I gotta agree with those who say it doesn't matter at all, good even great games can exist in any of those formats. Writing, gameplay, gameplay testing (something that no one does anymore,) Mob design, balance, in-game travel... those are important factors. Setting is important, in regards to geography and history adding to and affecting story. But setting as far as game mechanic... naa, it doesn't matter. I could list several great games from each of those categories, and several more that fit none of those descriptions.
Poll: Open world, Linear or Semi sandbox? which type of games you prefer?
- Thread starter B-Cell_v1legacy
- Start date
in a way, open world tends to have elements of all these, so it would be the logical choice if one were desiring to not only have their cake, but eat it, digest it and defecate it delicately into a finely tailored poop bowl as they leave a detailed review of each process on the customer feedback form
Depends really on the game itself, some are great open worlds while others are just horrible. Same with linear,its all up to the game mechanics/polish and my enjoyment so its hard for me to say.
Humans really are a fickle bunch. Last gen ?everything? was too linear and scripted. Now ?everything? is too open and boring. But...now and then a decent balance is struck, and it can be a pretty beautiful thing.
I've had great experiences in all of those game types.
But my favourite games are semi-sandboxes.
But my favourite games are semi-sandboxes.
I generally enjoy linear games more than the other types, simply because I'm big on storytelling in games, and linear games tend to put more effort into that element.
Any and all of them are great if done well. I suppose if I had to choose I'd probably go semi-sandbox, even though most of my top ten are full-sandbox.
I like a smallish sandbox that has a metroidvania approach to traversal: Subnautica, for instance, isn?t a massive area, but because it exists in a three dimensional space you have depth and radiation limitations guiding progression. Arkham Asylum (the first) also does this right. Linear but large levels also achieve a similar effect, like in Thief 2. Vastness to me is never much of a selling point because it just means more boring traversal and more fast travelling.
Linear all the way. Ironically, for me at least, linear games have the most replayability, because the content is usually higher quality with less filler, and the games are simply shorter, so you're not already sick of the game after a single, slogging playthrough.
I'm glad to see that the bigger is always better fallacy seems to be finally losing steam, at least among a significant percentage of gamers on message boards. It wasn't long ago that the word "linear" was considered one of the worst adjectives that could be used to describe a game. People seem to be coming back to their senses. It gives me hope that maybe one day devs will follow suit and go back to making more linear, high quality, story-driven games again.
I'm glad to see that the bigger is always better fallacy seems to be finally losing steam, at least among a significant percentage of gamers on message boards. It wasn't long ago that the word "linear" was considered one of the worst adjectives that could be used to describe a game. People seem to be coming back to their senses. It gives me hope that maybe one day devs will follow suit and go back to making more linear, high quality, story-driven games again.
I generally prefer linear just because they tend to be tighter, better paced experiences. Not to mention when you don't have to worry about a huge area you can focus on the areas you do have.
Now of course, there are exceptions. Witcher 3 did open world right and I've heard the same about Horizon Zero Dawn. I'm playing Nier Automata right now which I guess is some semi-sandbox and works very well for that purpose. I also like what Dark Souls/Bloodborne did with a vast interconnected world/Metriodvania that is fun to explore but not so big that you spend a lot of time traveling to the interesting bits.
Now of course, there are exceptions. Witcher 3 did open world right and I've heard the same about Horizon Zero Dawn. I'm playing Nier Automata right now which I guess is some semi-sandbox and works very well for that purpose. I also like what Dark Souls/Bloodborne did with a vast interconnected world/Metriodvania that is fun to explore but not so big that you spend a lot of time traveling to the interesting bits.
I'm not too fussed either way, but I want it to be organic.
What I dislike about many 'open world' games like GTA, Ubisoft whatever is that while you are free to roam and generally piss about - that's only where you have your freedom. When you are either just dicking about or in transit between missions or story.
Once you actually start a mission or story - you lose all your freedom. You literally have to abort the mission in a menu to get out of it. These missions tend to force you down incredibly linear paths - resulting in a failure if you deviate. Such as car chases, stalking people, whatever. Also QTE sequences galore.
I find that annoying as hell.
I much prefer that something gets added to my list of things to do when I accept a mission. Or if the story needs me somewhere. Then I be free to enter and leave it as I bloody well please, with restrictions to that kept to a minimum.
Thus I prefer the Bethesda brand of open world over that of GTA/Ubi types.
What I dislike about many 'open world' games like GTA, Ubisoft whatever is that while you are free to roam and generally piss about - that's only where you have your freedom. When you are either just dicking about or in transit between missions or story.
Once you actually start a mission or story - you lose all your freedom. You literally have to abort the mission in a menu to get out of it. These missions tend to force you down incredibly linear paths - resulting in a failure if you deviate. Such as car chases, stalking people, whatever. Also QTE sequences galore.
I find that annoying as hell.
I much prefer that something gets added to my list of things to do when I accept a mission. Or if the story needs me somewhere. Then I be free to enter and leave it as I bloody well please, with restrictions to that kept to a minimum.
Thus I prefer the Bethesda brand of open world over that of GTA/Ubi types.
My favourite game is Skyrim, but very few games manage to do what it does. For all it's flaw, it's a world so absorbing that not even seing dragon skeletons fly across the map because you nudged it with your left toe or characters that dissapear through the floor as you talk to them can break the immersion. The avarage sandbox is large and brimming with quests and collectibles but devoid of personality, spontanaety or roleplay, and the sandbox structure makes it hard to tell a well paced and fullfilling story. Some sandboxes get around this, but personally i think good level design is most important. I think the Deus Ex style of game is best, a linear narrative with levels that allow for multiple approaches and exploration.
That was more so the "games journalists" making those complaints than the average gamer, and advocating more open-world games. Now gamers did complain about games being like or pandering to the Call of Duty crowd, while most professional did not or praised it.hanselthecaretaker said:
I prefer linear games, but do not mind semi-open world. That said, it depends on who does what well. And even if it's the best open world game ever made, I long stopped caring games that tried the GTA or Ubisoft formula as it got old and boring real fast. I will get Red Dead II as it is something my brother and I are both going to enjoy.
Depends on the genre.
Horror, for example, is better when it's linear because the devs can prepare proper pacing, scares and atmosphere, which can be lost if they're optional like in an open world game. Most story driven games are better linear.
Open world games work when the story is just a backdrop for your exploration. For example, I don't care about the story in Far Cry, I just like to explore the map, get new gear, hunt animals and take over enemy outposts in interesting ways (open a cage with a lion to distract the guards and then, while they're fighting it, slowly pick them off with a bow).
Horror, for example, is better when it's linear because the devs can prepare proper pacing, scares and atmosphere, which can be lost if they're optional like in an open world game. Most story driven games are better linear.
Open world games work when the story is just a backdrop for your exploration. For example, I don't care about the story in Far Cry, I just like to explore the map, get new gear, hunt animals and take over enemy outposts in interesting ways (open a cage with a lion to distract the guards and then, while they're fighting it, slowly pick them off with a bow).