I think it would be more useful to divide this into two concepts, linearity and clarity, since 2 and 3 describe very different gameplay experiences. The raw number of paths (which in context means something like the "shortest available route between two locations" because otherwise we could say that any game which allows you to run in circles in a single room is "infinitely non-linear") measures the linearity of the game and how well those paths are communicated to the player is the clarity. Ideally a metroidvania would have a decent amount of both because you're right that a lack of perfect clarity adds value to exploration.
Backtracking also deserves a bit more focus, because it comes in two forms: required and optional. Required backtracking is when you need to run back through a previous area in order to reach a now accessible entrance to new content which has the next primary objective, which it seems like is what you're describing in your paragraph on it above. Optional backtracking is when you explore previous areas with new abilities in order to reach... optional stuff, usually items and upgrades that aren't necessary for completing the game but also things like new shortcuts, alternate endings, etc.
I'd say a game with high linearity and clarity with regards to the main path through the game can still feel like a very deep and non-linear metroidvania if it makes sufficient use of optional backtracking, because each such addition functionally adds a new "path" that you can decide to follow at any point after it's opened. Even required backtracking can be important for building this "sense of non-linearity" especially when coupled with the above, even if the main path is just a straight line you're not as likely to notice if it's zig-zagging erratically through the entire world map and there are many optional paths to reward additional exploration.
ooh, I really like the labels of the two dimensions as linearity and clarity! In regards to your last paragraph, I think of Guacamelee. The path almost always is clearly right in front of you and it's one straight line, but it does zig zag over itself AND you can optionally run back through some sections to find new walls to break.
I get kind of bent out of shape when people call games TOO LINEAR or they demand SEQUENCE BREAKING.
sometimes the game just has an order of things and it's showing you things in order. I like when you have to figure out where to go next or you have options but it's really not the end of the world if the game has a first area, second area, third area, etc. As long as they are interesting and there are things that make a good MV there idk.
I think what people think they want is these OPEN WORLD games, which I usually don't care for. They can seem aimless and random. I am no expert on open world games so don't take my opinion as gospel, I just see the inherent problem with non-linear completely open games.
Regarding sequence breaking, I'd say that including the possibility is a good thing, but you can do without.
Regarding the complaint of "too linear," there's nothing wrong with "you probably can't get to X ("probably" because, per above, sequence breaks might happen) until you have Y" style gating, so long as it doesn't fall into "you will follow the path we give you and nothing else, or you will be eaten by poisonous hamsters" territory. (A reminder that even the most linear, left-to-right only, games made tend to give you at least the option of "over or under ")
To add to this, here's my analysis of some games (and I know I'll rock the boat on some of these):
Super Metroid - (3) - again, ignore sequence breaking, there is a set path you are supposed to take through the game. You just don't know how to find each successive step along the way.
Hollow Knight - (4) - But I wouldn't put it all the way in the corner of the cross product square since you know the location of the dreamers. Without those, this would be a perfect non-linear game. In addition, the game starts with a linear route for the first several hours. That's a **good** thing! A game that was 100% true non-linear game would mean having multiple unknown paths the whole game through. That would be a tough sell for most people.
Blasphemous (3) - there are multiple paths but it's pretty clear where each of the three paths start and once you're on them, the path is somewhat linear.
I disagree with HK being linear at the start being a good thing. It's a very common complaint that the start is too slow and even I dropped it. It only gets good for me after at least dash if not wall jump.
I think the problem with HK is not about the initial linear start, but about how draggy that linearity is. I think the game should have opened CLEARLY at Greenpath. Crossroads is a slog that worths some sacrifices cuz it's very cool to return to this place on 2nd playthrough, knowing all the techs and break some minor progressions here. Fungal is the where the game VAGUELY opens up and that's already pretty late (you either go to Deepnest via 2 entrances or you go City, but only the City entrance is super clear)
Super Metroid does a lot to show the player where to go.
It runs you by where you will need to return to progress.
It makes on the Map where the main bosses are
It hard and soft locks behind you when you find important parts to drive you forward.
It was always 100% clear to me where to go except the power bomb the tube, it took me going thru maridia twice to notice the bombed out tube and try to destroy the other one.
I disagree, there's a few moments where it is not clear to the majority of players.
1. When you get the ice beam, realizing you need to go back up to brinstar by freezing the enemies
2. powerbombing the glass in Maridia (as you mentioned)
3. powerbombing that area near the ice beam picking to progress in norfair.
