Open world, or linear?

[Trivun]

After reading people's thoughts on this site, and other forums, about Final Fantasy XIII, I've noticed one of the key criticisms of the game is that it's linear for the first 20 or so hours, then becomes open world when you reach Gran Pulse. Having not played the game yet I can't comment on this, but it got me thinking recently. Why are people so annoyed about FF XIII being linear, to a point?

If we look back, plenty of the Final Fantasy games in the past have had a mix. I've only played the games from X onwards, and the spinoff of FF XII, Revenant Wings. If we look at FFX, the game is specifically linear to a point. We can go back to certain areas, true, assuming you enjoy trekking all the way from somewhere like Macalania Woods all the way to Luca. For the most part though, until the last 5-10% of the game (when you have access to the Al Bhed Airship), FFX is an extremely linear game.

Contrasting directly with this is FFX-2. Despite having the exact same locations, this game is open world right from the start. You start the game in Luca and your first missions take place in Zanarkand and Besaid, which in the first game acted as the start and end of your journey. You can travel anywhere thanks to the Airship. Likewise, FF XII has a slight mix. Some areas are locked due to the storyline or certain requirements, but plenty of places are accessible right from the start. I myself once accidentally ended up in Nalbina Town when I was meant to be going to the Dalmasca Estersand, and decided to take the chance to explore somewhat (very early in the game, no less). The story and certain areas are linear, but most of the game is open world in design.

So why is it that FF XIII is criticised (however little that may be) for it's linearity early on, then it's open world design later? It's hardly the first Final Fantasy title to do so. And for added discussion, what are your thoughts on linearity in gaming? Do you prefer open world play or linearity, and which games do you think have done either of these well, or badly?

 

[Pimppeter2]

I find that games that tend to throw in open worlds for the sake of it suffer for it. Open worlds are nice, but they work better with only a handful of games.

 

[Dragon_of_red]

It's just that This one is extremely linear, there is barely any deviaion from a line that twists and turns, there are a few narrow passages were there is one more fight and a treasure chest, but it doesnt make it anyless linear.

This one so far is just an extremely linear game, which im ok with; if the story is good, which this one is.

I like both, if i feel like having a butt load of fun, ill go an open world game, if i feel like some awesome story telling, ill go for the linear way.

 

[Huxleykrcc]

Both are legitimate game elements; it depends on the game. I haven't played FF13 (sorry, guys, too lazy for roman numerals), but I tend to think it would be a little jarring to go open world after 20 HOURS of linearity...I mean, that really is pretty wonky.

 

[Kryzantine]

Yeah, I prefer linearity in a way. For some reason, they usually have better stories than games with open worlds, probably because it provides an automatic sense of direction.

Not to say games that are open world have bad stories, in fact, GTA SA had a really good story IMO, but the executions are different. It's a reason the majority of non-Bethesda RPGs are linear in nature.

 

[scnj]

Depends on the game. Far Cry 2 suffered from it, whereas Silent Hill 4 could have benefited.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

I find that games that tend to throw in open worlds for the sake of it suffer for it. Open worlds are nice, but they work better with only a handful of games.

Yes. Hub worlds I have absolutely no beef with (although it helps if they're well designed such as in Mario 64 and Sunshine or the sublime Psychonauts) but open world for no reason can often make a game dull (Spiderman 2 seemed a lot like this despite how awesome the web swinging mechanic was).

 

[Trivun]

I find that games that tend to throw in open worlds for the sake of it suffer for it. Open worlds are nice, but they work better with only a handful of games.

Yes. Hub worlds I have absolutely no beef with (although it helps if they're well designed such as in Mario 64 and Sunshine or the sublime Psychonauts) but open world for no reason can often make a game dull (Spiderman 2 seemed a lot like this despite how awesome the web swinging mechanic was).

To be honest, when I played Spiderman 2 on the PS2 a few years ago I got the feeling that the main reason for open world gameplay was just so the developers could show off the web-swinging mechanic, so that gamers would see it in action and just think how cool it was. Open world design was never really used for anything else besides. Spiderman 3 did it a lot better, IMO, what with various different missions and tasks that you could do. It made a big difference to the first game and was all the better for it.

