Linear vs Non-Linear: The true Critical Framework of Gaming
Egoraptor famously criticized Ocarina of Time (OOT)on his Youtube series Sequelitis. I remember watching the half hour plus video, seething a little as he began to gripe about the aspects of the game I loved. He argued that OOT missed the point of being a Zelda game. A Zelda game wasn’t about fulfilling the hero’s journey, instead it was about experiencing the hero’s journey. Hinted in his critique is a chasm that exists within the critical work of video game theory. Since the beginning of video games the question has always been what takes priority? Narrative or Gameplay? This question becomes complicated when we ask how should things play out. Should a game be linear or non-linear?
When we’re talking about linear vs non-linear, a linear game has a clear progression that the player must follow in order to complete the game. Non-linear has very little to no progression that the player must follow. Another term I might throw out there is “open world game”, which means the game invites the player to explore the world of the game.
What does all of this have to do with Zelda? Well if we go back to OOT, the game was fairly linear, but it could still be considered open world. You could technically explore a good bit of Hyrule at your own discretion, but to make true progress in the game, specific steps had to be followed in order to unlock different areas. For example, Kakariko village was a no go until you received the letter from Princess Zelda. EgoRaptor laments this restriction because he felt that the linear nature of the game was at odds with the open world invitation of the game. And he’s right. But some might be willing to make this trade off. The question of the critic isn’t whether this style is good or not (we all have different preferences), but how do we track the linear nature of a game and at what point does the linear nature of the game make the narrative of the game essentially dissolve.
I believe there is a point where a game becomes so non-linear the narrative becomes secondary to the Gameplay itself. How we track this point is purely relative. For example, Wind Waker (WW) was another entry in the Zelda series that had an open-world style similar to that of OOT and BotW. Wind Waker unlike BotW has a plot that is largely linear. Where you explore and what you need to do is largely focused on the plot of the story. Sure you can spend countless hours ( as I have) just exploring random islands. But the large impetus of the game is the story itself.
Comparatively, BotW deemphasizes the narrative by creating a fractured narrative. We are awoken to a place where we have little context of where we are and what we need to do. Plot mover mcgee aka the King gives us our impetus to get control of the divine beast and save the princess, but after that the game kind of encourages us to just explore. Whether you decide to head straight for Kakariko village or go shrine hunting is up to you. The choice to get rid of defined dungeons was another move to underplay the narrative. Getting the Master Sword is completely optional as there is only mere rumors of where it might be and one could easily progress through the entire game without even touching it. At this point the narrative dissolves and the identity of a “Zelda” game becomes a shadow of itself. Sure the stylistic choices of the game were classic Zelda. The Ritos, the Gorons, the Zoras and Dekus are all staples of the Zelda’s universe, but the they seemed interchangeable with any other fantasy element.
The point in which a game’s narrative becomes deemphasized by the non-linear nature of the game is what I call the “calamity point.” The choice to call Ganon a calamity versus just his standard nomenclature was intended to obfuscate him. We aren’t given the conniving, power hungry, Gerudo from OOT. Instead he is a formless beast who exists just for the sake of evil to exist. Lynels, Moldugas, Hinoxes and Talus’ don’t seem like offshoots from Ganon, but mere naturally occurring creatures of the world. They are the real fun. Exploring an offshoot to run into one of these baddies is exciting. Completing the shrines helps you get better so you can go into more difficult areas and take on more difficult versions of these creatures. None of these elements are instrumental to the plot and yet, ignoring them would be denying yourself the true experience of the game.
The calamity point does not establish a dichotomy. Instead it is a reference point, a question a critic must ask in the back of their heads when analyzing a game. The question the critic asks is whether the narrative of this game has become so deemphasized that the impetus behind the game is no longer the narrative. One might think determining this question is easy, but several RPGs have proved difficult.
The Fallout series really serves as multiple experiments on how linear or non-linear emphasis affects narrative. Let’s take for example Fallout 3, a game that begins incredibly linear, but slowly devolves into a non-linear state. The main quest becomes more deemphasized as you play along. Whether it ever reaches the point where the main quest is completely deemphasized is hard to say. In comparison, I would argue its direct sequel Fallout 4 hits the Calamity point immediately. The impetus of the narrative is constantly on the backburner as the game throws at you multiple distractions such as factions and base building, to the point where mere rumors of a story are left when you finally “finish” the game. In stark contrast, Fallout New Vegas veers towards the Calamity point, but never quite gets there. The main story and the attractions of New Vegas seem to converge so that the non-linear nature of the story becomes a part of the main story. The factions and different areas all feed into the question of who will have ultimate control of New Vegas and what role will you play during the struggle.
So if there isn’t a dichotomy, what is there? It’s a spectrum
Non- Linear — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Linear
What is the prototypical non-linear game. I would argue there isn’t any. Even Pacman or Galaga have a narrative behind them. A slight sliver of story that pushes you along. And it certainly is linear, insofar that you are corralled from level to level. The purpose of the spectrum isn’t to create a comparative framework, it’s merely to suggest that there is fluidity in the games themselves. Different portions of games are linear and non-linear, while overall games can at times reflect a particular linearity.