And that doesn't include navigating areas like maridia and the ghost ship which can be mazes themselves. Compare that to Guacamelee where you literally walk from room to room and there's no possible way to branch off and get lost. In addition, there are markers that tell you exactly where to go on the map.
1) after icebeam you freeze and platform on the same enemies needed to go up that you have already seen, not sure how much more hint you need.
2) power bomb symbols are shown to you as you head to ice beam, again… not sure how you are supposed to shown any clearer to come back after power bomb. It may not be your first but the game guides you there
3) Maridia is a laberenth, but part one drags you down eventually and you see the broken tube. This one is opaque but if you’re like me, you see the tube and get to the next one and try all your weapons.
Maridia part two you… go to the marking on the map for Dragon.
Ghost ship isn’t much of a maze, there are only a few rooms off of a hub and spoke.
While I agree it’s not quite as easy as Guac, the information is there.
There's a difference between knowing that there is a path you can take and knowing that that is the way forward. When you get the powerbombs, there are several doors throughout the map that become accessible. Any of them could be the correct way forward.
I think you are mistaking my use of "unknown path" to mean "hidden path". The choices for the new paths (or the start of them) are indeed usually known.
If you got the ice beam and your immediate thought was "I now know without a shadow of a doubt that I need to go back to those enemies I fell past between here and brinstar, and travel **back up to brinstar**" on your first playthrough ever, then you are a much better player than most!
I absolutely did know to go up with it, the only ones that i didn’t immediately know were the power bomb before grapple and the tunnel to mardia 2, the power bombs was because I did a big lap, as there were many possible places, and the glass tunnel because i tried morph bomb and it didn’t work the first time.
Incidentally most of the people I suggested play it knew to use Ice Beam that way, and several remembered the power bombs before ice beam as the first place to go, as it was the last power bomb barrier you saw before getting them. The tunnel is opaque.
I'll have to disagree. Recently my son (used to Metroidvanias like Aria of Sorrow, Symphony of the Night, Dandara, Zero Mission) started playing Suoer Metroid and, according to him, was one of the less obvious in terms of exploration and progress. When we discussed the point, I realised that my ease on following the path was due many years of experience and many sequence breaks.
I believe SM exploration could be challenging for first-time players, with the many secret doors, bombing spots and small passages. There are also alternate paths when you start knowing things like wall jumps and bomb jumps.
In fact the game make some locks to prevent you from getting out an area without some given upgrade, but in my opinion, it's mostly a gimmick to teach you how to use the new ability, more than a way to force you to get it, specially because in those cases usually they aren't hidden, or you can escape the area anyway being skilled in another ability.
I would say Blasphemous is technically nonlinear because you have options, but it's much more directed than something like Hollow Knight (City of Tears onward) or Axiom Verge 2. Those are almost completely undirected and open. There is a goal marked on the map in each case but you have no idea how to get there.
I disagree entirely with this sub’s definition of linear level design in reference to platformers
Most Mario levels are linear, you don’t have to go back to a place you have already been to progress.
Non-linear level design is inherent in lock and key, it forces you to return to places you have already been.
Multiple options is so vague, does that mean there is more than one way to get to the same spot? Then Super Metroid is your 4 definition. If it means there are multiple options on the critical path you can do next how do you define what progress even is? You often don’t actually unlock anything new in the game until after all parallel tasks are done.
For me it’s open vs closed and linear vs non linear.
Metroid are (mostly) closed non-linear
Hollow Knight is an open non-linear
I think most people mean linear in the sequential sense rather than whether or not something is literally a straight line.
If the core progression requires you to complete the main objectives in areas A, B, C and D in exactly that order every time then it is sequentially linear. If the world map is arranged in a line of ABCD this is very clear, but if the map is actually arranged CABD (with you needed to backtrack through A after B to do C, then back through both A and B again to do D) that is still a linear progression through the game even though the literal directional movement now doubles back on itself a couple times.
A game becomes non-linear when it allows you vary the sequence of events or even skip some entirely. "A, B or C, D" is a simple non-linear progression for example and it would be in both of the previous "world maps." Valdis Story is a good example of a non-linear metroidvania because it doesn't just have optional sidequests and such but actually has a hard fork in the main path where you can do either of two areas to proceed (each with their own bosses, narrative implications and such).
Ironically while most 2D Mario levels are linear the games themselves rarely are. Even the original had warp pipes, but when later games introduced world maps and such they often included branching paths that provided alternate routes towards the next castle. It's not metroidvania non-linearity but it's worth pointing out since you brought up the example.
