Was watching this video and thought it was cool to debate here. What are you thoughts on the matter? Are you happy "linearity" has been sacrificed for boring open-world design in AAA games filled to the bone with trivial tasks but repetitive gameplay, uninspired mission design and less story focus?
How do you feel about the fact that the most vocal gaming community also contributed to the "death" of linearity by constantly branding "linearity" as the source of all evils?
Thoughts?
No such thing. Uncharted came out, sold the most any Naughty Dog game has, and won awards up the wazoo last year. Dark Souls continue to sells. Wolfenstein 2 is out this week. Pokemon remains the highest selling franchise in the industry on a regular basis.
Single player AAA games are not going anywhere, not even the linear ones, as much as some people want them to.
No such thing. Uncharted came out, sold the most any Naughty Dog game has, and won awards up the wazoo last year. Dark Souls continue to sells. Wolfenstein 2 is out this week. Pokemon remains the highest selling franchise in the industry on a regular basis.
Single player AAA games are not going anywhere, not even the linear ones, as much as some people want them to.
Uncharted and TLoU are some of the few exceptions though. Dark Souls isnt linear. Pokemon is, well... pokemon (and also, is it linear? I could swear it's the typical JRPG where you go from town to town freely but I dont know well the series so idk)
The 1st Wolfesntein wasnt really a major seller. We still have yet to know how well W2 will fare.
But I really hope you're right. This false notion that an open world game is automatically better than a linear one must end within the gaming community
Good topic. I do hate that every game has to be open world.
other than theres still linear games we saw and will release. but im sick of open world games. they are lazy and have some of the worst design ever.
also the video point out new metro going open world. its not. Its still linear shooter with some open ended gameplay. like stalker and crysis.
what games classified as AAA and what games doesn't? if this is in the wake of visceral studious enclosure, then I don't see how they could be considered to be AAA.
No such thing. Uncharted came out, sold the most any Naughty Dog game has, and won awards up the wazoo last year. Dark Souls continue to sells. Wolfenstein 2 is out this week. Pokemon remains the highest selling franchise in the industry on a regular basis.
Single player AAA games are not going anywhere, not even the linear ones, as much as some people want them to.
I've seen this video and we should make the distinction between the two polar opposites of single player/multiplayer (competitive and/or co-op) and isolated/shared player experience, as they're two completely different elements of design.
With all this opposition to open world I gotta ask, something to consider, do we really want linear games? Single player dedicated games in a market saturated with multiplayer (competitive and co-op), yes I say we should have more of that.
Look at it this way; books and movies are linear experiences, a story that's told to us . But games are an interactive medium, and where the player is part of the story. Shouldn't we want the freedom and agency to travel that story, and explore the world and its lore in a more self guided fashion? To discover (and even help shape) the story through our active participation, rather than have it told to us as a passive audience? I mean with all the criticism that Sony games get get around here as "just cinematic movies" that disqualifies them from being games (not that I agree with this, but it is brought up often enough) why then do we have opposition to unscripted games?
So scripted/linear games bad because it takes away from them being games, but non-linear games also bad because.... freedom is an undesirable trait for games now? Do gamers want their hand held along a corridor ride? Am I the only one seeing a no-win proposition from the gamers on this subject?
No such thing. Uncharted came out, sold the most any Naughty Dog game has, and won awards up the wazoo last year. Dark Souls continue to sells. Wolfenstein 2 is out this week. Pokemon remains the highest selling franchise in the industry on a regular basis.
Single player AAA games are not going anywhere, not even the linear ones, as much as some people want them to.
I've seen this video and we should make the distinction between the two polar opposites of single player/multiplayer (competitive and/or co-op) and isolated/shared player experience, as they're two completely different elements of design.
With all this opposition to open world I gotta ask, something to consider, do we really want linear games? Single player dedicated games in a market saturated with multiplayer (competitive and co-op), yes I say we should have more of that.
Look at it this way; books and movies are linear experiences, a story that's told to us . But games are an interactive medium, and where the player is part of the story. Shouldn't we want the freedom and agency to travel that story, and explore the world and its lore in a more self guided fashion? To discover (and even help shape) the story through our active participation, rather than have it told to us as a passive audience? I mean with all the criticism that Sony games get get around here as "just cinematic movies" that disqualifies them from being games (not that I agree with this, but it is brought up often enough) why then do we have opposition to unscripted games?
So scripted/linear games bad because it takes away from them being games, but non-linear games also bad because.... freedom is an undesirable trait for games now? Do gamers want their hand held along a corridor ride? Am I the only one seeing a no-win proposition from the gamers on this subject?
I don't understand why linear games need to stop existing entirely. I am all for player agency and interactivity in video games, and I very seldom like the cinematic AAA experiences that this video says are dying out; but it's not just about you or I, it's about the larger industry and its audience and creative personnel. Why shouldn't there be different kinds of games, all aimed at filling different niches? Why shouldn't a player who finds more enjoyment from uncharted than Assassin's Creed have a game catered to their liking? Why shouldn't a developer who wants to make a single player linear game focused on storytelling and minimal interactivity be able to make one?
