And it’s not like you ever had any kind of true freedom at all, they didn’t have the tech back then with games like Resident evil to truly give a ton of attention to characterization and story scenes. One only need reference Resident Evil’s infamously hilarious voice acting, animation and character models as a pure example.

I really dont’ see the problem with linearity at all. The game still gives you the freedom usually to CHOOSE how you handle the situation and how you play the game. Look at Metal gear Solid, It’s always been linear but there has been an INCREDIBLE amount of freedom in the gameplay itself and how you choose to approach it while still being entirely linear and cinematic.

And almost all console games have been linear since, forever.

Most games have always been Go from point A to Point B. But like I said there has and usually still is the freedom how you choose to approach the gameplay itself.

This can be in how you choose to battle in an RPG, what area’s to explore in a side scroller, which stage to choose next in a mario game(Which isn’t true freedom because it all goes to the same conclusion and makes 0 difference when you beat the game)

FFXIII for example is no different just like FFX. Yet you don’t see people looking back on FFX and condemning it for it’s linearity. (Even when it’s just as if not more linear than XIII. The difference being minigames really. And that’s about it)

Because there is tremendous freedom in how you choose to play the game and the situations it presents you along it’s predetermined path.

Final Fantasy has always been almost exclusively linear giving the player the illusion of freedom which was taken away in games like FFX or FFXIII. The few that are actually non-linear are hated by many (X-2, XII for example).

And like the article says, in order to have good storytelling you have to give up something. Open World and non-linear games are very rarely good at storytelling let alone satisfying plot pacing with something to drive you forward other than “oh hey you can go and do this next story part…if you feel like it.” (There are many exceptions though, such as Shenmue, or FFX-2 and many more)

I personally really don’t like Open world games a lot. I find them boring, drab and often are incredibly unsatisfying when it comes to narrative. Even worse games that are heavy on decisions with blank slate characters or multiple endings can be just as annoying. Decisions completely interrupt the flow of conversation and give it an incredibly awkward cadence that is just awful. Multiple endings often leaving too much open, unsaid or unanswered. Or wondering which is the ACTUAL ending, which leads to much frustration.

Did anyone ever see http://www.bubblegun.com??

That was Paul’s business in much the same style.

The problem is that I think one of the most compelling aspects about League of Legends is that your actions *do* matter. You’re right that if you die twelve times in TF2 no-one really cares, but that devalues the act of dying. It’s less important not only to other players, but to you as well. The fact that in LoL, death really does matter, means that it’s something to be avoided at all costs. When you do avoid it, and inflict it on your enemies, I’d argue the feeling of reward is greater than in something like TF2. The cost of that increase in reward, is that the perils of failure are much greater. However, those perils should only extend as far as game effects, and not the emotional terror we have now (oh my god I can’t die – my team will abuse me).

It might not necessarily be the competitive scene that Riot’s trying to foster that’s the problem, since player behaviour is monstrously bad whether you’re playing a ranked game or Normal. Heck, I’ve even seen people start abusing one another horribly in Co-Op Vs A.I. games. The problem with the competitive scene is that a great many of the top teams consist of players who consistently demonstrate poor behaviour in game. You can go and watch ‘pro’ streams and you’ll see them shouting abuse, typing derogatory comments in to the chat and so on. The message to players looking to climb the ladder is that you can behave however you want and that’s tragic. If LoL ‘pros’ actually showed professionalism and sportsmanship then it might go some way to improving attitudes.

SC2 also had a healthy competitive scene. I played a lot of that online when Wings of Liberty first came out (and Voidrays were overpowered) and while there was the occasional bit of abuse it was nowhere near the level of consistency and vitriol of League of Legends, so your friend is right on the money. There’s a fundamental difference there.

I think in order to answer your questions fairly, and with the detail they deserve, another article is required, so watch this space.

Also, thanks for reading!

I feel like it has to be a combination of Riot’s obsession with making games a sport and with the win-base reward system of League. As Riot works to make people care about pro matches, they also add to the attitude of “this game really matters” that has consumed every rager. As people do poorly in each individual game, they make it more difficult for their own team to win, not merely because of the opportunity cost of a wasted player slot, but also because each death gives gold to the enemy. And losing isn’t acceptable because you don’t get as many points for it and the almighty W:L ratio goes down. Contrast this to games like TF2 and CS where no one gives a damn about whether you keep dying because there aren’t any points had for winning and your death doesn’t give the enemy a significant advantage towards winning.

But on the other hand, it’s not just a matter of competition because it seems there are highly competitive yet friendly communities. A friend of mine, and avid SC2 player, that I introduced to League said it has the worst community he’s ever seen — unbearably bad in comparison to Starcraft. Apparently, it’s customary to, and almost rude not to, say “glhf” at the start of each game. He told me that when he played his first League game, he said that and someone on the other team immediately responded with something to the effect of “fuck you go to hell”. Which would be hilarious in it’s ridiculousness if it weren’t symptomatic of such a greater problem with the community.

To whoever has the time or willpower, I’d like to hear some thoughts on the cause of this community and what can be done about it. Because not all games are this bad, and League is uniquely bad in my experience. (Note: I’ve never played console shooters, but apparently they get quite the reputation as well.)

Kieron Gillen at RPS had some very interesting things to say about this as well:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/about-a-girl-assorted-thoughts-on-bioshock-infinite/

But about the violence The parts of the game that actually takes notice to your violence, and make it impact full. (You mentioned the death of Comstock and Fitzroy, I would also mention the first kill, and the first kills after Liz is with you) Worked great for me, and helped define the characters and the themes of the game. I will though agree that the game had a lot of unnecessary violence as well.

This seems to be a common problem with games nowadays; they don’t seem to have figured out, on the whole, how to tell a story with gameplay serving it. The gameplay’s almost there as an apology – “we’re sorry you’ve had to listen to all that plot stuff, here have some fun shooting things for a bit”.

I only really started noticing that disconnect with Uncharted 3 – Nathan Drake’s easygoing, wisecracking everyman in cutscenes is a far cry from the gun-toting sociopath the player controls – but once you’ve seen that dichotomy in one game, it’s everywhere you look.

This may also partially explain the scripted sequences. Booker isn’t a player agent – he’s a vehicle for the combat, and the decisions you’re offered are mostly just to serve to highlight the parallel-reality constants-and-variables nature of the setting.

This is all just an uneducated opinion, of course.

Picking up key items is irrelevant, as you progress through those games without being able to a) miss the items and b) go back to get items you might have missed. Compare an older Resident Evil (Code Veronica) with RE5 or RE6. The old game showed you many rooms and left you to decide, in which order things had to be done, before progressing to the next area. The new games usually have a room full of enemies and a cut scene, followed by another room of enemies and a cut scene.

Since the common sense is now to think, that backtracking is a no-go, the entire Action-Adventure genre has turned into a very linear Action genre. I always enjoyed linear shooters, but I want something with more depth from time to time. However, I don’t always have the time (or will) to play a quest-driven open-world game, because the majority of open-world games is largely repetitive in terms of game play and design.

This is, what people try to say, when they oppose linearity. Most people just lack patience or even writing skills to express, what they really mean. I also don’t think that most gamers really care. As sales numbers might tell, the modern linear games sell to a broader audience, than the classic complex games. It’s just sad, that an entire class of great games had to extinct.