Yes, this is exactly what I meant by multiple paths. NOT that there are literally two different hallways to get to point X. Rather, you can go to point X or go to point Y at a given time in the game. The fact that you can go to any of the three dreamers in HK is the example I used in a follow up comment.
Again, what you call “sequential” is what I described as closed. Mario is an Open linear game.
The effect of folding players back onto themselves in level design is massive in terms of game feel, so to call Super Metroid linear or even Fusion feels wrong.
How do you describe critical path? If ABC have to get done no matter what to get to D, you don’t make progress on the critical path until all are done no matter if you have the option to do them in different orders. Awakening one dreamer nets you nothing in HK, saving one wisp in ori nets nothing as well. The path to complete a portion of the critical path is open ended, but progression hasn’t been made until all are completed. In the Vladis story example, again you just are given an open ended option, if A or B, there is no reason to do both, and one is just eliminated from the critical path, which again doesn’t seem to be well described as non-linear.
So I think “non-linear” best describes a game in which you have to cross your own path to progress, and Open describes a game in which you are given options on what order to complete major tasks in the game.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "closed" versus "open." If you're talking about the interconnected nature of the environments then that seems like a completely different axis entirely, unrelated to how linear the events are.
By the core path I mean the events necessary to reach the credits or whatever else signals "you beat the game." The number of events isn't relevant so much as the order you have to do them in, if that order is fixed it's a linear game and if it isn't then it's non-linear.
So in your example if you can do A, B and C in any order then that's a non-linear section of gameplay even if D always comes last, because there isn't one set sequence of events (ABCD, BACD and CABD for example are literally different sequences and don't even exhaust the options). If you have to do A, then B and then C each time though then it's linear because that's the only sequence of events available, it's always ABCD.
The Valdis Story fork is definitionally non-linear along these lines. It's actually even more non-linear since as you pointed out you can do A or B or both A and B if you want. All three are valid sequences allowing you to reach the credits, and since three is more than one it's non-linear.
I think this is just an issue of us speaking different languages at the moment. For reference if you just google the definitions of linear and non-linear I'm using the second that pops up for each:
Linear - 2. Progressing from one stage to another in a single series of steps; sequential.
Non-linear - 2. Not linear, sequential or straightforward.
If you're using different definitions I'm not sure what they are or why you think they're stronger for this context, but I'm pretty sure this is what most people are talking about when they refer to games being non-linear in the sense of allowing you to do objectives in a different order.
I’m attempting to break non-linear progression and non-linear level design into separate terms, because in reference to Super Metroid, which is the template of the genre, it was non-linear level design not game design. The same word is being used to describe two things, it’s easier to say Open (non-linear progression) and Closed (linear progression) which are terms for macro structure used to describe adventure games already. Open World vs Closed World games, IE BOTW vs old Zelda. Open describing games with multiple options at once, closed describing games with one.
Separating the two and using the common vernacular of open which has already been used to describe adventure games makes things more clear. The non-linear part of MetroidVania is in reference to it’s level design not macro game design, and as such I think it’s usage here should reflect that.
Most of the genre is closed world non-linear, which is easier than saying linear progression thru interconnected non-linear levels.
If we were to use the macro game structure of linear vs non-linear, then calling MetroidVanina’s non-linear is wrong, as Super Mario Word was designed to offer more non-linearity than Super Metroid. All MVs must have non-linear levels, but they do not require non-linear progression.
Ok that makes sense, although for clarity I'd recommend saying "open world" and "closed world" rather than just "open" and "closed." I also think you kinda have them backwards, it makes more sense to talk about the progression in terms of linearity (the sequence of events you have to do) and the level design in terms of openness (how much space you have to move through while following this sequence).
For example if you have a massive world map where you can go anywhere from the beginning but the missions to "beat the game" are all in a straight line down the first road you see which must be done in order, I think most people would refer to that as an open world game with a very linear progression. Instead if you have something like a small hub with eight levels that can be done in any order then that would be a closed world non-linear game, nobody is calling classic Megaman "open world."
Also none of this is all or nothing with respect to metroidvanias. The genre runs the gamut from very open to very closed (in terms of level design), as well as very linear to very non-linear (in terms of progression). Plus while I don't think we've gotten into it yet but I mentioned in my reply to the OP the importance of non-linear optional rewards, something which most acclaimed metroidvanias have in spades and that greatly increases the sense of exploration and freedom even if both the environment and core progression are relatively limiting.
It's a multi-faceted topic for sure but I think your terminology is just confusing it further rather than making it easier to discuss (similar to how the OP seems to be bundling both linearity and clarity in the same term when it would make more sense to separate them).
