The "Death" of linear AAA games

@AzatiS: I'm not saying that open world games should be linear, or that linear games should be open world. What I mean is that I wish there was more variety in terms of what designers do with the open world, because most of them amount to traversal between activities with little interesting engagement between. That's not to say titles like Grand Theft Auto and Assassin's Creed should do away with that design paradigm because for some, that's what they are after. However, I wish there was more variety in how designers approached open world games. Like linear games, there are titles that are decidedly very linear such as Call of Duty which not only use linear levels but linear player-expression too vs. something like Bayonetta which has very linear levels but heaps of options that make these levels so fun to replay and improve at.

It's a matter of more options within a single paradigm for me. Too many open world games take a casual approach and there's not enough of an engagement in the actual open area. More variety I think would maybe help people understand that it's not a matter of linear level design vs. open world level design but in reality it's more a question of linear game design vs. deeper game design.

Also, as a side, The Witcher 3 and Breath of the Wild are quite different in how they tackle open world design.

Yeah i know what you mean and i agree.

Of course are different in how they tackle open world design but still, different genres, different developer approach, different audience

@AzatiS: The Witcher 3 is more traditional in the sense that I feel it's very similar to other open world RPG games.

I would like to see where open world design can go in future.

I really liked Morrowind. You're told of where you need to go and who to find. You follow the paths/roads, read signs (yes, read the signs) to see what lies in the direction you're going. You need to explore and talk to people to figure out your next move and info is added to your journal.

Out comes Oblivion and you're bombarded with "the player is stupid and needs markers to show them where to go because the devs are too lazy to have enough information given to the player and proper methods in games to give you directions". So now you have the compass that shows your quest marker and you just run to it.

Oblivion wasn't the first game to do this, but it was closer to it's release that it kind of became the norm. A quest is given and a path is laid out that literally points the player to the exact spot they need to be.

What happened to the days when the player had to actually use their brain to figure out where to go and what/who to interact with to progress the story line? I grew up playing RPGs from Nintendo days - you explore, fight and figure your own way through the game world (loved me some Dragon Warrior 1, 2, 3 & 4).

Now if someone isn't holding your hand or pointing the exact direction and location you need to be people cry out that "the game is too hard" or "I can't figure out what to do next". Take the game The Division - for example. You choose a quest/mission you want to do and the game literally has an orange arrow/line on your screen that you follow....seriously? Why? The game area isn't that big and it's not hard to check the map to see your location.

Then you get the odd game from time to time (though it's been a while since I've seen one) such as STALKER: SoC where you didn't get a spot on your compass that points to the exact location. Sure, you had the PDA that showed info, but you still had to figure things out on your own. This was a breath of fresh air for me. I don't need my hand to be held in games and I find it insulting that devs think people need it.....then again, people these days are so damn lazy and impatient to figure it out on their own, they may simply not play games anymore if they didn't have their hands held to show them exactly where to go and exactly what to do.

Well felt similar but it did many things in a way more fun and rewarding way like side questing and all so game never felt a chore like most of other open-world RPGs. Side content wise i think Witcher 3 did an excellent job that i would like other games to copy.

Both are "linear" games. Halo is just a deeper game than Gears of War. Hence my point, it's not about the structure of the game. It's about depth, the meaningful decisions I can make in a given possibility space. Hence my point, the way the word is used is silly. Linear can absolutely be an issue, as it pertains to how shallow a game's systems are, or how poorly a game leverages its potential depth. But way too many timeless classics that are A to B games, for someone to be like, nah man, linear games are just old hat, these bore fest chore simulators are the future.

@neatfeatguy: I would like to see more games, especially in a fantasy setting adopt the less is more approach to information. It's what made Breath of the Wild such a fun adventure game. It just makes sense in a fantasy setting and really evokes a sense of discovery and adventure. Going back even further, remember how tight with info Elder Scrolls Arena was? :P

I do love it though. I love games that encourage you to engage with the world. Not open but as I mentioned previously, games like Thief where you were taking notes, reading the map and engaging with the world.

Two games this year; Breath of the Wild and Divinity: OS2 do fun things with exploring the worlds. The former encourages you to use vertical height to survey the area and take notes about points of interest. No side quest destinations appear on the map either. The latter while not open world, its secrets are veiled also and request the player to keep their own notes about hidden treasure and points of interest. Both games are totally designed around this and don't break if map markers are simply disabled.

Sea of Thieves might potentially do some interesting stuff next year with maps and compasses too.

That was really more to do with the detail in terms of narratives and voice acting than the actual open world. Much of how you played out these quests was no different to something like Skyrim. What set them apart is how detail-oriented the context of all these side-quests are in Witcher 3. Even the many monster-bounties are given their own individually voiced characters and plots.

You rarely hear the same thing twice.

This is still separate from the actual open world design, which is very similar to other open world RPGs.

Yes, which my point is different games approaching open world differently depends the experience they want to give to their audience. Witcher 3 wasnt all about open world "usage" and based the entire game on open world usage . Had a story to tell, lore behind every place to explore, having contracts for fight dangerous creatures, exploring hidden treasures, side quests that for once didnt fell a chore something really important to me and many more things RPGs usually offering. So i dont mind if the game had the most engaging open world ever or not, as a whole experience it was great unlike other open world WRPGs so i dont mind Witcher 4 to follow and expand this open world formula than go back to linear.

So i wont cry out loud about Witcher 3 being open world and asking for linear Witcher 4 or something. ( my original point )

@AzatiS: Right, but my point was, Witcher 3 isn't really much different from a Bethesda RPG in terms of open world usage. They are quite similar in that regard.

