Preferring Linearity over Exploration

[Westane]

I don't usually feel bad about my opinions (I always feel bad about my opinions) but this one's been bothering me for a while and I can't figure out way.

As part of my punishment project I've gotten around to playing Blaster Master on the NES and, while the gameplay is just fine, I'm not really loving it. Why? Because I have to explore the level to find the door to get to the boss to get the power I need to explore the rest of the level to find the door to get to the next level.

Is it because I'm older and don't have the patience anymore? Is it really so bad to prefer games where the objective is to get from the left side of the stage to the right side of the stage? Obviously I love my sidequest heavy RPG's, but in just about every other genre I'm finding I have a lot more fun when I'm not devoting brainpower to figuring out where I'm supposed to go. There's obviously exceptions, Symphony of the Night is probably among my top 5 games of all time, but for the most part, yeah.

For the record, the SNES masterpiece classic Super Metroid? Yeah, don't really care for it...

Am I crazy?

[Ack]

While I completely disagree with you about games needing to be linear and personally prefer many open world games...there's nothing wrong with your opinion at all, nor does it make you crazy. You just prefer one particular method for a game to play out, as opposed to how I enjoy getting lost in its world. No shame in it either way, and there are many games I happen to like where all I have to do is move in a straight line forward.

[Westane]

Oh no, please don't misunderstand. I, in no way, think games "need" to be linear. Many amazing games would be terrible if they were! I'm just finding that I, personally, am finding it much more difficult to play through exploration based games these days. The games shouldn't change, not what I'm saying

[Ack]

Oh no, please don't misunderstand. I, in no way, think games "need" to be linear. Many amazing games would be terrible if they were! I'm just finding that I, personally, am finding it much more difficult to play through exploration based games these days. The games shouldn't change, not what I'm saying

Yeah, I thought about it after I typed it up that "need" was the wrong word for me to use. I meant just that your preference differs from mine. Sorry about that!

[Gunstar Green]

You're not crazy, it's a matter of taste.

I love Metroid and such but I'm starting to get annoyed at the fact that most modern side-scrollers tend to be Metroidvania-style games. Sometimes I just want to move right and kill things.

There's still something to be said for linear games because the level design is informed by completely different variables, the most important of which being that there's no necessity for backtracking. For example, you don't often get classic Mega Man-esque obstacle courses in more exploration focused games.

The different types of Castlevanias are the most obvious thing to look at. There's just a completely different feel and style of challenge.

Personally I get into moods. Sometimes I want to explore. Sometimes I don't. Luckily there are a lot of games that do both.

[J T]

I prefer both.

And sometimes neither.

[laurenhiya21]

I think it depends on the game. I have played games where I wished I could of explored a little more, and there have also been games where I wished it was more linear. Of course I can't think of any examples on the spot, but generally I think if a game has a super pretty/interesting world, I'm going to want to run around and explore.

[Sarge]

Yeah, it just depends on the game. Sometimes I like non-linearity, other times, I just want a nice corridor to the ending. Kinda like FFXIII.

Seriously, though, there's something to be said for games that are tightly designed around one linear path, and something for emergent gameplay that often crops up in an open world. Honestly, though, I think pulling off a compelling open-world design can be much more difficult overall. How many of us have played open-world games that prove to just be dull? (Not that linear games can't fall into that trap, too!)

Anyway, no shame in it at all. Some folks like exploration. Some just want to beat the crap out of stuff. Some folks like both, and just depends on the mood they're in, like me. I mean, I'm typically a gung-ho RPG guy, but I've been playing almost exclusively short NES stuff for a while now. Probably because I'm still feeling the burn from Xenoblade.

[MrPopo]

The thing about the Metroid games is that outside of the original the games are actually pretty linear (ignoring advanced moves that lead to sequence breaks). What makes it feel so open is that it has fantastic level design that doesn't hold your hand and keeps showing you paths you could take if you just had a particular powerup. There tends to be enough distance between those sightings and actually getting the powerup that the player then backtracks and looks for ways to use their new ability. But you don't really have a lot of wiggle room on the path; there might be a couple of rooms that hold expansion packs but those are short jogs off of the main path.

[BogusMeatFactory]

I prefer both.

And sometimes neither.

Sometimes a man just needs a puzzle game to pass the time!

On topic, you are not crazy for your need for some linearity. For me, I very much prefer a sandbox style when I am in the mood, but I also feel that those sandbox games need to feel alive and filled with detail. I want something that I can stop and just look and notice things and experience things from numerous perspectives.

I get the time and patience being one of the biggest factors for enjoying one type of game or another, but certain games bring about that want to take your time and to be patient. Those games are the special games that make a sandbox game worth it.

Somedays though... I just want to blow stuff up or just run....I guess just play an action movie and that is where linearity comes into play for me.