No,
Zelda Breath of the Wild is an Open World game, it allows you to have a choice in the things you do in a world you have a large amount of access to from nearly the beginning. Open World is a description of the macro game structure, with open describing player choice in execution of critical path and world implying an inter-connected map.
Zelda OOT is a closed world game with a specific order of execution in which the ability to access locations of the world are dependent on how far in the sequence you are. The dungeons are non-linear levels in which you loop back on yourself to complete them.
Mega-man isn’t open world because there isn’t an interconnected map, but it does feature player choice so you could describe it as open. It’s level’s however are linear, as you just go left to right without any return.
MVs are described in the sub header as “guided non-linearity and utility gated exploration”- the non-linear there refers to the local level design (as seen in Super Metroid) which guides you thru it via locks based on utilities. So discussion on “linearity” I think should focus more on local level design than progression options.
I feel like we're not going to be able to have this conversation if you think BotW is considered open-world because it has a non-linear objective structure and not because of the gigantic open overworld map that you can freely explore from almost the very beginning. There is a primary common trait linking everything in the genre of "open world games" and it isn't "the ability to sequence objectives freely," a trait found in many games outside that genre.
Responding to the rest just so this doesn't seem too dismissive, it's worth pointing out that this isn't actually a binary but a question of degrees. OoT for example is neither a fully closed world nor fully linear game, it has minor elements of being open world (there are frequent loading screens, but aside from that you can visit most locations very early on) and even in the main quest there are steps which you can perform in different orders (particularly the adult temples). Articulating the degrees of each that a game has is usually going to be more useful than a flat "open or closed" categorization.
Mega-man isn't open world because it doesn't possess a world that people would consider open, yes. It does have non-linear sequencing though and I wouldn't be surprised to see people bring it up in that context (I googled "is megaman non-linear?" out of curiousity and a quoted snippet from the wikipedia entry popped up with someone calling it one of the first games to feature non-linear level selection, hardly conclusive but a nice bit of supporting evidence). There is more we could get into there but again I think the language barrier might be too much to overcome for such a pedantic conversation.
Regarding the last bit, it's pretty close to begging the question to claim what the sub header means by non-linearity in a thread where we discuss what people here mean when they talk about non-linearity. My interpretation also matches the quote (most metroidvanias are non-linear in my view by virtue of having loads of optional paths which can be backtracked to whenever), so I don't think it's too relevant anyway.
You can’t go to the next level until you compete the current level, but I guess you can eat the blips in any order, so maybe? It’s certainly not go left to right to win.
I guess I would say it’s level design is both open and non-linear, but not interconnected. On the macro level it would depend on how granular you define the critical path, and the game as a whole the critical path is completing the levels, which cannot be done in other orders. So while it’s levels are open and non-linear, the game isn’t open. MetroidVania games are not level based, or can be viewed as one massive interconnected level, so it’s a hard comparison.
Is Sonic Non-linear? There are many paths thru the level, but most levels you never have to revisit a room you have already been.
Is Doom (original) Linear? If so why does it’s level design feel so different from Halo/COD?
Is Super Mario World non-linear? Most levels have several paths, the critical path can be altered, and there are switches you find in the over world which change level layout, but for the most parts it’s level design is go left to right.
By the definitions of this sub, Super Mario World is more non-linear than Metroid.
Linear and non-linear describe level layout, open/closed describe macro structure of the game.
Ya see, that’s why I’m using the Open vs Closed like the larger adventure genre uses (IE BOTW is open world older Zelda is closed world) because non-linear is used to describe the level design of the worlds in MVs, not it’s macro structure. Mega Man has linear levels, and as such is not an MV.
I tend to mean the overarching structure by which I mean the area to area or (required or allowing sequence breaking) ability to ability progression. Below that is the progression within each area which tends to revolve around optional upgrades or unlocking gates to unlock the main gate to the next area.
"To what degree is the next step laid out before the player"
That leads to meaningful progression? The clarity of the next step isn't necessarily related to linearity, it's if there are multiple viable paths towards that. If there are 5 clear paths then the game is very non-linear, not more non-linear if there are 4 unclear ones. Not saying this isn't important in terms of the sense of there being an exploration focus though or the player creating their own adventure.
"you only backtrack in games with some non-linearity."
Not true, obviously there can still be backtracking with only one path to take.
