I don't know if I prefer fully-open-world games or kinda-linear-open-world games.

[RedSwirl]

By "fully open" I mean games like Bethesda games or Breath of the Wild where you can basically go anywhere from the beginning, and by "kinda linear" I mean games where semi-open environments are unlocked in sequence, kinda like most older JRPGs.

I like how many full open-world games try to have believable environments where you can do whatever you want, I like how systemic they feel. The problem I have with them though is how rewards and secrets are often the same everywhere because the developer can't predict where players will go first. Of course there's Skyrim where everything just scales to your level. BOTW just gives you the same orbs in all the shrines. Sure certain abilities and pieces of gear are in specific locations but they feel minuscule next to all those orbs and Korok seeds. It's just a bit better than some other games because their locations aren't immediately dotted all over the map.

On the flipside the more "linear" open-world games can have a genuine sense of embarking on a journey from one place to another without feeling like you're going down a corridor. I guess Pokémon is a good quintessential example? Really just all the more traditional FF/Dragon Quest-style RPGs. In these the main story slowly unlocks a huge world you can go back and re-explore, creating a carefully-measured sense of progression that eventually gives way to total freedom. These games tend to have less freedom than what I mentioned above, but perhaps not enough of them are being made these days. An interesting western example that gets ignored too often is STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl. I think a lot of open-world haters should try it and the subject of its world design in contrast with say, Far Cry, is really worthy of its own thread. It's made up of a chain of small-but-open areas that contain lots of interlocking sandbox systems, yet the game also has legit dungeons. It's like if a Far Cry game was structured more like Final Fantasy X.

I think what I've generally settled on is that the more wide-open open-world games are actually better when they don't bother with a main quest, because they tend to be at odds with how the player character progresses. Just let them be a sandbox where the player makes their own story. Or at the very least, provide a mode that cuts out the main quest. And these kinds of worlds should still have unique rewards spread out. Whereas story-focused open-world games should probably more often unlock areas bit-by-bit. Rockstar's games, the most popular ones, do this.

What I don't like is when the wide-open open-world games try to lock off areas with simple level-gating. Saying you should be at level 40 to go here to me has started to feel like an excuse to force players onto the hamster treadmill. Oftentimes it's also balanced badly. In Witcher 3 it's really easy to over-level yourself for quests and areas long before you discover them.

 

[Bhonar]

I like Witcher 2 better than Witcher 3, because 2 is more linear and focused

 

[Deleted member 249]

I personally find the full open, systemic style ala Elder Scrolls and Breath of the Wild to be more to my liking, but that style is also not conducive to story focused games. So I think there is a place for both kinds, based on what kind of game you are looking to play or make.

But I personally will always have an affinity for the full open style espoused by The Elder Scrolls and BotW.

 

[Damerman]

As long as the level design is interesting in fantastical ways(souls games) or in realistic ways(STALKER games), i dont care how its designed. Gtav could have had much better level design imo.

 

[Deleted member 1413]

BOTW is great since you can play it in a linear fashion (shrines counter clockwise and then Ganon) or just go nuts.
Probably harder balance gameplay wise and story wise, but the sense of freedom is outstanding.

As long as I know what to do next to progress, I'm happy.

 

[Sanctuary]

I like Witcher 2 better than Witcher 3, because 2 is more linear and focused

Click to shrink...

Same. Although I liked the characters and overall dialogue more in TW3. The only open-world design I like is the "kind of" open-world where it's primarily a linear game, but with expansive levels.

I think what I've generally settled on is that the more wide-open open-world games are actually better when they don't bother with a main quest, because they tend to be at odds with how the player character progresses. Just let them be a sandbox where the player makes their own story. Or at the very least, provide a mode that cuts out the main quest. And these kinds of worlds should still have unique rewards spread out. Whereas story-focused open-world games should probably more often unlock areas bit-by-bit. Rockstar's games, the most popular ones, do this.

Click to shrink...

I cannot stand this.

 

[Ricky_R]

I prefer wide linear, as they call it now.

Open world games tend to be chore for me.

 

[hobblygobbly]

Gothic series, particularly the second game, is still to be topped with how well it balanced the two.

Edit: I remember someone posted a video about this on the old forum few years ago too, this one.

