Worse trend: 7th gen linear games or 8th gen open world games?

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

i disagree. While I understand open worlds have some benefits, I feel linear games are at least a one-time purchase. Open world games have become 'live services' and are just vectors for DLC and micotransactions. And that level of anti-consumerism is way worse than merely boring linear games

So do you think Warhammer 40K: Space Marine is worth 60 dollars for its campaign alone?

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Man that's a real toughie. But as bland and uninspiring as Sandboxes are in general these days, I'm not sure they're as bad as that awful plague of chest-high wall linear shooters from last gen. Honestly those were far more disposable and forgettable than the open worlds of today, so my vote's going for the linear 7th genners being the worse option.

To me they?re equally generic but for different reasons. Design-wise chest high walls are a bane regardless, but the trade off would be the linear game isn?t wasting quite as much of your time with pointless filler.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

as with almost all genres in every medium, it's all down to execution; no genre is interently bad on its own. a trend of bad executions may often lead to the perception the genre is to blame, like a trend of bad relationships may lead some people to believe an entire gender is to blame

and maybe I'm doing all entertainment wrong here, but the most I always hope for is it holding my attention till the end, as that means it doing something right and being an effective escape, otherwise that shit get turned off real quick cause videogames soak up way more free time than film, book or music and can't waste time on anything not engaging. the drug must be effective, uncut

grindfests are the worst if a trend is required for sacrifice. I only put up with Warframe through determined self-moderation as it was free with an interesting sci-fi aesthetic and Canadian

oh and leaving aside the current depressing "live service" push/trend that has been covered greatly already everywhere, another trend of annoyance is games getting awards long before they're ever released. like, seeing Sekiro advertise itself as "winner of over 50 awards and nominations" on its pre-order menu, I'm left wondering hang on one baby-smothering minute, for fucking what exactly? ...its marketing?? yes, no doubt the awards each claim something otherwise, but marketing is the only exposure it's experienced through

 

[CaitSeith]

Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

I hardly consider a game linear when you can backtrack and find new things and new paths as a result.

 

[sXeth]

Probably open world.

Don't get me wrong, there were definitely super-abbreviated linear games that struggled to deliver on a value proposition. And the narrative/cinematic trend that went alongside much of that tended to eclipse out any replayability in game mechanics for presentation, exacerbating the issue. So one-and-done can be a big demerit if that one isn't a dense experience in itself (or reliant on mystery or twists to deliver).


Open World, I'd argue that no one has managed to really do it well. Its always been either a desolate void, or absolutely flooded with checklists, or inorganic constant spam. Pretty screenshot fodder, and the impressive (to many) "Lookit how big our map is", but ultimately kind of an unrealized potential, mostly suited to occupy your hands while you're listening to a podcast or whatever. Outside of an obligatory set of story missions that could've been told linear-style.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

i disagree. While I understand open worlds have some benefits, I feel linear games are at least a one-time purchase. Open world games have become 'live services' and are just vectors for DLC and micotransactions. And that level of anti-consumerism is way worse than merely boring linear games

So do you think Warhammer 40K: Space Marine is worth 60 dollars for its campaign alone?

I do. But then again I live and breathe 40k.

 

[skywolfblue]

I would say that how 8th gen games are going about being open world is worse. Open world games that are just a hollow shell with no central story, only to repeat a boring game play loop.

Collection has become the new "way of extending gameplay", and is seeping into every open world game in a bad way. I would point to Assassin's Creed and Dragon Age as examples of great series that got poisoned by collection. While I still liked DA: Inquisition, it definitely had it's whole story ripped out and replaced with "collect 50 shards"...

Horizon Zero Dawn on the other hand bucked that trend. The side quests are involved and unique, and there are only a few collectables.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

I hardly consider a game linear when you can backtrack and find new things and new paths as a result.

Souls is a bunch of linear areas interconnected. Is RE2 not linear then? Unless the definition of linear is literally one long hallway that you only move forward and nothing else.

Horizon Zero Dawn on the other hand bucked that trend. The side quests are involved and unique, and there are only a few collectables.

Horizon is one of the few open world games that actually merits and needs its open world. The reserved nature of how many quests and collectibles also helps in keeping repetition to a minimum while keeping quality per piece of content rather high. Whereas something like FarCry could work in a new Tomb Raider or even Uncharted 4 sized worlds that have enough room in them for mini-sandboxes (for combat scenarios to be approached from different angles) along with enough room for hunting/crafting purposes. The only main FarCry I played was 3 and there was so much low quality content in that game if you did anymore than the occasional piece of side content and that map was so freaking big too.

