Linear vs Open World

[Arvaos]

What type of games do you prefer?

[joco]

Open world by a huge margin. I avoid games with linear worlds as much and as often as possible.

[76561199094198998]

god puts a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ encounter on an open world. you can walk around it.

god caps a linear game with a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, and puts stains at regular intervals. now whatt humans.

[Prinzip]

Open world is by default better, because open world is an evolution of linear world brought about by the improvements in hardware and software.

[Krypto]

Linear. I'm burnt out on big ass open world maps where each activity is copy/pasted every 40 seconds.

[989]

Zelda 64

[Bjørn]

I like the freedom of open world, but if the game is good, it doesn't really matter

[Raz]

Linear because I want the game to have a beginning and an ending. Open world games tend to be new game ++++++ and I don't feel like playing the game over and over again. Not mention most quests are just fetch quests or go clear that area out. Open world maps tend to be boring and the side quests shallow.

[AdahnGorion]

It depends on the genre.

[Drawar]

Better a good linear (or semi-open) game than a bad or fake open world.

A real open world, you are really free to go where you want when you want (or almost) and trace your path without being easily lost or being totally guided by predetermined paths (which falsely gives the illusion of an open world) where the world becomes empty when you deviate from it.

In a real open world, old (or already visited) areas do not become useless either.

Above all, a detail that people often forget: a real open world requires a lot of resources (money, time, etc.) that a studio does not necessarily have or that could have been spent elsewhere.
Hence empty or repetitive open worlds.

[admiral1018]

I actually enjoy a hybrid, open-stages that are accessed linearly. Best examples of this are in Crysis and Far Cry 1. Each stage is massive and allows for many different approaches and tactics, but the stages are still accessed linearly.

[MinionJoe]

It depends on the game and what I feel like playing at the time.

I seem to play more open-world games though.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Linear, open world has too much empty and boring stuff. Until they have open world inhabited with actually intelligent AI characters and randomly generated events it`s mostly boring wandering.

[Haiku's Knife]

It depends on the game and each has their pros and cons.

Open world obviously has more freedom, but the types of games that feature them tend to not do anything particularly well - they are jacks of all and masters of none.

Linear obviously lacks that freedom, but I find artistic direction and setpieces to be much better in linear games and the game can focus on the all important aspect of l e v e l d e s i g n. Whether it's a chokepoint flooding you with a bunch of enemies, or an exquisite scene portrayed by the devs that would be impossible with an open world game, linear just has more focus to me, which I like.

And then you have I guess hybrid systems like Bioshock, which enable exploration, but are still more closed than the traditional open world and I really like that as well.

I will say that none of the games I hold in highest regard are open world, though.

[Haiku's Knife]

Originally posted by Krypto:

Linear. I'm burnt out on big ass open world maps where each activity is copy/pasted every 40 seconds.

Originally posted by Drawar:

Better a good linear (or semi-open) game than a bad or fake open world.

A real open world, you are really free to go where you want when you want (or almost) and trace your path without being easily lost or being totally guided by predetermined paths (which falsely gives the illusion of an open world) where the world becomes empty when you deviate from it.

In a real open world, old (or already visited) areas do not become useless either.

Above all, a detail that people often forget: a real open world requires a lot of resources (money, time, etc.) that a studio does not necessarily have or that could have been spent elsewhere.
Hence empty or repetitive open worlds.

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

Linear, open world has too much empty and boring stuff. Until they have open world inhabited with actually intelligent AI characters and randomly generated events it`s mostly boring wandering.

Also these. Open world games tend to be lazy and empty and it would take colossal effort and resources to make them feel truly alive.

[Arvaos]

Originally posted by Prinzip:

Open world is by default better, because open world is an evolution of linear world brought about by the improvements in hardware and software.

What about highly complex immersive sims versus cookie cutter Ubisoft open worlds?