/v/ - Video Games

Linear mostly because they usually have far better level design.

Depends on the quality of level design. I would rather have a bad open world game than a bad linear game, but would rather have a good linear game than a good open world.

>>13905631

Classic JRPG style. Linear with backtracking allowed and some parallel content.

Linear games with massive levels. Like Thief.

I don't really care for purely linear games like cawadoody and shit, but what are we calling games like classic Doom? Most levels in Doom are "linear" in that you go from A to Z but the in between might involve a lot of backtracking and revisiting previously-cleared areas.

Is the distinction between level-based or stage-based and having a single open area like say, Super Metroid or Elder Scrolls?

In short, use better terminology.

Linear, generally.

Define "open world" though. You mean something like Dark Souls (which isn't technically open world but its not quite linear either) or something like a GTA game?

I generally like linear games. Most open-world games feel like they're lazy in design. The only genre of titles I have not had that experience with are JRPGs.

Linear games that don't feel linear are better than open world games that feel linear.

Linear. Open world generally means traversing empty boring fields completely wasting time or using fast travel which negates the open world entirely. I do like having wiggle room in linear games though, like exploring to find secrets, finding an alternate route to flank the enemy from/enter building, etc. I also like if the game has you figure out where to go like in DOOM instead of having markers pozzing up the screen or having to follow NPCs and need to wait for them to open a door to continue and stupid shit like that.

Both are infinitely superior to randomly generated levels though.

Whatever is more fun.

Depends on the genre. If there is lots to do outside of the main plot then open world, definitely. Otherwise open world generally means empty. There are lots of games that are open world with lots of missions around but nothing between them. Plenty more that have lots of side missions that are complete garbage and aren't even worth doing.

At times I wonder if these modern games would be better off with a warp room instead of an open world.

Hmm, I'd have to say something that's not all of one or the other. I like not being railroaded through the game, but I don't mind having multiple wide-open areas linked together. I prefer games where I can do stupid side missions to become godly powerful, or the savior of the kingdom, if I see fit. Not asking every game to be Way of the Borderlandurai like a Dragon, but I'd like some not-shit games where I can start as fucking nobody, and work my way up to being a veritable god, even if the plot doesn't call for it.

Alas, only shit games are allowed.

>>13905631

Both.

Non linear-level selection is pretty good.

Good examples are megaman or demon's souls.

>>13906937

Do you start with a teleport ability in DS3?

Multi-linear games like warframe and deus ex are the best in terms of level design.

Why do things one way when you could use the same space to them 3 ways?

>>13905631

I prefer open world, but only in concept. There isn't an openworld game that I think is really all that fantastic.

>>13906958

You start with teleport ability in most open world games.

A well-crafted linear game is usually better than a well-crafted non-linear game, because a well-crafted game is almost always more fun than what the player would do if left to their own devices. However, a poorly-crafted linear game is usually worse than a poorly-crafted non-linear game, because even if the non-linear game blows, you can usually still squeeze some fun out of fucking around the open world, while the poorly-crafted linear game is just going to be shit no matter what you do.

It really comes down to the skill of the developers.

Open world, i know they are casual and most are badly done shitty theme-parks or just "pseudo-open world" but fuck it i like it especially if the PC is a blank-slate i can build my character around.

This reminds me, i bought physical copy of Witcher 3 last christmas and i've yet to even try it because the whole thought of open-world with set protag that you can't really make yourself abhors me. Same reason i haven't touched Fo4 either as apparently it really railroads you into it's PC character which sounds really shittily done from what i've gathered.

>>13905631

I prefer mixed.

Somewhere where you're not fucked up by PONRs, but the scope is limited enough to say you're free to do what you want within the game's mechanics and still makes sense and isn't fucking empty

>>13905631

Non-linear and open world are not the same thing.

>>13905631

Open level/Interconnected world (like Metroid Prime)

I might as well elaborate on why I prefer open world games in concept only.

The fundamental problem with open world games is that they're structured like linear games, where the majority of the content happens within these quest segments and the open world aspect is treated as some transitional portion despite it being where most of the game occurs. If we ever eliminate this design philosophy, only then can we have excellent open world games.

>>13907153

Call me a faggot for arguing with you, but do you live in america?

Most of the open world we live in has jack shit to do in it and mostly consists of commuting from one hub area to another.

Open words being empty is pretty reasonable.

>>13907129

This better be bait.

>>13907186

what?

>>13907179

I think the biggest problem with the empty area between Points of Interests in OP games is that most games lack a fun way to travel between them.

Bethshit games for example, running or using a horse isn't bad idea but the way it works in their games is just sluggish and makes the traveling really boring chore.

>>13907227

How was that new final fantasy for transportation?

I cant afford anything so I'm stuck in the ps3 gen.

>>13907065

I'm no expert in them, but the WRPGs I've played so far seem to be a series of interlinking linear paths, like train tracks heading to several aesthetically different but functionally similar stations. For instance, even though you have significant freedom to choose how you behave as a person and handle situations, VTM:B is roughly the same story, no matter who you side with at the end, or how you get there. I've yet to play a WRPG where my choices make a drastic difference in what I experience on the way to the end. Also, this: >>13907132

Though I guess if argued to the logical conclusion, every RPG video game, no matter how non-linear or open world, is just a series of linear paths, because of the nature of video games. Unlike tabletop RPGs, video game RPGs must have a finite number of options and conclusions.

