karsten's videogaming talks Vol.5: "The happyness of non-linearity" After an incredibly long time, i'm again out for a new article/rant/whatever you might call it. Thanks for all the people that kept reading my posts that reached more than 1000 reads and in one case almost 3000! karsten So after a long pause, i'm back here. I've been thinking for long about this matter, and it'll be concerning linearity and non-linearity gameplay in games. Most of us "western" gamers have started their videogaming experience with great classics that had for the most part one thing in common; the linearity of gameplay and story. For long time, your playfield and story were enclosed in sturdy walls that didn't allow you any great degree of freedom. For example, in the great classic Super Mario Brothers on NES, no matter how fun it was, the gameplay was extremely rigid, to the point that you couldn't even walk backwards, and the only "escape" was throught warp zones. In years, developers put all their efforts in granting the played more and more freedom of act, and in a "mariesque" progression, in SMB3 we were able to walk backwards, to FLY, and even to use different "costumes" (power ups) at your need. Then in Super mario World, even the map became somehow more "interective". Similar progression happened in shooters; at the dawn of the genre you were just allowed to move left-right, then up and down, and slowly tridimensional movement started to surface, at first very limited like in Starfox, and then more and more freely like in the modern games. For many long years the videogaming moved torwards new frontiers and wider freedom, in a crescendo that seemed unstoppable. But slowly things have started moving backwards. With videogaming widening their appeal on bigger and bigger parts of population (most of whom not exactly old school players), the games started a backward rush to better and better graphics (not a bad thing per se), simpler gameplay, more linearity in the story and in the character development, less and less extras things that allow you to get into the game and dive into it. And here i'm reaching the point of this article; games are becoming more linear, to the point of getting close to interactive films. It's like a revenge of the old FMV games of the '90s. I'm well aware that it is not true to all the games and all the genres (i.e. driving games, simulations etc had great improvements over the years), but is a problem that is plaguing the games that made of non linearity, interesting storytelling, in world immersion and complex gameplay their strong points; RPG. In the recent times, most of the RPGs that we got served are long, little interactive games where choices during the game have very little to no impact, and the chances of playing the game "differently" are slim to none. The game developers that years ago allowed us to fly with mario are cutting us the wings. A really dangerous path that is bringing many people's favorite genre to a downfall. How did it happen? What was the start of this? Personally i consider one of the "roots of all evils" Final Fantasy X. Not that it is the games' fault, obviously! It was a nice game, graphically wonderful, that introduced some "things" that will stick for long with RPGs. It introduced _long_ story parts, long FMVs, and sadly an incredibly linearity in the game, in which you could just take a couple of detours in the whole game. Even the possibility of walking backwards was almost negated with some ridiculous expediences. The technical advancements in videogaming after some years of greater freedom, started bringing less and less freedom, be it because of disc swapping (i.e. in some games certain areas are not visitable anymore because they would require extra disc swaps), memory limitation (!in the time of DVD! like FFXIII that will have cutted parts due to the xbox360 port), or pushing too hard the graphical compartment (many games doesn't allow for free camera movements because of that). RPGs nowadays are becaming like long interactive films, to be finished in big long session with a walkthrough sold along with the game. To be finished in a hurry so that people can go back to their favorite FPS. This is an incredible trend. And even more incredible is games like Fallout 3 (great game mind you!) being praised for their freedom of movement, and character development (stated to be rpg-like in many reviews!) and even considered as action rpg by some... Zelda is rolling in his grave! And Zelda too, left wider gameplay choices to run back to solid easily sellable gameplay... I'm one of the few that considers Zelda II one of the best in the series? And to consider Twilight Princess excessively linear and closed? Why do i have the feel that the developers surrendered in being creative and creating a great immersive world? Is it because being linear sells? Because having a great graphical factor allows to be forgiven in everything else? As time passes, i get to love more and more and more old school games like the good old SNES RPGs (FFVI, Romancing Saga 3, Tales of Phantasia, Treasures Of the Rudhras, ecc ecc or even more recent ones like Romancing Saga: MS) that gave you a big, vast world in which you could walk along the map, search of hidden places, secret monsters, roam endlessly and even GET LOST in the world. Maybe this last phrase is the one that really catches the sense of this post of mine; i want again to get lost in a game. karsten
i know what you are talking about today it is Graphics>Gameplay although i think that we love the games of old because some of us were captured by its "magic",games i loved as a kid seem like a Dump and downright shitty because im not used to the gameplay anymore although i think the gameplay/graphics equelity(sp?) in older games (Namely Rareware games) are more in balance
exactly, there was more magic, but the gameplay was deeper and more involving... expecially true if you look back at those unforgettable old squaresoft games...
There's a glitch with the forum right now. Look at all the recent posts and you'll see that they only have one more view than posts. So don't worry! I'm sure a lot more people have read your article! I agree with your article almost 100%. One thing I don't understand. I've always heard Zelda regarded as an RPG. But I've never understood why. I always thought of it as just an adventure game.
Zelda has always been considered an action rpg, because of a few rpgesque characteristics in the game play... actually the only zelda that actually had some rpg traits and more npc involvements was the second one; with actually useful magics, choice on how to grow and exp points... I would like to see a remake of it now that i'm thinking about it... Concerning the views, lately it seems to me that the forum's focalizing on just a couple of topic here and there and in the usual sections...
As I have matured and taken on greater responsibilities as an adult like parenthood, I'm almost guilty to admit it, but I find myself more and more drawn to linear games because my time has become my most precious commodity and I simply can't bring myself to wander around an RPG for three hours because I don't know what I'm supposed to be doing, when three hours is all I might get to play that week. If you want to talk about interactive movies, FFXIII isn't really a good target IMO. I happen to have loved the cutscenes and thought they were very well balanced with the gameplay. I also thought the battle system was the perfect amount of complexity, and the best battle system I've played since Grandia III and FFXII. You could point to Heavy Rain as an example of games approaching interactive movies, because that's pretty much exactly what it is. And I have to guiltily admit that I enjoyed the hell out of it, so maybe I'm unqualified to comment. But I also watched the progression from completely linear gameplay to more and more free gameplay, and then the gradual re-establishment of boundaries. I remember towards the late 90's there was a big push against linearity and it seemed like a dozen or so games were released with "randomly generated" dungeons and fields and whatnot. And I remember absolutely hating those. Maybe it was because they were all handled poorly, or maybe it was because random generation isn't a good cure for linearity, but I was very turned off by it. Then in the earlier parts of the century, we started to get "sandbox" games like GTAIII, and for the most part those games and many copycats are still around today, but the ones that make the real noise anymore are the ones that provide a convincing illusion that you're free to go anywhere and do anything, but make it seem like your own idea when you end up on the path the developers intended. Uncharted 2 is a perfect example of this. I have to admit that I flat out don't get why you think Fallout 3 is linear, or why calling it an RPG is a misnomer. You can pretty much wander around for weeks just doing whatever the heck you want, and do the questlines in pretty much any order you like. You gain levels, improve skills... If that's not an RPG, I think maybe you should publish the way you define an RPG so we can better understand why you wouldn't define it as one. While I agree with some of your observations, I have to point out a few things: -Most gamers craving non-linearity have flocked to MMORPGs -the non-MMO industry has made games linear according to what sells best -FPS like Counter-Strike and Quake Wars, are about as non-linear as games can get - shallow, but non-linear.
I have bought just cause 2 that has great fun and gameplay. I think you are just caught up in nostalgia
I meant to point out that fallout 3 has no right to be considered a RPG, but just a shooter with a vast map. Or maybe a non-linear shooter.