If interactive games are more your jam, ignore the linear ones and play the more interactive ones, that's what I do. I don't see why that necessitates an entire segment or section of the market stopping to exist, however.
The way the word "linear" is used is fucking idiotic, but gaming media types have trained their audience to be extra stupid, so what are you gonna do. A game being linear is not the issue. A game being shallow was the problem, not that it was a point A to point B game. There is more gameplay depth n expression to something like Bayonetta, Resident Evil 4, Vanquish, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Metal Gear Solid 3 (all linear games btw) and the like vs open world tripe like what Rockstar or Ubisoft make. Hell last year Titanfall 2 had a better single player than most of these bore fest open world games. Bungie's own game Destiny has less depth than Halo.
The issue is that of depth. Wall cover shooters were shallow n bare bones, same with spectacle scripted messes like Uncharted n Call of Duty. Adobe's post makes me want to hurl, bitch it's not freedom, it's a style of game that turns everything into a chore. Mario 64 was freedom. Breath of the Wild, MGSV, Deus Ex, n Hitman are freedom. Andromeda, Grand Theft Auto, Far Cry? Several layers of tedium.
Triple A games just decided to replace their short n shallow game with a long and "open world" shallow game, but it's still shallow none the less. Triple A games have to be for "everyone" and as a result need to reach a mass audience. Just like cinema, those big block buster releases, aren't the best fucking experiences for an enthusiast because of how dumbed down they need to be to turn a profit. Or at least that's the perception.
Luckily on PC I have the ever expansive indie scene and the rising middle market.
@AdobeArtist: I don't necessarily believe the size of the level design is the only factor on whether a game gives the player the space to express themselves. Of course, with more linear levels, the mechanics need to be robust enough to give the player enough to express themselves, thus offering larger volumes of outcomes to a problem.
If it was purely a matter of volume then games with the largest maps would be the most desirable but then I'd argue games such as Thief, though still open-ended levels, have way more player agency and room for expression in their mission design than something like Grand Theft Auto. This is down to not only clever level, precise level design but a good volume of systems and mechanics that the player can use to tackle any one challenge.
Theoretically, that level of expression shouldn't be lost just because a game is linear. It's the difference between designing a fun game around player-expression in a linear space vs. designing a linear experience in a linear space which is an important difference. 2D platformers are a genre that generally understand and respect this difference. Think about Super Mario Bros. The levels might be linear with little routes to take but Mario's movement is not linear. Short hops, large leaps, running, walking, ducking and potentially flame too all give the player more options in a linear space which differentiate the experience regardless of the size of the level.
Pretty soon the attack on “movie” (which seems to encompass anything not MP or open world focused) games will win and I shall take up quilting.
People do love drama these days lol
There are more open world games now (tech and hardware finally allows them without downgrades), but there are more of everything. To be honest, we have never had as much diversity, quantity and quality as we have now, mostly thanks to indies.
People do love drama these days lol
There are more open world games now (tech and hardware finally allows them without downgrades), but there are more of everything. To be honest, we have never had as much diversity, quantity and quality as we have now, mostly thanks to indies.
in last gen. people complain about linear games and want more games to be open world
in this gen. people complain about open world and want thier games to be linear.
personally i hate linear scripted games and also open world games more and due to this gen. open world games get exposed for what they are.
linear games with open level design are best. like deus ex, stalker, system shock.
People do love drama these days lol
There are more open world games now (tech and hardware finally allows them without downgrades), but there are more of everything. To be honest, we have never had as much diversity, quantity and quality as we have now, mostly thanks to indies.
in last gen. people complain about linear games and want more games to be open world
in this gen. people complain about open world and want thier games to be linear.
personally i hate linear scripted games and also open world games more and due to this gen. open world games get exposed for what they are.
linear games with open level design are best. like deus ex, stalker, system shock.
Nothing is 'the best'. I love linear games, open world games, 2d pixelart games, reallistic 3d worlds, etc, etc.
The problem with the community this gen is that people became arrogant to the point of not accepting games or genres they don't personally like. Again, there are not too much or lack of anything. There are simply more games and much more diversity available now.
I was never a fan of the AAA cinematic games. They never really offered anything remotely engaging personally.
I would be sad to see great linear platformers or quality hack N slash titles dwindle. Linearity works for me when the game engages through gameplay.
@AdobeArtist: I don't necessarily believe the size of the level design is the only factor on whether a game gives the player the space to express themselves. Of course, with more linear levels, the mechanics need to be robust enough to give the player enough to express themselves, thus offering larger volumes of outcomes to a problem.
If it was purely a matter of volume then games with the largest maps would be the most desirable but then I'd argue games such as Thief, though still open-ended levels, have way more player agency and room for expression in their mission design than something like Grand Theft Auto. This is down to not only clever level, precise level design but a good volume of systems and mechanics that the player can use to tackle any one challenge.
Theoretically, that level of expression shouldn't be lost just because a game is linear. It's the difference between designing a fun game around player-expression in a linear space vs. designing a linear experience in a linear space which is an important difference. 2D platformers are a genre that generally understand and respect this difference. Think about Super Mario Bros. The levels might be linear with little routes to take but Mario's movement is not linear. Short hops, large leaps, running, walking, ducking and potentially flame too all give the player more options in a linear space which differentiate the experience regardless of the size of the level.
Yeah, this is in the ballpark of where I am on the topic. Linear can mean different things, and different types of games are designed to satisfy certain types of experiences. The drawback to more open world type games is that the more player freedom you allow, the harder it is to deliver a compelling and personal narrative. I loved Skyrim, and I played it for -years- before I actually got around to beating the main story, but I certainly don't look back on it and think "man, what a great story Skyrim had". I barely remember the story, frankly. I remember The Companions in the first town, the Mage's Guild, the Thieve's Guild, I was the Dragonborn which meant I speak dragon and there was a big mean dragon named something like Andouille (sausage?) who was resurrecting dragons all over the place. Oh, and the DLC, which actually I remember the stories of much more clearly than the main game.
On the other hand you have games like the Uncharted series or The Last of Us, where you are given varying degrees of sandbox levels to explore but the game puts you down one path. I remember the storyline from TLoU -very- well and that game has stuck me with more than any other game in recent memory.
I love a good sandbox, but sandbox for sandbox's sake isn't an improvement. Look at Mirror's Edge 2. That's a game type that was begging to be sandbox, but when they actually did it they did it badly. Or No More Heroes, where the city was a sandbox with literally almost nothing to do but move to the next mission, so in the sequel they took out the driving part because it was pointless.
There will always be room for linear games, but I think people have less and less patience for linear when it means "walk down this hallway until the next thing happens" ala Final Fantasy 12, unless we are talking about non-narrative focused game types like schumps or other arcade-style games.
-Byshop
ALL GAMES ARE LINEAR. The only difference is if you can take side quest or not
Nothing is 'the best'. I love linear games, open world games, 2d pixelart games, reallistic 3d worlds, etc, etc.
The problem with the community this gen is that people became arrogant to the point of not accepting games or genres they don't personally like. Again, there are not too much or lack of anything. There are simply more games and much more diversity available now.
Depends on the games. Many open world games are padded with cookie cutter content and playing them feels tedious. In some ways linear can have its advantages of controlled pacing and scripting better. In some ways I'm beginning to hate games that want me to commit dozens of hours into them just for a single playthrough, starting to feel more like a chore more than anything. But, I play mix of games, some short, some long, some open, some linear, good to mix it up.
This hurts me as I highly value single player experiences. I don't play online.
Me neither but most of what I play is linear SP games. I don't see any shortage of them, AAA included. Pretty certain Battlefront 2's single player campaign will be linear too.
I'm fine with it. Games like Dark souls and BOTW have proven that people can and will buy something that's more involved than simply walking down a corridor.
Mind you, I'm not someone who thinks linearity is inherently bad. In fact, some of my favorite games are pretty linear, because when done right, it can be just as engaging as something a bit more open ended. HOWEVER.
HOWEVER.
From what I've seen, the vast majority of AAA linear games are mediocre at best. Their stories aren't that great, so when the focus is all on them, it just leads to a truly bland experience. The gameplay is half assed at best (Redlettermedia's Rich Evans was spot on when he said that these days a game being a third person shooter is a sign that the devs did not give a single shit about their gameplay). There's very little in the way of player choice (and I'm not talking about players making decisions that alter the story. I'm talking about something as simple as the player deciding where to go). It's just an excuse to show off pretty graphics and wasted artistic assets because no matter how pretty a sky box is, I will always take inferior graphics if it means the game is fun or engaging on some level.
In brief, I am totally fine with devs branching out and moving away from linearity.
It probably has a lot to do with how cancerous and garbage the AAA market is becoming. It's far less about making a high quality experience anymore, and far more about nickle and diming and padding the shit out of the bullets on the back. You probably don't sell as many loot boxes by making a condensed and interesting single-player experience that people might only play for 12-15 hours and doesn't have much replayability, after all.
Witcher 3 was one of my best experiences this generation by far and Zelda is nuts ( i was expecting far more based on critics and praise but still its great ) as of now ( 4-5 hours in game as we speak ) MGS 5 had its great moments for sure. GTA5 was an epic game that still selling for a reason and the list goes on.
I dont get who said to you open world or "open world" games are boring but to me they feeling fresh and something worth playing. There are too many of linear games out there to play that are fantastic experiences as well.
I dont get why we have to whine about everything nowdays. Few years back everyone was crying out for linearity, nowdays crying about non linearity in some AAA games and that open world is boring ... Why not having different and more options under all kind of genres and worlds for all tastes and we need to dramatize everything, i dont get it.
Would Witcher 3 have been better if it was linear ? Zelda BOTW ? GTA5 ? MGS5 ? Was FF13 better than FF15 ?
There's plenty of linear games. If you don't like open-world games, don't play them. Obviously, open-world games have their fans, including yours truly . Otherwise, developers would not be making them. No point grumbling about other people's tastes. Live and let live. Of course, I mean that outside of System Wars. ;)
No such thing. Uncharted came out, sold the most any Naughty Dog game has, and won awards up the wazoo last year. Dark Souls continue to sells. Wolfenstein 2 is out this week. Pokemon remains the highest selling franchise in the industry on a regular basis.