 

[ArmadilloGame]

It's an apples and oranges thing. Both can be great, and variety in the marketplace is a great thing. What's most important is the dev understanding exactly what it is they are creating, why that is their choice, and then designing with that always in mind. When they don't, we get the worst of both worlds. Open worlds padded with gameplay "deserts" and a linear set of tasks in an open world that, if rearranged into a set of mario style discrete levels, would lose nothing except a bullet point on the box.

 

[Orochinagis]

Linear, most of Open World now are filled with pointless collectibles and tons of sidequests each time you are exploring or going to the main mission that makes you overpowered easily without touching the main game.

Oh, you mean like sandboxes? I enjoyed Dark Souls 1 pre lord vessel and Metroid Prime

 

[banter]

The linearity or openness the world has generally isn't the key factor. How the world is utilized and how the game works within it is. Both open and kind of linear worlds can be great, and both can be terrible.

 

[The Albatross]

I'm with you OP, I',m torn between both.

What I liked about open world games that's a hallmark of the genre without really being talked about is how you can set your own pace in almost all of those games. I really enjoy a game more when I can do something that's challenging or ... high intensity, and then balance that out with something that's mundane or low intensity. For instance, I'll play a mission or two of RDR (not that it's challenging, but it's narrative driven and high intensity), and then I'll balance that out by collecting flowers or playing Liars Dice or something, wasting time, or just being passive in the game. That's something I've always liked about open world games when I first got into the genre... That it's not all about going from intense death battle to intense death battle, I could set my own pace.

It's also why I particularly like metroivanias or even pseudo-metrovanias. A game like Guacamelee! is a great example, where you can set your own pace for the most part, playing through the levels with increasing difficulty, or going back and achieving things in previously easier levels with your new powers, to unlock more mechanics or more abilities, or what have you. That allows me to set my own pace of what I want to do.

On the flipside, linear games like Tomb Raider or Uncharted wear thin with me because the pace has to be set by the developer -- especially Uncharted. And if you don't want to fight through a sinking island killing 1,000 baddies, well, you don'thave a choice. Or, if you don't want to do a walking sequence through a desert, you don't have a choice. Tomb Raider handles this a little differently, allowing you to explore on your own more so than Uncharted does.

On the other hand, even the possibility of Ubisoft's open worlds kind of ... frustrate me because I don't feel any sense of satisfaction when doing those challenges... like climbing towers, finding treasure, or doing random shit in the world. TO me, there's no satisfaction going into an area of the map and discovering a treasure chest. I'm not sure what it is anymore. So, in those cases, I really dont like that open world style.

 

[playXray]

I don't think it really matters - just take it on a game by game basis and enjoy whatever you find the most fun.

 

[NullPointer]

To me, the best open worlds are the sandboxes with areas you return to again and again, that you get to know the in's and out's of, to then use what you know to overcome a games' challenges.

So take the cities in GTA games. The more you play, the more shortcuts, jumps, escape routes, item pickups, parked car locations, etc you learn. All of that elevates *any* mission you do. Its the same with GTAO (oh man do you learn that city well), with Dying Light (learning parkour routes, shortcuts, trap locations, night-routes, etc), Hitman 2016, Monster Hunter (so very much to learn about each area, all of which exposes gameplay opportunities) etc.

This is in stark contrast to the Ubisoft flavor of open world. Super fucking huge, but with little isolated islands of gameplay that you do once and then never again because you move to a new section of the map. This design keeps things moving and eliminates backtracking, but it also makes each area feel disposable in a gameplay sense. There's no reason to return to them. Just do the missions tied to that backdrop and move to the next area. You also see this in Ubisoft open world expansions too, which tacks on additional isolated areas rather than adding content to the core game world to provide a reason to return to classic locations.

 

[RedSwirl]

Gothic series, particularly the second game, is still to be topped with how well it balanced the two.

Edit: I remember someone posted a video about this on the old forum few years ago too, this one.

Click to shrink...

I still need to play Gothic.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

Yeah, I hear you, OP. Personally, I prefer linearity or semi-linearity over total nonlinearity. I've never played a game without a structured, guided narrative that didn't start to bore me severely over time.

Breath of the Wild just wore out its welcome so damn quickly after I left the Plateau and it became clear the entire rest of the game was just that on a way bigger scale.

