Are linear games becoming a thing of the past?

If you are a retarded hack then yes. If you are an artist with a vision of making a masterpiece then no.

test

By fast travel you mean open a map and click on a place or fast travel you pay a carriage to take you somewhere instantly?

I would say both are bad, but the latter less so.

A well crafted linear game is way harder to make than a soulless, empty open world.
MGSV's map looks almost like it was procedurally generated.

So yeah, makes sense he wouldn't wanna take the hard route anymore.

Well most people don't feel like aimlessly walking around for hours just to get somewhere, but I'm guessing you're just against it when developers "force" fast travel which may or may not be a problem inherent to big open worlds.

The people who would say yes would also have said yes thirty years ago.

99%*

Kojima ducks dicks at open world.

The evil within 1 takes a huge fucking shit on TEW2 because of its linearity. Better atmosphere, level design, level of detail and gameplay come from maknig things linear and not watered down sidequest shit

linear games are and will always be low tier garbage.

Yeah, we gotta kill all the SOI infused fags with a bias against open world

konami was right evidence #423

>Last of Us 2
naughty dog in 2019 is garbage and you should feel awful for even bringing them up.

>aimlessly
it isn't aimless if the world is designed right, that's his point

Oh yeah Konami, the studio who has down SO much right since Kojima left huh? Like all these masterpieces since 2015 and great games like Metal Gear Survive they've given us?

I don't hate linear games but I FAR prefer open world.

I fucking hate Kojima so goddamn much, I just want to end him

Please try user. More of your kind dead would benefit the board and humanity

World hubs > Open world

World hubs are meticulously crafted smaller open worlds brimming with content. It gives the developers a clear goal on what should be where. How each block should be distinct from one another. Their separated spaces allows for distinct biomes without having to explain in immense detail why you've e.g just walked from a desert to a forest in such a short span of time. On top of all this, world hubs are usually far more performance friendly to older computers because of the smaller sizes.

Open your eyes, you know it to be true.

Attached: BASED MAN.png (1027x1314, 1.15M)

pretty based

>mgsv was shit and so are 90% of open world games

there has been good open world games outside of BotW?

I mean the Farcry series is lame, have not touched Witcher, AssCreed is okay, and FFXV was bad for many reasons including the empty open world

There's nothing wrong with fast travel and it doesn't mark the quality of a game's world. Fallout New Vegas has a really strong world that's fun and interesting to explore, but if I'm in somewhere south like Camp Mccaran and I wanna do shit on the strip I'm not going to waste my valuable time walking there and getting distracted dozens of time along the way.

I agree with this, I played Anachronox last year and even though I absolutely loathed the combat every single world was great, I wish I knew how to strip the the combat and game progression flags from the game so I could just walk around and explore.

Unless I can do something with an open world or it's somehow populated with nothing but good content, I have no interest in non-sandbox open world games for the most part, it's a slog if there's no quick-travel of any sort.

Nah but if a dev does continue getting bigger in size and budget they will work their way up to open world games eventually because they sell better. Fromsoft with Elden Ring is a perfect example.

The build up to and then the notpyramidhead bossfight is the high point of the game, but the overall quality is so inconsistent I still haven't finished it. I played only demo of TW2 and it looks like a much better game just from what is in the demo.

Open worlds are an improvement for most types of games. For MGS it allowed a lot more gameplay possibilities even if it was a little empty. Death Stranding looks like it'll be beautiful to explore.

Attached: death-stranding-screen-03-ps4-us-28may19.jpg (3840x2160, 1.02M)

>For MGS it allowed a lot more gameplay possibilities

epic retard zoomer """"""""opinion"""""""" my mouthbreathing "friend"

Maybe. Witcher 3 has world I want to travel through without using fast travel and do side quests. Most open world games have this flaw where the world design doesn't work because the writing is bad, or the quests are exact one recycled chore, or the art direction is bad. I agree with your reasoning in general, there are still those rare games I want to play because they are open world (Cyberpunk 77).

>be assassin
>master of stealth, disguise and improvisation
>want to go upstairs to get a better view of the target
>a guard politely asks me not to go upstairs because it's restricted
>immediately dismiss all plans about going upstairs because that guard whose job it is to stop assassins politely asked me not to
This is the kind of person that doesn't like open worlds, and they have consistently ruined countless games with their inability to do anything without having their hands held at every moment.