Single player AAA games are not going anywhere, not even the linear ones, as much as some people want them to.
Uncharted and TLoU are some of the few exceptions though. Dark Souls isnt linear. Pokemon is, well... pokemon (and also, is it linear? I could swear it's the typical JRPG where you go from town to town freely but I dont know well the series so idk)
The 1st Wolfesntein wasnt really a major seller. We still have yet to know how well W2 will fare.
But I really hope you're right. This false notion that an open world game is automatically better than a linear one must end within the gaming community
Can we even list Uncharted anymore UC4 and Lost Legacy are way more open ended than their predecessors. I won't be surprised if TLOU 2 has open ended levels. I'm pretty sure Pokemon is open world. Dark Souls is open ended but still very linear in design.
Why doesnt prey count?
His reasoning sounded extremely fallacious. Honestly, it sounded a lot like he just wanted thing the kind of Shallow Linear game like Uncharted. Linear games are going nowhere. Maybe the ultra shallow, linear game is dying out but as long as the likes of Platinum exists. I can see linearity existing for a long time.
No such thing. Uncharted came out, sold the most any Naughty Dog game has, and won awards up the wazoo last year. Dark Souls continue to sells. Wolfenstein 2 is out this week. Pokemon remains the highest selling franchise in the industry on a regular basis.
Single player AAA games are not going anywhere, not even the linear ones, as much as some people want them to.
Uncharted and TLoU are some of the few exceptions though. Dark Souls isnt linear. Pokemon is, well... pokemon (and also, is it linear? I could swear it's the typical JRPG where you go from town to town freely but I dont know well the series so idk)
The 1st Wolfesntein wasnt really a major seller. We still have yet to know how well W2 will fare.
But I really hope you're right. This false notion that an open world game is automatically better than a linear one must end within the gaming community
Can we even list Uncharted anymore UC4 and Lost Legacy are way more open ended than their predecessors. I won't be surprised if TLOU 2 has open ended levels. I'm pretty sure Pokemon is open world. Dark Souls is open ended but still very linear in design.
I wonder where exactly we draw the line between open world and linear. There are obvious extremes like 99% of Final Fantasy 13 or Breath of the Wild. Uc4 seems to be somewhere between it. An area that allows for many approaches but it is still a very limited area where you have to go from A to B or kill x amount of enemies.
The way the word "linear" is used is fucking idiotic, but gaming media types have trained their audience to be extra stupid, so what are you gonna do. A game being linear is not the issue. A game being shallow was the problem, not that it was a point A to point B game. There is more gameplay depth n expression to something like Bayonetta, Resident Evil 4, Vanquish, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Metal Gear Solid 3 (all linear games btw) and the like vs open world tripe like what Rockstar or Ubisoft make. Hell last year Titanfall 2 had a better single player than most of these bore fest open world games. Bungie's own game Destiny has less depth than Halo.
The issue is that of depth. Wall cover shooters were shallow n bare bones, same with spectacle scripted messes like Uncharted n Call of Duty. Adobe's post makes me want to hurl, bitch it's not freedom, it's a style of game that turns everything into a chore. Mario 64 was freedom. Breath of the Wild, MGSV, Deus Ex, n Hitman are freedom. Andromeda, Grand Theft Auto, Far Cry? Several layers of tedium.
Triple A games just decided to replace their short n shallow game with a long and "open world" shallow game, but it's still shallow none the less. Triple A games have to be for "everyone" and as a result need to reach a mass audience. Just like cinema, those big block buster releases, aren't the best fucking experiences for an enthusiast because of how dumbed down they need to be to turn a profit. Or at least that's the perception.
Luckily on PC I have the ever expansive indie scene and the rising middle market.
This is a great post.
Would Witcher 3 have been better if it was linear ? Zelda BOTW ? GTA5 ? MGS5 ? Was FF13 better than FF15 ?
witcher 2 was better than 3 and that was linear, GTA is most overrated series of all time. and MGS fans think MGS5 is worst in series and thier fan fav is 3 that is linear.
so yes they would be better if they were linear.
Would Witcher 3 have been better if it was linear ? Zelda BOTW ? GTA5 ? MGS5 ? Was FF13 better than FF15 ?
witcher 2 was better than 3 and that was linear, GTA is most overrated series of all time. and MGS fans think MGS5 is worst in series and thier fan fav is 3 that is linear.
so yes they would be better if they were linear.
I beg to differ. Witcher 3 does alot of things better and its open world. Personally i had greater time. You can be more specific if you want so we can talk about it why W2 was better than W3 etc. Different taste wont prove anything.
GTA games back in the days were dope, thats undeniable. They pushed a whole genre forward and that cant be called overated. Period. You can call specific entries overated or not for you blabla, but something that evolutionized a whole genre= overated ? Come on now.
GTA5 has no other to challenge it for a reason. Name me a single game does what GTA5 does better ? Theres none for a reason. Love it or hate it it is what it is. So overated ? Maybe some entries here and there but as whole series, baah.
MGS5 was ok, i dont care what others saying. Wasnt as bad as you trying to sound.
