Linearity is horrible! I'm playing a game, not a movie! Give me options!

>linearity is horrible! I'm playing a game, not a movie! Give me options!
>open world is horrible! It's just empty space with no compelling gameplay and narrative!
Then WHAT do you want, Sup Forums?

For satan worshippers to die.

well designed contained areas with lots to do

There is a reason everyone loves Deus Ex. It gives you options without falling for the open world meme.

The condition of man is one of permanent dissatisfaction.

Compared to our ancestors, we are decadent kings with technology bordering on magic, but we're still miserable.

Our descendants will be able to harness matter and energy at will and create virtual worlds imagining, but they too will be miserable.

Such is life.

tpbp

A linear game is not inherently bad.

A game that is small hallways to cutscenes is bad, a game that is massively open world is bad.

A game that is inbetween is good. You CAN have the best of both worlds. "Linear" sections of games that have expanded environments are good. They promot exploration but keep you on the right track.

But what does it matter. Youre just some shit posting faggot who is a literal waste of life energy.

Make a fun game. Onimusha: Warlords is one of my favorite games even though it's really short and there's little to do beyond push through waves of monsters. Doesn't change the fact that it's amazing.

An open ended world like the souls games or dudesex

A bunch of mini open worlds

People like different things, I personally just want either one done well.

For frogposters to have a lovely existence

I used to prefer big long games with lots of open world exploration but as I've gotten older, I've come to prefer linear experiences. I wonder why that is.

>Then WHAT do you want, Sup Forums?

how about a game that doesn't suck

>Sup Forums is one person

of course it's a dumb frogposter

Linearity can be good depending on genre. Open world is dogshit though. Most of the time you want an intermediate.

no

Because you can have open-ended levels without open-world memetry.

>open-ended: tries to be as perfectly designed as possible
>open-world: excuse for lack of design

Basically, play more games OP and stop being underage. Try Thief (original) or Deus Ex

>Game has World Map
>Sequel removes it and makes game linear

This.

You don't take things away to "stream line them".

You add to it.

That's fair, but it doesn't really have to do with games now does it?

this ones better

>I wonder why that is.

Because you're a fucking youngfag who didn't grow old of corridor games in the 90s like everyone else

Well designed varied levels. Alternatively, interesting openworlds, gta is the only that does this. infamous gets away cause super heroes.

Depends entirely on the game in question really. Both can work but need the proper genre and framework.

dark souls style

>a game that is massively open world is bad
No its not.

I don't want anymore boring empty open world games

.... I m-meant "grow tired"

Metroid or Souls type world design.

Doom 1+2 level design really. Don't just give us an open field with nothing in it. Put some thought and give us a proper monster maze with many options for exploration.

*tip fedora*

I want an open world with the freedom to do whatever I want but is also a focused, linear experience.
Is that so fucking hard?

REDDIT MEMES AREN'T VIDEO GAMES

Yes, it is very hard, you are basically asking for at least twice the content.

yes

games don't have infinite budgets user

And it has to be half the price.
That's important to me as well.
If it's too expensive then I'll just pirate it.

It should also have dick-sucking capabilities

otherwise there's no point

...

This thread is filled with children trying to blend the two concepts when neither complaint should be taken seriously in the first place.

To further elaborate thought about it while having a smoke e1m1 doom1; There is an open field that occupies much of the 'right' half of the map. A player who has never played an fps or a video game before (and doesn't have someone to spoil it for them) might see the area as aesthetics and may dismiss the area entirely. However upon exploration one will discover that they can access this area and one may be tempted to explore more because of this discovery. It's the little things like this that tempt replayability. The player is left asking themselves after every level "Where are the missing 25% of secrets hidden?" and "Do I care enough to go back and look for them". But flaunting invincibilities and health packs that the player can't outright access is what reinforces this replayability and why specifically Doom holds up over the years. As for the other games of the era or even genre; one is left to ponder "How have they held up over these years?"

In short; Put more thought into what you do. If you're really into game development like I am somehow lead to believe OP

Bloodborne on PC plox

Oh ok.
See

By process of elimination, a game branching paths.