Linear vs Open world

Which do you prefer?

I'll take a linear game with an awesome story over an open world "do what ever you want" anyday. GTA4 for example, I played it for a while... I got sooo bored with running around waiting for someone to call me and give me something to do. blah. For the most part a find a linear game is just more fun. Im not saying I hate all open world games, im playing InFamous now and enjoying it. But I like Uncharted more.

And It also seems to me that theres pressure on game developers to make their games less Linear... why? Linear = better story, and game flow.

Sandbox + Linear is also great.

Mass Effect is a combo of these two types and it is fantastic. I will mostly choose sandbox as the winner.

I suppose that it depends on what type of game it is, but I agree in the sense that I don't understand most people's view that linear = bad. Linear usually makes for a better story-telling experience. From my gaming experiences, open-world lets you spend more time, but I cherish the time spent from a good linear game with a good story more than the countless hours spent roaming the world in an open-ended type game.

I also think that it depends on the game!! I don't like GTA at all because it gets old pretty quick and im playing prototype and infamous and they are both pretty awesome!

I think it comes down to whether you like direction or if you like to do what you want. I would say the more creative you are, the more you have fun playing an open world game. It's funny because one of my friends has no direction in his life, yet he bought oblivion and couldnt play past five minutes cuz he got bored. So maybe we play games that take us out of how we live everyday. Or maybe we just like to BLOW STUFF UP. woohooo. Sorry, got a little carried away. I like both types of games, linear or sandbox, with a great story.

Sandbox + Linear is also great.

Mass Effect is a combo of these two types and it is fantastic. I will mostly choose sandbox as the winner.

Saxonhoo

[QUOTE="Saxonhoo"]

Sandbox + Linear is also great.

Mass Effect is a combo of these two types and it is fantastic. I will mostly choose sandbox as the winner.

Srbanator

I third. Hehe. Another example of Sandbox + Linear are JRPGs. At some point of the game, you can do anything like go back to previous visited towns, dungeons, do side quests, etc.

But on the topic, I prefer open world.

I also like linear but I hate too linear games. Too linear meaning all you do is go forward forward forward.

There really is no right answer to this. It's just a matter of taste.

Although I really do actually prefer linear games.

I dont think one format is better than another, linear usualy allows the developer to focus more on gameplay mechanichs and what not.

Personally i perfer when there is a sinlge world to explore but the game forces you to go through it a single way, like what the old silent hill games did, or the old resident evils. Mmmm adventure.

Each has its advantages and disadvantages. They can break even.

I would prefer sandbox. Linear gameplay feels like I'm not in control. Examples in favor of sandbox: inFamous, Prototype.

Sandbox + Linear is also great.

Mass Effect is a combo of these two types and it is fantastic. I will mostly choose sandbox as the winner.

Saxonhoo

it depends on the game....some games can just be too long for me these days, so i generally prefer linear.

Both have their pros and cons. Open world can be great for exploration, seeing what the developers have created, finding secret items and mini games - if they've been added, testing the limits of the game world. However it can be overwhelming, for some it can be boring.
Linear worlds can be beautiful while you go along the set path, you can see the potential for what must be beyond the next step. But sadly they can also be boring and restrictive, like if your character can't step over a pebble because there isn't anything made beyond that pebble or they can't jump.

The best example of an open world would be Saint's Row 2, there's a lot to find, a lot to do and there's no push to do the main story. Plus the option of gender is a first for an open world game like this, the GTA series has never done that. It's so minor, yet makes a big difference from the usual male only nonsense.
The best example of a linear world, for me, is Final Fantasy 8. You can see all the potential for a truly amazing world filled with history and character.

The worst example for an open world, in my own opinion, is Crackdown. The ideas are interesting, but beyond chasing down and killing the enemy there's really not all that much to do and only being able to play as male feels very limiting, what about female super cops?
The worst example of a linear world, in my eyes, is JRPG's in general. So much work can go into them, but the limts like not being able to stop over a pebble, not being able to really fully explore the world that the developers have made can feel so very restrictive, which can usually kill the game off when you're wanting to take a break from the main quest and do other things in the game for a while.

R/T

Both have their pros and cons. Open world can be great for exploration, seeing what the developers have created, finding secret items and mini games - if they've been added, testing the limits of the game world. However it can be overwhelming, for some it can be boring.
Linear worlds can be beautiful while you go along the set path, you can see the potential for what must be beyond the next step. But sadly they can also be boring and restrictive, like if your character can't step over a pebble because there isn't anything made beyond that pebble or they can't jump.

The best example of an open world would be Saint's Row 2, there's a lot to find, a lot to do and there's no push to do the main story. Plus the option of gender is a first for an open world game like this, the GTA series has never done that. It's so minor, yet makes a big difference from the usual male only nonsense.
The best example of a linear world, for me, is Final Fantasy 8. You can see all the potential for a truly amazing world filled with history and character.

The worst example for an open world, in my own opinion, is Crackdown. The ideas are interesting, but beyond chasing down and killing the enemy there's really not all that much to do and only being able to play as male feels very limiting, what about female super cops?
The worst example of a linear world, in my eyes, is JRPG's in general. So much work can go into them, but the limts like not being able to stop over a pebble, not being able to really fully explore the world that the developers have made can feel so very restrictive, which can usually kill the game off when you're wanting to take a break from the main quest and do other things in the game for a while.

R/T

Smokescreened84

JRPGs have some open world parts. Example in FF8 when you can fly around the map using the Ragnarok. It lets you go anywhere.

