What do you prefer? Some reviews of games complain of adventure games being too linear. Personally I don't mind either, but actually, I think I prefer linear. I like to be limited to following a path in a game where you have to complete a puzzle or a line of investigation or dialogue before you can progress because it gives me absolute direction and stops things getting too confusing. I know what I'm meant to be focusing on. I like it if I'm stuck in a room or an area and I have to figure out what to press or what to find to move ahead rather than the gameworld being so big and free roaming it becomes overwhelming.
Even in action games, I like it when they say something like "your current goal is to get to the upper level" or something like that. However, Voyage was rather non linear in places and that worked well too because it was heavily puzzle based, so if you got stuck you could go try another puzzle in another area. Same with safecracker.

As an additional thing this to thread, which games can you name which are non linear?

[AndreaDraco83]

I prefer linear with some elements of non-linearity: for example, in Gabriel Knight 3 you could easily miss some points and yet the game can be perfectly beatable. Another great example of very well-done non-linearity is The Last Express, or even some old games like Quest for Glory 2 or Conquests of the Longbow.

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

I prefer linear with some elements of non-linearity: for example, in Gabriel Knight 3 you could easily miss some points and yet the game can be perfectly beatable. Another great example of very well-done non-linearity is The Last Express, or even some old games like Quest for Glory 2 or Conquests of the Longbow.

That's a good point and I agree, some mixture of linear and non linear works nicely, I like that too.

[Ascovel]

I thought GK3 was a failed experiment in that regard. In the situations where you really messed-up something the alternative route was always unsatisfactory and prompted you to rather load a saved game and try again. Also, the stuff that was truly optional to learn pretty much didn't add anything to the story or characters. Even finding out through a finger print who was Grace's mysterious helper was just a red herring.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

I thought GK3 was a failed experiment in that regard. In the situations where you really messed-up something the alternative route was always unsatisfactory and prompted you to rather load a saved game and try again. Also, the stuff that was truly optional to learn pretty much didn't add anything to the story or characters. Even finding out through a finger print who was Grace's mysterious helper was just a red herring.

I don't agree. It's true that the game can never be unbeatable, thus lowering its degree of non-linearity: Gabriel's sequences where he has to follow the suspects wandering around the valley is surely a proof of this. Nevertheless, there are some actual segments that can be totally skipped:

Spoiler:

Grace can be kicked off Chateau de Serres if Montreaux find her in the upper chamber, so the player won't ever see the interiors of the Chateau. Gabriel can miss the conversation between Madeleine and the Abbot, adn there are a number of other nice touches that can be left behind if the exploration isn't thorough in the first day: think only about the Passion's stops in the church

In my opinion, it is a good example of a linear game with some degree of non-linearity: after the first playthrough, I played immediately a second time 'cause I feel I left out too much details.

[Shany]

I hate non-linearity where it's in the style of Gabriel Knight 3, where you can miss out on alot of interesting things if you do things wrong.

If the non-linearity simply affects the order of your actions, then I'm for it.

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

I prefer linear with some elements of non-linearity

Me too. I like graphic adventures (3D, 2.5D, whatever) with an interactive fiction feel.

[Lucien21]

It's obviously easier to tell a story in a linear fashion it allows the developer to control the pace and direction of the story.

The downside of that is it creates a bottleneck where if you are stuck on a puzzle there is nothing else to do and the game grinds to a halt.

Too much non-linearity can go the other way with no cohesion to the story and leaving the player with too much to do and no clue where to start.

So some happy medium has to be the best way forward.

Lucasarts always done it best in my opinion always leaving you with 3 or 4 puzzles on the boil at the same time. Can't figure out one of them then try another until the flash of inspiration comes in.

I prefer the mixture. Linearity works in movies and books, but not in video games.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Too much non-linearity can go the other way with no cohesion to the story and leaving the player with too much to do and no clue where to start.

One of the game that used non-linearity in a very bad way, in my opinion, was Culpa Innata: moreover, it seemed to me a linear non-linearity, a forced one - so I was hugely disappointed.

[Ascovel]

Sure, all the optional segments in GK3 are nice, but they aren't anything more special than hearing Gabriel's fun comments for random objects in the game. They are often difficult to find or activate and are ultimately wasted resources that could instead enrichen the core gameplay, story, or characterizations. I found the optional stuff in GK1 much better and providing additional depth to the proceedings. Also, you usually had a whole day, or several to find it.

Concerning the supposed alternate routes. I don't believe any player who is kicked out by Montroux or does some other possible serious mistake just lets it be and plays on.

think only about the Passion's stops in the church

What about them? I don't remember.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Sure, all the optional segments in GK3 are nice, but they aren't anything more special than hearing Gabriel's fun comments for random objects in the game.

I agree with you that their value is pretty much equal to Gabe's fun comments, or to Grace's later takes on the same objects, but to me they were still fun to search and find.

Originally Posted by Ascovel

I found the optional stuff in GK1 much better and providing additional depth to the proceedings. Also, you usually had a whole day, or several to find it.

You're right on the second note: it's less frustrating to have a whole day or a couple of days to find these optional routes, but I still consider that the approach of GK3 is more believable.

Originally Posted by Ascovel

What about them? I don't remember.

If you look them in the first day, at each and every one of them in the proper order, near the end Gabriel starts to talk about Granny, his childhood and his experience with the clergy and the Church as an institution. Also, you can notice that he can't remember correctly certain stations, and he makes some comments about he not paying attention during catechism. Later, when you can visit the church with Grace, she also makes some comments about her childhood and - if looked in the proper order again - she thinks about Gabriel and Granny too.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

If you look them in the first day, at each and every one of them in the proper order, near the end Gabriel starts to talk about Granny, his childhood and his experience with the clergy and the Church as an institution. Also, you can notice that he can't remember correctly certain stations, and he makes some comments about he not paying attention during catechism. Later, when you can visit the church with Grace, she also makes some comments about her childhood and - if looked in the proper order again - she thinks about Gabriel and Granny too.

