Linear or non-linear dungeons/maps?

[EternalShadow]

Here is an example of an incomplete non-linear map:

And an example of a linear map (without features, so similar to the above one as it is now):

Now, in the non-linear map, there may be puzzles and traps. They may unlock extra areas in the same map, but these extra areas would not be mandatory ones to visit. You will be able to 'choose your path' through the dungeon, being able to go any route you want to reach the end destination.


In the linear map, there may also be puzzles and traps, but these would serve to unlock areas that are mandatory to visit. You have to go a specific route to reach the end destination.


Now, it may seem 'obvious' that the non-linear option is the best choice (if you think it is), but you also have to consider: is the map too maze-like? Is a game with a lot of non-linear maps only going to consume a lot of time during travelling, or is the possibility of extra choice/free will more enticing?


Similarly, it may seem 'obvious' that the non-linear option is the better one when delivering a story as it is easier to manage. However, if there are too many linear maps, the game itself could end up feeling linear (ff13 ).


Therefore, is it suitable to have a mix of the two map types, or could it potentially feel like the game is just a mish-mash of the two? Some people preferred FF13 to some non-linear open-world games for example, because it was 'obvious' what to do. However, some hated 13 due to its 'only one thing you can do' approach. Is the individual map's design more important in this regard than simply the aspect of linearity and/or choice?

 

[cabfe]

Because of the back-and-forth, if there are random encounters (fights) a non-linear dungeon quickly becomes tiring.

While exploring, I like to be able to see where the main path is and where the secondary routes are, so that I can freely explore and not risk losing something because I took the main road "out of luck".

Also, as I like to explore, having linear dungeons is easier to cover in its entirety, but you lack in the surprise and reward of a good hiding place with chests.

Completely linear dungeons are not really interesting because of that.

On the other hand, a non-linear one takes a lot of time to cover and sometimes, you might even get lost.

Maybe the answer is not in the type but in the size of the dungeons?

 

[AwesomeCool]

non-linear, but only if dead-ends with no rewards are kept to a minimum and main path is easy to figure out (via roads or the like).

 

[Faye Valentine]

For important dungeons, i'd go for linears. However, for non-important dungeons (secondary dungeons, optional dungeons -like in Diablo-) i'd go for non-linear, as the purpose is just to grind.

 

[TheoAllen]

Even open world game like Skyrim have linear dungeon.

I would vote for linear dungeon since it's easier if player perspective. You just need to move forward (at least, me)

it might have branches, but it just a dead-end with a reward (rare item) or even surprise (unexpected encounter)

 

[That Bread]

Well I think if the dungeons size was dumed down a bit and visual encounters, then non linear. I do prefer making dungeon maps a bit more compressed, like FF9s dungeon maps.

 

[_Shadow_]

A mix of both I guess.

Check out Diablo II dungeons for instance.

These dungeons were a success no doubt.

That's because there was a discrete linear goal, like go down and down and down...

but also on each level, there was a non linear design. You could find mini bosses and treasures around there. But you could also skip that.

You could also had to go to five places and you could choose where to go first etc etc, but in the end things were also linear. Go there, come back, go elsewhere come back (Horadric Cube quest). Notice the size of the dungeons though. Not very small, not very big. And the enemies were fixed in number. No respawn (except if exit and relaunch the game).

THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT.

There is one thing that can DESTROY the joy of a good RPG.

It is called "overdoing it with grinding".

Imagine a classic JRPG with random encounter on average 30 steps. Walking a non linear dungeon and finding a dead end, might ANNOY the player. Even if there is a super-duper-omni-uber-gargantuan treasure there, the feeling the user gets for getting it, is overshadowed by what is coming on. A walk back to where he/she came from, full of random encounters. It is annoying, especially on big maps or labyrinths that have door switches and stuff.

If you have fixed number of enemies though, (disable encounters and put events that won't respawn) this can be like a linear map with side quests.

Linear maps on the other hand lose the feeling of "freedom to go anywhere and do anything you want" since it is... linear, but it supports a feeling of approaching an achievement step by step, without getting lost. Also avoid non linear dungeons in the early game. A city is non linear anyway, so a dungeon can be linear on start. That way the player will not get lost or lose track of what he/she has to do, after saving then coming back to play the game after let's say a week.It will be like "get in the cave, follow the route, find the bad guy, kill him, go back" (or cut scene then return to the one who gave you the mission automatically) and that's it. Easy peasy. Then later on you can invite the player in more and more challenging dungeons gradually.

