I recently got into an argument with a friend about Dark Souls II's level design. He, who - I might add - has not played Dark Souls II yet, and is only basing his knowledge on hearsay, is claiming that the level design is linear.
Not saying it's not true. Because it is a linear game, in level design at least. But he had said it like it was an insult. As if he was trying to shoot down Dark Souls II and make it seem like it was not a good game, which is not true - in my opinion. He said it under the implication that Dark Souls - the predecessor - was not linear. It was linear. Sure the maps wrapped around, and there were normally two exits to an area, but if you get into the meat and potatoes of the game: the maps are all straight shots with the occasional secret door or branching room - a room that normally ends in a dead end.
Not to say the game was worse because of it.
He had posted the definition of the word 'linear:'
By that definition, the Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 campaign would be a non-linear game. It has one path that goes this way, and another path that goes that way. Correct? In level design, yes. In gameplay... no. What makes Dark Souls and its sequel different? Order of stages.
In Call of Duty: Blacks Ops 2, you have a per-determined route. You do mission one, then you go onto mission two. There is an occasional optional mission, but it provides no benefits to the story as I've seen. (correct me if I'm wrong) In Dark Souls, you can go to Dark Root Gardens, Undead Burg Basement, or the Catacombs right after you beat the Gargoyles. Same goes for Dark Souls II where
after defeating the Last Giant, you can go to Heide's Tower of Flame and onto No-Man's Warf, or you can take the key the Last Giant dropped and go fight the Pursuer, or - after encountering the Cleric in Heide's Tower of Flame - decide to go back to Majula for whatever reason and find the Cleric (after some time) in the small room in front of the staircase leading the Heide's Tower of Flame, where you can pay her to move the path to go to Huntsman's Copse; effectively skipping No-Man's Warf.
If that's linear game design, I would like to see non-linear game design!
In conclusion, the linear vs non-linear concept is getting old and overused. Enough said.
Not saying it's not true. Because it is a linear game, in level design at least. But he had said it like it was an insult. As if he was trying to shoot down Dark Souls II and make it seem like it was not a good game, which is not true - in my opinion. He said it under the implication that Dark Souls - the predecessor - was not linear. It was linear. Sure the maps wrapped around, and there were normally two exits to an area, but if you get into the meat and potatoes of the game: the maps are all straight shots with the occasional secret door or branching room - a room that normally ends in a dead end.
Not to say the game was worse because of it.
He had posted the definition of the word 'linear:'
By that definition, the Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 campaign would be a non-linear game. It has one path that goes this way, and another path that goes that way. Correct? In level design, yes. In gameplay... no. What makes Dark Souls and its sequel different? Order of stages.
In Call of Duty: Blacks Ops 2, you have a per-determined route. You do mission one, then you go onto mission two. There is an occasional optional mission, but it provides no benefits to the story as I've seen. (correct me if I'm wrong) In Dark Souls, you can go to Dark Root Gardens, Undead Burg Basement, or the Catacombs right after you beat the Gargoyles. Same goes for Dark Souls II where
If that's linear game design, I would like to see non-linear game design!
In conclusion, the linear vs non-linear concept is getting old and overused. Enough said.