Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 24, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 24, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
The End of Linearity? A Review of The Path
by Christopher Enderle on 04/07/11 10:20:00 am   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

Reposted from my blog.

Playing through The Path, I began to wonder what it was that was so enthralling about it. How I could spend an evening accomplishing little but still enjoying the simplicity of wandering around an unending forest looking for “something?” I realized something wonderful: Despite blindly running off into the woods, I never once felt lost.


Without Direction

The game reminded me of the saying, “Wherever you go, there you are.” Except it’s more like, “Wherever you go, you’re where you’re supposed to be.”
It’s a cool idea, but the level at which Tale of Tales pulls it off is what’s impressive. I’ve read that FarCry 2 was also modular and designed to lead the player into the story no matter which direction they head off in. I’m still interested in seeing how well it works with the idea, but based on The Path’s implementation (and my previous positive bias towards the idea) I am, more than ever before, convinced that such a design structure is the way to go whether your game is open world or linear, unless you specifically want to give the player an on-rails experience. In fact, I would say that this design structure eliminates the need to distinguish between linear and non-linear types of progression. Perhaps now we can begin to discuss games more in the sense of deterministic and non-deterministic, far more universal concepts.

Contrast The Path with Prince of Persia (2008), which was desperate to constantly remind you that you were, in fact, always on the path. It was like they couldn’t put enough of those light orbs as obviously as possible straight in your path. In fact, the platforming was so restrictive you could never even leave the path if you wanted to. The level design was so linear this didn’t necessarily obstruct your ability to move through it all, but it completely killed any potential the world had to spontaneously generate a sense of surprise and discovery. It certainly left me longing for the days of Super Mario Bros where some fluke of poor control or innocent curiosity could suddenly leave you walking on top of the screen. Prince of Persia was simply incapable of surprise (as far as gameplay went).

Aimless, But On Target 

The Path’s design succeeds in allowing infinite aimless wandering, encouraging it, and making sure that no matter how far off the path I get I’ll always feel like I’m moving forward in terms of my objectives. Sure, I might not find exactly what I’m looking for, but eventually a flower will pop up, and dammit, that alone makes all the wandering worthwhile, not that they seem to do anything, but that doesn’t matter, I’m making a pretty garland around my inventory. It does well in setting long term and short term goals, a dichotomy far too many games ignore or obfuscate. It lets me set the pace of progression, and an intoxicating power indeed.

It succeeds where every open world game I can think of (Oblivion, Godfather, Mafia, Saboteur, Infamous, the Silent Hill games, all of them (though mostly the less linear 1&2)) fail on a basic level. Those games have plenty to do and discover, but ultimately you’ll find yourself walking in circles, hitting a border, forced to use your map and follow the arrow.

The Path has just the right mix of ingredients to maintain a feeling that’s never frustrating, that never feels like time is being wasted, that doesn’t make me feel helpless and lost, and there’s never that nagging feeling of “Ok, I know I should be advancing the story, time to get serious about this game and get back on the critical path.” Its level of ambiguous hints (the briefly appearing map, the swirly lines along the edge of the screen), concrete goals (the empty boxes in the basket), filler (the 144 flowers), hand holding (literally with the girl in white) and randomness (in forest layout and relative relation of items/appearance of flowers) all help to assure the player never feels, “Well… nothing’s happening… what do I do now?” And if the player ever does come to a stop, unable to take another step, they’ll be shown straight back to the path. I never really felt an inclination to consult a walkthrough.

Most importantly, throughout all this aimless wandering, the player gets to know their character. That’s the true reward, the most delicious carrot: Someone for the player to connect to, to see a part of themselves in, and a world for the player to reflect on. It’s not just a journey of discovering the outside world, it’s a journey of realizing what lies within our own inner universe.

The only point the game fails on is when a wolf area is encountered. Usually there are several things to interact with, but which will trigger the wolf? These were the only moments I felt uncertainty and apprehension. Interestingly, this anxiety only arose upon first discovering its existence. Perhaps what triggers the wolf should have remained unpredictable, as once I learned what clue there was to danger (triggering the camera flyby cutscene) I became much more careful in my interactions.Otherwise, the game was like rolling about in a huge bed or splashing about in an Olympic sized pool, not having to worry about the repercussions for wildly exploring.

With Direction

In these days of giant yellow !’s we’ve ignored or failed to build being lost into the experiences we craft, and more importantly, surprising the player by showing how they weren’t lost after all, how they were, in fact, contributing to their overall progress with their seemingly aimless and random acts that don’t turn out to be so extraneous after all. This might be mostly due to our audience (and ourselves) having far too many experiences with bad design, where if you feel lost you probably are actually lost and will never get back onto the main path without a walkthrough.

Perhaps those early games were a bit too traumatic for one too many game developer and we became too eager to shift toward the ideology of making sure the player never doesn’t know what to do. Not only do we try to keep the player informed, but we take it a step further and do our best to tell and convince the player why they should focus on staying on the path, to reject the temptation to push the boundaries of our games. I’ll forever see the mini-map and its ilk as quick-fix, knee-jerk overreactions that treat a symptom but not the underlying problem of the player failing to progress.