 

[rusty chrome]

Whatever the Soulsborne games are, I prefer that. So many open world games feel open world for no reason. BOTW is one of them.

 

[Glio]

One is more appropriate when the focus is the story, another when the focus is on exploration.

To do both things at the same time I do not think it's possible to be honest. The total open world approach makes things like for example a city to be devastated in the story impossible to do without damaging the experience enough (Like Megaton)

 

[Era of not Yakuza]

We need balance. Some times a simple game like doors kickers get all my attention and I really enjoy, yet sometimes I need a sim, a car game... But the older I get I have less desire to play games like GTA/Saints Row/Assassin's Creed

 

[StraySheep]

Kinda linear / hub areas 100%. I guess overall I want my world maps to be an area I'm passing through, not THE area to explore.

 

[nib95]

Whilst I can and do enjoy both, I generally much prefer kinda-linear-open world games. Most true open world games I find too monotonous, large, time wasting and repetitious. Like you end up spending vast amounts of time doing stuff that is way less productive.

As a result, despite having played dozens and dozens of open world games, aside from a few GTA's, Yakuza's, Horizon Zero Dawn, Fallout and a handful of others, there's very few fully open world games I've actually completed (not including open world racers). I just end up getting bored with them. Conversely, I pretty much always finish kinda-linear-open world games, eg stuff like God of War, Bloodborne, older Zelda, Witcher 2, Mass Effect etc. In fact this aspect is one of the reasons I actually preferred Witcher 2 to Witcher 3, as it just seemed like a more streamlined and fat free experience.

 

[get2sammyb]

I like the way it's done in games like Hitman, where you've got these huge, sprawling levels with freedom of choice. You get the scope of an open world, but it feels more designed because it's ultimately more enclosed.

 

[Deleted member 11626]

I prefer some linearity. I appreciated that in Mass Effect 2, for example I could explore some but the game kept me pushing forward while allowing some diversions here and there. Same is true so far in my play through of God of War.

Although my three favorite games this gen are BotW, Witcher 3, and Horizon ZD.....and those are all pretty damn open so I guess as long as the execution is good then I'm good lol

 

[SupremeWu]

I prefer open-world to anything else, yes you can over-level for some stuff but that's also balanced by running into things which you should absolutely not be fucking with. It's more fun, and the best memories I have are of taking out something way higher level that I had no business messing with. Finding a way to do the impossible. You just don't tend to get that with the more designed experiences, where things ratchet up on a schedule.

 

[spacer]

Linear or "open linear", a-la God of War 2018, always. Open world games are typically boring and filled with useless fluff. The only acception is The Witcher 3.

 

[Asbsand]

I like Witcher 2 better than Witcher 3, because 2 is more linear and focused

Click to shrink...

Its focus is its main story and Witcher 3 is about the world. The plot of Witcher 3 pales in comparison but made up for it with pretty good characters.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I generally like games like the latest Hitman where there are big individual locations with a high degree of freedom and experimentation available to the player, or something like Hollow Knight where the overall worlds are linear paths that criss-cross in many ways.

However, BotW was the best realization of a huge open world I've experienced in a game yet. On a base level, it made the mere act of moving through its world a compelling gameplay loop. I'll take games that do open worlds as well or better than BotW probably every time. These are and will be exceedingly rare, so I'll generally put the "wide linear/inch wide & mile deep" games on top (though games on the level of Hitman and Hollow Knight aren't exactly common either)

 

[NotVeryFriendly]

I prefer more linear experiences in general.

That doesn't necessarily mean the likes of Uncharted where you're guided down a single path, it's more referring to linear games where the levels are expansive enough to provide room for exploration and experimentation (e.g. Dishonored, the Souls games, Metal Gear Solid 1-4, Prey, the Halo series; some may object to 'Prey' there but even though the world can be explored openly it's much more of a linear experience with a much more linear path than a typical 'open world' game). I find the focus results in a much tighter pacing, with more mechanically-satisfying gameplay systems as they can be tuned to the player's experience.