I like the fact that few years back all of you were crying out loud for lack of exploration and linearity in games and now crying for the opposite. I think its in human nature for drama 24/7.
So lets go back to linear games and after a year or two start crying about it.
@AzatiS: I feel Grand Theft Auto games are generally fun for the sum of their parts rather than viewed separately. Even for the time, Grand Theft Auto games were not the crown for emergent, sandbox experience compared to something like Thief or Deus Ex. That being said, Grand Theft Auto games were always very conscious of pop-culture and they remain a huge and important franchise because of their grasp of not only the gaming enthusiast market but also the casual market.
As an open world sandbox game, they are best enjoyed for messing around and causing chaos; events that take place outside of the actual mission design and core game-loop. This is definitely something I'd consider as being a success of Grand Theft Auto's open world, but I think it is also a negative too. As far as open world design, I don't think Grand Theft Auto is a successful use of an open space, nor does it facilitate the level of depth, player expression and sandbox elements that a game like this can really achieve.
A greater level of player expression, open-ended level design and agency was explored better in 1998's Thief than 2001's GTA3. The former uses smaller level-based design to achieve this while I feel the latter had greater cultural impact for its promise of freedom and the do-anything design, rather than the actual delivery of that...
What is it you feel GTA5 does that it goes unchallenged in exactly?
@AzatiS: I feel Grand Theft Auto games are generally fun for the sum of their parts rather than viewed separately. Even for the time, Grand Theft Auto games were not the crown for emergent, sandbox experience compared to something like Thief or Deus Ex. That being said, Grand Theft Auto games were always very conscious of pop-culture and they remain a huge and important franchise because of their grasp of not only the gaming enthusiast market but also the casual market.
As an open world sandbox game, they are best enjoyed for messing around and causing chaos; events that take place outside of the actual mission design and core game-loop. This is definitely something I'd consider as being a success of Grand Theft Auto's open world, but I think it is also a negative too. As far as open world design, I don't think Grand Theft Auto is a successful use of an open space, nor does it facilitate the level of depth, player expression and sandbox elements that a game like this can really achieve.
A greater level of player expression, open-ended level design and agency was explored better in 1998's Thief than 2001's GTA3. The former uses smaller level-based design to achieve this while I feel the latter had greater cultural impact for its promise of freedom and the do-anything design, rather than the actual delivery of that...
What is it you feel GTA5 does that it goes unchallenged in exactly?
So what you saying here , GTA series are the most overated series of all time ? What are you trying to say ? Because if thats your logic behind this post ill answer to you with facts and will take too long.
Name me a single game that represents GTA5 and does what GTA5 better. A single game under same genre with same theme. Is there any ?
@AzatiS: No, not at all. I think it's a great every-man's game. It's the perfect bridge between gaming enthusiasts and the casual gamers as a series that gives players an amalgamation of activities in both an action and adventuring play-style while never really going too hard on the genres it borrows from. It has always been fun and light gaming for everyone (provided they are old enough to handle the mature themes. ;) )
What I don't think it is, is an example of why open world level design is better than linear level design, because effectively, Grand Theft Auto titles are linear games that takes place in an open level. They give you a huge amount of mechanics but limit your use of them when it comes to the actual mission design. Outside of cop chases, I don't feel it really uses the open level design to any great effect, personally.
@AzatiS: No, not at all. I think it's a great every-man's game. It's the perfect bridge between gaming enthusiasts and the casual gamers as a series that gives players an amalgamation of activities in both an action and adventuring play-style while never really going too hard on the genres it borrows from. It has always been fun and light gaming for everyone (provided they are old enough to handle the mature themes. ;) )
What I don't think it is, is an example of why open world level design is better than linear level design, because effectively, Grand Theft Auto titles are linear games that takes place in an open level. They give you a huge amount of mechanics but limit your use of them when it comes to the actual mission design. Outside of cop chases, I don't feel it really uses the open level design to any great effect, personally.
Oh ok , yeah when i talked about GTA5 open-world was about the world it represents and the options you having as a player to have fun in there, not just the missions but the whole package. Not talking about missions alone but world as a whole. I like that freedom of " ill do whatever the hell i want " aside missions and "still ill have fun". Thats a well done open-world to me. Maybe not the best or there are holes in missions here and there when it comes to usage of open-world but still. And the online aspect of the game makes it even more interesting.
If it was linear i wouldnt be able to do nothing than else in the world.... aside the missions. So why so much drama about open world games, i dont get it. What if GTA5 was only linear, how would be any better ?
Games just don't groove anymore. It isn't about linear or nonlinear. Modern games--the majority--have lost an objective. There are too many breaks in between A to B.
@AzatiS: I feel like the online understands GTA 5's open world strengths best. At the same time, in a single-player context, there's no reception for causing these rampages. It's really just fun the player can have. Somewhere in the menus I believe there is a top body count somewhere but it really is as mindless as saying "I am going to kill as much as I can until I die." There's very little meat or feedback in terms of using the open-world to the best of its ability.
Even something like Saints Row understood that chaos could be used as a currency for you to progress in the game.
