Using linear as an insult

>using linear as an insult
open world is shit

People's opinions change so much over time, every opinion someone has is shit at some point. Soon, publishers will go back to linear and we'll be saying that's shit and open world games are better.

if you going make OW game it must feel alive, i mean, must have quests, the world must evolve itself around you, most devs go for the OW meme but make dead world which feels more artificial than linear games, its not the OW fault, it's the devs lazyness fault.

Open world does not mean nonlinear.

But OP most open world games are linear

this

open world games are inherently better the execution is just fucked up by lazy shits

Both linearity and open-world imply mediocrity. Doesn't mean they are if done right, but each one implies a significant flaw.
>Linear means the developers feel the player is too dumb to make their own choices or want players to experience shit in a specific order, otherwise known as railroading
>Open world means the developers are too to make an interesting game world and instead opt to make it sizable with long spaces between stuff to make it seem better, usually coupled with fast-travel
Not 100% true, just a general rule.

Linear scaling is shit

linear means the developers want to tell a story rather than make a walking simulator

>please hold my hand
You're shit.

Open world is great, it's actually so great devs can't fill it with interesting AND coherent content.

It's 1000 times better than any linear game when done right.

Dark Souls is open world.

>liking story-driven games means you want your hand held
retard

>Linear means the developers feel the player is too dumb to make their own choices or want players to experience shit in a specific order, otherwise known as railroading
Or they want a consistent, challenging, tightly designed game with a smooth difficult curve where the decision making is strategy/tactics rather than where you want to go which is the more interesting anyway.

>open world cant be story-driven
retard

What about branching linear games?

Yeah. I sure love going through the same fucking playthrough over and over again.

Fuck off. Either go sandbox with multiple choices. Nobody wants go through 5 play througha of the damn 10 hour game.

You know there are open games that aren't asscreed clones right?

>10 hour game
cofirmed to only play western games, fuck off to neofag

I agree open world is shit.

these

No such thing. You call them non linear games instead.

Good example is dark souls 1. You can start off anywhere but the game is not open world, it but rather linear paths that are all connected to form a seamless world.

Worse in jrpgs. I dont want to replay 60 fucking hours just to read the same unskippable dialog I already know about just to fight that extra ng+ boss.

yes open worlds games would be great if only devs would put an unrealistic amount of work into their games!

Its not the same playthrough since games have difficulty settings, different characters, mechanical depth, scoring, etc all of which make for far more enjoyable gameplay than choosing which section of a game you want to button mash through first

So Metroidvania?

>It's 1000 times better than any linear game when done right.
Yeah, when done right. The problem is that for every 1 open world game done right, there are hundreds and hundreds that are done wrong.

Things can be too linear though, and that's worth critiquing. Good linear games often give an illusion of a wide space by offering many small paths through the level. Shit linear games are blatantly a straight rigid corridor design-wise.

...

The thing is, you can make open worlds work by not designing them like shit. Linearity almost never works and is almost always a critique.

>Ruggarell

kys

It has never been done right for the vast majority of genres, and most likely will never be. How the fuck would you make a good focused open world beat em up for example? The only way games do this is by adding a shit ton of unnecessary elements (usually rpg ones) that undermine the combat and a fuck ton of filler.

>unrealistic
they're paid well enough to put their lazy asses to work hard and yet they don't deliver

>buying bethesda games for console
wew lad
is that diablo 3 I'm seeing at the top?

And what game might that be? The only thing I remember a linear game having that is dmc4 special edition. Every other linear game is boring after the first couple play throughs and usually its just replaying your favorite level over and over again.

Linear is an acceptable insult for RPGs.

What you mean to say is that what matters is depth. Levels being flat corridors can be completely irrelevant to the quality of a game if the game derives its depth from encounter design and mechanics.

A lot of arcade games, shmups and beat em ups in particular, 3d beat em ups like God Hand

Like what? Corridor levels almost always have the same enemies spawn in the same place. It was only in open world games where random encounters were made possible and made you see silly shit like two hostile factions fighting each other or how in dragons dogma where a griffon could suddenly glide down and ambush you while youre chasing down goblins in a field.

Oh, so dead genres and games then. Especially that Shinji Mikami now retired from the industry.

The profit they get from putting that level of work in is marginal and not worth the time. The last 5% shouldnt take up 40% of a project's time.

>using artificial as an insult

Literally the only thing you gain by going open world is a sense of scale and map continuity, and while long vehicle rides to distant locations can be comfy, they aren't fun. Give me a smaller, denser sandbox-style game. Have some loading screens. Don't pour development resources into making everything fit together and walkable and big when that also means your map is repetitive and devoid of content. I'll take a game that takes its level philosophy from way of the samurai over an open world game with nothing for it but "muh map size" any day of the week.

While I like WotS, it needed like 3 more areas. That said, the non linearity of events is probably one of my favorite game progression systems ever. Too bad the series is probably dead now.

Like 3d beat em ups where even though enemies spawn in the same places their reactive/random movement and attacks make for dynamic encounters that play ot differently. Random encounters are possible in linear games, you can literally have enemies that come into levels randomly and you could even scale their difficulty based on the level youre in. No one does it because its pointless shit.

Unfortunately. Gameplay depth and challenge isnt as easy to market as square miles or amount of dungeons

They're both great.

To compare 2 recent stealth games, dishonored 2 kicks MGSV's ass in level design, because instead of trying to make a big empty world with outposts and bases here and there, Dishonored 2's developers poured their efforts into designing levels as their own standalone experiences with a lot of effort and detail in each one; even though each level is cut off from the rest of the world, as well as being linear (and the overall game being shorter) the lasting impression is much better, because all the gameplay you're getting is fun, interesting and satisfying.

you're terminally retarded if you think "open world" is the opposite of "linear"

>Linear and open world are the only two options

Metroidvania is the only correct choice.

check this out famalalalala

if youre gonna make an open world game make it really easy to traverse through it quickly and let a nigga easily transport between areas, do not give a single fuck about making it weave into the story, let me point to the map and let me instant transmission foo