So I will vote for some of linear and some of non linear.

Nice topic. I like it.

EDIT:

Wow, finished writing that, then saw the other replies and people already say some stuff I mention. Sorry for that.

 

[EternalShadow]

Just for further argument's sake: On-map battles! (Considering nobody likes a non-linear with randoms)

 

[TheoAllen]

Just for further argument's sake: On-map battles! (Considering nobody likes a non-linear with randoms)

Pfftt... I hate random encounter for both linear and non-linear

But non-linear with random battle could be worse

 

[Nirwanda]

A little non-linearity is fine, it makes exploration more rewarding. Still, you have to keep in mind that all but the most casual(or disinterested) of players will want to explore all paths, so you really need to make the exploration non-grating for them (grating as in slow walking speed, respawning enemies, roads that are too long, lame treasure...). There's really not much to say: nonlinear exploration works, but it's very important to always be aware of how the player will experience it.

 

[TheRiotInside]

It's all about reward. If you make the player do something that requires a certain amount of "work" (encounters, walking, etc.) and they do not receive comparable compensation for that work, then they will feel cheated. Think about how you feel when you do something for someone in the real world and are not recognized or properly acknowledged for it. That sucks. Don't put the player through that!

 

[Matseb2611]

I like a mix of both. Having some non-linear turns here and there are nice, but generally I like to feel that I am making some progress through a dungeon. Though alternatives are fun too. For example, you come across the final door right away, but it's locked and say you need 2 keys for it. You get one from the path on your left and the other from the path on your right. It's not exactly linear, but the player quickly gets an idea of where they need to end up and how to get past this door.

Things to consider to making a non-linear dungeon fun (in my opinion):

- Not making random encounters too frequent, or at least making them easy to escape.

- Landmarks of some sort. If I see 5 different turns, all looking identical, I start to lose my way, and that becomes annoying. Be creative and add something to the map to make each turn look unique in its own way.

- Point of no return warning. If I come across a door that leads me to the boss fight of the dungeon, I'd like some kind of a warning that tells me it's a point of no return, so that I can perhaps go back and see if I've missed anything. Don't force the player to close the game and restart it because they weren't warned of this.

Edit: I like both visual and random encounters. Both can be annoying, however. Random get annoying when they're too frequent. Visual are annoying when they are unavoidable. There's no point giving me visual encounters if the path is 1 cell thick and I have no room to dodge them. I'd have to fight the enemy no matter what I try to do (unless that enemy is mandatory, like a story boss).

 

[Ms Littlefish]

I agree with a lot of what has already been said, mix of both. Variety is the spice of life. I feel that if all the dungeons were linear all the time I don't think I'd get nearly as deep a sense of exploration from the game. Like wise, if every dungeon was non-linear the whole time I'd probably feel like a chicken with my head cut off at times. I think it boils down to what's going on in the main story events, too.

I can really enjoy deep dungeon crawling at times, but I need rewards. Does anyone else get weary if they're being tossed massive, twisted and turning dungeon after massive dungeon if they've received no ample progress in the story as a reward? (Or items, ect) I do. I think it boils down to a pacing issue. Be aware of the "work load" the player will be facing when choosing how difficult or what design to use on a specific dungeon. I'd even say it's important to keeping interest generated in playing the game.

Also, back to pacing. If the player is experiencing an exciting or dramatic section of story, you probably don't want to stick something massive and complex right in the middle of that event. Maybe that's just me. A little something is fine to build up my anticipation and fit the scene, but if I suddenly find myself wading though an hour and a half of BS to get my answer, I'll probably be a bit salty.

As for encounters. I always prefer onscreen. Always. But, if the game involves any in depth or somewhat complex puzzle solving at all, turn it off. I don't care if they are turned on in every single other room, if the room contain a puzzle and I have to push around 8000 stone blocks into an elaborate shape or structure, let me think about it and not get my train of thought messed up by Zubats.

