Linearity and Open World Mechanics: The Good and The Bad

Video games are great, no question about it. In this single medium, millions have found entertainment in all sorts of genres with a variety of different types of game play, rewards, modes, worlds, and so much more. It's no hyperbole when I say that video games is my all time favourite form of entertainment.

As such, I've been following gaming for years and years. I started gaming around the Playstation/Nintendo 64 era. Having my hands on the my very first console was an exhilarating experience that would eventually shape me into the person I am today;

A giant fucking nerd.

However, while I've only started my gaming relatively late in comparison to others who may have had the chance to play on the NES, Commodore 64 or even the Atari consoles, I believe I have just as much say in the topic as anyone else who enjoys the medium.

Video games are (at least I find) to be a touchy subject to some people, where friendly discussions about your favourite game may lead to an angry debate over fanboyish claims, unfounded criticisms and generally ignorant opinions. 

One of these topics that I see get thrown around on the internet, or otherwise, is the debate over linear games and open world games. Many times when a game is being previewed, you see people spitting at it for being 'too linear' with no sense of exploration. For some reason, to many people, an open world game is better by far, and I can't see why that may be. 

Over the years, I've had plenty of time with games that were linear, and most of them are arguably some of my favourites of all time, such as Persona 4 and Metal Gear Solid 3. I've also put plenty of time into open world games such as those in the Grand Theft Auto franchise and the Elder Scrolls series. While I can see why people seem to see linearity as a negative for gaming, I don't think that it's a very well thought out point of view, nor is it a legitimate criticism of a game at all. 

I mean, really, when a game is linear and when a game is open world....does it really matter at all? 

LINEARITY ISN'T A NEGATIVE TRAIT

As I've mentioned before, it seems like people dislike linearity in video games and often use it as a way to slam a game. What makes a linear game so terrible though? I believe the negativity sprouted from modern first person shooter games like Call of Duty becoming mega-popular hits, but with incredibly simplistic single player experiences. After a certain amount of time, Call of Duty fell from it's highly praised pedestal (Call of Duty 4) to become the choice franchise for internet goers to throw their angry comments at. Perhaps it's the yearly release that caused this devolution...but what I can say for sure is that Call of Duty is often touted as a 'corridor shooter', which screams linearity as a negative trait.

Yes, let's all jump into the circlejerk now.

But is that really a bad thing? Is linearity in a single player campaign such as those found in the Call of Duty games something worth complaining over, especially when the goal of the games design is to deliver fast paced action with extremely over the top set pieces? No, of course not. You can't say that a linear game design is bad, especially when it sets out to do what it's supposed to do. 

It's also incredibly apparent that a linear game design can often deliver better world building and narrative compared to open world games. Look at The Last of Us for example, it's a game that is generally quite linear in it's design, yet it manages to tell such a compelling story that you're hooked with the game until the very end. You start to want to discover more about the lore of the world, perhaps even see more of it. You'll grow attached to the characters, the environments, and the memories you experienced while going through a post apocalyptic USA.

Another game to look towards for it's linearity would be Bayonetta 2. Now, like most of Platinum Games' works, Bayonetta 2 doesn't deliver on the story front by any means. Rather it's a very forgettable story that barely even captures the players imagination. What Bayonetta 2 does have (like most of Platinum's other works) is incredibly tight gameplay, delivering over the top action, brilliant mechanics, and an overall sense of badass fun. Does that mean that Bayonetta 2 should be criticized for being a linear video game that funnels you from one combat zone to the next? No, of course not, it's a stellar game despite it's linear design. So even if you're one of those guys that doesn't even care for story, then you should be able to appreciate the fact that a linear video game can still be incredibly fun despite it lacking in the story department. 

The point here is that a linear game isn't a bad game right out the gate. A Linear game can even be better than many open world games out there, especially in terms of narrative and gameplay.

This game makes me linear...if you know what I mean.
no seriously though, it's a god damned masterpiece.

A WIDE OPEN WORLD THAT'S AS SHALLOW AS A PUDDLE

Now, don't get me wrong. I really like open world games. I spent hundreds of hours in Skyrim, Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto 5, Assassins Creed Black Flag, etc etc. The list can go on and on if I wanted to! But I can't deny that most open world games suffer from flaws that are much less common in linear games. 