Although I can enjoy open world games (GTA, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Red Dead Redemption) I find it's much rarer for me to enjoy them and this generation in particular has really brought me down on them. Metal Gear Solid 5 and The Witcher 3 in particular really had a big impact in bringing down my enjoyment of open world games as I usually find traversal to play an incredibly large role yet be something which is incredibly unsatisfying mechanically. The world's are often bare of interesting things to do (with the exception of quests in which case I rarely find the open world to do much to compliment them), drags down the pacing, and results in you trekking across the landscape waiting to get to something interesting (or something which isn't just a copy-pasted point of interest like a guard outpost or bandit camp). I find the open world rarely actually has any impact on the 'missions'/'quests' in the game or how you approach them. The prevalence of boring collectibles in open world games also doesn't help.

Unless the open world game is from a develop who is known to me to specialise in making high quality open world games (Rockstar, Bethesda), I now tend to avoid them. It can certainly vary depending on the game of course.

 

[Aztechnology]

Witcher and Fallout have structure though. Sure they're open world, but they're fairly curated. I prefer that kind of experience. When a title is too sandboxy, I lose interest after a while as it all starts to blend in.

I weigh narrative as much if not more than gameplay, so I prefer controlled/linear open-world like The Witcher 3 and GoW.

Click to shrink...

Ditto

 

[KrigareN-]

I weigh narrative as much if not more than gameplay, so I prefer controlled/linear open-world like The Witcher 3 and GoW.

 

[pswii60]

Fully open world games bore me because I like some linearity to my quest. Ubisoft games basically just don't do it for me at all.

But on the flipside, semi-open world games like God of War feel lame because they give the impression of an open world, but feel so restrictive. So many walls in God of War and no interaction unless the game wants you to have it at that point, with the dreaded white spot appearing and then turning in to a circle button prompt as you get closer. It actually felt kind of primitive. And then there was the backtracking and seeing the same bloody environments again and again.

Which is why my ideal game is probably a linear game, but with plenty of space and secret areas to explore.

 

[stat84]

No point if prefering one over the other.

You judge each game seperately

 

[Deleted member 8861]

Linear games where each segment or level is open is the fucking BEST.

Dishonored for example.

 

[Raide]

I tend to get massively distracted by a true open world. It sounds great to just head out and do what you want but I usually end up in a place I should not be and die horribly. I much prefer a balance of being directed towards a path or goal and then open things up later.

 

[nib95]

No point if prefering one over the other.

You judge each game seperately

Click to shrink...

That goes without saying, but that doesn't mean you can't have a preference. Presumably you've played enough of each style of game to know which you're more likely to enjoy or prefer.

 

[Y2Kev]

Open linear seems to be a 3d mapping of the metroidvania concept in my experience. I like that. You have to gate progression to make it linear in some ways and that seems to work really well.

 

[Elephant]

As I got older I lost interest in massive open worlds. I just don't have the time to devote to them, especially with my gaming OCD which dictates that I MUST do every side quest and activity before progressing the main story (which usually means I never complete the main story). Horizon became a wonderful middle ground for me, that had perfect pacing and wasn't too daunting.

I think I prefer that "illusion" of an open world, more than an actual open world. God of War is a good example of being a linear game that makes the player feel relatively free within it's constraints.

 

[Lonn]

Open world MMO seems to be good idea in my opinion.

 

[Clear]

I try to tell myself i like open world but in the end i do enjoy a more linear experience.

 

[Ossom]

I loved RDR because it felt like I had a vast world to explore at my own pace, however when those worlds become overly populated and filled with "go to the place/collect the thing/deliver the thing/talk to the person" missions they feel like lists rather than things to discover. BOTW does a great job of this and I played it for 140 hours before moving on.

I would lean towards a more linear approach as I like to be lead by the story and maintain momentum, but it that is also a product of having limited time and too much to play. Having Just finished Horizon ZD, I would have been happy if the world was half the size and there were half as many collectibles. I guess the benefit of the game design was that I could play straight through and avoid the collectables and side missions.

 

[Deleted member 7450]

I like them both.

 

[∀∃:ETURNA]

Open world MMO seems to be good idea in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

Black Desert Online is the only MMO I know of that pulls this off. New World by Amazon Game Studios also might be an open world MMORPG.

I like them both.

Click to shrink...

Same.

 

[Zephy]

What is important to me is to be able to go at my pace, go back to previous places, be free to take sidequests and explore. To feel like I'm a character living in that world, not just running forward to the next check point.