 

[TrulyBritish]

Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

I disagree, but I don't really see the value in doing the same "content" that's boring but is how the upgrades are sectioned off. Mad Max was a chore because it kept wanting me to do the same boring tasks in order to get scrap so I could upgrade the Opus.
Where's the value in collecting a billion animus shards in Assassins creed games?
In a hypothetical situation where it's "6 hours of good content" vs "60 hours of good content" then yeah, there's more value in the latter but a lot of the time it's just 6 hours of good content and 54 hours of repetitive faff.
But then again, I never buy games full priced anyway, so it's not like I ever spend $60 on a 6 hour experience anyway.

Try playing Far Cry games guns blazing in one playthrough. Then try playing it all sneaky and stealthy the next.

And I have said that I find the Far Cry games better then Assassin's Creed.

Far Cry games are long games, I've easily used both play-styles in a single game, and neither makes a difference to the core game. In fact I mostly stealthed in 3&4 when I could simply because I found the gunplay so generic that I couldn't stand having to actually waste time fighting the dudes when I could just snipe them off at a distance.
And it's not like those games didn't have shitty collectathons, like the bloody Masks of Yalung in 4 which gave XP and literally nothing else, no cool pay off to the serial killer, nothing. And scoping out a base and taking it once, cool, two times, alright but it goes for like 20 times (not counting the fucking stupid idea that enemies should attack your bases while you're trying to actually get on with the game) with so little variation between bases and, in fact, little variation from 3 to 4.
Then they tease you with the stronghold, the supposed fortresses for the entire Min regime and it's just the same as the camps! Same tactic, same enemies but there's like 3 alarms instead of 2.
When Far Cry 3 and 4 actually tried telling a story I was interested, but in 4 was got a whole bunch of unsatisfying villains who really got barely any screen time and in it's place was the same content copy pasted across a big map. At least they gave you easy access to the wing suit and those little chopper things so you could cross distances quickly.

 

[Kyrian007]

Far Cry games are long games, I've easily used both play-styles in a single game, and neither makes a difference to the core game. In fact I mostly stealthed in 3&4 when I could simply because I found the gunplay so generic that I couldn't stand having to actually waste time fighting the dudes when I could just snipe them off at a distance.
And it's not like those games didn't have shitty collectathons, like the bloody Masks of Yalung in 4 which gave XP and literally nothing else, no cool pay off to the serial killer, nothing. And scoping out a base and taking it once, cool, two times, alright but it goes for like 20 times (not counting the fucking stupid idea that enemies should attack your bases while you're trying to actually get on with the game) with so little variation between bases and, in fact, little variation from 3 to 4.
Then they tease you with the stronghold, the supposed fortresses for the entire Min regime and it's just the same as the camps! Same tactic, same enemies but there's like 3 alarms instead of 2.
When Far Cry 3 and 4 actually tried telling a story I was interested, but in 4 was got a whole bunch of unsatisfying villains who really got barely any screen time and in it's place was the same content copy pasted across a big map. At least they gave you easy access to the wing suit and those little chopper things so you could cross distances quickly.

I had a lot of the same problems with FC 4. But I've heard that one complaint about enemies attacking bases while you are trying to get on with the game several times. While I agree it was a bad idea, at least it has no in-game effect if you ignore it and just do get on with playing the game.

As far as the question of liner vs open-world. There's ways to make both kinds of games great, and ways to completely screw up both as well. I think the real problem is the trend-chasing that leads to being able to equate a single type of game to an entire console generation. You'd think that publishers would realize that you can potentially make way bigger gains providing something the public can't get anywhere else than you do trying to make a knock-off of something people are already getting from someone else.

 

[sXeth]

Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

I hardly consider a game linear when you can backtrack and find new things and new paths as a result.

Souls is a bunch of linear areas interconnected. Is RE2 not linear then? Unless the definition of linear is literally one long hallway that you only move forward and nothing else.

Horizon Zero Dawn on the other hand bucked that trend. The side quests are involved and unique, and there are only a few collectables.