 

[whitesphere]

I agree with MsLittlefish.  The pacing of the game determines the type and length of the dungeons.  If I'm creating a fast paced game section, I won't be adding a huge, sprawling dungeon in the middle of it.  

I personally much prefer linear dungeons, when it comes to dungeons required for the main plot.  I find it a lot less frustrating as a player.  Then I know I'm either going the right way, following a side passage which should give some type of reward (unless there's a good plot reason, like the dungeon is a tomb deliberately designed to trap thieves), or I'm going backwards.

But I also like hybrid dungeons --- where the main path is linear, but there are a lot of side branches that themselves are not.  A good example of this is an underground mine.  Sure, the mine will have a main shaft, which would be the most important plot-wise.  And the main shaft could have literally dozens of meandering side shafts which might even connect with each other, as miners went in pursuit of some vein of gold or mithril.

And when it comes to optional dungeons, anything goes really.  I can see some linear dungeons and some non-linear dungeons.  It would all depend on why the dungeon is there.  People don't normally go carving huge sets of tunnels for no reason.  Unless I have some Rock-biter style creature (see: The Neverending Story)  which literally ate itself some tunnels.

But the length of the required dungeons must be driven by the plot and pacing of the game.  For comparison:  Chrono Trigger had a lot of dungeons, but all of the required ones were reasonably short.  Final Fantasy IV had a few short dungeons but more very long ones.  Chrono Trigger takes 20 hours to complete, while FFIV takes 40 hours. 

And, when I played FFIV on the DS, and got the powerful "Safe Travel" Augment (which turns off random encounters), I saw the dungeons themselves weren't hugely large.  They certainly SEEMED it, because of the random encounter frequency.

So, it's crucial to balance the random encounter frequency (if you use them) in a dungeon to the size of the dungeon.  A huge, sprawling dungeon should have a far lower random encounter frequency than a more compact one.

And I personally am always in favor of having ways for the party to Escape the dungeon back to the surface, in case they get completely lost or are in danger of dying in the dungeon.

So it all comes down to good game design.  The dungeons are probably the main arteries of the game, so they must be very well designed to entertain and not frustrate the player.

 

[Wavelength]

I tend to like nonlinear dungeons better, especially ones with more than one entrance/exit.  However, it's extremely important to have landmarks or other recognizable features all over the place, to avoid causing the player to get misoriented.

 

[Tsukihime]

I prefer non-linear dungeons in open-world games, provided that I can avoid battles. And there's a mini-map. Preferably showing me where the deadends are so I don't have to walk down those paths.


However if you like to put chests at those dead-ends I might be inclined to see what's there.


But make it so that I can put a save point before I decide to go down a dead-end path so I can quickly reload or warp back.

 

[captainproton]

I think either is okay, if done right. Linear maps, even if they're twisty, make for simple, gauntlet-like gameplay. They can be fun, with the difficulty coming from whatever monsters are planted or whatever puzzles are set up. If they aren't too easy, they can be enjoyable, believable ways to design passages or hallways or tunnels.

More labyrinthine maps can also be fun if the dead ends aren't too numerous and there's some kind of goody like a chest of potions or something tucked away in them. Also, as mentioned, the random encounters shouldn't be too frequent, unless there are those potions hidden away to keep you going. (Viridian Forest! So many Weedles!) Forests, caves, or even the occasional man-made dungeon can be maze-like, though the man-made areas are more likely to be made of branching rooms and hallways.

 

[EternalShadow]

It pretty much seems to sound like that as long as the reward is stellar, frustration is minimal, compensation for going down the wrong way is satisfactory and if the map isn't part of a main quest (unless it is for story reasons i.e: the goblin is hiding in the maze and it being maze-like is why he chose to hide there in the first place) then nonlinear maps are the way to go. However, linear maps with a determinable ending i.e: get the treasure from the ancient pyramid - they're more popular in mandatory quests.

 

[Dimitris]

Linear for me, just for the sake of direction and moving the story forward. Even in an optional dungeon I prefer to lead the player (and me being lead as a player).

 

[haskav]

I vote linear map!

Non-linear map is confusing. And it's so annoying if the battle system is random encounter with non-linear map.

Most JRPG use linear map.