A linear games makes it easy for the player to feel as if they are progressing, and that’s an important feeling to impart, but I feel The Path shows linearity isn’t needed for that in the least. Maybe now we can consider designs similar to those of old which inflicted trauma of aimless wandering without decrying them for their failings, but hailing them for the opportunity they provide to us in being able to create a deeper, more positive experience for the player.


Related Jobs

University of Central Florida, School of Visual Arts and Design
University of Central Florida, School of Visual Arts and Design — Orlando, Florida, United States
[10.24.14]

Assistant Professor in Digital Media (Game Design)
The College of New Jersey
The College of New Jersey — Ewing, New Jersey, United States
[10.24.14]

Assistant Professor - Interactive Multi Media - Tenure Track
Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — Prague, Czech Republic
[10.24.14]

Game Designer
Next Games
Next Games — Helsinki, Finland
[10.24.14]

Senior Level Designer






Comments


Robert Bevill
profile image
I haven't played The Path, but it sounds like a pretty refreshing experience. I've played way too many games where attempting to explore only winds up with me wasting my time.

Christopher Enderle
profile image
Ya, it was really refreshing. Sometimes I would have what would probably be considered wasted time, trying to find something but never finding it (or anything else) and just finally giving up and ending the chapter to move on to the next.



But even in those cases it wasn't so much a sense of, "What's up with this design? How can they expect me to know what to do next" it was more like "Well, I'll just find whatever I'm missing with another character later... hopefully... ya, I'm sure I will!" And I always did. It's not an absolute safety net, but The Path's design is so flexible you almost never feel screwed over or that you're being pigeon holed.

Eric Spain
profile image
Another point about linear games is the "miss out factor". Sometimes I like to explore, and sometimes I like to focus on progress, but I get frustrated when I don't get to do what I want to do. There are a few linear games that throw in a secret, hidden valuable every now and again. Valuables which, if missed, are gone forever and can potentially gimp the play in the future.



Games should not punish a player for exploring, and should not punish a player for not checking every single corner as if they had OCD.



I hope in the future there will be more games like The Path, and less like Hallway Follower 15.

Christopher Enderle
profile image
That's a really good point, I didn't even think of it. That phenomena was one of the main reasons I found it really hard to enjoy Silent Hill 4. In the previous ones (2 mainly) you could realistically run around town stopping to read, look at, and listen to every little thing, but then when they had the ghosts in 4 (which bee lined to you and were practically invincible) you really had to rush through everything, which made me feel like I was missing a lot since it was still a Silent Hill game and soaking in the atmosphere was always a big part of the previous 3.

Altug Isigan
profile image
In game discussions we often use the word linearity for games whose discourse (the order in which the events are presented) is *identical* with the story (the chronological order of events as we realize it in retrospect). We also often see this as *the* defining quality of narratives, which is completely wrong.



However, the story and the discourse in many narratives isn't identical at all. Narrative designers may play with the chronological order while constructing the discourse, they may ommit or prolongue events that are part of the story etc. What really is important here is that the causality between the core events is maintained, that their logical connection can be constructed in retrospect, and that the fillers (or sattelites) maintain a feel of relatedness to the core events, instead of heading into deviation, stagnation or hollowness.



I think what The Path achieves is to allow the player to co-create a discourse that allows to "shuffle" the chronology of the story at the extremes. It also manages to keep the fillers as part of the core events in the game. Whatever discourse the player co-creates, at the end, the story that the player realizes she went through in retrospect, always makes sense. This is not new to narration, but it is probably new in this medium (or just rare). It is good narrative design in the context of an open work, and not easy to achieve.



Linearity can be sometimes good for the discourse. It is however sad if the narrative designer does not know any better storytelling method than keeping the discourse and the story identical. I find it always important to know whether linearity was a conscious choice of the designer, or whether it was the result of not knowing better what to do with content at hand. On the other hand, non-linearity is not exactly the same as free-roaming, and we should be careful not to confuse it with having no idea where the story is heading towards, or how the fillers relate to the core events. Chrono-logy, telos, necessity, unity are still central to storytelling, regardless of how lose the joints of the construct are.

Christopher Enderle
profile image
Thanks for bringing up the distinction between the story and the discourse. It’s definitely an important thing to keep in mind but it can be hard to maintain that perspective when deeply working on putting a project together.



As a player, being able to contribute and see the results of your actions affect how you experience the game is always a marvelous feeling. I think most people desire acknowledgment more than anything (or else we would have no desire to interact with others) so to provide ways of acknowledging the player will always be greatly appealing.



Whether it’s necessary to acknowledge the player for games to become more mainstream, or to dominate the entertainment industry in general, is a question that if demonstrated in the positive would change the way the vast majority of games in the industry’s landscape would look for the foreseeable future.

Tora Teig
profile image
Wow, very interesting, I have previosuly encountered works by Tale of Tales, and this is definitely up next then!



It confuses me when we are given the options to choose, but our choices have already been made for us. Like in Fable II/III we are encouraged by hidden treasure and other rewards to stray from the path that the game wants us to follow. And this in itself is confusing and contradictory. What is the point in having an open world, that blatantly REWARDS you for exploring when it is being limited to (like you said) a pointing arrow on the map (or a glittering path).



While the option can be turned off, the game is this way by default and such it must be intended to be this way. I would like to see the logic behind that decision!



Thank you very much for this fascinating article! I find myself enthralled with the concept.


none
 
Comment: