Linearity vs Openness

[Blake]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfLinearityVsOpenness

 

Linking because it's easier than making a long ass post explaining it.

 

I've often tried to explain this concept to people before even knowing that the above link existed, just because it's a given. This was met with varying degrees of success.

 

A good example of which is, in fact, Zelda games. A lot of the criticism of Skyward Sword, for example, is that it was too linear. But why was it so linear? So that the plot would shine more. I don't think it falls into a 3 (unlike Spirit Tracks) even then, just a lower end of 4. 

 

Skyward Sword had some of the most memorable characters in the series, including who I believe to be the best villain in the series.

 

Then there's a game like Wind Waker. It's not quite a 5, as you do have to do the plot, but it's a lot more about exploring the world and the islands, which is more obvious when you consider how few dungeons there actually are (not coounting the triforce shards and sheet).

 

So, discuss the pros/cons, likes/dislikes, etc. associated with the two.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I think, for me, I like certain genres to be one or the other for the most part.

Shooting, fighting, and RPGs (to an extent, sidequests and being able to explore areas are good and such but I do like somewhat linear paths) I prefer to be linear and I think it works best that way.

But action/adventure games, basically always want them to be open. It just feels right to have a game in a genre largely based on action and exploration to let you explore more.

Though, what I refer to as action/adventure games can count as other genres as well at times. Like Skyrim is both RPG and action/adventure-y.

 

Ummmmmmmmm. Okay the best way to describe it for me is just that some types of games lend themselves more to being open than others.

 

I am too hungry to word this right....

[Toffee.]

Personally, I'm more for 'open' games. I guess I just get a kick out of the idea of a set goal, and then multiple ways to go about doing it. The fun just stems from the expiremental nature, I guess. It works even better in multiplayer games, because the idea of a team trying to accomplish something mundane is always a recipie for disaster, despite it being pretty lulzy.

'Course, I guess the con of that lies in the game itself, because there is always going to be players who are bent on fooling around, and can lead to being a hinderance for everyone, depending on how team-centric the game is.

[Trebuchet MS]

I'm not too fond of sandbox games with no clear set goal as I often easily get lost over what I was supposed to do and what I had intended to do.

 

Games that do give you a goal to work towards to, but allow you some freedom in how you accomplish it, are still fine. Opens up experimentation options.

[~NOiSE~]

It really depends. Games like Bioshock Infinite are incredibly linear, but tell an amazing story that left my jaw agape.

 

On the other side, Dark Souls is one of my favorite games, and while there is a story and ideal paths to take, you can do whatever you like and the story is very minimalistic, letting you fill in the blanks yourself.  

 

So I enjoy both types, really. 

[.Rai]

Deciding how linear or open you want a game to be is important, because neither trumps the other. It's merely a characteristic that brings out certain qualities and dampens others.

 

Journey is probably the best example of using extreme linearity to bring out a narrative's strength more.