Poll: Open World or Linear?

[Rednog]

I prefer linear, hands down. Too many open world games just end up being areas to "fart around in" and rarely have any substance. Sure and open world can be fun initially, but once I get tired of it there's that feeling of "ugh, I have to travel how far until the next mission?"; that feeling just eats away at the fun. That and I feel as if some companies just throw in the open world to pad stuff out with travel time.

 

[babinro]

Linear

Linear gameplay allows for a more focused story and better character development.
It also removes a ton of tedious open world grind (backtracking, hunting down quest givers, uninteresting travel).
Linear games can better control difficulty. Ensuring you are challenged appropriately by content when it's appropriate.
You are less likely to break the game by being absurdly over powered or under powered.

Open world could work if they took it further than they currently do.
I know of no open world games that really reflect your actions in a meaningful way throughout.
It's more comprised of small sidequests that are acknowledge once or twice and forgotten forever.
Worse yet, they have no sense of failure or time.
The world is about the end but yet you can mess around feeding cats for 40 hours and only be rewarded.

Imagine playing Skyrim for 200 hours and finding out that another hero saved the lands from the dragon threat while you were messing about. Or that someone else has taken over has head of the thieves guild because of your absence and poor leadership.
Key characters die, key events take place even without your intervention if left ignored long enough. That's the kind of open world I'd prefer. One that would reward repeated playthrough's so I could experience events that I missed on my first run.

 

[Squilookle]

I can also assume that after playing a wide variety of titles that we can form a preference on which we like better.

Your assumption is wrong- many people enjoy both, for very different reasons. I even think they can happily co-exist in the same game, such as in Mafia or Far Cry 3.

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

Open world games had their 'beginnings' more than ten whole years before any of those games. Since you seem to have a N64 you should try Body Harvest as well- it was the final open-word testing ground for gaming before it solidified in GTA 3.

Imagine playing Skyrim for 200 hours and finding out that another hero saved the lands from the dragon threat while you were messing about. Or that someone else has taken over has head of the thieves guild because of your absence and poor leadership.
Key characters die, key events take place even without your intervention if left ignored long enough. That's the kind of open world I'd prefer. One that would reward repeated playthrough's so I could experience events that I missed on my first run.

Try Mount and Blade on for size- that's more or less exactly what you described, except for key characters dying. It makes sense in-universe though, as lords historically would be kept alive whenever possible for ransom. Key characters CAN leave the game forever too, though it's by exile rather than death.

 

[Yopaz]

I like a good balance. Take Xenoblade, quite linear, but a lot of places to explore and some sidequests to do, giant monsters to fight. Open world games don't appeal to me because it gives me problems concentrating on what I am supposed to do.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

Both are fine as long as they are done well and keep their focus.

My top two games of last year were Far Cry 3 and Max Payne 3. Both were great games, but both contrasted eachother in terms of linearity. But both were damn good games I've spent a lot of time in.

That said, a good sandbox game is better than a good linear game and conversely, a bad sandbox is worse than a bad linear game. It's a two way sword.

 

[NightmareExpress]

I can also assume that after playing a wide variety of titles that we can form a preference on which we like better.

Your assumption is wrong- many people enjoy both, for very different reasons. I even think they can happily co-exist in the same game, such as in Mafia or Far Cry 3.

If my assumption was indeed incorrect, then there wouldn't be a single vote for one or the other and all votes would fall into the "either is fine/both" and "potato" categories. I've also stated in the opening post that I recognize that there are indeed titles that contain a fine blend of both and that there is a multitude of people that do enjoy both.

From the things that I've read of and experienced in Mafia (The City of Lost Heaven alongside Mafia II) and Far Cry 3, both titles are largely open world (and recognized as such by both critics and players).

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I like the kind of set-up that games like Deus Ex, Thief, Hitman or Dishonored use. I prefer linear progression from level to level, but I like those levels to be wide open, with lots of different approaches. I also quite like the way the first Crysis was set-up, which is pretty much right in-between open-world and linear.

 

[Kekkonen1]

I prefer either linear or a good balance, I have a very hard time with the TRULY open-world games such as Elder Scroll, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto etc. Games like Baldurs Gate 1, Dragon Age 1 etc I think strike a pretty fair balance, but I dont mind linear JRPGs either, although FFXIII was too much on the other side of the spectrum.

 

[Rawne1980]

I prefer open world games.

Not all of them though, just those I can mod.

I have thousands of hours put into Elder Scrolls and Fallout games all thanks to modding and that is something no other game series will ever get from me.

Plus, open world games, even without mods, tend to give me at least 50 - 60 hours worth of content whereas the more linear games take me between 5 and 20 hours.

I feel like I get my moneys worth when I spend countless hours in a game. I always feel ripped off when I get through a game in a couple of days.

 

[Beryl77]

It really depends on the game. I don't have any specific preferences there. I am from Switzerland though, hmmm...
Anyway, I've enjoyed both kinds of games if done well. However, a linear game should have a good story and gameplay to keep me interested, while an open world game needs a rich world that feels "alive". Of course if a game has all of those it's best.