Horizon is one of the few open world games that actually merits and needs its open world. The reserved nature of how many quests and collectibles also helps in keeping repetition to a minimum while keeping quality per piece of content rather high. Whereas something like FarCry could work in a new Tomb Raider or even Uncharted 4 sized worlds that have enough room in them for mini-sandboxes (for combat scenarios to be approached from different angles) along with enough room for hunting/crafting purposes. The only main FarCry I played was 3 and there was so much low quality content in that game if you did anymore than the occasional piece of side content and that map was so freaking big too.

Horizon could've run fairly well on a basic hub structure really. Large chunks of the Open World had no content, or were obviously designed battle arenas. And the hyper-static MMO-spawns for enemies.

None of those are uncommon trappings for the open-world game style. But its really where the unused potential is. The robodinos should be moving around a migrating, and potentially running afoul of each other or the humans in the map (outside the few RNG roadside encounters). Instead they're all just relegated to hanging around their designated battlefield, literally marked on the map, and will happily abandon any combat with you when you hit their leash range.

That's where the open world sandbox will really earn its distinction as a genre of its own, rather then an awkward offline (or online as the case may be) MMO design. If they can fill it with content that will actually exist organically in the open world, and not just prefab encounters and static spawns. Until then we're left with giant maps of stuff that may certainly be fun to engage with (a la Dragons Dogma and Horizon ZD), but ultimately is always the same stuff in the same spots that we fight the same way under the same conditions. Or the even less organic method Ubisoft and Bethesda tend to do where stuff spawns on top of you from a D&D esque random encounter table even if you're in a place where its nonsensical.

 

[CaitSeith]

Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

I hardly consider a game linear when you can backtrack and find new things and new paths as a result.

Souls is a bunch of linear areas interconnected.

That doesn't counter my statement (nor applies to Darkroot Garden).

Is RE2 not linear then? Unless the definition of linear is literally one long hallway that you only move forward and nothing else.

I consider linear a game where the exploration is one-way. Once you exit an area in RE2, you can't go back to previous ones. That isn't the case in Dark Souls. Seriously, do you consider Super Metroid linear too!?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Horizon Zero Dawn on the other hand bucked that trend. The side quests are involved and unique, and there are only a few collectables.

I wouldn't exactly call them unique, since it's pretty much the same 'go there and get/kill that' missions that most open-world games have. The Witcher 3 has a lot more identity from side-quest to side-quest. HZD simply cuts down on the filler content by only having about 5 Towers, 5 Cauldrons, dito Hunting Grounds etc. And it can do this because the main drive/gameplay loop is running around the environment fighting giant robots - that's what you're here to do. And because this provides a neverending stream of content it doesn't need to fill in what in other open-world games would be considered empty space in between missions/quests.

Horizon could've run fairly well on a basic hub structure really. Large chunks of the Open World had no content, or were obviously designed battle arenas. And the hyper-static MMO-spawns for enemies.

None of those are uncommon trappings for the open-world game style. But its really where the unused potential is. The robodinos should be moving around a migrating, and potentially running afoul of each other or the humans in the map (outside the few RNG roadside encounters). Instead they're all just relegated to hanging around their designated battlefield, literally marked on the map, and will happily abandon any combat with you when you hit their leash range.

I don't know how stable the gameworld would be if the dinos could wander everywhere, but I would like to see something like migration paths for a lot of the creatures for the sequel. They already sorta had something like that with the crab robots accompanied by the Watchers, and it would be great if this was extended to Thunderjaws and other more dangerous robots.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Horizon could've run fairly well on a basic hub structure really. Large chunks of the Open World had no content, or were obviously designed battle arenas. And the hyper-static MMO-spawns for enemies.

None of those are uncommon trappings for the open-world game style. But its really where the unused potential is. The robodinos should be moving around a migrating, and potentially running afoul of each other or the humans in the map (outside the few RNG roadside encounters). Instead they're all just relegated to hanging around their designated battlefield, literally marked on the map, and will happily abandon any combat with you when you hit their leash range.

That's where the open world sandbox will really earn its distinction as a genre of its own, rather then an awkward offline (or online as the case may be) MMO design. If they can fill it with content that will actually exist organically in the open world, and not just prefab encounters and static spawns. Until then we're left with giant maps of stuff that may certainly be fun to engage with (a la Dragons Dogma and Horizon ZD), but ultimately is always the same stuff in the same spots that we fight the same way under the same conditions. Or the even less organic method Ubisoft and Bethesda tend to do where stuff spawns on top of you from a D&D esque random encounter table even if you're in a place where its nonsensical.

