Linearity is bad! Open world is good!

so, is it true or not?

Attached: 1523206757687.jpg (2050x1262, 432K)

Depends on the game

Pretty much. Sometimes too linear is horrible, like FF13 for the first half.

both are fine for the sake of variety, but mix of both is probably optimal (aka large open sections that eventually progress into another, similar to what Witcher 1 does for an example)

Open world for RPGs with side quests and non linear quest design. Linear for everything else

fpbp

This.
On the other hand 99% of the games I've played are lineal on some way.

Vaguely linear hub worlds with mission areas branching off.

I didn't make it past the first half of the game. Did it get better in the second half? The whole game felt like a tutorial.

you essentially reach a section that feels like open world with large open areas and bunch of stuff to do in any order

/thread

They are both shit

Attached: stalker_map.jpg (1949x2160, 939K)

Linearity can be great if they do a good job of guiding the player through a curated experience and there are side branching paths to explore and open areas to check out so it's not a corridor simulator like FF13. Open world works if they put the time in to make it feel alive, but sometimes the world just feels empty. I think there’s a happy medium in between to the two that works best.

linear games that feel open are the best

t. halo ce

The open world meme isn’t because they are open, but because they are too large for their own good and universally shit. A good game with a reasonably-sized, open map wouldn’t be called an open world game.

Lol I know what part of FF13 this is, isn't there a whole side area missing?

>universally shit
Nothing is universally shit, except for the opinion that anything can be universally shit.

Both are shit compared to the GOAT that is overworld maps with content rich locations.

Attached: 1550815565116.jpg (500x500, 52K)

no

Forgive the hyperbole, autism-chan, but something “too big for its own good” is by definition shittier than it otherwise would be. Don’t respond.

Both have qualities and neither should seek to replace the other.

Granted, this is Yea Forums so, open worlds are fucking gay. I play vidya because the worlds are small and packed full of interesting, meaningful shit. If I wanted to wander around, accomplish nothing and see absolutely nothing of more than remote interest for hours on end, I could literally walk out my front door and do that and there's probably just about as much probability of a hostile encounter to boot.

Open world has become an excuse for devs to be lazy cunts. Instead of walling me off from the endless expanse of trees and hill that have nothing in them, they just removed the wall so if I happen to stray off the trail, I end up surrounded by sweet fuck all.

But devs can ruin anything, too.

This. Games where the plot demands exploration usually match open world. Everything else doesn't need it.

Why does everyone keep pretending it's one or the other? Linearity is shit and so are most open worlds.

Attached: 2f56623d24f5c1dc2550d9cb52c1e85c7dea80f9_hq.jpg (1024x732, 65K)

bad linear is better than average open world
good open world is better than good linear
best is a mix between the two

>curated experience

Attached: lolnic.jpg (450x450, 25K)

Open world with linear quests is still linear. Open world with open quests is something no game dev understands.

Probe me wrong.

MOTHERFUCKER!!

how did you get my IP address

Open worlds are all trash, you can do nonlinear without doing open world.

I like both.

either can be good if well-executed
done poorly, however, open-world games suffer more greatly from bad design than linear games
linear games have structure and purposeful design behind them, and while they may prove to be sub-par, they are not as bad as a sub-par open-world game