Poll: Your opinion: Linear or Open World gaming

[ShogunSam-R-I]

Im an aspiring game designer with hopes to become a creative director one day. That being said, games with linear plots always gets my psyched. Open World games arent to be over looked of course. I feel that linear titles such as the Uncharted series, MGS, and God of War always keep me at the edge of my seat, waiting to see what these developers are gonna throw at me next. Open World games, I feel, make me question myself, allowing me to create my own pace and usually allowing me to form my own strategy in certain situations (GTA, RDR, LA Noire). So, this leads me to ask, which are you into more? Thanks for reading.

 

[muskrat_love]

I'm wondering why you want to know. Truth be told, linear adventures can happen in open world settings, just as long as the player knows their next objective. A good example of this I'd say, is the Metroid Prime titles. It's a massive world to explore, yet you go through it in a fairly railroad fashion.

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

Of course, the best game has a mixture of both. But I prefer linearity to open-world-ness, if we're going to the extremes, because I feel that a linear path has more options for telling a better story than open-world games have.

 

[No_Remainders]

I'd quite like someone to make a proper open world FPSRPG.

I would love that.


Too bad it'd probably be too easy to accidentally murder the civilians (especially if you were allowed to, Oblivion style)

 

[Sixcess]

Open world. I like to explore and I like the sense of being in another world. Way too many games these days have about as much genuine freedom as a rail shooter, and while it can work usually I get bored if I'm just being herded from one set piece to another through a one way funnel of invisible walls and inexplicably impossible to climb chest high walls.

 

[MercurySteam]

My issue is that linear gaming isn't alway better bbecause if you've experienced freedom then taking that freedom away is a step backwards - a good example is Red Faction: Armageddon. Not only was the freedom gone, the awesome GeoMod 2.0 technology was vastly underutilized for a linear shooter, plus I enjoy shooting up the EDF much more than random aliens.

To quote myself:

I originally thought that Red Faction: Armageddon was going to be a sandbox like its predecessor. When I found out that it was set underground I thought "Okay, an underground sandbox would be difficult but maybe they can pull it off." Then I discovered that Armageddon was a linear shooter instead and as a result, the freedom never came at all.

I just don't think Volition created a superior game.

 

[The_Puppy_Prince]

I perfer a Open World,i like being able to tackle a certain task however i please
But it honestly depends on the type of game your making
a story driven game in a open world is a bit hard because you break the immersion by going mental,but a good example of a Story Driven open world is GTA IV

 

[Akihiko]

It doesn't really bother me if it's linear or open, permitting the story is good enough.

My only problem with open world games is, that because so much time is spent on making the world so massive, other things get neglected. Which is a shame,especially when the open world doesn't really add that much. An example would be LA Noire, the map is massive, but, it's pointlessly massive. Instead of making the map so big, they should have spent that time making all the cases absolutely flawless, or even, add more cases.

 

[octafish]

Squad Level Turn Based Strategy is my favourite genre. It is a shame no really makes them any more. Mind you simultaneous turn based games like Frozen Synapse are a pretty good substitute. Jagged Alliance 2 had a wonderful open-world approach to it with the tactical overview.

I don't know why some open world games just leave me cold, I have less than hour in Oblivion, only completed the first area in Red Faction: Guerrilla, and I detest Saints Row 2 (uber shitty port and horrible controls don't help). I love Minecraft, STALKER, Just Cause 2 (Makes grinding fun), Pirates!, and the X series so I don't know why some attract me and some don't. Linear games allow for much tighter plotting, like Mafia 2, Planescape:Torment and Metro 2033.

 

[LookingGlass]

I like my survival-horror games to be carefully crafted, linear experiences. I just think it helps them be so much more powerful. But maybe that's just because no one's made a good open world survival horror game yet. And Dead Island won't count because there's too much daytime.

Outside of that, there's a time and place for both open-world and strictly linear games in my life, and I can enjoy a well made game of either style.

 

[C95J]

My favourite games are pretty much always open world RPG's. FPS's sometimes as well.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Survival horror is my favorite genre, bar none. Out of my top ten games, five of them are survival horror. One, Parasite Eve is an RPG hybrid, and Dino Crisis has elements of an action game.

