Hippopuncher12
Member
I'm the opposite I don't have time for games like GTA anymore.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Anyone else feel they've outgrown linear experiences?
- Thread starter daninthemix
- Start date
I usually completely ignore the main quest in open world games. I played Skyrim for over 100 hours, and in terms of the main story I just did enough to get out of the cave at the beginning of the game. Same for Watch Dogs. 50 hours logged on Steam and I'm still in chapter 1.
More_Badass
Member
"Outgrown" is such a weird word to use. It implies that there's something immature and childish about enjoying linear games
But honestly GTA V is a linear game in an open world. Sure, you can choose what order to play story missions but those missions tend to be quite scripted and linear. The Last of Us had more choice and freedom gameplay-wise in its linear sandbox design than any mission in GTA V.
Haven't gotten past the first heist in GTA V, too much fun exploring and getting into car chases
But honestly GTA V is a linear game in an open world. Sure, you can choose what order to play story missions but those missions tend to be quite scripted and linear. The Last of Us had more choice and freedom gameplay-wise in its linear sandbox design than any mission in GTA V.
John Kowalski
Banned
i've played nearly fifty hours already and i'm still having a ton of fun just walking around and exploring
pretty sure i'm still halfway through the story too
I think it's a decent shorthand for "do you feel that you've seen enough of this example of story-telling to be fairly sure that you're not getting as much out of it as you used to".
Word choice is, of course, important, but we all make sacrifices for thread titles
Opposite for me too. I feel like I'm getting more tired of open world experiences. It's as if most big games these days employ open world design, and it's becoming a tad monotonous and plodding. I actually find linear, tighter experiences to often be more refreshing, rewarding and less full of filler.
That said, variety as they say, is the spice of life. I'm always going to enjoy a healthy mix of both.
That said, variety as they say, is the spice of life. I'm always going to enjoy a healthy mix of both.
Still terrible. Can you outgrow books or movies then? A good story will always be king.
As long as we can still make them.
The Artisan
Member
I think gaming is great for both linear and open ended experiences. Not all games have to be open world, and all games definitely should not be made linear.
I've outgrown books. They're too linear.
Eh well for you maybe. Maybe even for most people. But a game like Fallout 3 doesn't have much in the way of a story and yet I probably put as much time into that game as any other. That makes game unique in that there can be more to enjoy than just the story. You can't really say that about books, not really with movies either.
Edit: I've put more time into minecraft than I would care to admit as well which has no story.
Icyflamez96
Member
I feel WAY more this way and i'm 18
Of course, I don't completely rule out any time of game, but for the most part I tend to lean towards more linear games a lot more right now.
More_Badass
Member
Fallout 3 told its stories in other ways. The silent environmental storytelling in that game was just wonderful
Deadpool_X
Banned
Far from, actually. As a married man with two kids, I don't have the luxury of having a ton of time to game now, so I am lurking that I actually prefer linear games now. I appreciate the fact that I can play through and not get distracted by millions of sidequests and a world to get lost in.
Spiritwalker
Member
No, but I certainly care less about them.
When I look at the games that I've enjoyed since the open world genre was made popular with GTA 3. I find that Linear games are my favorites by far. Titles like RE4, MGS 2/3, Last of Us, Dead Space, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War 2, Zelda Wind Waker, Zelda TP, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Uncharted Series, Soul series, Half Life 2, Ninja Gaiden, Metriod prime series etc..
Only a few Open world titles are at this level for myself. GTA 3 (because of the novelty at the time), GTA 5, Far Cry 3 and Skyrim.
The padding, the time wasting, the lackluster level design, and just the overall repetitive nature of Open world games will never beat a well designed linear single player experience.
Plus I just don't have the time to put into OW titles anymore. If a games is longer than 40 hours, I'll never beat it. Unless it's the top of it's class like the few OW games I mentioned above.
I know some could argue that Zelda, Mass Effect, even the shadow of the colossus are OW games. But I'd say they are more cross overs. They have the focus of Linear titles with bigger pathways and limited padding. I really prefer this style of OW than the truly open world titles.
Only a few Open world titles are at this level for myself. GTA 3 (because of the novelty at the time), GTA 5, Far Cry 3 and Skyrim.
The padding, the time wasting, the lackluster level design, and just the overall repetitive nature of Open world games will never beat a well designed linear single player experience.
Plus I just don't have the time to put into OW titles anymore. If a games is longer than 40 hours, I'll never beat it. Unless it's the top of it's class like the few OW games I mentioned above.
I know some could argue that Zelda, Mass Effect, even the shadow of the colossus are OW games. But I'd say they are more cross overs. They have the focus of Linear titles with bigger pathways and limited padding. I really prefer this style of OW than the truly open world titles.
Nah man. Fox in Socks is still just as stimulating today as it was when I was a kid.
I'm not actually kidding, that book is goddamn brilliant
More_Badass
Member
That's more sandbox design. Think Hitman. Linear progression with open levels to explore.
