Linear vs. Open-World Gameplay

Which style of gameplay do you prefer? Is one better than the other, and, if so, which one? How can either be done well?

Personally, I tend to prefer more linear games because I like having a set goal that I need to reach and I like knowing where I'm supposed to be going, but I do enjoy more open-world games if they're done more in a sandbox style (like the GTA series)—I use those if I just want to screw around usually.

Open-world. To note, I don't mind if the main story has one overall line to follow, but the actual exploration should barely have any restriction. Some reasonable ones can applicable, but give me a nice big world, and I'll find everything or die(and possibly resurrect) trying!

This is why I enjoy a lot of Zelda games(although gameplay helps too), although some of the modern ones are way too linear to enjoy. In both exploration and story.

I do like both, but both are annoying when taken to extreme. Like, extremely linear games can become really darn boring, but very open-world games feel like there isn't even a point in playing them. Like, I don't like sand box games because while yes you do have large area to explore, none of areas usually feel unique or have much of personality and basic gameplay itself isn't that interesting. And most of missions/quests in main story line are exactly the same as "bonus" missions without there being any distinquishing or espicially fun part.

I like linear gameplay a lot more. Eg james bond bloodstone.

I Love both equally; it usually depends on what I'm feeling for at the moment, as generic as this answer is.

Well, this is sort of the distinction between western RP Gs and JRP Gs, isn't it? I think linearity is more complete as an artistic creation, because everything you're seeing is part of the creator's vision, like something in a movie. You're seeing the story and the action on their terms. Open world gameplay allows you to tell a story that's distinctly yours, if it's done right, but your personal story will really only matter to you. I can look at Jinto Fellwind, my Dunmer Spellsword, the Archmage, the Nerevarine, hero of Vvardenfell, and think "there goes a legend," but anyone else would think, "what a Mary Sue." As well, certain things like the player character's personality or the flow of the plot are left completely up to you. So while everyone will individually value their own character in Elder Scrolls or Fallout, everyone can draw on common ground with games like Super Mario Bros. 3, or Final Fantasy 7. Simply put, linear gameplay is probably more fulfilling for a creator who has a specific idea in mind, and wants to tell a specific story. Open-world gameplay is meant to give you the bare materials you could potentially use to carve out a fulfilling story.

I suspect that one could craft a singular artistic vision in an open-world game, perhaps by making that openness a part of the vision. Perhaps have the character age as the player advances, meaning that the player doesn't get to explore absolutely everywhere, and at the end review the player's choices: what did they seem to find important? How did they spend their time, what did they achieve, and how (if at all) has the world change for their passing? (I'm imagining something like the ending of The YAWHG, for example.)

That said, I do agree for the most part with what you say.

For myself, I think that I fall somewhat on the side of linearity, but also enjoy at least some degree of openness. I think that I like to have something to aim for; I don't mind if that amounts to "explore that interesting tower over there"—as long as said tower isn't much the same as the last five that I explored: if I'm in an open world, I want a fair bit of variety in it, I feel. I do also feel that I'm perhaps somewhat prone to the effect of the Quicksand Box, especially since I seem to become bored somewhat easily.

edited 9th Apr '14 7:21:11 AM by ArsThaumaturgis

I know I keep saying this, but I really wish that explorational 3D platformers (Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, Classic Spyro) would come back. I mean, since open-world RPGs and open-world FPSs are in vogue, you'd think that there would be at least one studio that would bring back explorational 3D platforming.

I tend to like both, depending on what I'm in the mood for. But because I typically like arcade style games the best, I usually prefer linearity the best (occasional branching path as well if incorporated well)

That's often the style I go for myself.

open world, with plots within it. I like having stuff to do, but much prefer freedom.

if a game's basically a job it's pointless.

Open world games can be just as or more artistic than linear ones, especially since games can tell stories that static media are incapable of due to their interactivity. It's just a question of whether developers can take advantage of the... well, advantages interactive media has. Unfortunately, most open world games treat the open world portion as little more than a glorified level select screen, with the missions and plot being delivered in a linear fashion, defeating the purpose of having the game be open world. (which is why there are many so-called open world games that I don't really consider to be truly open world, like the Assassin's Creed games)

I definitely prefer open world games, since they play to the strengths of the medium far more than linear games do, namely player choice.

Open world for me.

Depends on the type of game. Generally, I like open world on RP Gs or games with RPG elements, or more generally, on games where there is supposed to be a lot of non-main-plot stuff to do. However, when it comes to more focused games, or games where the story is a major part of the appeal, I prefer to keep it linear and coherent. And of course, nobody likes shoehorned-in openness.

Mixture of both. I don't like the Corridor Cubbyhole Run that some FPS games do (or rather the severe railroading they can do such as Battlefield 3) but at the same time if the place is such a sandbox I have to break out a map, a compass and use my Army land nav skills just to find the next part of the level it's done too far.

@Waxing Name-Yes, Yes, a hundred times yes! 3D platformers are my favorite! I really do hope they comeback soon...

(well I guess there is A Hat In Time and that'll be out soon. not sure if I agree on the whole collectathon title though. fills like a bit of a misdemeanor for the genre"

Anyways, back on topic, I'm not really sure what I prefer if I had to chose. I really do like the exploration, but I tend to prefer the game to tell a story instead of it setting it up so I could tell my own. I guess that's why I like 3D platformers. there right in the middle. now if only there was one with a deep, involving story...

@Major Tom: I guess you probably won't like Miasmata?

Myself, it depends. Generally I prefer open world way more, but I can give leeway in some circumstance...

Generally, my tastes fall between linear games with a world you can look around more or less at your leisure, with areas becoming unlocked via progress (think Zelda games, or Metroidvanias) and sandboxes with smaller maps (inFamous: Second Son and Assassin's Creed II are great, Assassin's Creed IV and GTA V are too big). But it depends on the genre.

For me, bigger is better, assuming they can fill the game with interesting content. I'm still waiting for a Wide-Open Sandbox RPG where it's possible to really get lost. Even huge games like Skyrim feel small once you get familiar with the map, and then you're no longer exploring, just visiting places you've seen before.

Just never fastravel, that extends the life a little bit

I like linear games better, because I like having a set task to do with exploration being a side factor in the task or challenge. Linear games are often more focused and that to me leads to a solid experience.

I'm not opposed to "non-linearity" type games, where you have a set goal but have the freedom to go there in any order you want and have a more expansive exploration factor. But Open World, sand box type games? I enjoy them, but don't have any real attachment to them, they don't really do anything for me. Exploration is great, having the freedom to go where ever you want...whenever you please to do the game's objectives is fine.

But on a 1st playthrough a lot of these types of games are less fun to play if you find yourself getting lost(on occassion), when you just want to continue on with the game or you just end up disliking having to travel through the big open land in the game.

I'm perfectly fine level to level, A - B level design. It may depend on the game or even the genre, but not for me.

edited 9th Apr '14 10:39:24 PM by Randomness4

It does depend on genre. I prefer the linear stages of the older Mario games to the more open, explorable levels of Mario 64, even though I like non-linearity more in general. It's kinda like, you don't go to Chinese restaurant and order Italian, y'know?

edited 9th Apr '14 10:39:12 PM by Talby

I agree completely.

I definitely lean towards the linear side of the scale. All of my favourite games have been linear, and I do not mind being railroaded or having only one option for progression. I like some open-world games (mainly Skyrim), but most of them just pile a ton of choices on me and expect me to figure things out myself, which I don't like.

I like Open-World gameplay more, but only when the game has ton of mods and cheats, as well as gameplay variety and still has some objective so you will not losing interest quickly.