I do feel that neither Saints Row or GTA 5 are successfully engaging open worlds, personally though.
@AzatiS: I feel like the online understands GTA 5's open world strengths best. At the same time, in a single-player context, there's no reception for causing these rampages. It's really just fun the player can have. Somewhere in the menus I believe there is a top body count somewhere but it really is as mindless as saying "I am going to kill as much as I can until I die." There's very little meat or feedback in terms of using the open-world to the best of its ability.
Even something like Saints Row understood that chaos could be used as a currency for you to progress in the game.
I do feel that neither Saints Row or GTA 5 are successfully engaging open worlds, personally though.
You talking with missions and progress in mind, im talking about world itself, how good is crafted and what options i have in a world to do whatever i want to do. Thats different.
For you might not be fun to go jump of a cliff , to me might be fun. To you might not be fun to go for bike ride , to me might be great. Outside missions and everything. That cant happen and feel great in a linear game.
@AzatiS: No I was referring to the open world itself. It gives you plenty of vehicles to pilot, weapons to use and a big place to do it all in but it's a derivative gameplay loop with no feedback or reward for doing it. It's a fun way of interacting with the game and just getting a laugh out of causing some chaos but it's there's no reception for it. It's not exactly what I would say is a well designed open world game. It's just shallow messy fun. :) Many open world games inherent the same qualities simply by having mechanics and an open space. Better open world games integrate these mechanics into some purposeful goal. GTA 5 doesn't.
There's nothing wrong with that but a good open world game for me would be something where the world is designed with the intentions of being engaging outside of charming chaos. Not that there is anything wrong with charming chaos, of course, but as far as something that is designed to be engaging long-term, I don't find the rampages to be engaging more than a couple of dumb tries when I'm winding down with the meat of the game. It just hasn't the same draw as something like Fallout 1 had, a game where the world is very much a paramount part of the gameplay loop.
The multiplayer understands this better as the open world is fun to mess around in with friends. However playing by yourself doesn't really reap the same rewards.
@AzatiS: No I was referring to the open world itself. It gives you plenty of vehicles to pilot, weapons to use and a big place to do it all in but it's a derivative gameplay loop with no feedback, reward for doing it. It's a fun way of interacting with the game and just getting a laugh out of causing some chaos but it's there's no reception for it. It's not exactly what I would say is a well designed open world game. It's just shallow messy fun. :)
There's nothing wrong with that but a good open world game for me would be something where the world is designed with the intentions of being engaging outside of charming chaos. Not that there is anything wrong with charming chaos, of course, but as far as something that is designed to be engaging long-term, I don't find the rampages to be engaging more than a couple of dumb tries when I'm winding down with the meat of the game. It just hasn't the same draw as something like Fallout 1 had, a game where the world is very much a paramount part of the gameplay loop.
The multiplayer understands this better as the open world is fun to mess around in with friends. However playing by yourself doesn't really reap the same rewards.
I understand what you saying and i agree but having options to play outside missions, even without rewards its welcomed. For you or some might be a chore experience just to goof around in a big city without a purpose or reward. Some others dont need a reason to explore or mess around in the world for fun.
The thing here is not if GTA5 is better than X game or Z game, is that i dont understand why linear GTA5 would be better than an open-world GTA5 and why everyone crying about games go open-world than stay linear.
And im saying that having options to play a game, whatever those might be, outside the " go straight, clear level " approach is great. GTA5 might not be the best example when it comes to "explore and reward" like other games are like Witcher 3 but can be hilariously fun even without any rewards just by doing silly things in big cities and mess around with everything you like , something you cant do in linear games at all. So why not ?
@AzatiS: I feel like the comparisons between linear and open-world games is taken too broadly, and it largely misses the point. People often misunderstand linear level design for linear game design. Thief is quite a deep video game that takes place in smaller levels than something like Grand Theft Auto, who's most effective use open space is just empty chaos.
I think the discussion shouldn't really be about the level design but player expression. A linear game can have just as much depth and options as an open-world game. The truth is, I feel many open world games don't quite deliver in making open worlds engaging. Part of the problem is how the core game-loop of your typical open world game stuffs the map with off-shoot, isolated activities and pathways that make the open space feel more like redundant traversal than an engaging part of the experience.
Going back to Thief, a game where the player is encouraged to engaging with the map and the open levels as a valuable part of the core game loop and we can see what it could be like to use an open world as an engaging tool outside of enforcing emergent chaos; by naturally evoking emergent situations and player expression as opposed to requiring the player to activate it themselves to get any kind of use out of the world at all.
Open world games are designed with such linear intent, I feel. Same goes for The Witcher 3. :/
The way the word "linear" is used is fucking idiotic, but gaming media types have trained their audience to be extra stupid, so what are you gonna do. A game being linear is not the issue. A game being shallow was the problem, not that it was a point A to point B game. There is more gameplay depth n expression to something like Bayonetta, Resident Evil 4, Vanquish, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Metal Gear Solid 3 (all linear games btw) and the like vs open world tripe like what Rockstar or Ubisoft make. Hell last year Titanfall 2 had a better single player than most of these bore fest open world games. Bungie's own game Destiny has less depth than Halo.
