Let's talk about what I see as hypocrisy in the FPS genre.

[Evonisia]

Wolfenstein: TNO isn't THAT open-ended.

Early in the game, Battlefield 4 presents you with a massive street area with some buildings. You're then told to destroy tanks patrolling the area. The game is filled with wide open areas where you can proceed however you wish.

Wolfenstein: TNO is a very constrained game. ID Tech 5 sucks at handling wide open spaces. Frostbite does not. Wolfenstein compensates by having lots of winding corridors which give an illusion of freedom while still bringing you to the exact same linear place. It frequently blocks your progress backwards.

Maybe our definition of corridor shooter differs.

It's still more open, giving you several places to go but the end point is always the same. Hence why it is linear but still open. Like what FarCry 1 did (though on a much smaller scale, obviously).

That level where you blow up the Tank is just a big open space. There's no difference in how you play apart from how far away you are from the enemy. After that it's tiny room after tiny room culminating in an open but not exploration friendly rooftop bit.

 

[Goliath100]

I understand that you might consider objective markers to be a sin,...

Objective Markers aren't the problem, it's just another tool. They become problematic when the game is built around going from one to another in linear corridors.

I respect your right to not like GoldenEye Wii, but your criticisms don't all add up. GoldenEye Wii was built for a machine with 80MB of RAM.

What do you mean it's unfair? There is plenty of 6. gen games that didn't have the problem of overly linear level design. Like...

...Metal Gear Solid 3...

That's a good example of linearity done right.

...is a terrible stealth game because it has cramped map designs.

Metal Gear Solid 3 doesn't have cramped map designs.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

I understand that you might consider objective markers to be a sin,...

Objective Markers aren't the problem, it's just another tool. They become problematic when the game is built around going from one to another in linear corridors.

I respect your right to not like GoldenEye Wii, but your criticisms don't all add up. GoldenEye Wii was built for a machine with 80MB of RAM.

What do you mean it's unfair? There is plenty of 6. gen games that didn't have the problem of overly linear level design. Like...

...Metal Gear Solid 3...

That's a good example of linearity done right.

...is a terrible stealth game because it has cramped map designs.

Metal Gear Solid 3 doesn't have cramped map designs.

We'll likely have to agree to disagree there. Compared to, say, Far Cry, MGS3's jungle looks like a narrow, green and brown, branching corridor.

I was just playing GoldenEye Wii, and I have to strongly disagree that the game fails at stealth.

However, on the matter of map design, perhaps it's a difference between backtracking and constant movement forward? MGS 1-3 had very constrained maps with a LOT of (some might argue pointless) backtracking. Passageways leading back into areas you'd already visited, so as to use a newly acquired keycard or some such.

GoldenEye Wii generally has the player moving forward through a series of open areas connected by narrow passages. Each area has a small number of enemies. Failing to eliminate or bypass them stealthily will result in alarms being sounded. Additionally, some areas have side passages for secrets and such. (Metro: Last Light uses this design, too.)

 

[Goliath100]

We'll likely have to agree to disagree there.

Not gonna happen.

Compared to, say, Far Cry, MGS3's jungle looks like a narrow, green and brown, branching corridor.

Invalid comparison, Far Cry is sandbox, or atleast open world.

GoldenEye Wii generally has the player moving forward through a series of open areas connected by narrow passages.

What bloody missions was you playing (please answer that)? All I played was corridors connecting Set Pieces. The more open spaces, they were mostly used for Set Pieces.