Open World Vs Linear

I'm sick to death of run of the mill open world games with maps that are exploding with activities that aren't worth doing.

I'd rather have a return to more linear games.

I have a love-hate relationship with open world games and oftentimes I feel like I'm accomplishing nothing, cause I seem to care more about exploration than the main mission, so I end up getting lost in the world crafting and collecting shit rather than following through the story. Then I get bored and just rush to finish the game.

I choose linear games because they force me to follow a certain path, so I either like or dislike the dev's work, nothing in between.

God of War did a good job with the open world concept, it is hard to explain the main map is open world, but the levels are linear.

Open world if done like Zelda.

Otherwise, linear.

Definitely linear, most open world games are only fun for a couple of hours, then they get repetitive.

I feel the same way. That's the reason I've lost my enthusiasm about Metro Exodus actually. I fear it's going to suffer from most of the common open-world tropes. Linear games tend to offer a more focused experience and not drag in length with meaningless and boring activities.

Of course, if done right the open world can really enrich the experience and add to the immersion. Personally, games like Skyrim and Dying Light made me enjoy simply traversing the world and sucking in the atmosphere.

In metro 2033 the levels were very small and linear. In metro Last Light the levels widened up and they were bigger. They are doing the same thing now: levels in Metro Last Light are a lot bigger still, but it's still a linear game at its core. Think Crysis, that game wasn't open world either, it just had huge levels.

But yeah, there are still a lot of really good open world games. I had a ton of fun with traversing in Dying Light as well. Same thing with that other parkour game: Assassin's Creed. Origins for me was a fantastic recreation of Ancient Egypt, just a tad too large for its own good.

It's just that a lot of open world game lack creativity, or give you enough reason to explore the world or to do all the activities.

As someone who has never played Breath of The Wild: what makes it stand out from other open world games?

Linear for the most part, or a small-scale fun open world such as Bully which I remember having a blast

Not littered with bullshit checklist tasks and it's truly open, you can go where you can see. And the whole world is like a neatly designed level instead of barren wastelands everywhere. The tools you are given plus the physics and weather system makes exploring the world even better. I've played quite a few open world games, none of them are even close to as good as BotW.

Skyrim was perfect as an open world game AC Origins I enjoyed but got sidetracked by having too much freedom.

Seems like a great game, but I still haven't got it as the Wii U versions seems to suffer from some pretty insane framedrops.

Semi open world.

I like open-world games because they tend to let me do things at my own pace and not force anything. I like to divide my time between doing the main storyline and simply exploring the world just for the heck of it. I don't play open world games which don't have the game world I like. Since I like my games to have a basis in reality because I like to pretend it's me in the game, the game world must also reflect that. Something like Skyrim or BotW would bore me.

Side missions are usually optional. But, they exist to support either the main storyline or the economy model. I don't know how some people do it. But, I'm always strapped for cash in say, the Far Cry and the STALKER games if I didn't do side missions. So, side missions always have some use to me. But, I don't do all of them unless there's a need.

I like the freedom that comes with open-world games because I can choose how to approach the game. For example, on one playthrough of Far Cry 4, I can follow the storyline and do everything in one tiny part of the map before moving on to the next section. Or, I can activate all the towers first followed by liberating all the outposts. Then, I move on to the storyline. I like that kind of flexibility.

Linear games are fine. But, they're usually good for one playthrough and that is it. I don't mind if NPCs behaved differently each time. But, most of the time, they're scripted. It's like watching a rerun.

I found the STALKER games to be the most dynamic when it comes to playing and replaying games. A good example which I posted in another thread is the side mission to steal a laptop from a waste treatment plant occupied by Mercenaries. On one playthrough, the Mercs tried to flank me piecemeal. On another playthrough, they bombarded me with grenades like there's no tomorrow. On a third playthrough, all of them flanked me at the same time, forcing me to break off the fight and find better cover. A fourth playthrough saw them not leaving the building at all, forcing me to root them out one floor at a time. I might like linear games better if the AI were similar to the ones I just related.

Mostly linear, but I like those open world games that are somewhat based on real life like scenarios, such as Watch Dogs, Grand Theft Auto, Bully, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed games. I'm not a big fan of fantasy.

BotW is nothing to brag about on its open world IMO.

Open world, primarily because of Uibsoft and Bethesda have become the "I can't hand craft good content" option you the developer hits Ctrl+C/Ctrl+Ctrl+V repeatedly to artificially make the game seem of great value when it's just an elongated piece of poo.

@uninspiredcup: you mean linear, then?