Personally I like both, I don't prefer one or the other but it has to have a good story.

Open world for sure. I like to be able to play the game in the order I want to, and keep going for quests/items/loot/gear/experience after the main quest is over.

I prefer "open" in the sense of Super Metroid or Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. You are working towards a single goal, but you can go anywhere, and in whatever way you want in between the beginning and end. I'm a massive Metroivania/Castleroid fan, and I think it shows in my position regarding open-world and linear games.

I find open world games kind of boring when there is no goal you are striving towards, and if RDR has taught me anything, its that an open world game should never be let out the door if the story is anything less than stellar. I like the ability to explore, I just don't want to be achieving nothing (Just Cause 2) or something not very interesting (RDR).

I also don't like overly linear games either. Being shepherded down corridors, and having my hand held is an insult to me as a gamer. I want to figure things out on my own, stop telling me what I should be doing next. Its another reason why I love Metroid games (at least Super, Prime and Echoes).

Which do you prefer?

I'll take a linear game with an awesome story over an open world "do what ever you want" anyday. GTA4 for example, I played it for a while... I got sooo bored with running around waiting for someone to call me and give me something to do. blah. For the most part a find a linear game is just more fun. Im not saying I hate all open world games, im playing InFamous now and enjoying it. But I like Uncharted more.

And It also seems to me that theres pressure on game developers to make their games less Linear... why? Linear = better story, and game flow.

JengyMae

Open World let you explore but I find their mission are not as fun as linear.

I prefer non linear in enclosed enviroments like in the classic RE games, but linear for things like RPGs.

Has of now, Arkham City sounds perfect. They say lots of thing will be happening in Arkham City, and youll never be running around doing nothing, and there still isnt a humungous open world.

InFAMOUS 2 is currently required to be my favorite game, and its story driven, and the missions themselves are linear. Prototypes is just to open world, youre always running around within a mission, hated that game.

Sandbox for me, I just love straying away from the mainstory and exploring the game world.

The deep story and complex gameplay is the important factor for me, doesnt matter if its linear or sandbox. Sandbox is a blast but without the decent story it gets bland and repetitive. For example RDR, not an RPG, but the story was engaging and the gameplay was very interactive making it an enjoyable experience.

now FFX, kinda linear as far as the locations go, but the gameplay and story were definately there.

I prefer "open" in the sense of Super Metroid or Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. You are working towards a single goal, but you can go anywhere, and in whatever way you want in between the beginning and end. I'm a massive Metroivania/Castleroid fan, and I think it shows in my position regarding open-world and linear games.

I find open world games kind of boring when there is no goal you are striving towards, and if RDR has taught me anything, its that an open world game should never be let out the door if the story is anything less than stellar. I like the ability to explore, I just don't want to be achieving nothing (Just Cause 2) or something not very interesting (RDR).

I also don't like overly linear games either. Being shepherded down corridors, and having my hand held is an insult to me as a gamer. I want to figure things out on my own, stop telling me what I should be doing next. Its another reason why I love Metroid games (at least Super, Prime and Echoes).

foxhound_fox

It depends really, Like Oblivion is open world but it's linnear if you want it to be. Personally I like both exactly the same God of War, Castlevania(all but sotn and simon's quest)and CoD are linnear and I love them, but GTA, Fable, Oblivion, Fallout, SOTNand Zelda(most of them) are Open world and I love them too.

The worst example of a linear world, in my eyes, is JRPG's in general. So much work can go into them, but the limts like not being able to stop over a pebble, not being able to really fully explore the world that the developers have made can feel so very restrictive, which can usually kill the game off when you're wanting to take a break from the main quest and do other things in the game for a while.

R/T

Smokescreened84

I like JRPGs because they are linear for the most part. If I want to take a break off the main quest I can easily put another game in.

It really depends on the game. 2D platformers pretty much have to be linear, while 3D platformers can have a more proto-sandbox structure (Super Mario 64). I must say, though, that most of my favourite games have some kind of open world structure, with the map in its entirity or some parts of it being fully explorable in a lot of them.

I also like the sandbox/linear blend in games like Crysis, where you have a beginning and an end of each level, while each of them is fully explorable and rather large.

I prefer the capability to choose which parts of the story you want in the order you want.

Take Final Fantasy, for instance, a very linear game. If you walk down a path that isn't a part of the story, then your character stops, like running into an invisible brick wall.:lol:

I usually prefer Open World but with a bit of linear properties to them ( does that make sense ? ). Too open, and I just wind up getting confused and always wondering what if, and it kind of ruins the game for me.

Both have strength and weakness.

In an open world, there can so much that can be done and explore. The problem is that each area is less detail. They can also force the player to go over the same area again and again.

A linear set up have less to explore. The area are more details and you do not need to double back as much.

I like something in between such as FF7,8,9 and DQ8.

I found that DQ 9 was a really great presentation of a JRPG with complete Open-World Qualities.

An Open world with a linear main story imo

I was reading a book on the philosophy behind the Legend of Zelda and the book talked about this sort of stuff.

I perfer open-world.

I really prefer vast, open-worlds but I can like both.

Depends on the game i suppose.

I really would like to see more open-world games like Fallout 3, where you have a pretty good story, but the game really starts after the story and you have 60+ hours of gameplay completing quests and getting new weapons and armor.

This is whyim really pumped for Fallout: New Vegas

in rpg's i prefer linear

in shooters i prefer open worlded