Why Linearity in an RPG is a good thing

by Howard Kleinman 

There are many editorials that have appeared on RPGamer recently that are attacking linearity in role playing games. The idea that linearity in any way shape or form even damages a role playing game is completely erroneous. Until Final Fantasy II (US) was released, role playing games were tedious and boring for me. Dragon Warrior was interesting and somewhat fun, but I quickly cast it away to my shelf in favor of Crystalis, which was more interactive. Final Fantasy was also rather plotless. The idea of creating your own party was intriguing, and going through the game once with only fighters was also rather interesting, but it didn't have any depth. I could go anywhere and do anything, but the game was raw and only stimulating on a superficial level.

It was when Final Fantasy II was released that I had my most involved gaming experience since the original Zelda. The world of FFII seemed to be more alive than the worlds of previous RPGs because the characters I was manipulating had lives, hopes, dreams, secrets, and problems. It was because I was able to actually live vicariously through these characters as if they were in a novel; the characters were more than just pixels on a screen that represented me. If Final Fantasy II was non-linear, then most of the interactions between the characters would not have been possible. Tellah would not have died tragically as a result of his own obsession for revenge, because I would have been able to work around his death. I would have been able to carry out all sorts of manipulations, but it would be me manipulating the game, not the game affecting me. For some reason I was able to play through Final Fantasy II more times than I have less linear games like Dragon Warrior III or Chrono Trigger. It was because of the qualities of a powerful story line that I wanted to revisit. It was like seeing the Star Wars Trilogy in the theaters. It was an experience where I knew what was coming, and waited anxiously for every precious moment.

When Final Fantasy III (US) came out I was immediately enthralled. The storyline of the first half of the game was as strong as FFII's was. The characters once again seemed like living and breathing people again. I began to get frustrated in the World of Ruin after I got the Falcon. Instead of each character acting in their own individual manner the lead character would talk to all NPCs with quotation marks around what they said. I tried using different characters in the lead in those situations, and the nearly incoherent Umaro was just as eloquent as the shakespearean Cyan. The second half of the game was far less satisfying because the charcters seemed to fade into pixels. Luckily, the ending had enough character to make up for the bland, "Which character do I pick up here?" World of Ruin.

Final Fantasy VII was extremely linear, but the stroyline was so enthralling that I didn't notice that I had no choices. I went charging from place to place after Sephiroth, not because I had no choice to do otherwise, but because Cloud believed it was the right thing to do, and consequentially I thought it was the right thing to do. If the linearity was removed, Aeris' death would not have occurred, simply because I could not be forced into any situation for any reason in a non-linear game. Aeris' death, the net result of linear gameplay, was far more powerful than most films nowadays, even the (undeservedly) Best Picture winning movie "Titanic."

A non-linear game has merits, but no depth. It is an impersonal, uninvolving experience. It is nothing more than a large number of pixels on a screen that can be manipulated by a controller. If linear gameplay in roleplaying games was not so enthralling, I would probably stick to playing silly, repetitive fighting games like Tekken and sports games like NFL Gameday. The strength of plot and characterization in a good linear RPG is far superior to all other types of games, especially non-linear calculator-like RPGs with no story or character of which to speak.