Poll: Open World or Linear?

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

eh depends entirely on the game.

obviously a blend of both is perfect, but if i have to choose one extreme over the other, i'll say linear

why?

because more often than not, every open world game i play has absolute shit story/characters/shit to care about in the slightest, so i'll play with the physics of the game for maybe a half hour then get extremely bored and go play something else.

a linear game with a fun tight story and not just cut out characters i like? i'll replay that game 3 times bare minimum, really getting immersed into the games.

still, there are exceptions to both, i fucking hated ff13 and i loved sleeping dogs/just cause 2, both on the opposite side of the spectrum of my respective choice.

 

[Syphous]

A good game is a good game. That said, I think I prefer a good open world game over a good linear game. They usually allow me to do a lot more exploring, which is typically the most fun for me in a video game.

 

[TehCookie]

I like a linear story with the option to explore. Where the stuff you haven't encountered in the story is locked off until you do that certain quest but anything before that you can revisit. Like Okami or the old FF, they're not quite open world but they aren't narrow corridors either.

 

[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.

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.

Not really- all that needs to happen in order to show there isn't a clear preference among 'we' is for either 'both' or 'potato' to have a clear majority vote, which is indeed the case. After all, it's not like I said ALL people 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).

...And?

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. They're largely open world? This was never disputed. Critics and players agree they're largely open world? OK- this was also never disputed and not even brought up.

 

[StormShaun]

I like both, although I have preferred the open world genre for a while know.
I don't care about quite a few things but only if they are done good.

like Red Dead Redemption, a lovely open world game. It had a kick ass story, great game play and many things to do without overwhelming you.

For linear I liked Star Wars: Jedi Academy. Bloody great combat, a ok story but was great until the end.

In the end I like both but only if they are done justice.

 

[Nazulu]

Either, because it really does depend how they want to deliver the experience.

I love the idea of open world, but most of the time I find it becomes repetitive/shallow and even broken pretty quick, and then I just focus on the main parts. While I usually find linear games pretty solid.

 

[NightmareExpress]

I even think they can happily co-exist in the same game, such as in Mafia or Far Cry 3.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. They're largely open world? This was never disputed. Critics and players agree they're largely open world? OK- this was also never disputed and not even brought up.

I posted the example definitions so that people would not get confused on which to vote for.
Otherwise, what would be faced would be the same conundrum of the question "what is your favorite Role Playing Game" being greeted with answers of "Call of Duty" because every game on a technical level would have to contain a degree of role playing.

Thus, if one game is mostly one than it is the other I would expect someone to vote for one or the other.
Even if they vote "both", it will still be an interesting read on why.

Not really- all that needs to happen in order to show there isn't a clear preference among 'we' is for either 'both' or 'potato' to have a clear majority vote, which is indeed the case. After all, it's not like I said ALL people enjoy both.

I believe that I said "can" form a preference. Not a definite will. Naturally, not all people do.
This certainly seems the case (given "open" and "linear" have votes), even though "both" is indeed the majority choice.
...Thus, I am still at a loss as to why you said my assumption is wrong. Perhaps you think that I value the opinion of "the majority" more than I do each individual?

 

[Rack]

Both can work but I went with linear. Too many open world games are just linear games with a commute and poor level design. This is what ruined Borderlands 2 for me, the linear sections were great but when it got to traipsing back and forth endlessly across the same map to kill a handful of generic enemies the game lost all its charm.

 

[Snotnarok]

Both, I know a lot of negativity surrounds linnear games lately but really a lot of the open world games boil down to the same thing, go to guy A, guy A talks to you while using one of 20 stocked animations telling you to go kill people at point B, so you go kill the enemies, the same enemies you'll be seeing copy-pasta'd everywhere and report back and he gives you money. Repeat 3 missions later except now one of the guys is blue and has more armor, health and does more damage, but is the same enemy otherwise.
I've been indulging in Uncharted where they actually do use new animations for every scene and it's really refreshing to see non-stock stuff pulled out to carry the story.
But then you have games like Skyrim that pull off the open world REALLY well by having somewhat random events as you go, my friend and I probably have 500 hours together total and we're still seeing new stuff happen randomly.

 

[Vault101]

it really depends

I like both BUT I dont like open world where it lacks any realy story or focus...like Bethesda games

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.

my problem with those games are "I can do anything...but half the time theres no point"

NV though was awsome...

 

[Tom_green_day]

Personally, I have 2 different kinds of 'open' games;
Open World, like Far Cry 3 or any Bethesda game, when the world is open and there is a lot to do, the world seems crafted by hand and each corner and cave has hidden secrets and amazing things to look at
Sandbox, like GTA, RDR, AC and Brutal Legend. Basically a big map with little variation and little else in the form of actually interesting side-missions, which basically is just a large space you have to traverse to do all the normal levels.

I like Open World as I feel a part of the world, however Sandbox games are just painful as in some it takes so long to travel between missions, especially when the vehicles are hard to handle. (GTA)

 

[Exius Xavarus]

wat

New Vegas has a really slow start, for me. But once I get rollin', it's really fun.

But that's exactly what I mean about overly open worlds. There's everything to do but at the same time there's nothing to do.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

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.

This. Although I also like Dishonored's very open approach to linearity. One entry, one exit, lot of area to dick around in - although there's a lot of invisible walls I'd wished weren't there.

 

[NightmareExpress]

I suppose it would be appropriate to provide an answer at this point.
I've seen the better titles and the more horrendous titles that open world and linear games have to offer, and I've found myself preferring a hybrid that leans more on the linear side (or simply linear games that are done well enough).

When I'm given free reign to do as a wish in a sandbox (or near sandbox) environment, I have a tendency to experiment and tackle as much optional stuff as I can while proceeding from story mission to story mission. In doing all this, I've always noticed that travelling or "rambling" (sporadic actions without purpose done during periods of boredom) compose a large amount of the gameplay even if quick travel is an option. The missions of open world RockStar titles are typically grand but the periods of freestyling/travelling are tedious and boring to me. To give a possible (and likely controversial) example, people always tell me San Andreas is absolutely brimming with things to do (and it is), but I always get too bored traveling around to each of the locations to really take advantage of it all. The "bustling worlds" of most open world games also seem a tad...dead, even in cases where it wasn't intentionally supposed to be as such.

My preference lies in games that are mostly linear, but allow for a great deal of freedom and choice while providing an environment that is open enough for you to make a choice/change your style. A good deal of bonus points are awarded to titles that contain an excellent (branching) plot, set of characters and narrative.