The issue is that of depth. Wall cover shooters were shallow n bare bones, same with spectacle scripted messes like Uncharted n Call of Duty. Adobe's post makes me want to hurl, bitch it's not freedom, it's a style of game that turns everything into a chore. Mario 64 was freedom. Breath of the Wild, MGSV, Deus Ex, n Hitman are freedom. Andromeda, Grand Theft Auto, Far Cry? Several layers of tedium.
Triple A games just decided to replace their short n shallow game with a long and "open world" shallow game, but it's still shallow none the less. Triple A games have to be for "everyone" and as a result need to reach a mass audience. Just like cinema, those big block buster releases, aren't the best fucking experiences for an enthusiast because of how dumbed down they need to be to turn a profit. Or at least that's the perception.
Luckily on PC I have the ever expansive indie scene and the rising middle market.
Excellent post by champ, I lived to see one!
I can't say I've enjoyed many linear games. Halo I loved because you could tackle the same encounter in many different ways and directions. Gears of War I hated because it was the opposite, the replay value for me was so minimal. Its how a game is designed rather than how its labelled.
Mass Effect is the perfect example of that. Great design (more or less) for the first trilogy, Andromea (which I enjoyed for the first 20 or so hours) became a prime example of repetitive tedium.
@AzatiS: I feel like the comparisons between linear and open-world games is taken too broadly, and it largely misses the point. People often misunderstand linear level design for linear game design. Thief is quite a deep video game that takes place in smaller levels than something like Grand Theft Auto, who's most effective use open space is just empty chaos.
I think the discussion shouldn't really be about the level design but player expression. A linear game can have just as much depth and options as an open-world game. The truth is, I feel many open world games don't quite deliver in making open worlds engaging. Part of the problem is how the core game-loop of your typical open world game stuffs the map with off-shoot, isolated activities and pathways that make the open space feel more like redundant traversal than an engaging part of the experience.
Going back to Thief, a game where the player is encouraged to engaging with the map and the open levels as a valuable part of the core game loop and we can see what it could be like to use an open world as an engaging tool outside of enforcing emergent chaos; by naturally evoking emergent situations and player expression as opposed to requiring the player to activate it themselves to get any kind of use out of the world at all.
Open world games are designed with such linear intent, I feel. Same goes for The Witcher 3. :/
Well player expression can be " i want to find a bike and have a ride " .. why is that bad ? Linear games can be whatever they want to be but also depends their genre. Dont listen stupid people around generalize everything nor im trying to say there are no great linear games with great choices, far better than open worlds. Its all about developers approach to either linear or open-world experiences depends the genre and everything else.
The issue here is why you should cry about open world games when you can do things you cant do in linear games. This isnt if the world is great or if theres a purpose behind it at any given time. This is about gameplay options a player having outside the linear or "linear" world. Everything has to do with the genre in the end of the day and when you buying a game to know what you want from it as an individual.
My cousins getting crazy to have a ride in GTA5s city. They dont give a **** about missions or rewards, i assure you of that. They dont have the same fun with Witcher 3 by all means. So why the hell not ? You get the point here ? Some of you should stop trying so hard to sound like some sort of experts that you know what is great or not for each individual out there and make things kinda complicated for no reason by talking designs and this and that ... Will you tell to my little cousins GTA5 sucks and would be better if it was linear ? They wont listen since they have fun doing shit in GTA5s open world and most likely they wouldnt give a shit about GTA5 if it was linear to begin with.
So its not one or another type of argument here. Im not trying to say open world games are better ( for dummies that cant tell that ). Is why to cry about open world games when in the end of the day there are some great linear games out there to begin with if you dislike GTA5 or BOTW or Witcher 3 or whatever. More options for everyone. Im not talking here if X game is great or mediocre or if open world is better than linear or vice versa. I dont care, play what you like.
More options for the ones caring about open worlds or the ones liking linear games. Problem solved. I dont get the drama behind open world vs linear, thats all im saying. Everything else is irrelevant except if we start dissing BOTW , Witcher 3 and many other open world games as well and start talking about technical matters and design and purposes and we go to entirely other argument of the one im trying to make here.
@AzatiS: That's not bad. It's totally fine to do that but I believe there can be more to an open world game than that. It's not 'bad', it's just not very engaging in the long-term. Giving the player options is one thing. Giving the player meaningful options is another thing. Enjoying a tranquil bike ride or helicopter ride is fine too but having some sort of gravity in that decision other than cosmetics is the difference between a purposeful open world and one that is passively entertaining. Neither is right or wrong but the former is certainly a deeper experience.
There are plenty of optional activities in Grand Theft Auto games such as golf, cycling, bowling, piloting helicopters and boats, but much of it are isolated or only engaging on an aesthetic level, meaning the likeliness of me wanting to do these things for a long duration of time is doubtful. It's quantity over the quality. Not necessarily bad, just different.
However something like Bayonetta doesn't use abundance as an answer to player expression, rather it has mechanics and options that have intent and credible decision-making, or I could just choose options purely on an aesthetic level.