The setup and story of Horizon actually makes sense with so many "game-y" elements. It actually makes sense for the robodinos to be basically always be in their areas as each is tasked with doing something specific like filtering water and whatnot. They aren't normal animals that will migrate, fight for territory, attack villages, etc. The one thing that could be implement for moving them across the map would be when you kill them they have to move from their cauldron to their spot on the map.

That doesn't counter my statement (nor applies to Darkroot Garden).

I consider linear a game where the exploration is one-way. Once you exit an area in RE2, you can't go back to previous ones. That isn't the case in Dark Souls. Seriously, do you consider Super Metroid linear too!?

If we are just saying there's linear and open world, then unless it's a big world you can go anywhere in, then it's linear in my book.

 

[CaitSeith]

That doesn't counter my statement (nor applies to Darkroot Garden).

I consider linear a game where the exploration is one-way. Once you exit an area in RE2, you can't go back to previous ones. That isn't the case in Dark Souls. Seriously, do you consider Super Metroid linear too!?

If we are just saying there's linear and open world, then unless it's a big world you can go anywhere in, then it's linear in my book.

That isn't what we are saying. We are comparing the trend of linear games in 7th gen and the trend of open-world games in the 8th; and Darks Souls fits neither.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

There are more games in the sandbox genre i like than in the linear shooter genre. The advantage of open world games is also that you don't need to buy many. Just pick a handful you like and sink as much time as you feel like into them. The disadvantage of the 6 hour linear shooters with attached multiplayer of last gen is that they all had short campaigns coupled with the fact that beyond the big ones like COD and Battlefield, Multiplayer would die out quickly. Seems like you would end up with a lot of short, samey games with little replay value and dead multiplayer modes. Might as well just stick to the big two to make sure you actually get a multiplayer feature that would last more than a year. Not as much of an issue with open world games. Far Cry 3, AC 2 and 5, Skyrim, Witcher 3 and the Read Dead games will last so long you barely need other games

 

[sXeth]

The setup and story of Horizon actually makes sense with so many "game-y" elements. It actually makes sense for the robodinos to be basically always be in their areas as each is tasked with doing something specific like filtering water and whatnot. They aren't normal animals that will migrate, fight for territory, attack villages, etc. The one thing that could be implement for moving them across the map would be when you kill them they have to move from their cauldron to their spot on the map.

Which is fine and all, but there's really no need for the open world to exist. Rather then selecting missions to go visit that valley or ruin off a list or even off a map.


That is actually a fairly good litmus test for the validity of an open world. If fast travel can exist in the game and not be a terrible detriment, then the open world has failed to be relevant. When teleportation around the world doesn't strip away the games content (or worse, is the preferable means), it means that the journey in that open world is itself not living up to its design.


The best genre (at least so far) to make use of open world is Survival games. Because that resource management and en-route scavenging style is all part and parcel of the gameplay. The meat of the game is managing the journey from place to place. Most are far from a perfection of the concept (most are also indie level, so they probably don't have the tech for a more realized world). A runner of up of sorts might be the Dead Rising model, where events are occurring continuously, and the hows and whens of how you get around do factor into how the game plays out.

Is RE2 not linear then? Unless the definition of linear is literally one long hallway that you only move forward and nothing else.

I consider linear a game where the exploration is one-way. Once you exit an area in RE2, you can't go back to previous ones. That isn't the case in Dark Souls. Seriously, do you consider Super Metroid linear too!?

Dark Souls pulls a fairly direct amount of inspiration from Zelda, which itself, despite often being left out, is equally a pioneer of that Metroidvania concept. Which has a certain degree of openness to it, but by and large has specific triggers to unlock new progress and a generally structured sequence. Going back to open a new area because you got the Double Jump/Lord Soul/Hookshot/random Key #4487 doesn't really indicate an open structure, so much as as clever re-use of assets or a way to add side content and collectables inside a linear game without a bland "Replay" mechanic (Wolfenstein 2 : New Colossus *cough*)

 

[Hawki]

I...guess open world?

I mean, I don't recall playing games like Halo and Gears of War in the 2000s and thinking "gee, if only I could have an open world where I can run around doing whatever." This goes back even further to 2D games - I was fine running left to right as a blue hedgehog thank you very much, didn't need any fancy smancy open world levels to have fun.

