Linearity and freedom each present different kinds of games, with contrasting benefits and downfalls. Who can forget the expansive choice given to you in Deus Ex? Equally, isn't the linearity of scrolling shooters what focuses the skill needed?

Freedom and linearity; which makes a better game?

Pesten: Hmm.. It depends on what games we are talking about..

A game in the shoot-'em-up category wouldn't suffer from linearity as much as a RPG. That's pretty easy to understand, because shoot-'em-ups are games based upon shooting badguys and making the adrenaline pump when you do so. Look at Timesplitters 2. It's very linear and leaves you with a freedom next to nothing. But it's still a good game in my opinion.

But when it comes to RPG's and such..you need freedom to explore. That's what the RPG's are all about. Imagine a Zelda where you were forced to go on to next temple as fast as possible, and the temple was without puzzles, just lots of enemies to crush before you moved along to the next room.. It wouldn't be Zelda.

There are several examples on games destroyed because of linearity too. One good example is Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers.. What was EA thinking? They had the license to a great franchise as Lord Of The Rings, and had the possibility to re-create Middle Earth- with long travels and lots of exploring to do. But no... They had to go with the most linear hack 'n slash game I've ever seen. Damn them... That's the way it goes when you let greedy bastards like EA buy good franchises.

Anyway, my conclusion is this: freedom offers more to the gameplay and the total expression of the game. But that's not always what we are looking for. If you buy a shoot-'em-ups (or sport games), your not after big epicals. Your after getting your aggression right out of your head - and blow up your mates head (long live multiplayer!).

Dennis: It's like Pesten just said: it depends on the game.

I recently saw a presentation on SSX3 (and played it a bit) which now has something called 'open interactive environments' or something. It basically says that you can use the entire mountain to get downhill, instead of following the same track over and over again. I personally think this is one of the best features in the game.

However, I can imagine that RPG's should be linear. What's the point of building up your characters if you can find a way around every obstacle and enemy? in this case, freedom of movement just doesn't add value to the gameplay (although it might come in handy at some times).

jayseven: Well DUH it depends on the game.

To be honest, when I see reviews of games saying there's loads of freedom to do as you please, I sometimes get 'scared' of that game; I don't like not knowing what to do in a game. Sure if i can work out where to go next after a few minutes then that's okay, but often true freedom is offputting for me. Look at most MMORPG's; my mate had Ultima Online and tried to get me hooked, but the thing was there were too many choices; there were dozens of possible outcomes for your character, so I didn't know which to do. Also I felt the game had little aim in it, but that's a subject of a future roundtable...

Some of my favourite games of all time have set objectives that you have to carry out by any means possible; Blast Corps gave you a time limit to clear a path for a nuclear tanker, and there was some freedom in how you carried out the demolition but not really that much. In Perfect Dark there were objectives, telling you pretty much what to do. In OoT there were actually set things that you were pointed towards doing before other things, but I think the game gave a mild illusion of freedom.

Half-life; a tricky one this. You could argue that it was a free-roaming game, with no real objectives, but truthfully the game was a long string of set pieces, with only one real way that you could go.

Games which are linear usually tend to be short games, and it seems that a short game must be worse than a long one, but truthfully a short game can be a wonder to play - If you've had the time of your life following the set path of the game then there's nothing wrong with that. There are few truely non-linear games; Schpickles often harps on about an old game called "Elite" which apparantly was not linear at all.

Allow me to clarify what I've said; if games are too free-roaming, people tend to wonder what the hell they're meant to do next, if games are too linear gamers tend to feel like they're just playing their way through a movie. Most good games give a sense of freedom but subtly hint at what they should be doing, a l� Super mario 64.

Blackbird: Jayseven, how dare you speak of the classic game of 'Elite' with such doubts?!

Elite was, is, one of the best non-linear game ever created. YOU decide what you're gonna do: start your own mining company, become the local space-bus driver, play a bountyhunter, work for the feds (or for the pirates), trade until you drop, etc.

Matt (Idlewild): Games in my childhood were made what I think they were today by my imagination. The most enjoyable part of playing a game for me was thinking about what could happen later on. In FIFA: Road to World cup '98 I thought of all the possible ways in which me winning the world cup could be celebrated. The one I supported most was having a party after the award ceremony, I think, where you could party and dance. In Mario World I thought that, after beating Bowser, i should be able to take a roam through the mushroom kindom, taking my time and enjoying myself.

I, myself, hate linearity. I hate knowing that what I am going to do is pre scripted. Like Neo, I hate thinking that my fate has already been chosen. If a game is wholely linear, what is the difference between the game and a movie, apart from the fact that you control the character? They are of no interest to me.

Linked in with linearity are time limits. Having a limit on how long you can play a certain section of a game kills the enjoyment of it all for me. Pikmin, for example, offers no freedom. you don't get time to enjoy your environment, test out the pikmin, attempt ludicrous stunts with the little animals due to the time limit. What could've been a marvellously free formed game was turned into a boring, tiring and repetitive experience, and I took it back to GAME only 3 days after I splashed out �35 for the Nintendo logo.

Games like Mario Sunshine have had their longetivity increased thanks to my lust for freedom - for hours I have thought up and done many crazy things. 'Sunshine Diving'- which is getting to the highest/furthest away place you can, and then attempting to jump into the water in the main plaza - has literally had me enthralled for hours, competing with friends and such for the gnarliest dives.

er-no: What makes life interesting is it's ability to turn within a matter of seconds. The freedom we experience aids us through life and randomness can lead to pleasure, however some people just want to collect something and move to the end without care or consideration for the results of his/her actions.

Games with multinarrative plots and open environments must be hell to code but they are the best games ever. Giving the player freedom gives the player life within the game. One of the best games of all time is Deus Ex and its choice and structure allows the player to think about what they are going to do. Its also the reason RPG's are so popular and why internet gaming is such a big market - people love to be free, sometimes its even better in a game because if you die... you can restart. Gimme freedom to rebel, and I'll change my world.

Matt: I'm a big fan of freedom within games and the afforementioned massive use of the mountain in SSX3 is a prime example of where I think freedom should be used within a computer game.

However, sometimes freedom isn't a good thing. Sometimes as a player I crave a bit of linear. Final Fantasy 7 was made awesome by it's storyline which would be nigh on impossible to incorporate into a free environment.

This isn't to say that one is better than the other. Just they both rock equally when used correctly.