I know we have had this discussion before, but I thought it would be good to bring it up again! See what I get for thinking?

Really...which do you prefer and why ??

I vote for linear! I love being in a room (location) and not being able to leave untill I have done it all, as opposed to having 6 or 7 rooms (locations) that you need to wander thru and back again before you find the one little thing you missed on the umpteeth time thru!

Linear helps direct the story and makes it more logical for me!

How about you?

Me too...up to a point. I remember being really ticked off with Silver Earring because I'd done everything over and over again and still couldn't get outside to talk to Dr. Watson. Maybe it was that game. I sold it very soon after.

I really liked Still Life. When I played it a second time, I was able to notice how I was being directed as to my next step. I appreciated that - rather than running around all over the place wondering what to do.

I prefer Nonlinear -
I like exploring and don't like being restricted as to where I can go.
Also, if I get stuck, I like being able to go work on something else somewhere else in the game for a while.

Jenny100..nice point!

But!! Playing a game and then wandering over so many locations with no idea what you should be doing to progress...that just makes me nutsy!

I guess I like being "stuck" in one place that lets me know there is more to do, before I can leave to explore other places.

I prefer non-linear games, although I have played several linear ones I've enjoyed. I like wandering around and poking my nose into everything. I know I'll probably miss some clues and have to back track, but not knowing for a while just doesn't bother me. Eventually, everything falls (or gets shoved) into place, which makes those "aha" moments all the sweeter.

My preference is also for non-linear games. One thing I wish one could do in an inventory-type game is to pick up something that looks pertinent when you first see it. You find that you can't grab it and then after you have done a few things you suddenly can grab it. Doesn't make sense to me.

I also prefer the linear game, divided into chapters, and you can't move to the next chapter until you've finished the current one.

It may sometimes be a little frustrating, when you can't figure out what in the world you've missed, but no where near as frustrating as trying to decide what to do over three continents, six months, and during the day or night!!!

I would guess this preference is largely determined by what personality type you are...

Definitely linear, as I get lost in games rather easily. I hate being way up there in Chapter 10 and find out I need an item in Chapter 5. Now I am playing Vampire Redemption, which is linear, but you can skip sections and still finish the quest. You just miss out killing creatures and getting things that you might need later on, but as long as you have offed the main bad creature, you are ok. Right now I went back in to find some Tome that I missed, just in case I need it later.

Definitely linear. Since I have little time to play games, I get very frustrated when I have to go back and forth, here and there, with no sense of what to do next. At least when a game is linear, you usually have a smaller environment to trek all over trying to find the clue you've missed.

Hi

I don't mind either .... as long as there are no dead ends

I too like to explore at my own pace but it is also nice to be able to know I have done everything that's required for safely moving on

Cheers.

Mad

I usually end up doing things to soon, or finding things to early, getting way ahead of myself. If it's linear, than that doesn't happen as much.
But then I also hate thinking I have clicked on something that isn't useful, only to find out it was, but it just wasn't the right "time" to use it!
Would i still play either one? Definitely!!

I did like non-linear until I started "Rhem".

Talk about getting lost and turned around!

I'll vote for linear. In some games you can go to so many places that I found it confusing. At least in a linear game you know that you've got to finish everything where you are, but then again, I confuse easily.

Fil

I prefer non-linear but I think it's harder to do well. It puts more thinking responsibility on the gamer and if the developer doesn't give sufficient clue as to what *s/he* was thinking it's very hard to follow.

It also seems to me that linear games are much more likely to rely on things like pixel hunts and timed sequences to extend gameplay. There is almost nothing more irritating to me than to be stuck in a place and not be able to leave when I've combed every inch of it until I'm blind. I like to be able to go somewhere else, do something else. If I can't, I'm much more likely to succumb to the urge to get a hint or consult a WT, or just stop playing. If a game gives me the urge to stop playing, it isn't, in my book, a successful game.

WW

I prefer non-linear games because, if I get stuck on one puzzle, I can leave it while I work on something else and then go back to it with a fresh eye. In "Harvest of Souls", I was stuck for what seemed like forever on the marble puzzle in the Warehouse, so I left it and worked on a few other puzzles. When I had no choice and returned to the Warehouse, I was able to solve it.

Susan

I prefer linear games. For some reason I have to visit every single place in a game and do everything, so linear games make this easier on me. I'm always afraid I'm going to miss something (this was especially true in KOTOR).

Both have merit. The linear for more guidance into what to do or what has to be done. The non-linear for the freedom.

I just like a game that is logical...that if I really WERE this character, this is what I would think to do next.

And I abhor having to wander around and twiddle my thumbs until it's "time" to do something or talk to someone.

And Gymcandy...I'm with you on Rhem. I did not like that game in the least!

JK

I thought I liked non-linear until Beyond Atlantis II. I missed a "clue" with the Dolphin and never got to see the endgame as it wouldn't let me go back. But it was such fun to play that I will re-play it.
I mostly like a game that has check-points so you can look at your leisure but it won't let you pass "chapter-points" if you miss something.

I would not call Beyond Atlantis II non-linear.
The first Beyond Atlantis was non-linear because you can go back and visit the worlds you previously visited. You can't do that in Beyond Atlantis II.

I'm not sure what you mean by check-points. Can you give an example of a game that used them?

Don't think we all quite mean the same things by linear and non-linear. Despite that others have named things I find irritating too.

I like games with stories, and stories best come in chapters. A non-linear game to me would let you experience the story events in different orders. That's a challenge to realise and I don't know a game which does that well.

Other posters here have taken non-linear to mean you can wander anywhere in the game-world?

If a game is well-written, and the puzzles not too hard not too easy (for me,) then its linearity isn't a worry. Puzzles can become hard if it's not obvious you can't solve the chessboard puzzle say until you've spoken to character X which you can't do until you've got them Black Forest gateau which you can't do until you've painted all the trees black etc. I don't like my games too hard unlike some.

Question: Do non-linear games tend to be 1st person more often than linear games...maybe more like the Myst series rather than like Still Life?

Well...Peter Smith has a great point! Linear can mean different things! And reading the comments, I think what I actually like is linear in the way that you can not progress untill you have done certain things in order! For this reason, I;m not a big fan of MYST, etc...I like going somewhere and not being able to leave untill I have done all there is to be done.

For example, in Black Mirror and Still LIfe...you could not leave untill whatever needed to be done, was done!

I get too frustrated with going from place to place and back again and all over and there agin! I like that I'm limited to a few places or even one place, that I must find that one thing to continue!

Does that make any sense?

Sure Jenny, ... my phrasing is probably different. I definitely move to the beat of a "weird" drummer.

Did you play sanitarium? Every act had to be completed before you could get to the next level. I like that in a game because then you know for fact you have missed something. However, it let you do the level in any order you wanted. Does this make sense?

In Beyond Atlantis II, had the game forced me to complete the conversations with the Dolphin, I would not have missed the very clue that the endgame depended on. Instead, it allowed me to almost complete the game, but when I went back to the Dolphin it no longer allowed the missing conversation to come up.

Peter and raylin I totally agree with your interpretations. I just go for "logical". Somethings should follow in a logical progression even if you do them in different orders. Although I often enjoy just wandering around I actually prefer being pinned down to an area until I've finished everything.

happy trails,

Carolyn

I think I prefer the linear games also. Since I always play without a WT, I tend to wander all over in either type of game, but the linear ones don't let me stray too far before realizing an error.

Melanie