Poll: Linearity is good, don't kill it please

[Ginnipe]

I've been noticing that way to many games are being open worlded these days and alow you to do whatever you want. The thing about this is that you could kill almost everyone and the game has to go on without any contest, this leads to a lacking story and won't be as fun in the long run. And please, if your going to make an open world game, make it open worlded don't just make half to beat the game to unlock the world like GTA IV and Mercinaries 2.

Like in Mercinaries 2, i could only go in like a 2 by 2 square mile radius when I started and had to do a bunch of missions before I could get farther. And by the end a major bridge was destroyed and i had to steel or call in a helicopter just to get across, my point is that make your open world acualy open and don't make us desrtoy something major by te end.

But if you use linearity then a game generaly has a much better story and the expeince will trump open worlds'. Take Half-Life 2 and the original Halo, they were great games with scripted events that while happened no matter what, still imersed me much more than a GTA or Mercinaries. My point is is that linearity makes a game feel more imersive and in my eyes is much better than and open world game.

Please excuse any spelling or grammar mistakes, just stay on topic

 

[hopeneverdies]

Plus with open world you have to pretty much lower the difficulty curve a lot so as not to frustrate newer players. I prefer linearity.

 

[Easykill]

Morrowind fanboy here. Open-world-ed-ness is one of my favourite qualities in a game. This really just comes down to a difference in taste. Mine's better =P

 

[Avatar Roku]

I agree. I never understood why linearity is supposed to be a bad thing.

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

I agree. I never understood why linearity is supposed to be a bad thing.

Linearity is good depending on the type of game. If it's a game like Silent Hill, you need linearity so that your agenda isn't cluttered. The game only has you doing one thing at a time. If it's an RPG, linearity is bad, you need to accept a lot of quests, and doing one at a time would make the game tedious.

You need a balance.

EDIT: Ninja'd...Grr.

 

[Erana]

Morrowind fanboy here. Open-world-ed-ness is one of my favourite qualities in a game. This really just comes down to a difference in taste. Mine's better =P

You're wonderfully horrible.

I say it depends, sometimes open world games can be done right {inFamous} and sometimes done wrong {Far Cry 2}. Sometimes linear games can be done right {Half-Life} and sometimes done wrong {Jericho}

Sometimes you can make both linear games with a openworld like Deus Ex combines the two and how Crysis balances out the each uses of the two in each level.

And you I agree with completely.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

open world. you can do what you want when you want.

 

[Gerazzi]

I like linearity because this tells a good story, there can't be a true sequel of an open world game and it sort of waters my enthusiasm, you know what I mean? Difficulty is another reason for the linear folks, if you let people choose which levels they play, the difficulty curve will be like a roller coaster.

I will always favor linear games over any others.

 

[The_Prophet]

I agree. I never understood why linearity is supposed to be a bad thing.

Yeah, I know. I enjoy a good linear fps.

 

[Yooz]

It's awesome in Splinter Cell. Just me on that one?

 

[tomtom94]

I disagree entirely.

Open world leads to choices and side-quests and variety.
If you play through a linear game once you've probably played it all.

Your point about linear games having better story makes no sense. Open world games can still have a meaningful story with linear events (read: Zelda) but with the open world to connect them, whereas in a linear game there is a loose story connecting a series of playable events.
If the entire world was open when the game started then you'd think "well what's the point?" so there's a good reason for it being unlockable, same as with party games with unlockable content.

How can you say a linear game is more immersive? Messing around in GTA's sandbox and doing all the sidequests in a Zelda game often takes up as much time as the main story and in a linear game the action is often broken up by your said scripted events. I am glad you mentioned Halo as that's supposedly a prime example, but as I haven't played it I'll cite Timesplitters 3 here: interrupting loading screens completely detract from any immersion I get from cut-scenes.

In short, I consider your argument to be biased and incorrect. But hey, each to their own.

 

[quack35]

Depends on the game, really.

 

[ygetoff]

Either one can be done well. A linear game done incorrectly can be too short, or be extremely boring. A non-linear game done incorrectly can be unbalanced, or overwhelming, or have no story. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

 

[AddytheGreat]

I like Open World, I feel they have more gameplay in them, after all, you cant continue a linear game after you finish it, like Half-Life. But in games like GTA, open world ones, you can play them alot longer, just mucking about with cars and civilians.

Dont get me wrong, I love a good Linear game ( Such as Half-Life ) but there is only really so much you can play games like those.

 

[Easykill]

Morrowind fanboy here. Open-world-ed-ness is one of my favourite qualities in a game. This really just comes down to a difference in taste. Mine's better =P

You're wonderfully horrible.

Why thank you! I'll take the to mean charismatic devil.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'm inclined to say linearity, for the same reason that I'm willing that I espouse the virtues of the Alliance in WoW and the fun of Halo and Gears of War: because the people arguing the other side piss me off so much.

Other than that, why should I care? I'll take what any given game with give me. If the game is generally linear, it usually has a better story, because it doesn't have to worry about overall sequence of events or unbreachable difficulty curves, and I'll usually play it again for the same reason that I'll re-read a book. If a game is open world, it usually has a lot of customizability options, and I'll play it again in order to try things a little differently.

Of course, a lot of good games blend the two...though these blends have a 50/50 chance of being branded "linear" (Tales of Symphonia being the big example).

 

[Paradox244]

I really don't think it makes sense to ask somebody to choose between linear and open world games. They're both great, in different games. I'd hate to have played a Fallout 3 that was linear, and Half-Life 2 wouldn't have worked as an open world game either. It depends on the game, and a good game can be either one.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

I don't see why you are making us choose. Some games lend themselves more to linearity and others lend themselves to open-world environments. Personally, I don't think inFAMOUS would be very good if it were linear, and Half-Life 2 wouldn't be good as an open-world game.