MGSV being openworld was it's best flaw, because the open world didn't mean anything.

if you had to secure psots and put solderis thre to gain resources and having to defend them back or some shit like that, might have added something interesting... but as it was, it was only a chore.

Breath of the Wild is a great example of what's wrong with open world games because it's just as empty and boring as the others.... But it's okay when Nintendo does it :^)

>Are linear games becoming a thing of the past?
That's Sonys bread n butter, so no. Not anytime soon.

Go back

nice argument memeposting buzzword spamming faggot

Oh yeah all those linear Sony games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Spider Man, Ratchet & Clank and Days Gone.

oh no, retarded autist wants an argument. then make sure you address and refute it before posting your embarrassing cringe shit again

This is the ultimate argument to dismantle the widespread delusion about MGSV having "the best gameplay in the series," or even "good gameplay" at all. This argument will only focus on the gameplay, completely detached from the story of the game or the series as a whole. However, certain mechanics that have more direct ties to the story or lore will still be addressed for gameplay purposes.

The most commonly cited "proof" of TPP having "good gameplay" is the idea that the game has some (abstract) "freedom" that gives you an unparalleled selection of options in-game and thus the game has "better" gameplay than the older games from the series (and that the same "freedom" warrants praise in general, leading to the idea that the game has "good gameplay" and deserves to be lauded as something special).

The second most commonly cited "proof" of TPP having "good gameplay" is the idea that the game has some (abstract) set of "mechanics" that simply "makes it the best". Boiled down to the crux of this non-argument, the idea is that the basic system mechanics in the game are simply "better" than those of the other MGS games, or possibly other stealth or action games in general. As badly as the arguments of the mouthbreathing TPP defenders are formulated and explained, I can only guess at what exactly they are referring to with this one. A fair assumption would be that when people cite the "good mechanics" they are talking about the combat system, the stealth mechanics, your basic controls to interact with the systems and so on. If I wanted to end the discussion right here, I'd probably point at the fact that those mechanics are at best the other half of the nigh-mobile game grind the game has, focused entirely on capturing resources and managing Mother Base.

I will now dismantle these ideas completely.

>pasta
nope, try again

>m-muh p-pasta n-noo that text doesnt count

and it was written by me, ill stop posting it when someone disproves it fucking retard

TPP trades "design" for "freedom". It opts out to throw out complex level design, something imperative to a stealth game. A map is a platter for the designer to implement their gameplay scenario. For any type of game, but particularly a stealth game, it's undoubtedly necessary to have a gameplay scenario that challenges the player in some way. The challenge itself can obviously be varied, constantly changing, but it should be there to give some type of concise structure for the player. A game is a game, something with rules, something to play in and win at. Basketball is a game, merely throwing a ball around isn't. You might argue that TPP "has" level design, just an extremely barebones implementation of it. This is obvious and in no way counters the truth. Good level design is a platter for the scenario to function in. The only "freedom" TPP gives you is to break the level design itself as the creator doesn't have enough control to make a game out of it. It's almost irrelevant whether or not TPP has any type of level design at all as the creator can't force the player into it's constraints. It's too wide, too open, too empty to faciliate any type of game.

TPP also completely throws out varied gameplay scenarios. The one thing you're meant to use your "freedom" on (the game) is so barebones, so repetitive that the only thing left is to kick the ball around on an empty field. The game has exactly one type of objective that it uses on every single main mission of the game, its one primary gameplay scenario, the most complex scenario it can offer you, the scenario that also gets distilled down to an even simpler form to accommodate the side ops in the game.

"Go here and destroy this. If this can be extracted, it's always the right answer to fulton it instead, no matter what the description of the mission is."

Hopefully.
By trying to fix this outdated mode they are holding back the progress of open world games.
Get with the program or get out of the way.

nah you didnt
try again

If your mission is to kill 3 commanders, the right answer is to traverse through the empty overworld as quickly as possible and extract them. If your mission is to destroy tanks coming in onto the map, the right answer is to extract them. If your mission is to trail a soldier to assassinate his commander, the right answer is to extract the target. Mission to kill prisoners? Extract them. Extract the tank unit, extract the wandering mother base soldiers, extract the highly skilled soldier number.134213, extract the interpreter, extract the ____ specialist. The only variation to this formula is when you are absolutely forced to destroy something instead, when youre put against something that you can't fulton (Sahelanthropus). These missions are extremely rare and quite offensively simplistic. They offer even less of this "freedom" that is supposed to be the selling point of the game.