 

[crimson sickle2]

Depends which has the better characters, world, and action really, both can deliver it, albeit difficult.

 

[octafish]

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

What? Beginnings? Sid Meier and his Pirates! would like to have a word with you from 1987.

For me it needs something special going for it for me to like an open world game. Very few games still have this X factor. Most open world games are tedious bores.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

I prefer an open world with a linear storyline. Kinda like Dishonored or Deus Ex, that type of game. Only, I'd prefer third person over first person.

Or a linear world with an open storyline, like The Walking Dead. That kind of game is also amazing.

But I can't stand overly open worlds like Elder Scrolls or Fallout. I mean, they were fun for a while, but when I'm given so much freedom I can never decide what I want to do, where I want to go. Then I end up not doing anything and I get bored.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I prefer a linear story myself.

I can give two examples: Witcher 2 vs Skyrim.

- Witcher 2 is a fantastic linear game with a semi-open world (open locations to go where you please although you are following a certain path along the main quest and cities that you go through every act). The game doesn't burden you with many side quests although it does have it fair share. They aren't a big drawback if you don't do them (with a very few good exceptions).

- Skyrim on the other hand is completely open world, letting you choose what to do when, where do you go etc. Games like that usually overwhelm me with the content that is fully opened to you at all times and makes it almost impossible (at certain times) to choose which objective/quest to start first. This eventually leads me to getting completely bored and quitting after I've done only the ones I am interested in. So many quests at once breaks my immersion completely which happens now and again in open world games (I would like to mention here Fallout New Vegas for being one of those games that I quit because it became a complete bore to play after two dozen hours).

So conclusion to all this is that I prefer a more linear game like a Witcher 2 than an open world one like Skyrim.

* I would like to write a special mention to open world games that their universe/story/characters are so interesting that they keep me immersed completely and don't let off at all.

 

[Gatx]

I like my games to have a lot of replayability so open world for me, it's just a good investment. Then again, once they go on sale I snatch up any really good linear games I can get my hands on.

 

[Karoshi]

It's pretty hard to choose. I love exploration and narrative in equal manner and those two require in most cases either an open world, either a linear one. Fallout: New Vegas achieved the rare feat of bringing a cool world and interesting storylines together, but it's exploration aspect was slightly worse than in Fallout 3. Walking Dead was as linear as it gets, but it didn't hinder me from enjoying the game.

I suppose I'm indifferent to it, as long other aspects of the game are strong and deliver.

 

[Treblaine]

There should be an option on there for "anything but a corridor shooter"

You know what I mean, the COD games that take their level layout from a 1990's lightgun shooter, only slow it down with molasses with worse controls.

Now imagine a game like COD where each level was like a multiplayer map, and you have to fight your way AROUND the map, all over the place, till you finally complete all objectives before you can progress to the next area. That's what essentially happened with Doom, it was linear sequence of maps, with very little branching and virtually no backtracking, but each area was a labyrinth to explore, hunt down enemies and run from threats.

The "100 mile long corridor" that has infested so many games like a herpes virus has got to die in a hole. I know, developers who have way too much film-school education in their head love it for how they can line everything up and control everything but THIS IS NOT A FREAKING MOVIE!!!

if COD were to fuse their multiplayer maps with their single-player campaign, effectively playing through the maps in sequence, that I think would be brilliant. Because their multiplayer has shown they can in fact make non-linear maps. But they somehow don't want to or are incapable of doing more than a long walled in corridor for


Imagine COD4, the final mission on the Silo Complex. First mission you had had to break into the base, then you had to hunt around everywhere for a way into the base, then find main entrance is sealed, find another way in, need circular saws to cut way in, get rope, rappel down.

Right, now inside the complex you have to go through a sequence of mission requirements that include finding the control room, realising you can't get in, head to the armoury to get some explosives, blast your way in, then use the launch codes. See it's not jsut one long slightl ywinding corridor to the objective, you might actually need a MAP SCREEN! You may actually have to THINK about where you need to go next!

That I consider a bare minimum.

What I love is the Zelda model, where you have the overworld then the dungeons. Dungeons are essentially missions, most you can leave them any time (except the whale) but it kind of defeats the purpose, they are quite self-contained and you explore around them.

TLR

I'd much prefer a game that had each "mission" or "Dungeon" be complex and winding enough to need a map and objective list to explore it. There could be a linear progression between these dungeons/missions joined by cutscenes or scripted sequence, or it could be a completely open world. It could go either way.

What I can't stand is a light-gun-game style endless corridor being passed off as a full 3D game.

PS: yeah, I'm starting to realise how much this applies to Half Life 2...

 

[SageRuffin]

I could give a fuck less if I can make my own character. I have a tendency to make shit up as I go along anyway, if only to make the story more relevant to my specific character.

Wait... you mean in a general sense? Eh, I could still give a fuck less.