Ubisoft games have linear missions with open-world elements, as does (to a very limited extend) Skyrim/Oblvion.

@uninspiredcup: ah ok, so you're saying that Ubisoft and Bethesda can no more craft actual open world games and mostly rely on copying and pasting assets and pass those games as open world, which I can agree. But what option did you vote in the end?

From a personal perspective i'd rather play something like Re2 that's akin to metroidvania/darksouls where it's linear in nature with the map opening up once obstacles are over-come. Progressing in Re2 is done through exploration and logical problem solving, which includes upgrading. As opposed to doing the same shit over and over while a grind wall goes up. Even when replaying section, which the game is designed for it mixing them up in some significant manner to keep me engaged.

To be clear, i'm not against open-world games as a concept, GTA3/Vice-City are some of my fav games and these are simplstic and largely linear. I'm mainly talking about Bethesda and Ubisoft, more specifically Ubisoft, who can't make a good open-world game if their life depended on it.

There are some really good open world games out there but they tend to fall short of the truly great games imo.

I'd consider BotW the best open world ever made. Totally something to brag about and something I hope lots of future games will have as an inspiration. It's especially something to brag about since not many recognize that BotW does it the best, while others make super crappy open world games and gets praise for it.

I enjoy both

I like open world games when they are immersive and interesting to explore (Breath of the Wild, Black Flag)

I like linear games when they are gameplay focused and challenging (Celeste, DKCR)

I'm an open world type of bloke but they both have their place. I don't need it crowbarring in.

Wide linear like God of War or Uncharted 4

I'm not a fan of open world. They tend to make the levels huge, but there's very little to do in it. I'm a fan of more linear experiences as I always feel like I'm never bored with much more attention to detail.

ubisoft have ruined open world gaming. no question about that.

the decision between open world or linear should be the decision of one person - the one with the vision, the one who came up with the premise - it shouldn't be decided by committee. that's how we end up with games like watch dogs.

for me i'm burnt out with open world. still have breath of the wild sat here yet to play. i thought rdr2 was going to be the one that defined the genre but ultimately i began to struggle with it and quit. i'm in no rush for days gone

this

there are still some open world games I love, but the Ubisoft-formula is so stale at this point my eyes just glaze over and I become apathetic when I learn a game has this kind of icon-chasing design, unless it has some pretty exceptional writing and/or gameplay to back it up.

I've been gravitating towards SP games recently that have a mix of open and more linear guided sections, like the Tomb Raider trilogy and God of War, and seemingly Metro Exodus.

Can there be an inbetween?

I think I’m done with open world games for awhile, they are just bloated with so much filler and collectibles. RDR2 has been sitting on my shelf for a while and I just can’t bring myself to play it.

You have pretty much listed the reasons why I prefer open-world games. That and I like to have as much freedom as possible when playing my games. If there's one thing I've constantly hated in video games it's looking at a distant landscape or some area on the game map where I can't reach or can't explore. That is a major reason why I loved BoTW so much, except for the fact that there are a few mountains that I can't reach at the edge of the map but I was fine with it because of the sheer size of the land and all of the areas I was actually given to explore.

Mostly linear. There are some open world that have good aspects but I can't think of a single one that doesn't also come with some terrible aspects related to them being open world.

Islands are the best open-world maps because the edge of the maps (aka invisible walls) are generally far away over water. Plus, going around the island gives that illusion of uninterrupted exploration of the game world. Far Cry 3 and GTA V are good examples. But, other types of open-world maps, such as BotW, make up for invisible walls by being so vast most players aren't likely to get that far.

But, it's the freedom and flexibility of an open-world game that matters the most to me rather than the size of the game world. The STALKER games have open-world maps so tiny some would think they are linear games. But, the gameplay says otherwise. The game feel is definitely that of open-world games.

Crysis isn't an open-world game and I came upon that limitation you mentioned about noticing areas of the map that I cannot explore. Once I noticed with binoculars that the far terrain is really stripped down and ugly, the urge to explore them pretty much died off.

I have my share of linear games: Doom 2016, Uncharted 1-3, KZ2 and KZ3, Metro 2033 and Last, Light, etc. Apart from Doom 2016, I'm not really in the mood to replay them because like I said before, playing them is like watching a rerun.

At least with open-world games, the scripted parts can be further complicated by the interactions with the open nature of the game world. Even in open-world games (eg Far Cry 3 and 4) where the developer shields the scripted missions from the game world, encounters (animal or human) along the way to the scripted parts can vary, making the overall feel different from the previous playthrough.

I like both, variety is the spice of life. Now there are certain types of open world and linear games which I dislike of course.