That's great! I never heard about it. I'll have too check it out. Why don't I ever do anything in order?!

[mosdl]

I liked Indy 4 (not the movie - Fate of Atlantis where you could choose a path and solve puzzles in different ways, as well as having to choose from the 3 methods that led to different scenes/etc.

I still get the full story, but still have enough replay value.

[Keregioz]

Personally I really hate when I finish a game and feel (or know) that I haven't seen all aspects of it. It's not my idea of fun replaying a whole game just to see a couple of different things but still I feel I haven't played properly the game if I don't. Is like going to watch a movie and later find out that you missed a whole portion of it and you have to watch it all over again to find out what.
Of course non-linear doesn't necessarily mean that. I agree that lucas arts games where pretty good in that aspect. Indy4 was good also since you just had to save at a certain point and then you could play the game in 3 different paths which had enough differences to not make you feel that you were playing the same game over and over.

[DustyShinigami]

Hmmm... not sure what i prefer. Probably non-linear when it comes to adventure games. Especially for the more story driven adventure games like Broken Sword or something. I kinda like having a set goal to focus on without getting side-tracked or confused. A lot of the story driven adventure games are just like the more story driven movies, which are linear anyway. I guess i don't mind either one really so long as it's done right.

There've been a lot of interesting points made already that i agree with. I mean, i like the non-linear segments of the LucasArts games like Indy 4 or Monkey Island 1 & 2 etc, where you can choose to do certain tasks in any order you want and where you can use more than one item for a solution to a puzzle. I think more adventure games should do that.

But i'm not keen on the non-linearity in Gabriel Knight 3 or The Last Express for example. I don't like the idea of having to be in a certain place at a certain time just to see a few characters doing something specific or just to hear a bit of extra dialogue. And sometimes checking on certain characters prevents you from checking others. Especially if you have a clock against you and i much prefer taking my time instead of rushing around. I'd sooner experience all these little things during my first playthrough. I, too, don't want to have replay the game again just for that extra bit of dialogue or something because i wasn't there in time. If the game has multiple paths or different endings then i'll be more inclined to replay it.

[aries323]

I prefer linear games when it comes to adventure games. But I prefer the gameplay to be non-linear. This means that you get to do the puzzles in any order you want; you should be able to do a puzzle whenever you want. And by that I mean that I don't want to play a game in which my character (and I) can't go back to pick something up I needed from 2-3 screens back to solve the puzzle in screen 4 or 5. For rpgs, I prefer a more non-linerar approach.

[squirellmeister]

The nature of adventure games means that they need to ultimately be linear. They are very story driven and seen as a story is a linear entity, the game has to be as well. I agree that multiple puzzle solutions and the ability to choose order of the puzzles is good. However I don't see this as being non-linear as such. This method is just a great way to give the player freedom while, but not instead of, following the linear path.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by squirellmeister

They are very story driven and seen as a story is a linear entity, the game has to be as well.

I think that James Joyce or Thomas Pynchon, to name just the first two that come into my mind, would strongly disagree with your statement , as would do the modern literature's theory as well: long gone is the time when story was thought to be a transcendental entity, unchangeable and untouchable. Indeed, it is a clay matter in the hands of the author and the reader who, together, can build up stories that are totally linear or stories that don't even have a beginning or an end (the two extremes that are necessary to speak of linearity)

Stories can be linear or non-linear per se, and could be perceived in a linear or non-linear fashion, even if they were created to be the exact opposite, thanks to the effort of the author, who can interweave story (fabula) and actual plot as he likes, and the perception of the reader/viewer/player, who is (not anymore) forced to a linear/passive perception. There are modern authors that have proven this, and I think it can happen also for adventure games. Some of the examples in this thread are here to prove it (even if a smaller, lesser intent than its literary counterpart, of course - yet, at least)

[Collector]

Originally Posted by Keregioz

Personally I really hate when I finish a game and feel (or know) that I haven't seen all aspects of it. It's not my idea of fun replaying a whole game just to see a couple of different things but still I feel I haven't played properly the game if I don't. Is like going to watch a movie and later find out that you missed a whole portion of it and you have to watch it all over again to find out what.

You are forgetting the first rule of adventure gaming. Save early and save often. You don't have to replay the whole game to explore another path. I don't just save a game at dangerous or risky parts, I also save at forks in the path. If I later want to explore the other path, I only need to restore to that fork.

Non-linear game play/plot can greatly increase the replayability of a game. The 2nd time through can be a different game, if the non-linearness of game is done right. The more linear the game, the less likely I will be to replay it.

[Keregioz]

Originally Posted by Collector

You are forgetting the first rule of adventure gaming. Save early and save often. You don't have to replay the whole game to explore another path. I don't just save a game at dangerous or risky parts, I also save at forks in the path. If I later want to explore the other path, I only need to restore to that fork.

Non-linear game play/plot can greatly increase the replayability of a game. The 2nd time through can be a different game, if the non-linearness of game is done right. The more linear the game, the less likely I will be to replay it.

I don't care about replayability, I care to enjoy the game the first time I play it. And usually I don't enjoy these kind of games as much as I would want to.
Saving and loading doesn't always work...there are games where you must do something different near the beginning to see something different near the end (pandora directive comes to mind).