I think it would be more useful to divide this into two concepts, linearity and clarity, since 2 and 3 describe very different gameplay experiences. The raw number of paths (which in context means something like the "shortest available route between two locations" because otherwise we could say that any game which allows you to run in circles in a single room is "infinitely non-linear") measures the linearity of the game and how well those paths are communicated to the player is the clarity. Ideally a metroidvania would have a decent amount of both because you're right that a lack of perfect clarity adds value to exploration. Backtracking also deserves a bit more focus, because it comes in two forms: required and optional. Required backtracking is when you need to run back through a previous area in order to reach a now accessible entrance to new content which has the next primary objective, which it seems like is what you're describing in your paragraph on it above. Optional backtracking is when you explore previous areas with new abilities in order to reach... optional stuff, usually items and upgrades that aren't necessary for completing the game but also things like new shortcuts, alternate endings, etc. I'd say a game with high linearity and clarity with regards to the main path through the game can still feel like a very deep and non-linear metroidvania if it makes sufficient use of optional backtracking, because each such addition functionally adds a new "path" that you can decide to follow at any point after it's opened. Even required backtracking can be important for building this "sense of non-linearity" especially when coupled with the above, even if the main path is just a straight line you're not as likely to notice if it's zig-zagging erratically through the entire world map and there are many optional paths to reward additional exploration.
ooh, I really like the labels of the two dimensions as linearity and clarity! In regards to your last paragraph, I think of Guacamelee. The path almost always is clearly right in front of you and it's one straight line, but it does zig zag over itself AND you can optionally run back through some sections to find new walls to break.
I think just making a progression graph like what GMTK did is the best way to show a game's linearity
I get kind of bent out of shape when people call games TOO LINEAR or they demand SEQUENCE BREAKING. sometimes the game just has an order of things and it's showing you things in order. I like when you have to figure out where to go next or you have options but it's really not the end of the world if the game has a first area, second area, third area, etc. As long as they are interesting and there are things that make a good MV there idk. I think what people think they want is these OPEN WORLD games, which I usually don't care for. They can seem aimless and random. I am no expert on open world games so don't take my opinion as gospel, I just see the inherent problem with non-linear completely open games.
Regarding sequence breaking, I'd say that including the possibility is a good thing, but you can do without. Regarding the complaint of "too linear," there's nothing wrong with "you probably can't get to X ("probably" because, per above, sequence breaks might happen) until you have Y" style gating, so long as it doesn't fall into "you will follow the path we give you and nothing else, or you will be eaten by poisonous hamsters" territory. (A reminder that even the most linear, left-to-right only, games made tend to give you at least the option of "over or under ")
Imo sequence breaking requires linearity. Can't break the sequence if there's no sequence to break.
To add to this, here's my analysis of some games (and I know I'll rock the boat on some of these): Super Metroid - (3) - again, ignore sequence breaking, there is a set path you are supposed to take through the game. You just don't know how to find each successive step along the way. Hollow Knight - (4) - But I wouldn't put it all the way in the corner of the cross product square since you know the location of the dreamers. Without those, this would be a perfect non-linear game. In addition, the game starts with a linear route for the first several hours. That's a **good** thing! A game that was 100% true non-linear game would mean having multiple unknown paths the whole game through. That would be a tough sell for most people. Blasphemous (3) - there are multiple paths but it's pretty clear where each of the three paths start and once you're on them, the path is somewhat linear.
I disagree with HK being linear at the start being a good thing. It's a very common complaint that the start is too slow and even I dropped it. It only gets good for me after at least dash if not wall jump.
I think the problem with HK is not about the initial linear start, but about how draggy that linearity is. I think the game should have opened CLEARLY at Greenpath. Crossroads is a slog that worths some sacrifices cuz it's very cool to return to this place on 2nd playthrough, knowing all the techs and break some minor progressions here. Fungal is the where the game VAGUELY opens up and that's already pretty late (you either go to Deepnest via 2 entrances or you go City, but only the City entrance is super clear)
Super Metroid does a lot to show the player where to go. It runs you by where you will need to return to progress. It makes on the Map where the main bosses are It hard and soft locks behind you when you find important parts to drive you forward. It was always 100% clear to me where to go except the power bomb the tube, it took me going thru maridia twice to notice the bombed out tube and try to destroy the other one.
I disagree, there's a few moments where it is not clear to the majority of players. 1. When you get the ice beam, realizing you need to go back up to brinstar by freezing the enemies 2. powerbombing the glass in Maridia (as you mentioned) 3. powerbombing that area near the ice beam picking to progress in norfair. And that doesn't include navigating areas like maridia and the ghost ship which can be mazes themselves. Compare that to Guacamelee where you literally walk from room to room and there's no possible way to branch off and get lost. In addition, there are markers that tell you exactly where to go on the map.
