Lunchtime Discussion: Linear and Open World
Which gameplay style do you prefer?Published 24/11/2009 at 12:00 by Lorcan
“It’s too linear” is a comment heard all too often in reviews nowadays. There are a few buzzwords and phrases that annoy me nowadays but this is one which sticks out in particular because I love a linear game. This is probably down to my love for a good story driven experience and the on-rails rollercoaster rides that come with them. I like the progression of a linear tale and I thrive on watching the set pieces grow larger and more complicated as the story moves along so when people try to threaten that by sprouting nonsense about how the game would have been improved with an open world it angers me. A lot.
Lets take Prince of Persia for example. The Sands of Time trilogy was a great, fun, story-driven platformer. The latest game in the franchise which dropped all subtitles and opted just to reinvent the series from the ground up did things very differently. Along with the subtitles, it dropped the time-warp gameplay, ditched the art style, reset the story and biggest of all, it ripped down the walls and offered an entirely open game that had it’s path be chosen by the player. This, on the one hand, empowered the player and gave them a large open area for them to run all the way through.
On the other however, a lot was sacrificed. The story was designed to be rich, deep and even went to the point where the game wouldn’t let you continue after the final cutscene as it wanted to have an ending that stuck. The problem was that because of the open world nature of the title, there was no way to advance the story during the entire game so we get a fantastic premise in the opening and are then left to collect light seeds for 9 or so hours before the final cutscene. I can see how stories can work in the more traditional open world title such as Grand Theft Auto which handles it’s stories well, but for an adventure title, it just doesn’t work.
It’s not just the story that I find suffering in an open world adventure, but also the difficulty. Regular open world titles combat this by hiking up the enemy’s health bar and giving him a bigger gun. The enemies are your challenge, but in an adventure game, shooter or platformer, you depend on the level design to challenge you. This is another thing that’s dropped in an open world game. You can’t judge the players level of skill and therefore you can’t give them the challenge they deserve. One player’s last path is another players first.
When I first played Grand Theft Auto III, I loved the fact that I could go anywhere I wanted, but that’s old for me now and when I played Jak II, I thought it was the greatest thing since Vice Versas because you had a GTA style world, with large linear levels keeping the story and challenge flowing. Unfortunately, like Vice Versas, that’s not around anymore because, outside Jak 3, the open world with linear side levels disappeared.
But that’s the middle ground. It would be too easy to say that every game should have that perfect balance, so when it comes down to it all, which do you prefer? Open world or linear? Open world titles are there to give you freedom, though in my opinion, they actually restrict your experience more than they open it up.
Comments
Please note that all comments are the opinion of the individual author and not TheSixthAxis.« Previous 1 2
« Previous 1 2
djkaty | 24/11/2009 14:59
Member
192 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
From my point of view, which is 1. Casual gamer, 2. Not much time, 3. Not very good at games, 4. Not much patience for exploring, I prefer a linear game where you simply play through the levels and be done with it. For me that is usually the more satisfying experience. I totally agree with the other posters about Burnout Paradise.
There are actually 4 things reviewers always seem to mark games down for which actually appeal to me and make me more inclined to buy it if it gets a bad review score for that reason:
1. Game is not linear
2. Game is too short
3. Game is too easy
4. Game does not have online multiplayer
None of those things matter to someone with limited time and limited ability to aim and shoot quickly. I like games that are easy enough that you never have to repeat a section more than once or twice, because I like to just enjoy the experience, not get frustrated.
skibadee | 24/11/2009 15:58
Member
3910 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2009
open world every time
iNsAnE_gAmInG | 24/11/2009 16:18
* Banned *
-1930 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
I find huge open worlds quite a daunting prospect at first e.g. Fallout 3 or Borderlands.
Sometimes it is a more relaxing, less stressful experience when playing a game that is ‘too linear’.
As the game makes the decision for you, great cutscenes, set-pieces etc can be added with more priority. Fallout 3 is my favourite game though, so I guess open-worlds are not that bad if you can be bothered to get engrossed.
Dexter17 | 24/11/2009 16:21
Member
3274 TSA Points | Member since: Jun 2009
Open World by far. I hate games (unless they are really good) that you force you to go down a certain path and force you to do certain things.
That’s why I absolutely love Grand Theft Auto IV.
gideon1451 | 24/11/2009 17:17
Member
249 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2009
RPG levelling systems combat this difficulty problem occasionally [Oblivion's system .etc].
I see what you mean though, I do like not having to choose where to go, & the places to be a challenge.
clank250 | 24/11/2009 18:22
Member
648 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
Well certain games need the open world. i.e. Fallout 3 and most RPG’s. (imagine you being forced down a certain section of the capital wasteland throughout the course of the game… fail) and some games require the linear aspect. i.e. Uncharted 2 and most shooters/action adventure games (imagine exploring the mountains and having to travel between Nepal and the mountains open-world. I just don’t see it) So it all depends on the game type.
Mercs 2 for example was a good game that incorporated the shooter mechanic and the open-world gameplay at the same time without making it an RPG. It was blow everything up in site and kill a everyone who got in your way (except for civilians… those bastards were always in the middle of a giant shootout and always getting blown-up with my rockets).
So I would like a middle ground, an open-world that has boundries, with a primary goal to get to. Some parts of shooters have this mechanic, BF:BC is a great example, it was an open-world that was indeed linear at times, but you could choose how you where going to assault a certain situation. Operation Flashpoint : Dragon Rising seems like a game that I would enjoy, open-world, choices on how you will finish a mission, that seems awesome.
But also remember that some RPG’s have linear points in it, dungeons or tunnels that you have to go through to finish a certain mission or to retrieve something so that you can finish the mission later on. Oblivion and Fallout are great examples of this. Some caves and forts in Oblivion were needed to go into to finish a part of the game while most of them were optional to go into, but you would get something special for doing so. Same with Fallout (huh that’s a surprise…) you go into caves, and other vaults, but most aren’t needed to be done.
So, uh… I would like the middle ground, good open-world gameplay, getting to a point, and choosing how you will follow through with it. And sorry if I ranted a little too much… Just trying to get a few points across at the same time…
BadBoyBoogie | 25/11/2009 13:19
Let There Be Rock
2689 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
I like both styles, but I don’t actually have a preference as it depends on the game. I’m currently playing Assassins Creed 2, and that seems to be the best of both worlds, where the missions are linear in nature, but you can choose to ignore them (all be it temporarily) and just explore, collect treasure, or do side quests etc.