Of course Witcher 1 and 2 had much smaller open level based design which was different than Witcher 3.

Shadow of Chernobyl does show exact locations on the minimap. It does the arrow too. It even gives you the distance to your destination in meters....76.9 m

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@neatfeatguy said:

Then you get the odd game from time to time (though it's been a while since I've seen one) such as STALKER: SoC where you didn't get a spot on your compass that points to the exact location. Sure, you had the PDA that showed info, but you still had to figure things out on your own.

Shadow of Chernobyl does show exact locations on the minimap. It does the arrow too. It even gives you the distance to your destination in meters....76.9 m

Shows how little I paid attention to the radar in the upper left corner. I made use of the PDA if I needed some relevent information. I have no recollection of the radar.

Yes, I used 2 examples of "linear" games (done differently) to agree with you post .... :D

AND I FELT DIRTY DOING IT

@Vatusus: Good OP and question. Last week's Unlocked podcast starts with a conversation about the closure of Visceral games and how the press release is a corporate speak way of stating, EA didn't want to make a 10 hour Star Wars SP game and want to make a Destiny-esque one. Henning wasn't on board. As usual the internet blames EA. But the game was in dev for like 4 years? And we've seen nothing of it. Maybe Visceral was just sucking balls.

The thing we as gamers will all debate is whether game companies really see a profit and only after how many units sold. It seems the bar for a AAA SP game to be profitable now a days is 4 million sold. That would be insane imo. But I don't run a company so I'm Monday morning QBing. The thing many don't get is when anything says the budget for........that is the budget. That isn't what actual cost turned out to be. Ask someone in construction. Budget for a new home is Blank dollars. Actual cost at completion is 98% of the time higher. Gaming is no different.

It just isn't as probable that a game company will make money off of a SP game these days. Phil Spencer said as much in the beginning of the year and the retards on the internet translated that into "Spencer doesn't want SP games on Xbox".

If anything, there is a lack of linear games. I think it comes down to the cost/benefit for players of a particular linear game to see if they're getting the most for their dollar. If the gamers will not spend full retail for a linear game then these "AAA" studios - what we really mean here is "big budget" studios - have to justify the investment. For example, Halo is a linear experience (a great one at that), but has a multiplayer component. Same with Uncharted. Why can't the two coexist?

I'm all for a linear experience if the game can justify it.

I also just remembered that although the STALKER games have those aids, they're fairly inconspicuous as evidenced by your failure to notice them. The player can also turn off the UI altogether.

I don't mind the aids so long as I have the option to disable them or at least, make them completely transparent (ala Fallout 3 and 4)

I don't think open world vs linear is a bad start for a discussion. I just wish all systems had more variety on their systems in general, things like project octopath traveler makes me very happy because it's very new and unique as well as very old school.

I've been so burnt out and tired of generic open world games this gen and people are only just talking about the death of linear games? If anything I'm wanting a god damn linear game to play right now.

You sound like we never had generic, uber crappy linear games before :). Or we are not having many as we speak.

Its the end of the world , no linear games anymore , oh no !! :O

Hopefully we'll see more mid tier games that devs don't have to spend a ton of money making and can release them at lower prices. Insomniac/Sony had the right idea with Ratchet and Clank.

I definitely feel people over-simplify linearity and non-linearity.I've always felt there are different types of linearity and non-linearity. there's linear/non linear level design and linear/non linear progression.

A game can be linear in level design but non-linear in terms of progression. Games like Contra: Hard Corps or Castlevania: Rondo of Blood come to mind. Contra HC with how each level is just going from point A to Point B, but you access different levels depending on what choices you make at certain points in the game. Rondo of Blood is also mostly going from Point A to Point B, but it's not THAT linear and has some room for exploration which is how you can find different paths/levels.

A game can have non-linear level design but have largely linear progression. Something like Dishonored has it so you can tackle any chapter in various ways with multiple different tools and paths at your disposal, but your always going to go through the same chapters in the same order.

Breath of the Wild would be an example of a game that is non-linear in both level design and progression, since you can explore the world whichever way you want and tackle dungeons in whatever order you want.

And then there are the stereotypical AAA cinematic games that were popular last gen that would be linear in both level design and progression. I will say there's nothing inherently wrong with a game that goes full linear though. Games like Super C and Contra III are good, for example.

In the end, I think it's silly to hate on liearity or non-linearity, as both can make for an engaging experience if handled well. And honestly, there's probably much more variance to these terms than I've explained thus far.

@AdobeArtist: "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?"

Sadly I think with the gaming crowd is always a no-win proposition. Gamers are some of the whiniest people on earth, they complain about everything. I'm fine with both approaches existing, linearity works for some games and not so much for others. I don't understand why people complain so much about Uncharted for example, as if there are no non-linear and non-cinematic games out there or now people complain about GT because it is all online as if there are not enough offline racers too. I mean the gaming market is filled with variety but many gamers seem to want some types of games to disappear just because they don't like the approach.

I love open world games, when its done right. The problem in open world games is because the game world is so big, and theres so much content, some of it tends to be a little basic and thin. I can't imagine something like the TES games being anything other than open world, and I wouldnt want it to. Do i want Metal Gear Solid to be open world? **** no.

While I agree that there are too many open-world games nowadays that repeat the same generic formula, I don't think linear games are "dead" yet. Sure, they may have been on the decline, but they're far from "dead". Maybe "The Shooting in the Foot of Linear AAA Games" may have been a better title.

I hope you're right...