I think an open-world survival horror game could work, but it would be more akin to Arkham Asylum than Grand Theft Auto or the Elder Scrolls.

 

[Comando96]

FPS (shoulder fire will do), Action & Adventure, RPG... now if only there was a game like that being released in 3 days 22 hours...

Oh wait there is! Deux Ex

Generally I like open games where you have choice, and being smart, and using strategy triumphs the "skill" base game play where you have the advantage if you can get every single bullet to land on your targets forehead... all 39 of them xD

Things like the Total War Games, Fallout 2, 3, NV, civilisation, Mount & Blade's, The Witcher (2), AC:1,2,B, Batman AA.

I tend to like the openness, though so long as there is room to breath it doesn't mean a game can have a Linear path. I do like to have a look around and do things at my ow pace rather than kill guy, you are teleported out of there.

Oh, if has the world Valve written on it, I like it

 

[Something Amyss]

I prefer open world titles. Linearity isn't necessarily bad, but it quite often ends up being boring because the games are poorly constructed.

 

[DexterNorgam]

Most people will probably say "open world".

Most people probably actually mean "illusion of open world".

Its like how people bitched about FFXIII being too linear because it no longer bothered to hide its linearity like any of the most beloved FF games, like IV, VI, VII (all of them linear as hell).

 

[ALYKZANDYR]

I want an Modern MMORPG. with the entire universe modeled in 1:1 scale. with the edition millions of full size planets to explore. Basically Mass Effect meets Star Wars meets Battlefield 3 meets old school (circa 2003/4) Everquest. With every real world firearm ever made, + millions of fictional weapons, millions of real and fictionnal vehicles, space ships, etc with War movie in the theater quality sound, and graphics 1 billion times more detailed than Crysis 1. dirt behaves like real dirt and sand, basically everything in the environment behaves like in real life.

Problem?

 

[Saltyk]

I judge games on a game by game basis. I don't know which I really prefer. How about a fun game? One that's well made and interesting.

Most people will probably say "open world".

Most people probably actually mean "illusion of open world".

Its like how people bitched about FFXIII being too linear because it no longer bothered to hide its linearity like any of the most beloved FF games, like IV, VI, VII (all of them linear as hell).

I know exactly what you mean. I didn't really get the complaints about linearity from FFXIII. They were all pretty linear. XIII was just more blatant about it. And it lacked airships and the overworld map. We haven't really had those since FFIX, though. Personally, I just grew tired of the combat system in XIII. I didn't really do anything other than hit one button to select Auto-Attack and occasionally switch paradigms. And that got old.

 

[DexterNorgam]

I judge games on a game by game basis. I don't know which I really prefer. How about a fun game? One that's well made and interesting.

Most people will probably say "open world".

Most people probably actually mean "illusion of open world".

Its like how people bitched about FFXIII being too linear because it no longer bothered to hide its linearity like any of the most beloved FF games, like IV, VI, VII (all of them linear as hell).

I know exactly what you mean. I didn't really get the complaints about linearity from FFXIII. They were all pretty linear. XIII was just more blatant about it. And it lacked airships and the overworld map. We haven't really had those since FFIX, though. Personally, I just grew tired of the combat system in XIII. I didn't really do anything other than hit one button to select Auto-Attack and occasionally switch paradigms. And that got old.

Oh yea, I'm not at all saying XIII was without flaw, but I think it's a perfect example of how people can have a funny definition of linear.

 

[cgentero]

I don't think I really have preference, however I usually dislike Open World games without things like enemy radar, objective locations on maps, or quick travel. I can't imagine anyone liking a truly open world experience with no guide at all.

 

[ManInRed]

Technically all games are linear, just like life is linear events in time. Non-linear usually falls under the belief a player has that they have choices, even if it's just an illusion of choice, like picking the order or events they experience. Even in a completely linear game, it's important to at least give that illusion of choice, just as it's important for wide open sandbox games to still have some goals presented to the player to guide them down some linear paths.