game can still be fun if the premise and style and gameplay are all good.
Now the question is:
Isn't that the case for all games, linear or non-linear?
Will you shut up already? Jesus christ stop analyzing my posts. Yes, HL2 is linear and i hate that about it, but it also has alot that i like. If i had a choice of a linear HL2 and a more open ended one, id pick the open ended one. It's my opinion.
 
operative x said:
Yes, HL2 is linear and i hate that about it, but it also has alot that i like. If i had a choice of a linear HL2 and a more open ended one, id pick the open ended one. It's my opinion.
agreed. it was too linear. they couldve at least made it a little more open ended like scct or whatever.
 
You guys don't seem to understand that the good parts about HL2 depend on the fact that it's linear.
 
Reaktor4 said:
like what

Like scripted riddles and events, a story told through gameplay, a continuous world, "Holy Shit" moments around every corner...
 
TheSomeone said:
Just for the sake of our curiosity, do you care to support your opinion?

Sure.

HL2 has amazing graphics.
HL2 is pretty adrenaline pumping to play.
HL2 has good AI, to battle with you.
HL2 has AMAZING sound (I love the sound.)
HL2 is a pretty kickass game.

OFP has shitty graphics.
OFP is slow as a snail.
OFP has retarded AI
OFP has pretty cool sound.
OFP is 300x more fun than HL2 to me.

I've beaten Half-Life 2 maybe three times. Probably put over a hundred hours just cruising around in SP. OFP? Thousands... upon thousands of hours. It's an open ended world to explore. Do I siege this town? Should I post up a squad to assault it and use my vehicles as long range support? Should I skip it all together? Go into the forest and ambush the enemy squad?

Decently done open ended gameplay > Very well done linear gameplay.

I really shouldn't have to back up my own opinion.

TheSomeone said:
You guys don't seem to understand that the good parts about HL2 depend on the fact that it's linear.

On the contrary, I do. But, how do those events compare to the randomness of reality? For example, Ravenholm is an excellent example of how to use linear gameplay to create 'funness'. They setup traps for the player to execute, etc etc. But wouldn't it be more fun if the same things didn't happen the next time? Too bad, that they will. It's linear gameplays single downfall.
 
TheSomeone said:
Like scripted riddles and events, a story told through gameplay, a continuous world, "Holy Shit" moments around every corner...
and a few more paths here and there would eliminate all this how?
tbh i cant think of any good parts in hl2 that depend on the game having only 1 path.
 
Reaktor4 said:
and a few more paths here and there would eliminate all this how?
tbh i cant think of any good parts in hl2 that depend on the game having only 1 path.

I concur.
 
I've never heard that association before.

Then again I live on a desert island.
 
linear games can be quite horrid, with the exception of a few (i.e. HL1, HL2 (hl2 not as much though), jedi outcast/academy). Deus ex was an amazing, revolutionary game (the first one). Around every corner and turn I had a choice to make. for example on the plane, kill the prisoner like anna says, dont do anything, or kill navare herself! now there's some gameplay right there
 
Zeus said:
linear games can be quite horrid, with the exception of a few (i.e. HL1, HL2 (hl2 not as much though), jedi outcast/academy). Deus ex was an amazing, revolutionary game (the first one). Around every corner and turn I had a choice to make. for example on the plane, kill the prisoner like anna says, dont do anything, or kill navare herself! now there's some gameplay right there

It was linear disguised as a choice built game. Most games claiming to not be linear actually are linear with some superficial plot changes.

I'm not complaining though, I loved linear HL1, HL2 and loved "non-linear" Deus Ex.
 
Reaktor4 said:
and a few more paths here and there would eliminate all this how?
tbh i cant think of any good parts in hl2 that depend on the game having only 1 path.

Well, you could exploit-fly over ravenholm if you really wanted, but how much fun would that be?

The more paths they add, the less attention they can spend on each path, or the shorter they have to make the game. There are games who work best with linear paths, and one of them is HL2.

I think the best game to support my thesis is FEAR. FEAR has so many scripted sequences it plays like a damn movie, but is that a bad thing? Would you rather have it that the little girl appears when you go through that hallway and that a helicopter drops a bunch of bad guys around you, or that the developer tries to guess where you are and you'll probably end up missing half the scripted stuff?

And by the way, thank you Top Secret for your detailed post supporting your opinion. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess I'm too much of a movie buff.
 
operative x said:
Will you shut up already? Jesus christ stop analyzing my posts. Yes, HL2 is linear and i hate that about it, but it also has alot that i like. If i had a choice of a linear HL2 and a more open ended one, id pick the open ended one. It's my opinion.
I'll take that as a "I got pwned!" if you don't mind, or even if you do.
 
They aren't associated. Anybody who says they are or anything remotely resembling such a statement has an opinion as valuable as fried cat shit. Such people fail to evaluate such styles within the context of the rest of the game.

Some games benefit from linearity. Some benefit from open-endedness. And for each example of those two groups, there is always an opposite: a game that needed more scope and focus and a game that should have been more open. Arguing about these aspects in their singularity as things that make or break a game is ridiculous. It's not like a linear game is the "wrong" and an open-ended one is "right". If you have a particular preference of one over the other, then okay. But don't attribute your dissatisfaction with some inherent flaw in the game itself.
 
MiccyNarc said:
I'll take that as a "I got pwned!" if you don't mind, or even if you do.
I hope your digital penis grew from being a centimeter to an inch.
 
operative x said:
I hope your digital penis grew from being a centimeter to an inch.
You're just jealous of the massive size is all.


Who here said they played OFP a billion times vs. HL2 only a few?

Whoever that was, I have a question for you:
Which game did you enjoy the first time through?

For me, it's not a matter of how many times I play it, it's the amount of fun I have whilst playing the game.

Quality, not quantity.
 
TheSomeone said:
And by the way, thank you Top Secret for your detailed post supporting your opinion. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess I'm too much of a movie buff.

No no, I agree with your points. You're right, linear games can more easily create those "Holy shit" moments, I can't argue against that. But yeah, like you said, difference of opinion.



And I'm a huge ass movie buff too. :D

Hah, PM me your favorite movie.
 
AmishSlayer said:
I dunno. Linear games are perfectly fine with me. In fact linear games have the best immersion in games because developers have thought of every aspect of your path through the game. Non-linear games almost always lack a sense of direction and are just filled with side quests and random stuff to do.
Deus Ex proves this wrong.
 
I think the definition of "linear" comes into question.

I don't see "linear" as one path, I see it as one way. Half-Life 2 was not linear, but Doom 3 was.

For example, in Half-Life 2's Canal level, there was particularly gorgeous moment where all these combines were shooting at you from the top of a bridge. So what do you do? Do you run? Shoot all the combine? Or...shoot those explosive barrels beneath the bridge.
What about those group of barnacles? Shoot them? Let them eat the explosive barrels and then blow them all up? Or (what I did 1st time), let them eat the barrels, creating a tongue-free path and doing some kinda crazy dance with the barnacles eating the barrels.
These are examples of "non-linearity", that is, the game's interactive moments creates a different experience everytime.

What about Doom 3? Well, you can choose your weapon to take them down with, but that's about it. Call of Duty? Gotta kill 'em with that Thompson they gave you 100 rounds of ammo with cause you're gonna use 'em all.

So in "your" definition of linearity, it isn't bad at all. In my definition, it's quite boring.
 
Back
Top