Same.
If anything...I personally feel I've out grown JRPGs. And I'm starting to feel that way about WRPG, or just RPGs in general. It has to be action RPG or it might lose my interest real quick.
I kinda feel this way...I see complaints about some FPS games...but I'm like hey....I'll take it.
I find this description of open world games as silly as always.
Most open world games have a linear/main story that you can stick to if you don't want to branch out.
The "filler/busy-work" can be awesome, and can also be ignored...simply supplying you with a more alive world.
Felix Lighter
Member
That word, "outgrown" has really shaped the way this thread has gone. Personally, I very much prefer open ended games with some amount of freedom but I find nothing inherently more "mature" about either type of game.
I am a grown up with a paycheck and 3-4 hours of free time every evening. I don't need my $60 purchase to be stretched into 40-60 hours of padding and grinding because I make no money and only go to school from 8-3 everyday.
I am totally fine with tightly focused and well designed linear content that has a short but meaty playtime. Who want to eat a bucket of rice when you can afford a steak?
I am totally fine with tightly focused and well designed linear content that has a short but meaty playtime. Who want to eat a bucket of rice when you can afford a steak?
dead souls
Member
I prefer linearity actually. Give me some tightly designed 8-bit games over the bloated open world messes of the last few generations any day.
Lion Heart
Banned
So happy to see the replies on this thread and how many people still prefer a well made linear/wide-linear experience.
This gives me hope, thank you GAF.
Give me a well constructed game like TLOU or the way uncharted 4 is looking where an emphasis on mechanics and AI are valued over a single large rt environment that has you running or driving or riding a horse for hours upon hours with little accomplished, that is the definition of a diluted experience and frankly a waste of my time.
This gives me hope, thank you GAF.
Give me a well constructed game like TLOU or the way uncharted 4 is looking where an emphasis on mechanics and AI are valued over a single large rt environment that has you running or driving or riding a horse for hours upon hours with little accomplished, that is the definition of a diluted experience and frankly a waste of my time.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Yup opposite for me too.
Open world games lose my interest if they are not interesting and engaging enough.
Open world games lose my interest if they are not interesting and engaging enough.
whiteninja
Member
I havnt "outgrown" anything. I play what I like.
fuzzyreactor
Banned
Opposite here. Very few open world games don't bore me.
All the best designed games are linear to a degree, games need direction
All the best designed games are linear to a degree, games need direction
daninthemix
Member
Yeesh, I should've found some word other than "outgrown". Let's look at dictionary.com. It has (more than) two definitions of the word, many posters seem to assume I meant the first, when in fact I meant the second:
In short, I speak of a personal change in preference - "I used to like this thing; now not so much".
Some others have clarified an important point - linear doesn't necessarily mean corridor, though someone's definition of a corridor could also vary. For instance the classic Tomb Raider games are linear but certainly not corridor games. The individual levels are large zones encompassing puzzles, combat etc.
Thing is, I might look at a first or third person shooter in a Steam sale, and even though it costs practically nothing, I don't buy it because in my mind, I've already played that game dozens of times. Now yes, you could level the same criticism at certain unimaginative openworlds (particularly those born by the Ubi formula), but there's usually at least some scope for messing around and carving your own worthwhile experience.
In short, I speak of a personal change in preference - "I used to like this thing; now not so much".
Some others have clarified an important point - linear doesn't necessarily mean corridor, though someone's definition of a corridor could also vary. For instance the classic Tomb Raider games are linear but certainly not corridor games. The individual levels are large zones encompassing puzzles, combat etc.
Thing is, I might look at a first or third person shooter in a Steam sale, and even though it costs practically nothing, I don't buy it because in my mind, I've already played that game dozens of times. Now yes, you could level the same criticism at certain unimaginative openworlds (particularly those born by the Ubi formula), but there's usually at least some scope for messing around and carving your own worthwhile experience.
legacyzero
Banned
I think I've outgrown games that SHOULD be more open, that have been stretched to be too linear, targeting some mass appeal. I'm looking at YOU Final Fantasy XIII.
On the flip side, I've also grown tired of open world games that are made simply of a main story quest, and then a bunch of check boxes (Assassins Creed, Far Cry 3 (didn't play Far Cry 4. boycotted, but I assume the same)). Games like Skyrim, Fallout 3/NV, and Dying Light did it PERFECT.
On the flip side, I've also grown tired of open world games that are made simply of a main story quest, and then a bunch of check boxes (Assassins Creed, Far Cry 3 (didn't play Far Cry 4. boycotted, but I assume the same)). Games like Skyrim, Fallout 3/NV, and Dying Light did it PERFECT.
benicillin
Banned
Like many others I've actually outgrown open-world games. A game as big as Far Cry 4, Assassin's Creed or Dragon Age Inquisition used to be super exciting to me, but now I just don't have the time to commit to those kinds of games. A lot of people said The Order was way too short, but being able to finish it in a weekend was totally fine by me because I haven't really finished a game in a few months.