I just feel open world games can be more than a collection of off-shoot activities. The level design can be more than just passively engaging, and the mechanics could also be used to compliment the open world design with more purposeful goals rather than just aesthetic deviations. This is just a matter of taste, of course. A game having more to do often doesn't have the same level of engagement as something designed with more intent. Hence why I don't really enjoy Assassin's Creed or Grand Theft Auto as much as I do games like Thief and Deus Ex.
For me it's not what mechanics and level I have but what I can do with them.
@AzatiS: That's not bad. It's totally fine to do that but I believe there can be more to an open world game than that. It's not 'bad', it's just not very engaging in the long-term. Giving the player options is one thing. Giving the player meaningful options is another thing. Enjoying a tranquil bike ride or helicopter ride is fine too but having some sort of gravity in that decision other than cosmetics is the difference between a purposeful open world and one that is passively entertaining. Neither is right or wrong but the former is certainly a deeper experience.
There are plenty of optional activities in Grand Theft Auto games such as golf, cycling, bowling, piloting helicopters and boats, but much of it are isolated or only engaging on an aesthetic level, meaning the likeliness of me wanting to do these things for a long duration of time is doubtful. It's quantity over the quality. Not necessarily bad, just different.
However something like Bayonetta doesn't use abundance as an answer to player expression, rather it has mechanics and options that have intent and credible decision-making, or I could just choose options purely on an aesthetic level.
I just feel open world games can be more than a collection of off-shoot activities. The level design can be more than just passively engaging, and the mechanics could also be used to compliment the open world design with more purposeful goals rather than just aesthetic deviations. This is just a matter of taste, of course. A game having more to do often doesn't have the same level of engagement as something designed with more intent. Hence why I don't really enjoy Assassin's Creed or Grand Theft Auto as much as I do games like Thief and Deus Ex.
For me it's not what mechanics and level you have but what I can do with them.
Its not engaging to you. For my cousins that want to goof around in GTA5 is a far better experience than many AAA linear games let alone than some great open world experiences. You get what i mean ? And i beleive thats the case with many others out there because GTA 5 selling after so many years for a reason. If we add the online aspect of GTA5 as well, there you have your open world engaged more than ever.
But thats not my point though. My main point is why people should be crying about open world games. Who cares. We have great linear games, havent we ? Go buy what you like most and play what is for you, problem solved. Its that simple. For my cousins GTA5 is their favorite game because thats the experience they want from the game, to me is Witcher 3 because of the dark tone and the best "use" of open world etc, others might dislike everything about open worlds and how they work... so be it.
No need to choose one over the other or whine about it, thats my point.
@AzatiS: Well I think GTA5 sells to a larger audience. It is after all a game with casual appeal because of how simplistic many of its components (including the open world) are integrated. My belief is that open worlds can reach for being more than just enjoyable on a casual level, but deep and engaging parts of the gameplay loop too.
You're right though. We have the options, but I'd argue there are fewer deep open world games with meaningful choices than there are in the more linear space. Open world games tend to take a quantity of activities over quantity of player-choice approach to their gameplay. I think The Witcher 3 lacks this also. It still has a problem of totally letting go of the player but that's a different story really.
I guess what it comes down to is that I don't think open world games currently on offer are as engaging to me as they could be and they prove that open world level design is more about harmless, careless fun than something potentially deep and integral to the loop. In retrospect, open world games are giving players less exciting options in that regard.
@AzatiS: Well I think GTA5 sells to a larger audience. It is after all a game with casual appeal because of how simplistic many of its components (including the open world) are integrated. My belief is that open worlds can reach for being more than just enjoyable on a casual level, but deep and engaging parts of the gameplay loop too.
You're right though. We have the options, but I'd argue there are fewer deep open world games with meaningful choices than there are in the more linear space. Open world games tend to take a quantity of activities over quantity of player-choice approach to their gameplay. I think The Witcher 3 lacks this also. It still has a problem of totally letting go of the player but that's a different story really.
I guess what it comes down to is that I don't think open world games currently on offer are as engaging to me as they could be and they prove that open world level design is more about harmless, careless fun than something potentially deep and integral to the loop. In retrospect, open world games are giving players less exciting options in that regard.
Exactly and one of this casual appeal is ... do silly stuff in games open world that it wouldnt have been the case if GTA5 wasnt an open world game.
I dont disagree with what you saying for open world games in general but on the other hand the quantity of linear games to open-world games is not even. What the ratio can be, 1 open world game to 100 linear games or something ? No, actually might be even more than that. I cant even tell.
With that being said linear games having way way more quantity thru the years and we can easily choose plenty of them to go next to best open world games and all and say " omg, open world games sucks". Oh yeah but i can name you hunderds if not thousands of pathetic linear games thru 20 years period, that cant even think to go next to many open worlds because are plain shit.
Anyways, i guess this is an argument for some other time but i trully beleive some open worlds heading in the right direction, and depends their genre ( this is important imho ) they doing a pretty good job as of now with games like Witcher 3 and BOTW. Not perfect, maybe not better than the best linear games in history like some mentioning ( i mean lol ) but nevertheless are great or just good if that fits better. There is alot of room for improvement , i agree with you , and i really think we gonna see such improvements in the future.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment