Linearity

A big question that seems to be coming to developers' minds is that of linearity. This is the idea of taking the player on a very straight path rather than an open one, and whether this is a good thing or not. This is a tough issue. Linearity is a broad term. It could mean a guided story, with many scripted events. It could mean the implementation of stats for a character or not. It could even mean whether the player controlled character is given a name, a face, or even an existence in the story at all. Linearity is a thing all developers must think of when starting to make a game. The question of player choice versus developer creative license spurs a lot of different types of games, and a lot of crossfire over which is better: complete linearity or complete player choice.

Video games started, at their core, as linear. Early on, developers could not give the gamer the option of choice past a couple of weapons. Gamers were taken on a set direction, with not a lot of choices in terms of flow of gameplay and where they wanted to go. However, signs of a focus on choice started as early as one of the most legendary games ever: The Legend of Zelda. Zelda introduced many to the idea of an explorable region, with no set path. Players could take multiple paths to where they wanted to go, and although this is not "real" gameplay openness, it certainly mimicked it. Zelda also gave the options of an inventory with multiple items and weapons. Zelda, of course, was not the first of these games. Over in Japan, a popular RPG by the name of Final Fantasy was setting the foundation for inventory choice, and a turn based combat system that introduced choice in the form of strategy. Combat was difficult, and only through the player's strategy and smart choice did they get through each battle. Item management, spells, and party organization all added to the choice factor in games. But was this real choice? In most cases, the smart option in combat was just that: one option. Smart and efficient players used only one or two ways to get through a battle. It wasn't really choice. It mimicked choice to guide the player. Almost reverse psychology.

This idea of mimicked choice continued for a while. Players were given some choice as to what weapon or what strategy they would use, but the most efficient ways remained linear, and more importantly, no change to the actual story and flow of a game was made. It was still linear. The only sign of a changing flow came in the form of side quests. These optional quests allowed players to go out of the normal story for something extra. These usually resulted in an award, such as experience or a rare item. However, these were optional. The normal flow of a game, the one developers made for the player, remained unchanged. No game approached this idea of complete freedom until the industry started to explore a new genre: sandbox gameplay. Starting in the 90's and peaking in the next decade, sandbox games did just what they said: allowed the player to do anything they wanted in a large area full of things to do.

A great pioneer of this was, of course, Grand Theft Auto III. An entire city open to the player to do basically anything, of course limited to the tech of the current day. Players could ignore any type of campaign and do whatever they wanted. More importantly, the actual gameplay area was explorable to the fullest. Areas that were never explored by developers before were now being put into games. Side quests now took on some purpose, rather than just and add-on. Gamers were now introduced to what seemed to be the future of gaming. For a long while, games that were on a linear path were considered inferior to those that were sandbox in nature. Developers even seemed to become more creative when presented with a sandbox game. Games like Mercenaries explored ideas that no one did before. A linear game could not present the premise of a mercenarie hunting contracts in South Korea. It just was not in the picture at the time.

Linear games felt the pain in this time. Many games fell short of being successful just for the fact that they lacked choice. Was this unfortunate? At the time, yes. But just as sandbox games grew from the "inefficiencies" of linear games, linear games would regroup and grow at this time. No better place is this seen than in the FPS genre. The most successful linear games of this time were first person shooters. Games such as Halo: Combat Evolved, Killzone, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor succeeded in doing what other linear developed games could not. This was for two reasons. These FPS's has strong stories, for the most part. Instead of focusing on making the player choose everything, FPS's placed the player in the shoes of an individual in a story. Just as novels, TV, and movies had been doing for a while, FPS's created a story all on their own. This approach was drastically different from sandbox games, and it appealed to something completely different. Instead of placing gamers in a room full of choice, the placed gamers in a new story with (at the time) engaging characters and the idea of emotional investment in games.

FPS's also contained a strategy that was aimed directly at the sandbox and choice genre. Every successful FPS of the time contained multiplayer. This idea of multiplayer allowed gamers to have choice with linearity. Multiplayer was a place to have fun with friends, be immersed in the environment the developers made, and still choose. Gamers chose what weapons they wanted, what skills they wanted, what games they wanted to play, where they wanted to play. In many ways, this freedom was much more rewarding than any type of freedom sandbox games could provide. Multiplayer continued to thrive, and soon became a staple of video games. The inclusion of multiplayer and the freedom provided with it even lead the game console developers to make multiplayer clients, the best example of this being Xbox LIVE.

And here is where, at around 2002, game developers found themselves at a standstill. Linearity was split right at the middle. At one end were the games that gave the player an open environment and the option to do everything and anything they wanted, mimicking the freedom of real life. At the other end was the linear games that placed the gamer in imaginative and emotional environments and characters, taking the gamer away from real life.

Stay tuned next week for part 2!