Poll: Open World or Linear?

[NightmareExpress]

Games come in many shapes, forms and sizes but I'm pretty sure that we can commonly use "linear" or "open" to describe how we progress through them. I can also assume that after playing a wide variety of titles that we can form a preference on which we like better.

To give some example definitions of what both are:

A linear game is a title in which progression is straightforward and you are limited by the environment in several regards. You need to find "item/switch X" in town Y in order to open the path the the dungeon which upon completion will teleport you to town Z and so forth. You will rarely (if ever) be given free reign to completely explore an area and there will likely be boundaries put up to enclose you in a select setting (invisible walls, impassable knee-high fences and etc).

An open world game is a title where the story (if present) is progressed rather straightforwardly through your actions that have no real restrictions put upon by the environment. You may explore and interact with the extended environment (which is to say a vast majority of the game world) as you like, and may choose to go to the event that furthers the plot when you wish.

There are certain games that blend the open/linear feel and I know there exists plenty of individuals who don't have any strong feelings one way or the other (be they of the Neutral planet, Canada or Switzerland). Thus, I have crafted the poll to satisfy all demographics (even those who would vote potato).

So Escapists, which one do you like better and, if possible, why?
Being the horrid and dastardly OP that I am, I will provide a response later on in a post not used for introducing a poll.

 

[sextus the crazy]

either is good if well executed. I love a good open world game like fallout as much as I like linear streamlined games like fire emblem.

 

[JaceArveduin]

I don't mind either, like the guy above me, but I prefer a good open-world game to a good linear game.

What can I say? If something's going wrong, I like the ability to kill off cities for stress relief.

 

[shrekfan246]

Aha, but you never anticipated the people who want to vote for bacon!

OT: I'm more of a semi-open/linear guy, myself. I can't dig the open-world nature of games like Grand Theft Auto, Just Cause 2, or Saints Row 2/3, because I just lose interest when there's no focus on the story or otherwise significant events. The longest time I've ever spent playing an open-world game would probably be between Spider-Man 2 and Ultimate Spider-Man, because swinging around New York City or switching out to Venom and eating random pedestrians was a lot of fun.

Skyrim kept my interest for about 100 hours, but I spent plenty of that time breaking the game with mods and console commands.

Prototype and its sequel are a lot of fun for me because they evoke the same feeling as when I would terrorize the city as Venom when I was younger, but I can't really play it for an extended period of time like I can Mass Effect or Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

Other notable exceptions include Batman: Arkham City and Sleeping Dogs, which both remained interesting to me because exploring and seeing their respective cities was interesting (Gotham and Hong Kong, respectively) and the combat was heavily focused on melee brawling, which was a lot of fun.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Open world, cause I grew up with it's beginnings:

 

[Scarim Coral]

Open, definitely open. One of the reason why I loved Xenoblade Chronicle is for its open world and one of the reason why I loathe The LAst Story was how linear the game was (it set up in chapter, explaining what need to be done by the story/ plot).

 

[SckizoBoy]

What can I say? If something's going wrong, I like the ability to kill off cities for stress relief.

Especially when it's one bunch of dipshit AI's at a time... and in as expansive a manner as possible, preferably... though I suppose sometimes you really need to make grand gestures... -_-

OT: Eh... I'm with this guy ^, insomuch that I prefer a good open-world game to a good linear game. Though there is that strange compromise like Dishonored & Mass Effect (or not, to some people *shrug*) that has a series of load-screen separated small environments. They're not bad either...

Still, most of my favourite games (that can have this kind of categorisation, at least) are open-world so... eh...

 

[The Madman]

Depends on the game and what it's trying to do. In general however I prefer a mixed approach, something like the Thief series which while strictly linear in terms of story and level progression, allows for a ton of player decision when it comes to the levels themselves with open layout that give a bit of a mini-sandbox feel. Dishonored and Crysis are both modern games that took this approach.

For rpg Baldur's Gate 2 is the game I point to as my favourite in terms of structure. It has a mostly linear story set in a massive open world which the story at points encourages you to explore. Ultimately you'll fight the same baddies and reach the same conclusion, but how you get there, why you're there, and what you've done in the meantime can be different for each playthrough. Other examples of this sort of gameplay are Witcher 2 or Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines.

 

[Bostur]

I prefer a mix really. My favorite mix is open ended games with tight and balanced gameplay mechanics and well defined objectives. I like to decide myself how to reach those objectives with the tools available.

Some examples of games that I think have a good mix.

Deus Ex (The original)
Alpha Protocol
Terraria
Fallout:NV
Dragon Age:Origins
Tropico
Thief 1+2
The first 3 UFO/X-Com games.

RPGs from 1990-2000
Most strategy games.


Dishonored felt too limited and linear too me. There were various approaches to each mission, but the outcame was always the same bringing the player through the same narrative set pieces.

Games in the TES series on the other hand are too loose in the gameplay mechanics.

 

[TrevHead]

I tend to prefer linear games, but only because I been burnt by devs who make their open worlds too big and fill it with too many boring side quests and no pacing or direction for the player. Fallout 3 and Kingdoms of Amalur are great examples of this.

 

[Zhukov]

I generally prefer linear games. Especially ones with Deus Ex style level design, where the game is linear but each level has plenty of wriggle room.

Open world games just feel like they're making me commute between the interesting bits. Also, producing a large map means they have to spread the content very thin and use lots of modular assets. After a while it all starts to feel the same, just the same few objects rearranged over and over again in slightly different patterns.

 

[Tyelcapilu]

Depends on the game- Linear is better for games like Batman: Arkham Asylum, but Sniper would've been much better if it was open-world. (See: Far Cry 3)

 

[DementedSheep]

They have their pros and cone and can both be good if it?s done well.

In general I prefer when the game is fairly linear but divided in to different areas of decent size with multiple paths/ approaches you can take and some exploration.

A lot of open world games seem unfocused and with too much fluff and time wasting. When I didn't have many games to play and a lot of time on my hands that was good but not so much now. They also tend to have shitty gameplay, not quite sure why.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Open! Weee!
(linear can be good too but I like an open world that is nicely executed)

 

[Tahaneira]

Either one. Certain stories are much more enjoyable in a linear fashion, with all the plot points laid out ahead of time in natural progression, while other games work better by letting the player decide what comes next. It all really depends on the execution; either can be amazing or terrible. I present Skyrim as evidence for being awesome and terrible at both of these things.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

I would prefer a hybrid like The Witcher 2

 

[BrotherRool]

I'm terrible with open world games. I run around doing nothing until I get bored and drop off. I might have put more time into the open world games sometimes even, but it always leaves me feeling unsatisfied since I've stopped playing because the game was no longer satisfying, compared to a linear game that pushes me forward and I've stopped playing because I reached the end

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I prefer linear myself.
I just like the sense of purpose from going to the minute-to-minute action.