Open World versus Linearity in world building

[Evonisia]

We have Open World games which we'd say have 'great worlds', we have Linear games which we'd have 'great worlds'. But which has an easier job, the better chance or the best potential at 'good world building'? Generally I learn towards thinking that Linearity can benefit the most in this department. From a broad perspective, Open World games are large but developers usually just resort to copy pasting the same thing over and over again to pad out the space whereas the limited space in Linear games allows developers to make the most out of the space they have.

I'd like to hear opinions because obviously I can't really put into words each detail and piece of world building.

 

[Poppy JR.]

I think that open world games can be fun, and have a great world, but the sheer size of the world means that sacrificing detail usually becomes commonplace. It really comes down to what type of game, too. An open world RPG, like Oblivion, had a lot of interesting things to do, but I thought many of the dungeons lacked interesting layouts. On the flipside, linear games can have much more attention divided into less things, but it may be less interesting as a result of lack of variety.

 

[Zhukov]

Big open worlds mean you have to spread the details too thin. Your world ends up looking big and maybe pretty, but also empty and lifeless and populated by soulless automatons that patrol their paths repeating the same greetings over and over again. The illusion is paper thin to begin with and never holds up to the scrutiny that its openness allows.

Linear worlds can get away with hustling the player through a small, detailed fragment of the world and, conversely, end up feeling bigger and more alive because of it. If it's properly paced the player won't have the chance or inclination to look too carefully for the seams. Of course, with linear games you just kind of have to take it on faith that, no really, the world totally exists out there, since they can't just go, "There's a big world out there, and see, here it is!" like open world games can.

 

[senordesol]

I tend to agree with those who say open worlds tend to lose detail; but I think too much emphasis on linearity will make everything end up feeling more like a themepark ride than a real 'world building' experience.

As with most things: a compromise probably offers the best solution. If you look at games like the original Fallout, Chrono Trigger, or Dragon Age: Origins; these are technically 'open world'; but the Player really only experiences the world in specific non-linear high-detail chunks. I honestly think this approach is the best as it allows Players to engage with the world on their terms (i.e. not be restricted by a linear progression), but doesn't require the designers to ensure 10,000 trees are properly rooted to the ground when the user is just going to unappreciatively walk past them on his way to Whereversville.

 

[chocolatekeith]

I tend to favor the closed non-linear style. Games like Deus Ex, Demon's/Dark Souls, The Witcher games and Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines all have fantastic worlds.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Linear games have an easier job with world building because the devs know where everyone will go and what they will see, and generally there is less to do. With worlds like the contemporary Fallouts, Elder Scrolls, GTAs etc you could potentially go anywhere, or you might go no-where so that needs to be remembered.
But on the other hand sandbox games have more potential as the world building encourages exploration- just look at all the notes in Skyrim or Fallout 3 that are used for world building or to start a treasure trail. One comes to mind in Skyrim- there were 2 tents in the middle of no-where on the Northern coast with some items and notes. I can't remember what it said but if you explored the sea just off the coast you found an upturned boat with two skeletons under the water. That's why Bethesda are my favourite.
Also this may sound weird but music is really important for me in world building. Although I loved it, the one song I knew from The Saboteur (Feeling Good) was written in 64/65, which was odd for a game set in WWII. This took me out of the world. On the flip-side the variations in the score for the Mass Effect games (different music for different worlds or actions such as fighting or exploring the citadel etc) really set the mood and the atmosphere of the location, so the thumping bass of Omega gave a grimy feel while the minimalist piano in other places gave the feeling of solitude in outer space.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's a trade off either way.

Open Worlds can provide a brilliant sense of "being there" and inhabiting an actual space. You can go where you want and do what you want (for the most part). The illusion can stutter if your surroundings become too generic or your interactions with the world too copy/paste.

Linear Worlds are pretty close to necessary for providing a structured narrative, as it gives the developer control over where the player is and what they're seeing/who they are interacting with. Here, you run into problems like invisible walls and a clearly tiny "play space" that you get piped through. Any time you want to break out and explore the world you're inhabiting you're reminded you are Playing A Game and Won't You Please Go Through The Marked Door Thank You.