So what is the "freedom" that turns these repetitive extraction missions into the "best gameplay" of the series?

The "freedom" in TPP is an illusion. Not only are the options themselves far more limited than the game would want you to believe, the strategies for applying these "options" are automatically kept in check by the other half of the game where you will not progress unless you gather resources.

Knowing this, your options are to either sacrifice resources by killing or getting soldiers by not killing them. Lets assume that both options are viable (which they are not).

Yes I did autist, feel free to prove me wrong though. Posted the first time a few days ago when some autistic toddler was begging for a "real argument" to prove how TPP is shit and I got tired of autists like you begging for the same argument in every thread over and over when you cant even refute this one. Epic deflection though, im sure those words are magically not correct since they have been posted before though, this must be the actual definition of cope

You're still left with two options. Red or blue damage. The exact same choice you have in the past games, except now you have far less complex ways to interact with your enemies rather than simply killing or stunning them. Complex body damage is gone, affecting the equipment of the soldiers is completely tied to one of the mobile game Mother Base mechanics instead (dispatch missions) that happens somewhere offscreen and suddenly the enemies don't have battle armor. The game tricks you into thinking that you have options (look at all these items, look at all these guns, look at all these arms,) but all of it is a lie. You're left with less than you had in previous games, you merely have options for how you want to deal your red or blue damage.

And of course, you can produce noise. Another option padded with a ton of false depth.

Simply off the top of my head, you can deal red damage (lethal) with guns, you can slit throats, use explosives (grenades, C4, rocket launchers, grenade launchers) or even a lethal rocket arm. There are hundreds of guns in the game, all dealing the same lethal damage. You're given the illusion of depth by giving you 100 different assault rifles that all do the exact same thing. You can never even manually deploy without one equipped, you're always decked out to kill in multiple ways even if you don't take the explosives with you (which are never the right answer to anything, since anything you might want to blow up you actually want to extract)

Then you have blue damage. CQC is always available and you even have a chain CQC move that lets you down an entire crowd of close by opponents. Already you can see the pattern of false depth here since you're given a Stun arm which can do the exact same thing, but it's treated as another, as-if meaningful function. You have automatic riot assault rifles and submachineguns, sniper rifles and tranq guns.

Upvoted

And last, you can make noise. You can always deploy with an infinite pile of empty magazines and the biomechanical arm can produce noise directly from you. Making noise is another bloated pile of false depth, since that infinite pile of magazines can be supplemented by limited noisemakers like the active decoy. None of them are actually better than the magazines you have though, just far more ridiculous and overtly visible to not only kill all semblance of stealthy military simulation, but to make redditors chortle into their pube beards.

In short, you have layers upon layers of false depth by giving you "options" out of your three primary modes of interacting with an enemy NPC. You have even less freedom when faced with skulls or child soldiers though. The environment itself is always completely asinine, the objective itself is always so simplistic that it might as well not exist as you intuitively know to fulton the soldier with a glowing marker on it. Your "freedom" to interact with said soldiers is no more complex than in the paid demo, let alone the past MGS games where you couldn't always choose your kit but still had an intelligently designed, varied and interesting gameplay scenario around those mechanics at your disposal.

why are people saying cringe shit like this guy?wtf does this even mean? it's just an empty barron landscape with a shitty depth of field effect and you carry a fucking ladder and a baby in a pod. its retarded beyond belief but onions guzzlers are getting all wide eyed and gaped jaw over it

Nonlinearity done right is a sign of care and effort being put into a game. A game that demands you go through every step exactly the way it wants is like a bad text adventure parser that only understands a single variation of "get ye flask".

But doing it right requires an exponential amount of work the more nonlinear you get, and there are diminishing returns. You could make a game with three massive completely separate routes with tons of unique content on each but the average player (not the people who post here) is only going to play the game once and judge it based on that. And since game prices are sticky, you can't charge any more for it just because it has more content, so devs have a huge financial incentive to stretch content as much as possible, meaning every playthrough of almost every game out there is roughly the same.

But people do like FEELING LIKE their choices have meaning. This was the racket that Telltale Games ran. They always told you "X will remember that" but there was no payoff at the end, every game ended virtually the same. The spell was broken if you tried playing something like Wolf Among Us more than once.

Attached: 1562312550815.jpg (512x512, 151K)

>i dont think he understands what "linear" means