 

[Vianyte]

Open by a million miles. Gran Pulse was the only enjoyable area in FF XIII and open worlds tend to be far more interesting in my opinion. If the game has linear areas like in Tales of Vesperia then that's not bad, however some of FF XIII's were exactly like corridors, almost no junctions. It's just go through this winding path and kill some enemies along the way, repeat until about chapter 10.

 

[TheBluesader]

Yeah, I prefer linearity in a way. For some reason, they usually have better stories than games with open worlds, probably because it provides an automatic sense of direction.

Not to say games that are open world have bad stories, in fact, GTA SA had a really good story IMO, but the executions are different. It's a reason the majority of non-Bethesda RPGs are linear in nature.

Linearity is a hell of a lot easier on devs. Just think about it: when you have only one possible path to worry about, you know where the player is going to be so you can create lots of good story content and moments that you can be sure the player will experience. Horror games do that all the time - look at the spooky moments from F.E.A.R. If you have a huge open world, you have to have some kind of engine that spawns moments for wherever the player might be, and if the world is varied, this means there are all these obnoxious factors you have to consider. It also means your dev team has to be huge in order to build stuff for all the possible places a player can go.

That's why I like (more or less) what Bethesda did with Fallout 3. Yeah, they had a huge open world, but most of the story points took place in linear vaults and subways so they could be sure to have the player where they wanted them. It certainly is obnoxious that you have to go down into another damn subway over and over again, but if you think about how big the map is, there's really no other way to tell a story. The only way full open worlds really work are with MMO-style games, where players make their own events wherever they want.

I think the mixed method is the best we can hope for. It gives the feeling of an open world, but makes it realistically programmable. Because at the end of the day, never forget that ever stinking little thing you come across in a game had to be programmed in there by at least one guy, working for salary.

 

[Henrik Persson]

What Bethesda does are open world games. No Final Fantasy comes close to being an open world, even the least linear ones. If the game is not an actual open world game I much prefer linearity. I thought the option to pick what planet to go to in KOTOR was stupid, it didn't make it feel like I was in control at all and not giving me the option would probably have improved the storytelling a little bit. Not that the storytelling needed improving, but improvements are always welcome. So I say a big fat no to fake openworldyness (I made a new word!) in favor of better storytelling.

 

[Huxleykrcc]

Again, I really think it just depends on the game...

 

[Tehlanna TPX]

From 6 - 9 they were pretty much open world to a point... for final fantasy. I find that it all depends on the storyline. Granted, they can be tooled to work better with open world or linear.

Honestly, if I'm into the story, i don't really give a damn that I can't run off to this or that place to sight see, or do this or that side quest. In regards to 13, I didn't even notice that I was strictly barred from doing anything but follow the story till Pulse.

To each their own... I guess. As others have said.. some games benefit from it.. others fail from it. For those that have played 13: What more would you have done if Cocoon was open world? They could have possibly programmed more side quests... I guess. /shrug.

 

[Dexiro]

I prefer either, depending on the game.

Open world games tend to be really overwhelming. Just look at Bethesda's games, you get thrown into a big dull world full of copy-pasted terrain with a load of rpg features that you don't have half a clue about.
I'm kind of taking a dig at Bethesda there (any opportunity) but it's a valid point.

You generally get a massive lack of direction, and any potential room for imagination is already filled in by the developers and usually takes the form of open space.

It's really difficult to do it right, i find linearity much better on most occasions.

 

[Gauntes]

If the game takes more than a weekend to finish, I'd prefer open world. I you can finish the entire game during the weekend, I'd go with linear.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Uh...

Why just these two choices? What if I like Metroid, for instance? Not exactly linear, not exactly open-world, but all awesome.

 

[Trivun]

EDIT: Also, nice to see you back Trivun.

Thanks . I thought it was odd that I was suspended and everyone else was only on probation, so I PMed Spinwhiz. Apparently a moderator must have made a mistake or something and given me the wrong punishment, so Spin put it right for me .

 

[Dexiro]

Uh...

Why just these two choices?

What else is their? xD

 

[Trivun]

Uh...

Why just these two choices?

Well, I'm just stating the two most common situations. There isn't a poll, as you've probably noticed, so whatever your thoughts you can just say them here, whether you prefer one, the other, or a complete mix. Or neither, I guess (assuming that's even possible... ).

 

[DeleteThisPlease]

I like the linarity of some games, but there are plenty of games that I like the open world system in.

A game that is quite a bit linar but I think would be good open-world(esk) would be the Pokemon games.