>>13907179

>but do you live in america?

What are you implying? America is pretty varied in how dense it is. Northern/Costal cities can get dense as shit, like NYC, while it's fucking unbearable to not own a car in Florida, because everything is too spread out to walk/bike/bus/taxi to.

>>13907227

I'm playing New Vegas right now, and I always find myself dreading having to move from town to town if I can't quicktravel. They've done well making the game interesting to explore, but the enjoyment of exploration is majorly cut down by how sluggish the movement is.

>>13907227

If I start using fast travel in a game, it means I've given up on the game and just want to finish it for finish its sake. The moment you click a button on the map to appear there, the immersion is fucking ruined. At the very least make people use in game currency to travel to and from major hubs. Hilariously, this was in Skyrim, but you could just ignore the horse carts and fast travel for free, so I don't get why they bothered.

>>13907539

Morrowind will never be surpassed for travel.

End-game characters can get to literally anywhere on the map in a few minutes, beginner characters are going to have a hell of a trek just getting over a mountain range. The whole thing is done ingeniously.

I've gotten really sick of open world, especially larger ones where all the devs are competing to make the biggest fucking overworld possible. It's always an underwhelming shitshow with massive amounts of wasted space. I never want to replay open world games most of the time too

>>13907570

linear doesn't really mean corridors, it just means there's one goal, sorta kinda. "linear level design" would be corridors yeah but a linear game usualy just means no sidequests and shit. DOOM would be considered linear but its levels aren't if you get what i'm sayin'

>>13907602

I liked BOTW but it is not a good open world game. Too empty, too little enemy variety, too little to do besides shrines and korok seeds.

>>13907602

Then why did you post BOTW?

>>13907065

It's pretty linear, as your objectives are always clear in both what you have to do and where. However, there are several paths and ways to accomplish every task.

It would be open world if you could go from and into almost every location from the start and do missions or parts of them in any order, but that would not work with how the plot is written.

>>13905631

>Which do you like more?

Sandbox.

>>13907020

witcher 3 actually has a decent open world as far as open worlds usually go

Open world is shit

Linear is better. Just elaborate on the linear.

Parallel content, side-quests

worthy backtracking

branching paths

Open world if done well, like Jagged Alliance 2.

Pussy. Ass is fine but I like pussy.

Linear but with interconnection between levels at some points. Kind of like a spider web.

>>13905631

They aren't mutually exclusive.

You can have a linear game in an open world.

That's stuff like Zelda alttp, where you can go anywhere, but can only access the dungeons you have the required item to enter, resulting in a linear dungeon order. As opposed to albw, where the world is open, and you can access the the dungeons in whatever order you fell like accessing them.

You can also have non-linear, level based games instead of open world. Stuff like Odallus.

In theory, I prefer open world games, but they're hard to make right so we get a lot of huge ass maps but with actual content within and when there's content it's hardly anything relevant or useful compared to the main questline.

>>13915631

>and now even open world adventure with lots of secrets

>with lots of lore and love towards old zelda fans

just gonna stop right there, if you think this is the first zelda game with open world, you obviously never played any zelda game before…

>>13915646

>zelda

>before breath of fire

>open world

No. They were more like dragon's dogma - limited to which quest you're currently up to. Yes, there were big open spaces, but just to grind or get rupees. There were no real freedom. Now zelda is closer to assassin's creed/skyrim style of gameplay.

>>13915631

Oh, that's some fresh pasta.

>>13915702

As I said in a previous post, they were still open world games, but with very linear objectives.

A game can be open worlded and still be a linear game.

Linearity describes objectives and goals, open world describes level design. And no, it doesn't necessarily mean a huge map, with vast plains and climbable mountains, but games where you can reach every point A to every point B "by foot" or crossing some bridges(like taking a boat to another island or reaching a loading zone to enter a valley trhough a cave) whitout accessing level select menus or anything like it.

>>13915994

Nigga u needing to play some Elona+.

>>13905631

early access

>>13905631

>open world (non linear) ones.

Not all non linear games are open world you shithead.

That said, what matters most is level design. It's easier to make good linear levels than it is to make non linear levels where you have to account for every possible point in the game at which the player might try to play it, which leads us to horrible design ideas like level scaling.

>>13916544

>Having my nuclear artillery blow up an enemy base in SupCom isn't escapism

>Shagging my sister in CK2 isn't escapism

>Having Hitler win WWII in HoI isn't escapism

>>13916544

>implying fun isn't escapism

>>13916544

>implying escapism isn't fun

>playing videogames based on "games" instead of whatever you find fun or personally want, like "I like and want escapism" or I like and want to release stress" and such

>>13905631

i would prefer "open world" games if they were done well but how often does that happen?

stories and plots are rarely as interesting as even the most cliche world.

Mostly linear, but also some open world with a modest map size and quests concentrated in certain important places like Gothic (and not scattered throughout the entire fucking map like Witcher 3 holy fucking shit if this isn't the most tedious shit in the game, more so than the combat)

I despise linear games. Any game where my own experience cannot differ from anyone else's, where the only goal is "win as quickly as possible", is not worth playing. The point of a game is direct interaction and individual experience; a game that has neither of those is basically a movie that is the same for everyone who watches it, with the only difference being that you need to press buttons in the right order to advance the plot.

>>13931002

why does other people playing the game the same way diminish the experience?