For one, I find that the gameplay in an open world game can be incredibly shallow. My main example for this tends to be The Elder Scrolls series from Bethesda. I can't help but notice that the combat is...well...bland. You click your mouse buttons wildly to hack and slash your way to victory, or even cast a spell or two and then continue on your merry little way. While I can understand that the majority of your time in Skyrim, for example,  is experiencing the world through exploration (which is does wonderfully) I just don't enjoy the combat at all, especially compared to something like Bayonetta or even God of War. Whereas the latter can be simplistic as well, the general feel of the combat is just so much better than any Elder Scrolls game. On top of that, there's a HUGE disconnect between player and character, especially when you've accomplished so much in the world of Skyrim (for example) and the citizens still don't know that you're
A. The Dragonborn
B. The Archmage of the Mages Guild
C. The Thane of Whiterun
etc etc
This disconnect really hurts the overall experience and it doesn't make the expansive world of Skyrim any more immersive than it could have been. I mean, it's a massive world given to a player to do whatever they'd like to do...yet none of it really matter.

Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe it's a metaphor for real life. No matter how hard you work and how much you may accomplish, no one really gives a shit.

A world as wide as an ocean, but as shallow as a puddle. 

All joking aside, I can understand that the focus of an Elder Scroll game isn't in the combat, so resources are put more towards the world building. But that's the thing I've already mentioned before where a linear game can still deliver an excellent world without having to be open. 

Another big open world game I can think of is Just Cause 2. Now, once again, I loved playing Just Cause 2, but not for it's story, world, etc but for it's purely over the top gameplay. In fact, it's very much like Bayonetta in that the game doesn't focus on the story whatsoever and just lets the player enjoy it's over the top action and ridiculous set pieces. Basically, on the flip side, there's no need for a game to be linear to deliver over the top gameplay either. However, I find that the gameplay in Just Cause 2, while incredibly fun, can also be just as shallow. The shooting in Just Cause 2 just doesn't feel good whatsoever. I don't know if it's because all the guns sound weak or if it's the controls, it just doesn't feel good. When you compare Just Cause 2 to a linear third person shooter like Gears of War, you'll find that Gears of War has superior shooting mechanics. It just FEELS good to get into a fire fight with a bunch of locusts. It doesn't feel good to get into a fire fight with a bunch of Panau military.

Ugh...leave me alone so I can car surf in peace. 

If we're going to speak about shallow open world experiences, I feel obligated to bring up Ubisoft open world games. Now, I still rather enjoy the Assassins Creed franchise, but I can't deny that it's gameplay has gotten to a point where everything just feels...well...shallow. You're constantly climbing towers to reveal more of the map, you spend hours collecting meaningless collectibles, you do repetitive side missions that barely have any variation or incentive for you to take part in them, and lastly, you feel so disconnected from the world that the incredibly recreated historical time periods are nothing but simplistic theatre back drops.

Yes, I know, I said 'Ubisoft open world games' and yet I was just criticizing Assassins Creed. But all of that can LITERALLY be put towards franchises like Far Cry and Watch Dogs. Hell, even The Crew even offered an incredibly shallow racing game experience compared to something like DriveClub or Forza 5. I mean, Far Cry and Watch Dogs are using the exact same formula from Assassins Creed in their open world design. Go to large towers or waypoints to reveal more of the map, then participate in side quests that mean nothing and have almost no incentive for the player to take part in, lastly, deliver a pretty disjointed narrative that separates user from character (I'm looking at you Far Cry 3 and Watch Dogs).

NO! BAD UBISOFT. BAD DOG...I MEAN DOGS...WHATEVER, JUST BAD!

Point being, Open World games have their negative traits just as much as a linear game does. They just happen to fall under different categories and  mean different things to different people. While I've criticized Skyrim for it's overall shallow nature, I still had tons of fun with it in terms of exploring the world and being immersed in the environments. It's just a damn shame that my immersion is broken into tiny little pieces when NPCs open their mouths or the plot gets in the way. 

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS

When it comes to video games, I ultimately believe that as long as you have fun, then it was worth the play through. Everyone has different tastes, and though I've been outlining why Linearity in a video game can be good, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will enjoy a linear game. Open world games are still capable of delivering on amazing narratives, tight gameplay, excellent world building and much more. It all really depends on what the developer is trying to accomplish with their game design.

Really though, complaining that a game is "too linear" is, to me at least, a shame (same goes with complaining that a game is too open world). You'd be denying yourself of some fantastic titles and you'd be restricting yourself to one kind of design. It's like restricting yourself to only eating one flavour of ice cream for the rest of your life. 

I hope you enjoyed this opinion article. It took some time to think up and write about, but it has been a topic that tends to come up whenever I have discussions with friends. The best advice I can give to you though, dear reader, is to play whatever makes you happy, but never claim that something else is shitty just because you don't like it. You'll be happier to accept that there exists other types of games out there that appeal to everyone!

Until next time, keep being nerdy y'all!