Open world, or linear?
- Thread starter Trivun
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I usually tend towards linear games that reward players for diligent exploration, like God of War; for a sandbox game to grab my attention it has to be unique in some way (like, say, Brütal Legend), cater to my fanboy needs (see Spidey games) or feature gameplay entertaining enough to distract me from the mostly monotonous scenery (e.g. Infamous).
Oh, and as much as I enjoy linear games, the degree of linearity employed in the first 11 chapters of FFXIII is just ridiculous, and that's from someone who actually likes the game.
Oh, and as much as I enjoy linear games, the degree of linearity employed in the first 11 chapters of FFXIII is just ridiculous, and that's from someone who actually likes the game.
Depends what you want out of a game. If you want to have your own adverntur then you want an open world with lots to see and do. Fallout 3 was good example of this. Even now I still find things I have not completed yet and I get to chose my characters path.
Linearity is great for when you want a story to go how the creators want it, and as long as the story doesn't suck it can be very immersive. HL2 was a great example of this. Sure everythings is set in stone and it doesn't change when you play it again and again but because it is chosen when to be scary, action pace, calm, fast, etc they meld together well and you never get bored.
I myself prefer the linear games for good stories as long as they are well written and acted. However if I want a game with choice and probably take me longer to finish I would go with an open world.
Linearity is great for when you want a story to go how the creators want it, and as long as the story doesn't suck it can be very immersive. HL2 was a great example of this. Sure everythings is set in stone and it doesn't change when you play it again and again but because it is chosen when to be scary, action pace, calm, fast, etc they meld together well and you never get bored.
I myself prefer the linear games for good stories as long as they are well written and acted. However if I want a game with choice and probably take me longer to finish I would go with an open world.
Yeah. I really don't think most open-world games are very complex...as for Bethesda, to call their RPG mechanics complicated is a little silly. Fallout 3, in particular, is pretty damn basic.Dexiro said:
It's spelled "there."Dexiro said:
Edited my post earlier, but...Trivun said: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...NickCaligo42 said:).
Seriously, there's plenty of level design models that aint all black-and-white, providing a strong sense of exploration without feeling as loose as most open-world games do in terms of its sense of direction and areas of interest. Metroid Prime's one of 'em, offering a big network of different areas and challenges; Mega Man Legends is another, Batman: Arkham Asylum is still yet another. If you charted out classic JRPGs you'd find that although their story progression is linear they still offer some degree of freedom within the context of each area, with usually one or two interesting places to visit on the side if only for the sake of fleshing out the setting a bit more. Again, they follow more of a network structure in terms of how their environments are laid out. Chrono Trigger is the king of being not-linear-but-still-not-a-sandbox-game in JRPGs, offering a lot of choice as to where and when you decided to fight Lavos, the game's main antagonist, while still having a strong story flow. Mass Effect 2 is kind of similar, with the whole game focusing around the objective of the Suicide Mission and the player's preparations for it.
Well i wouldn't call them complex, but they're damn hard to figure out xDHuxleykrcc said:
Oblivion i got used to, but i can't stand playing Fallout 3.
There is a definate lack of direction in both of those games though. I won't get into a big discussion and derail the thread but i think a bit more linearity would of helped to ease the player into the world.
Not necessarily giving you more straight paths to walk down, but maybe limiting where the player can go for a bit longer.
They do have linear sections, but those usually have a massive contrast to the game once you're out in the open, the only thing they teach you is some of the controls.
I'd agree with that. A linear experience tends to be one which has been crafted to give the best experience possible, with all the great moments happening along the way. I can't say off hand an open world game which has given me great moments from just exploring. Yes, their are great open world games but i've never felt that i've been really rewarded for going out there to explore.Pimppeter2 said:
\Dexiro said:
I'm really not getting the "hard to figure out" thing...they're pretty straightforward, really.
If you don't like'em, fine, but I don't see them being hard to figure out...
Seconded.Sonicron said:
One of the most important things to me in a game is a good storyline, and as someone previously mentioned, linear games are usually the best way to tell a story. However, I also adore huge, sprawling game worlds with lots of nooks and crannies to explore. I can happily spend hours poking my nose into every corner, and I love having lots of optional missions and side paths to choose from. The Shadow Hearts series and the Yakuza series are good examples of this kind of play style.
So...I guess ideally, I want a linear game with a good solid story, but I want to be able to advance that story at my own pace--to a certain extent. If I'm at a tense moment in the plot, it loses something if I'm allowed to just wander around playing mini-games and doing sidequests until I feel like moving on. I appreciate the option, sure, but there's a time and place for everything.
I prefer linear games, but Final Fantasy 13 sucked. The problem was that there was no point to it being linear. CoD4 was a linear game, but it had tension and control that made it possible to feel involved at every point of the game, without ever being limited by the linear nature.
Open world games lose all dev control over the story, and while it can sometimes work (prototype, red faction guerilla) it oftentimes completely ruins the pacing (every GTA game, they're still fun, but the stories... oh god the stories...)
A linear game needs tension to keep it going, an open world game needs to keep things fun to make up for (almost inevitable) story problems.
Open world games lose all dev control over the story, and while it can sometimes work (prototype, red faction guerilla) it oftentimes completely ruins the pacing (every GTA game, they're still fun, but the stories... oh god the stories...)
A linear game needs tension to keep it going, an open world game needs to keep things fun to make up for (almost inevitable) story problems.
I prefer the old Final Fantasy style, where there was a continuing story but you could take time really whenever to deviate from it and do side quests, power up, waltz around towns and talk with people and in the semi-recent Final Fantasies indulge in card mini games (and Blitzball in 10 of course). There was always a sense of direction, but you weren't confined to it.
As a fan of what Square used to produce, I'm sure to always consider their recent endeavors to be a blight on the good name of the Final Fantasy series. For me, it feels a lot like the gaming franchise I knew and loved pretty much died after FFX.
As a fan of what Square used to produce, I'm sure to always consider their recent endeavors to be a blight on the good name of the Final Fantasy series. For me, it feels a lot like the gaming franchise I knew and loved pretty much died after FFX.
I like linear... sometimes it's overwhelming how much you can do in games. I like being told exactly what to do at all times.
While I cannot speak of Final Fantasy XIII specifically, I think too many games try to force the "open world" aspect into games beacuse it is the latest trend in game development. There is nothing wrong with linear progression as long as the experience is still compelling. Half-Life is a perfect example of a game that does linearity right.
Besides, to be honest, a lot of the Final Fantasy titles merely have the "illusion" of freedom. While you did theoretically have the option of going wherever you wanted, the main quest and the level of various monsters preety much forced you into a fairly linear path. Also, outside of grinding, I do not think most Final Fantasy titles provide the player with enough incentive to explore the world.
Besides, to be honest, a lot of the Final Fantasy titles merely have the "illusion" of freedom. While you did theoretically have the option of going wherever you wanted, the main quest and the level of various monsters preety much forced you into a fairly linear path. Also, outside of grinding, I do not think most Final Fantasy titles provide the player with enough incentive to explore the world.