Beyond that, I don't really care how open it is, if it's instanced or one big area, if places unlock as I progress or right at the start. Mass Effect, FF XII or GTA all give you freedom differently, but I have no preference, each is interesting in their own merit.

 

[Watershed]

Thinking back on JRPG design of the slowly expanding world, I really like this approach as long as the game gives the player clear free opportunities to explore the areas they've unlocked so far through story progression AND that exploration is rewarded. Looking at Xenoblade Chronicles 2 as a recent example, the game does a good job of giving the player basically endless opportunities to abandon the story progression at any time and explore new and old regions alike.

 

[ThreepQuest64]

In Witcher 3 it's really easy to over-level yourself for quests and areas long before you discover them.

Click to shrink...

It's so so you are soft-forced to follow the main story eventually at some point, and don't feel like missing out rewards and XP when you do not do every single side quest. You still can do them, of course, for their story.

On topic, I prefer a more narrow structure of a game's world. Gothic 1, 2 and Risen 1, for example, achieved that by offering no enemy scaling at all. There are regions you could enter but probably won't leave alive. It's not, however, due to some hero/enemy level/stat cap, but because of armor, hit points, and damage; it appears naturally. The Witcher 3, on the other hand, is more of an action adventure to me because stats, besides your level, doesn't matter that much. Everything is tied to your level: the equipment you can wear, the enemy damage output and input (same goes for Assassin's Creed: Origins where you can't do shit damage-wise against an enemy four levels above you, and when you level up, gaining a few points in damage you magically can defeat them). It doesn't make sense – it feels artificial, just to give it some RPG elements – that wolves in one area can shred you to pieces within two seconds and in another area you kill them with a single strike; I'm Geralt of bloody Rivia, Butcher of Blaviken, for Christ's sake.

I prefer a more homogenous gameplay and balancing experience where you have to adapt or get better as a player instead, like in Dark Souls. Coming back to Risen (part 1 of course) or Gothic: when I choose to purely skill on my combat skills and ignore crafting and thievery skills, I can kill tough enemys way earlier (your HP are still bound to your level, and your armor to story progression, though); it's possible to enter chapter 2 with level 21 or as early as level 4, IIRC.

So while I like the multi-region concept of The Witcher 3, the enemy (up) scaling should have been there right from the start. Nevertheless, they managed to offer an open world with sharp narrative structure. I still would have liked it a bit more consistent and committed: once you traveled to Skellige Islands, there shouldn't be a going back until you have progressed far enough; or to put it more generally, while helping one or two NPCs on my way is fine, it really puts me off when there's something urgent to deal with and the hero travels days, if not weeks, back and forth.

That's why small worlds, like in Risen, Gothic, and The Witcher 1 and 2 always work better, narrative-wise, if developers aren't fully committed to the narrative in an open-world game by simply blocking you, at times, from going to places as you please. And I, as some others posted before me, I weigh narrative much more than gameplay, since the latter gets always kind of repetitive (an exception might be NieR: Automata) and makes me feel like I've seen everything that game has to offer, while the story and plot keeps me playing – and wanting to know what happens next.

 

[Deleted member 8674]

I have a blind faith in Rockstar open world games. others I would prefer the mid-open approach better.

 

[Deleted member 37928]

I like them both but I've grown to like the larger open structure a bit more over the years. Especially now when there's so many options to get rid of markers and other things that get in the way of intuition and genuin exploration. To get into the mindset that everything is a checklist is probably the worst thing that can happen when I play a game. I absolutely hate that feeling.

 

[lumzi23]

I like Witcher 2 better than Witcher 3, because 2 is more linear and focused

Click to shrink...

This (though I also prefer it because of the story, dialogue and characters).

I do like open world games like Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, RDR, Assassin's Creed and yes Witcher 3. But I think more of my favorites are wide linear like Kotor 1&2, Witcher 2, Mass Effect trilogy, Dragon Age Inquisition.

I will say that I don't think I played The Witcher 3 right as I missed a lot of the side quests.

 

[Shark]

God of War felt like the perfect blend. Open enough but not so much that it loses its narrative momentum or pacing. I don't think it will and that's fine, but it would be what I'd like most out of The Last of Us Part II.

 

[nekkid]

I like both.

Give me a linear story that plays out in an open world (with some OW freedoms for traversal etc.), but let me go nuts exploring in a fully-open world when I want to.