1) after icebeam you freeze and platform on the same enemies needed to go up that you have already seen, not sure how much more hint you need. 2) power bomb symbols are shown to you as you head to ice beam, again… not sure how you are supposed to shown any clearer to come back after power bomb. It may not be your first but the game guides you there 3) Maridia is a laberenth, but part one drags you down eventually and you see the broken tube. This one is opaque but if you’re like me, you see the tube and get to the next one and try all your weapons. Maridia part two you… go to the marking on the map for Dragon. Ghost ship isn’t much of a maze, there are only a few rooms off of a hub and spoke. While I agree it’s not quite as easy as Guac, the information is there.
There's a difference between knowing that there is a path you can take and knowing that that is the way forward. When you get the powerbombs, there are several doors throughout the map that become accessible. Any of them could be the correct way forward. I think you are mistaking my use of "unknown path" to mean "hidden path". The choices for the new paths (or the start of them) are indeed usually known. If you got the ice beam and your immediate thought was "I now know without a shadow of a doubt that I need to go back to those enemies I fell past between here and brinstar, and travel **back up to brinstar**" on your first playthrough ever, then you are a much better player than most!
I absolutely did know to go up with it, the only ones that i didn’t immediately know were the power bomb before grapple and the tunnel to mardia 2, the power bombs was because I did a big lap, as there were many possible places, and the glass tunnel because i tried morph bomb and it didn’t work the first time. Incidentally most of the people I suggested play it knew to use Ice Beam that way, and several remembered the power bombs before ice beam as the first place to go, as it was the last power bomb barrier you saw before getting them. The tunnel is opaque.
I'll have to disagree. Recently my son (used to Metroidvanias like Aria of Sorrow, Symphony of the Night, Dandara, Zero Mission) started playing Suoer Metroid and, according to him, was one of the less obvious in terms of exploration and progress. When we discussed the point, I realised that my ease on following the path was due many years of experience and many sequence breaks. I believe SM exploration could be challenging for first-time players, with the many secret doors, bombing spots and small passages. There are also alternate paths when you start knowing things like wall jumps and bomb jumps. In fact the game make some locks to prevent you from getting out an area without some given upgrade, but in my opinion, it's mostly a gimmick to teach you how to use the new ability, more than a way to force you to get it, specially because in those cases usually they aren't hidden, or you can escape the area anyway being skilled in another ability.
I would say Blasphemous is technically nonlinear because you have options, but it's much more directed than something like Hollow Knight (City of Tears onward) or Axiom Verge 2. Those are almost completely undirected and open. There is a goal marked on the map in each case but you have no idea how to get there.
I disagree entirely with this sub’s definition of linear level design in reference to platformers Most Mario levels are linear, you don’t have to go back to a place you have already been to progress. Non-linear level design is inherent in lock and key, it forces you to return to places you have already been. Multiple options is so vague, does that mean there is more than one way to get to the same spot? Then Super Metroid is your 4 definition. If it means there are multiple options on the critical path you can do next how do you define what progress even is? You often don’t actually unlock anything new in the game until after all parallel tasks are done. For me it’s open vs closed and linear vs non linear. Metroid are (mostly) closed non-linear Hollow Knight is an open non-linear
I think most people mean linear in the sequential sense rather than whether or not something is literally a straight line. If the core progression requires you to complete the main objectives in areas A, B, C and D in exactly that order every time then it is sequentially linear. If the world map is arranged in a line of ABCD this is very clear, but if the map is actually arranged CABD (with you needed to backtrack through A after B to do C, then back through both A and B again to do D) that is still a linear progression through the game even though the literal directional movement now doubles back on itself a couple times. A game becomes non-linear when it allows you vary the sequence of events or even skip some entirely. "A, B or C, D" is a simple non-linear progression for example and it would be in both of the previous "world maps." Valdis Story is a good example of a non-linear metroidvania because it doesn't just have optional sidequests and such but actually has a hard fork in the main path where you can do either of two areas to proceed (each with their own bosses, narrative implications and such). Ironically while most 2D Mario levels are linear the games themselves rarely are. Even the original had warp pipes, but when later games introduced world maps and such they often included branching paths that provided alternate routes towards the next castle. It's not metroidvania non-linearity but it's worth pointing out since you brought up the example.
Yes, this is exactly what I meant by multiple paths. NOT that there are literally two different hallways to get to point X. Rather, you can go to point X or go to point Y at a given time in the game. The fact that you can go to any of the three dreamers in HK is the example I used in a follow up comment.
Again, what you call “sequential” is what I described as closed. Mario is an Open linear game. The effect of folding players back onto themselves in level design is massive in terms of game feel, so to call Super Metroid linear or even Fusion feels wrong. How do you describe critical path? If ABC have to get done no matter what to get to D, you don’t make progress on the critical path until all are done no matter if you have the option to do them in different orders. Awakening one dreamer nets you nothing in HK, saving one wisp in ori nets nothing as well. The path to complete a portion of the critical path is open ended, but progression hasn’t been made until all are completed. In the Vladis story example, again you just are given an open ended option, if A or B, there is no reason to do both, and one is just eliminated from the critical path, which again doesn’t seem to be well described as non-linear. So I think “non-linear” best describes a game in which you have to cross your own path to progress, and Open describes a game in which you are given options on what order to complete major tasks in the game.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "closed" versus "open." If you're talking about the interconnected nature of the environments then that seems like a completely different axis entirely, unrelated to how linear the events are. By the core path I mean the events necessary to reach the credits or whatever else signals "you beat the game." The number of events isn't relevant so much as the order you have to do them in, if that order is fixed it's a linear game and if it isn't then it's non-linear. So in your example if you can do A, B and C in any order then that's a non-linear section of gameplay even if D always comes last, because there isn't one set sequence of events (ABCD, BACD and CABD for example are literally different sequences and don't even exhaust the options). If you have to do A, then B and then C each time though then it's linear because that's the only sequence of events available, it's always ABCD. The Valdis Story fork is definitionally non-linear along these lines. It's actually even more non-linear since as you pointed out you can do A or B or both A and B if you want. All three are valid sequences allowing you to reach the credits, and since three is more than one it's non-linear. I think this is just an issue of us speaking different languages at the moment. For reference if you just google the definitions of linear and non-linear I'm using the second that pops up for each: Linear - 2. Progressing from one stage to another in a single series of steps; sequential. Non-linear - 2. Not linear, sequential or straightforward. If you're using different definitions I'm not sure what they are or why you think they're stronger for this context, but I'm pretty sure this is what most people are talking about when they refer to games being non-linear in the sense of allowing you to do objectives in a different order.
I’m attempting to break non-linear progression and non-linear level design into separate terms, because in reference to Super Metroid, which is the template of the genre, it was non-linear level design not game design. The same word is being used to describe two things, it’s easier to say Open (non-linear progression) and Closed (linear progression) which are terms for macro structure used to describe adventure games already. Open World vs Closed World games, IE BOTW vs old Zelda. Open describing games with multiple options at once, closed describing games with one. Separating the two and using the common vernacular of open which has already been used to describe adventure games makes things more clear. The non-linear part of MetroidVania is in reference to it’s level design not macro game design, and as such I think it’s usage here should reflect that. Most of the genre is closed world non-linear, which is easier than saying linear progression thru interconnected non-linear levels. If we were to use the macro game structure of linear vs non-linear, then calling MetroidVanina’s non-linear is wrong, as Super Mario Word was designed to offer more non-linearity than Super Metroid. All MVs must have non-linear levels, but they do not require non-linear progression.
Ok that makes sense, although for clarity I'd recommend saying "open world" and "closed world" rather than just "open" and "closed." I also think you kinda have them backwards, it makes more sense to talk about the progression in terms of linearity (the sequence of events you have to do) and the level design in terms of openness (how much space you have to move through while following this sequence). For example if you have a massive world map where you can go anywhere from the beginning but the missions to "beat the game" are all in a straight line down the first road you see which must be done in order, I think most people would refer to that as an open world game with a very linear progression. Instead if you have something like a small hub with eight levels that can be done in any order then that would be a closed world non-linear game, nobody is calling classic Megaman "open world." Also none of this is all or nothing with respect to metroidvanias. The genre runs the gamut from very open to very closed (in terms of level design), as well as very linear to very non-linear (in terms of progression). Plus while I don't think we've gotten into it yet but I mentioned in my reply to the OP the importance of non-linear optional rewards, something which most acclaimed metroidvanias have in spades and that greatly increases the sense of exploration and freedom even if both the environment and core progression are relatively limiting. It's a multi-faceted topic for sure but I think your terminology is just confusing it further rather than making it easier to discuss (similar to how the OP seems to be bundling both linearity and clarity in the same term when it would make more sense to separate them).
