Linear vs Wide Linear vs Open World

The thing with open world though is that it's never been about level design or orchestrating anything. The best open world games (or at least the best moments in open world games) are about systems clashing together to create dynamic fun.

The car chases in GTA aren't supposed to be scripted, but just a product of all the world's elements. Far Cry 3 is supposed to be about planning around what happens to be in the environment and what your situation happens to be at that particular time.

The first Assassin's Creed was supposed to be about stealthing around however you had to in order to complete a set of objectives in an ever-changing environment. That didn't work out so well so all the subsequent games have ended up severely constraining what really makes open-world games work. ACII was basically a pretty good linear game set within an open-world environment that still showed flashes of open-world mechanics meshing together in some of the missions. The rest since have been just iterations on that.

The exception is probably Bethesda's games, which are called open world but aren't open world in the same sense as GTA. They're sort of their own tangent on the Ultima Underworld lineage of design but with much larger environments.

animlboogy said:
I dunno if I would say any of these categories emerged this gen.
Click to expand...

They didn't. Open world emerged on consoles last gen of course (at least that's when it got popular. I hear it's been a tradition in British game design for a very long time). This generation is really the time when first person simulation RPGs became popular on consoles.
 
What are games like the DQ series, Xenoblade, and Skies of Arcadia considered? Wide linear maybe? A pretty direct path to advance the plot but still a lot of subquests and a world you can explore with lots to do... that's the kind of game I like best.
 
Dennis said:
A game can never be too open or too non-linear.

Non-linear, emergent, open-world games with choices and consequences that affect the gameworld are the Holy Grail of Gaming.
Click to expand...

I don't think the holy grail of gaming includes mediocre mechanics tied with a non-existent difficulty curve.
 
Not a fan of open world.

-it tends to lead to unfocused game design.
- Tends to kill good level design.
- hard to keep the players motivated to finish the game when they can do whatever they want
- usually buggy because of the size and possibilities
- take too long to develop
- once the initial euphoria of doing whatever you want wears off you realize usually that the core mechanics are shallow
- the mmo quaility of most open world game quests ie. get 10 of this, kill 15 of that, talk to x over there. ugh zzzzzz
 
Farcry3 was open world with a linear scripted story. While I thought it was okay, I prefer open world the most with orchestrated sandbox the nest best with games like Hitman absolution and Dishonored. Games that either take away player choice or severely punish you for "not doing it the way the designers intended(the opening hours of AC3) aren't fun IMO. The way the designers did the story missions in FC3 were frustratingly linear to the point of telling you you would fail if you deviated from the artificial hallway they carefully crafted..that sucked and defeats the benefits(infinite player choice) of being open world.

Keeping the gameplay emergent and dynamic also keeps the player engaged and allows for replay-ability where as a linear scripted story plays exactly the same every time and offer NO replay-ability.

Developers and publishers are worried that by not including a MP component to their game it will get it traded-in. Well I say instead of building a shitty MP they need to look at ways to make the gameplay more emergent and dynamic in the SP to offer the player more replay-ability. I like the way Skyrim, FONV, Dishonored and Hitman Absolution are doing things, I'd like more of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom