Linear isn't always a bad thing.

I'm not entirely sure what is so terrifying about the term "linear." I understand that, when implemented poorly into video games, linear design choices can make for a dull, repetitive experience (FF XIII, anyone?). But when a developer utilizes a heavier hand in order to tell a specific part of a story or deliver exceptional moments within a game, I say we stop treating said moments like some kind of great hindrance to the gameplay.

I think it's about time we broaden the parameters of how we define "video games." The hobby may have started out with a narrow focus on nonstop running, jumping, swinging and shooting, but games--or, more specifically, how they are used to tell a story or create an experience--have come a long way since then.

The beauty of video games is that, more so than any other form of entertainment, they allow the developer complete control over their product and how the audience will interact with it. They can tell the story they want, and how they want to tell it. If the experience is solid, I don't understand why a more linear approach is still so frowned upon.

What got me thinking on this topic was a recent review of Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception from Simon Parkin. Parkin has a lot to say about the game and I encourage those who have played it to give the article a gander. But one thing about Parkin's criticism kept itching at the back of my mind: His displeasure with developer Naughty Dog's choices to keep certain sections of the game more linear.

Parkin says that "...the game commits the cardinal sin of insinuating you have full control of your character, but in fact tugging you towards trigger points - making sure you're in the right spot to tumble over the bonnet of that braking car, for example." He goes on to add, "Frustratingly, you must always move at the script's pace."

​

The section of the game Parkin is referring to sees our hero leaping from rooftop to rooftop, darting through markets and avoiding gunfire in an effort to track down a sharp-dressed villain. The story needed to reach a certain point and Naughty Dog wanted to get the player there in the most cinematic way possible. Had the scene been presented in an open world of rooftops and alleys, nothing would have set it apart from the remainder of the running/shooting segments Uncharted 3 has to offer.

The choice to use dynamic camera angles, subtly shifting to show the route you'll want to take in order to reach those "checkpoints," gave the scene a sense of drama and immediacy that would have otherwise been missing. I'm all for freedom of choice, but when you're offering a better experience at the cost of a more linear approach, by all means, take my hand and lead the way.

Uncharted 3 is full of moments like these where the player has little input. As Parkin points out, you may be unable to draw your gun in certain areas or Drake may be slowed to a walk in others. Again, I'm willing to set aside my desire to go anywhere and do anything for the sake of story and pacing. Having the option to run around, climb on the walls and pull out my AK-47 would have utterly ruined several of the game's more unique moments of storytelling.

One instance from early on in the campaign jumps to mind, featuring Drake and company walking side by side down a dark London alley. You can guide Drake off course to investigate the alley's nooks and crannies, or you can have him walk in-step with his companions, nice and slow, while they plan the infiltration of a nearby warehouse. This was basically the video game equivalent of that scene in action movies when the heroes walk like badasses in slow motion towards the camera. In this instance the player is simply required to push the analog stick forward for a few moments while the scene, as simple as it may be, unfolds. It's a small moment, but something I haven't experienced in video games before.

On my second playthrough, I guided Drake off course and started searching the alley for treasure rather than take part in the team bonding moment the developers were offering. Needless to say, the unique feeling provided by sticking to the script for the moment was completely lost. The only other option would have been an extended cutscene but, again, it just wouldn't have provided the same experience that playing my small part afforded.

​

These days, games critics cry out for more believable worlds, knowing full well that opening up all the rules would completely break a game. They complain about heroes and villains being able to soak up a dozen bullets, but I'd be willing to bet they would cry out twice as loud if a single bullet was enough to do the trick. They don't want guidance, but then they complain when they can't figure out where they are supposed to go next. They say they want more open worlds and then complain about a disjointed overarching story or having to jump in a car and drive around 10 minutes to get anywhere.

This is precisely why I tend to shy away from this newfound love of ridiculously open gameplay. It's gotten to the point where just about anything less than open is considered too restrictive in action-oriented titles. I'm not saying we should be running down narrow hallways, taking part in repetitive firefights along the way, but we should certainly cut developers a little slack when their worlds are limited for our own good, or at least for the good of their story.

It's a matter of wanting to have our cake and eat it too. But, when it comes to video games, I'd rather eat the cake the way the baker recommends if it means the thing will taste better.

Infinite Ammo is a weekly column by Ryan Winslett about video games, the industry that makes them and the people who play them. He can be stalked via his blog at staticechoes.com and followed on twitter @RyanWinslett.