Linearity, Part Two

Just as developers learned from the sandbox genre and from the FPS genre, the new millenium brought a convergence of ideas. Games were starting to become commonplace all together. With a few exceptions, most games followed a set formula. No one was willing to take a risk, as that just didn't make any money. The battle of linearity seemed to be at a permanent standstill. It appeared that no one was going to take a risk to make something new. Games were at a disadvantage. One thing was for certain: the existing genres suffered because of this. Sandbox games, because of a lack of innovation, become boring. Every game seemed to have the same basic principles: guns, explosions, and freedom. Even though the surrounding area was boring, the driving mechanics were terrible, the story was non-existent, and many other flaws, developers did what they had to to make money.

This isn't to say the other side of the ring was doing well, either. Games with stories lacked replayability. Making a singleplayer-only game in the early 2000's was suicide. Multiplayer seemed to be the only redeeming quality of non-sandbox games at this time. There just was no place for a game with JUST a good story. Gamers were somewhat addicted to the drug of freedom. Restricting this freedom caused gamers to rebel. This placed developers in a bad spot indeed. Without knowing what type of game gamers really wanted, the overall success of the video game industry was in danger. Someone had to do something. Someone had to take a risk. Ideas needed to be at the frontline if innovation was to survive in the future.

And some very risky developers did just that. Developers went back to the success of the previous years. Some developers realized that complete freedom was, for lack of a better word, a dumb idea. Giving players all the freedom they could have gave the players too much. The great games always made the player something, not give the player something. Great games put the player in the shoes of a person in a situation. If video games were to survive as a viable entertainment medium, they would have to go back to this. Unfortunately, developers also found a great place for freedom and choice. This allowed a personal touch for gamers, and it gave gamers the ability to develop their own game in a way, shaping it how they wanted. These developers realized that you can't lead a horse to the water.

They went back to "mimicking freedom" in a way. This old technique of fabricating choice worked well early on, and it would work now. Games such as Splinter Cell gave the player a set path, but many ways to go about it. Metroid Prime put players in a story and a universe, but gave them many ways and many paths to go about it. Developers literally synthesized linearity with non-linearity. They took complete freedom and combined it with narrative focus. Games began to be focused on a good overall game, and not necessarily just choice. Games began to mature a bit. Sandbox games were toys in comparison to the new games of this day. Focus on great story and immersion with player choice made games better. But this territory was still young. Developers didn't know where they were going. But that was part of the reason it was such a good idea to develop games this way. It was innovation. It was new ideas.

Fast forward to the current generation of consoles, and you'll find what all of this means. Ever since this sythesis of linearity at the beginning of the milennium, games are better than they ever have been. Gamers of all shapes and sizes can find what they want. Many games have shown that a strong narrative can be given in a game, and can immerse players in ways other games cannot. Others have introduced new ways to give complete freedom, and have truly made the player emulate the developer. Once again, games have split. But instead of two sides, game developement has spread much like a treebranch.

Developers discovered that games do something books and movies cannot. They have the ability to immerse a player in an environment like no other. There is no limit to what the player can do in a game in terms of being immersed and influenced. Developers have begun to discover this, and have gone several different directions with it. Some games create the perfect detailed setting, such as BioShock. Ask any gamer who has played BioShock, and they will tell you without a doubt that the thing that immerses them the most is the city they are in. Rapture stands out from any other environment because it isn't an environment. 2K has successfully made the environment a character. It has personality, emotion, and intelligence. It is one of the most important elements of the game. Other developers have made unforgettable stories, such as the recent Uncharted 2 from Naughty Dog. Each character is important, and some of the best parts of the game are when the player becomes worried for another character. Developers have even gotten rid of gameplay foundations in order to tell a story, such as the deeply impactful "No Russian" mission in Modern Warfare 2, or even a complete game in Heavy Rain.

Developers also discovered great ways of giving players choice. The sandbox genre has matured and transformed into something completely different. No longer is it a priority to give players ultimate freedom, but purposeful freedom. By giving reasons for things, freedom in games become useful. One of the biggest flaws of early sandbox games was their aimlessness. There was no real motivation to do anything. Now, by instilling motivation, freedom and choice is worth it. No better example is there of this than that of the morality system, something that has become popular as of late. By affecting gameplay with moral choice, not only does this freedom have motivation, but it has motivations that are seen in real life. Killing a character in a game now can have a consequence, just like real life. And just as narrative has immersed a player, morality and consequence has immersed the gamer too. A game such as Fallout 3 and Fable II hinge on the choices made. The story changes, the characters change, and the player changes with the choices made.

Here, gamers are at another standstill. Thankfully, this one is less drastic. Games are at a high point in terms of development. All games use linearity in different ways. There are to many examples of this, and each is different from the next. This leads to the question asked at the beginning of this topic: is linearity good or bad? Well, just as games have matured, so should this question: How much linearity is appropriate? It's been proven over time that linearity is not an objectively bad thing. Many games have used it successfully. Many games have also used it sparingly and been successful. Many successful games are combining techniques and finding new ways of linearity, the best examples being the likes of the Mass Effect series and Batman: Arkham Asylum. Where should games go with linearity? What's better?

Answer these questions on the comments section below, and stay tuned for the last part of this topic for my answer to the question.