In contrast, there's a point where an open world becomes too open for me. Off the top of my head, Wind Waker allows you to sail all over the sea, but that point comes a good few hours into the game, and with a clear goal. Xenoblade Chronicles gives you absolutely huge areas to explore, but there's still a strong narrative push and the areas are still linked sequentially. In contrast, the prospect of "here's a world, have fun," and leaving it at that (Fallout 3 comes to mind, even though you're given an initial objective) isn't really my thing.

I guess I can put it this way. It's possible for a world to be too open for me. It's far rarer for a game to be too linear for me.

 

[twistedmic]

In contrast, there's a point where an open world becomes too open for me. Off the top of my head, Wind Waker allows you to sail all over the sea, but that point comes a good few hours into the game, and with a clear goal. Xenoblade Chronicles gives you absolutely huge areas to explore, but there's still a strong narrative push and the areas are still linked sequentially. In contrast, the prospect of "here's a world, have fun," and leaving it at that (Fallout 3 comes to mind, even though you're given an initial objective) isn't really my thing.

I somewhat feel the same way, though not due to the lack of concrete goal/initiative. I tend to get put off if their isn't enough content and the game world feels empty and lifeless. Too often it seems that developers concentrate on larger game maps/worlds than greater content
I'd much rather play around in ten square blocks of New York City than ten square miles of Oklahoma or Kansas.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That isn't what we are saying. We are comparing the trend of linear games in 7th gen and the trend of open-world games in the 8th; and Darks Souls fits neither.

I realize the title, I'm just not sure what made-up the linear trend last-gen or what's consider linear and when a game is open enough to not be linear but not big enough to be open world. Is Uncharted Lost Legacy not linear because there's a big area where you can tackle objectives in any order? There was the MMS trend but I'm guessing there was more to the linear trend than just those games. I remember when linear became basically a "dirty word" to gamers where everyone would be like "Game XYZ would be so great if it was open world" then you get stuff like Mirror's Edge Catalyst (and I'm pretty much like "I told ya so"). I personally never understood why you'd wanna make like any franchise open world because only a couple devs even understand how to make open world games even now. Even if the 7th gen trend was just the MMS 5-hour campaigns, I'll take those over a collect-athon open world game because I only wasted 5 hours then. I'll play Medal of Honor: Warfighter campaign over any Assassin's Creed game any day of the week.

I'd say mini-sandboxes or large linear levels like Dishonored is the sweet spot as they have several ways to playthrough levels while the quality per square foot is high with exquisite level design. Open world games pretty much completely eschew level design for just pure openness.

Which is fine and all, but there's really no need for the open world to exist. Rather then selecting missions to go visit that valley or ruin off a list or even off a map.

That is actually a fairly good litmus test for the validity of an open world. If fast travel can exist in the game and not be a terrible detriment, then the open world has failed to be relevant. When teleportation around the world doesn't strip away the games content (or worse, is the preferable means), it means that the journey in that open world is itself not living up to its design.

The best genre (at least so far) to make use of open world is Survival games. Because that resource management and en-route scavenging style is all part and parcel of the gameplay. The meat of the game is managing the journey from place to place. Most are far from a perfection of the concept (most are also indie level, so they probably don't have the tech for a more realized world). A runner of up of sorts might be the Dead Rising model, where events are occurring continuously, and the hows and whens of how you get around do factor into how the game plays out.

Horizon needs its open world to house its enemies and the game is also about Aloy's journey and discovery of an unknown world. On your initial playthrough, the set spawns work perfectly and slowly upping the ante with regards to combat challenge. You'll fight one of the robodinos by itself for the first time and then in the next couple areas, you'll have to fight that robodino with some other robodino and you'll be like "how the hell am I going to fight both at the same time". Horizon accomplishes something most open world games really never do, which is having the unknown around any corner. On my initial foray in every new area in Horizon, I enjoyed walking everywhere (as there was always quality content within walking distance), which is a testament to the game because how many open worlds can you say that about? Sure, towards the end when I was basically doing "clean-up", I fast-traveled around but that was really it. In a Rockstar game, you feel like you're just traveling to the content, to start a mission or a long ride to the actual mission location after initiating it (with all the talky-talky on the way). Whereas in Horizon, the travel and discovery was the content. I was actually somewhat sad when I saw there was no more "clouds" on the map, meaning that I saw everything. I can count on one-hand when an open world has done that for me. I really loved Horizon and it was one of the few games, open world or not, that I didn't want to be over when I finished it.