More_Badass
Member
That's pretty jaded IMO. Put Wolfenstein, Deadcore, NaisssanceE, and Alien Isolation next to eachother and you have four first person games play incredibly differently. Old school FPS action, precision platforming, atmospheric exploration and mystery, survival horror
Just because, say a game is first person and linear, doesn't mean the experiences will be anything like another linear first person game
Edit: or are you just taking about shooters specifically? I could see why you might have that opinion then
But even then you can put CoD, Wolfenstein, Tower of Guns, and Lovely Planet next to each other and play vastly different first person shooters. "Playing one mean I've played them all" just seems like a silly notion IMO. Especially nowadays; gaming is more diverse than ever
dragonyeuw
Member
To me, its the difference between Batman Arkham Asylum and City. The former allowed for exploration without overbloating the experience with too many side-quests, as its successor did. And let me be clear, I loved Arkham City( I'm a Batman nut so perhaps I'm not entirely objective in that regard), but offering a beefier package( open city, side quests out the wazoo) didn't necessarily translate to a better experience for me. I personally loved Arkham's more focused narrative, I think it perfectly balanced linear/open world while City moved the needle a little farther to the right.
I can enjoy linear experiences like The Last of Us as long as they're not too linear and have some kind exploration to them.
That being said more open games (not open world) like Dark Souls as op said where you can backtrack and there are branching paths are almost always superior to linear games in my opinion.
That being said more open games (not open world) like Dark Souls as op said where you can backtrack and there are branching paths are almost always superior to linear games in my opinion.
Beelzebufo
Banned
I guess it depends on the game. Like something like Tropical Freeze is linear I guess, but I don't feel like I'm being guided like I do in TLoU.
drotahorror
Banned
And miss out on basically every action adventure hack n slash? Miss out on The Last of Us? Uncharted series? Wolfenstein New Order? Metro series?
Definitely not. If anything I'm tired of open world games. So lifeless and boring most of the time full of collectathons.
Definitely not. If anything I'm tired of open world games. So lifeless and boring most of the time full of collectathons.
Far Cry 3 would be a pain to play without doing some of the busy work. Weapon holsters, ammo etc. by skinning animals.
Far Cry 4, a perk to avoid the pick up animation.
It's not that easy to avoid without gimping the core experience.
Wow, poor choice of words in the OP, poor example using TLOU which gives you more ways to approach an encounter than in a GTA mission and topping it off calling narratives laughable which brings me back to TLOU, and The Order is probably a big misrepresentation to have this epiphany because it's biggest criticism is that it follows 2006 Gears of War ignoring what TPS have done over the past 9 years.
Aaanyway, the closest I've gone to going cold to games are Nintendo games, their quality is undeniable but I'm stuck between not buying games day 1 and not paying full price for said games 12 months later where that money could go to about 5 or 6 good indie games.
Aaanyway, the closest I've gone to going cold to games are Nintendo games, their quality is undeniable but I'm stuck between not buying games day 1 and not paying full price for said games 12 months later where that money could go to about 5 or 6 good indie games.
tearsintherain
Member
I watch a lot of cooking shows, and an oft repeated comment is that the chefs need to pour their love and heart into their food, and judges can "feel" it. Usually I honestly think its bullshit, end of the day food is about chemical reactions and recipes and love doesn't play any part of that.
But I do get that sentiment when I play video games, some games just click with me and I love them and I can really tell the developers poured their heart and soul into it. Other games feel like someone said "ehhh... fuck its, lets ship this stupid thing" and you know something went wrong somewhere. Some call it polish, some call it attention to detail, but whatever it is I still love playing games that feel like someone out there put a little bit of themselves into it.
But I do get that sentiment when I play video games, some games just click with me and I love them and I can really tell the developers poured their heart and soul into it. Other games feel like someone said "ehhh... fuck its, lets ship this stupid thing" and you know something went wrong somewhere. Some call it polish, some call it attention to detail, but whatever it is I still love playing games that feel like someone out there put a little bit of themselves into it.
Depends on what game I feel like playing, but I definitely prefer more linear games. Add me to the people that aren't as into open world games, mostly because they're starting to feel way to long and padded for me to fully enjoy. I honestly would love to play them, but I don't have as much time or patience for them as I used to and linear games tend to be a little more tightly paced.
I'm all about quality, not quantity. Make side quests relevant to the story. Don't make grind useless quests just to get more power. Have substance behind the side stuff to make it worth playing.
BRocknRolla
Member
I think this baseline premise is wholly flawed. Whether a game is good or bad has nothing to do with how linear a game is. There are plenty of empty, boring open worlds (most of them even). A linear game can play to the strengths of a well crafted story, and that's far better than if you just throw that into an open world for no good reason.
Age is having a totally opposite affect on me. I feel like I am more inclined to play linear games with 10-15 hours of gameplay than open-world games. I simply don't have to time to drain hundreds of hours into games when I have school, work, family, friends, and girlfriend all competing for my time.