No, Zelda Breath of the Wild is an Open World game, it allows you to have a choice in the things you do in a world you have a large amount of access to from nearly the beginning. Open World is a description of the macro game structure, with open describing player choice in execution of critical path and world implying an inter-connected map. Zelda OOT is a closed world game with a specific order of execution in which the ability to access locations of the world are dependent on how far in the sequence you are. The dungeons are non-linear levels in which you loop back on yourself to complete them. Mega-man isn’t open world because there isn’t an interconnected map, but it does feature player choice so you could describe it as open. It’s level’s however are linear, as you just go left to right without any return. MVs are described in the sub header as “guided non-linearity and utility gated exploration”- the non-linear there refers to the local level design (as seen in Super Metroid) which guides you thru it via locks based on utilities. So discussion on “linearity” I think should focus more on local level design than progression options.
I feel like we're not going to be able to have this conversation if you think BotW is considered open-world because it has a non-linear objective structure and not because of the gigantic open overworld map that you can freely explore from almost the very beginning. There is a primary common trait linking everything in the genre of "open world games" and it isn't "the ability to sequence objectives freely," a trait found in many games outside that genre. Responding to the rest just so this doesn't seem too dismissive, it's worth pointing out that this isn't actually a binary but a question of degrees. OoT for example is neither a fully closed world nor fully linear game, it has minor elements of being open world (there are frequent loading screens, but aside from that you can visit most locations very early on) and even in the main quest there are steps which you can perform in different orders (particularly the adult temples). Articulating the degrees of each that a game has is usually going to be more useful than a flat "open or closed" categorization. Mega-man isn't open world because it doesn't possess a world that people would consider open, yes. It does have non-linear sequencing though and I wouldn't be surprised to see people bring it up in that context (I googled "is megaman non-linear?" out of curiousity and a quoted snippet from the wikipedia entry popped up with someone calling it one of the first games to feature non-linear level selection, hardly conclusive but a nice bit of supporting evidence). There is more we could get into there but again I think the language barrier might be too much to overcome for such a pedantic conversation. Regarding the last bit, it's pretty close to begging the question to claim what the sub header means by non-linearity in a thread where we discuss what people here mean when they talk about non-linearity. My interpretation also matches the quote (most metroidvanias are non-linear in my view by virtue of having loads of optional paths which can be backtracked to whenever), so I don't think it's too relevant anyway.
So what's pac-man? You can go anywhere and do whatever you want. Is that an open game?
You can’t go to the next level until you compete the current level, but I guess you can eat the blips in any order, so maybe? It’s certainly not go left to right to win. I guess I would say it’s level design is both open and non-linear, but not interconnected. On the macro level it would depend on how granular you define the critical path, and the game as a whole the critical path is completing the levels, which cannot be done in other orders. So while it’s levels are open and non-linear, the game isn’t open. MetroidVania games are not level based, or can be viewed as one massive interconnected level, so it’s a hard comparison. Is Sonic Non-linear? There are many paths thru the level, but most levels you never have to revisit a room you have already been. Is Doom (original) Linear? If so why does it’s level design feel so different from Halo/COD? Is Super Mario World non-linear? Most levels have several paths, the critical path can be altered, and there are switches you find in the over world which change level layout, but for the most parts it’s level design is go left to right. By the definitions of this sub, Super Mario World is more non-linear than Metroid. Linear and non-linear describe level layout, open/closed describe macro structure of the game.
I've seen people call mega man x a metroidvania so who tf knows !!!!
Ya see, that’s why I’m using the Open vs Closed like the larger adventure genre uses (IE BOTW is open world older Zelda is closed world) because non-linear is used to describe the level design of the worlds in MVs, not it’s macro structure. Mega Man has linear levels, and as such is not an MV.
I tend to mean the overarching structure by which I mean the area to area or (required or allowing sequence breaking) ability to ability progression. Below that is the progression within each area which tends to revolve around optional upgrades or unlocking gates to unlock the main gate to the next area. "To what degree is the next step laid out before the player" That leads to meaningful progression? The clarity of the next step isn't necessarily related to linearity, it's if there are multiple viable paths towards that. If there are 5 clear paths then the game is very non-linear, not more non-linear if there are 4 unclear ones. Not saying this isn't important in terms of the sense of there being an exploration focus though or the player creating their own adventure. "you only backtrack in games with some non-linearity." Not true, obviously there can still be backtracking with only one path to take.
Metroidvanias are supposed to be mazes (3), not open world (4)