• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Anyone else feel they've outgrown linear experiences?

I don't like "filmic" games too much. Mostly because game developers kind of suck at writing for the most part. For some reason, Western developers are especially bad about this since they have this weird obsession with trying to emulate hollywood. It comes across in every aspect of design.

Not that I hate story in games. But too many cutscenes really turn me off.
 
shandy706 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately most open world games do not have good level design, encounter design, pacing etc worth a damn. Look at Skyrim vs something like Souls or TLOU or Evil Within. One is poorly designed and mechanically horrible as shit while the others have far more thought put into the encounter design , pacing and mechanics. Open world games that have varied encounters are a rarity.That is why you get games like Sunset Overdrive which have piss poor mission variety. Hopefully MGS will buck that trend and it will turn out to be a classic well designed open world game.
 
Game4life said:
Unfortunately most open world games do not have good level design, encounter design, pacing etc worth a damn. Look at Skyrim vs something like Souls or TLOU. One is poorly designed and mechanically horrible as shit while the other two have far more thought put into the encounter design , pacing and mechanics. Open world games that have varied encounters are a rarity.That is why you get games like Sunset Overdrive which have piss poor mission variety. Hopefully MGS will buck that trend and it will turn out to be a classic well designed open world game.
Click to expand...
An open world is more than just encounters and side missions. Skyrim's world was beautiful and awesome. I rarely did missions; the real thrill for me was cresting a hill and seeing some new city on the horizon or stumbling on some new enemy or discovery
 
Linearity doesn't inherently have anything to do with it, but linear games are definitely where you're more likely to encounter the thing that I do feel I've outgrown, which is games that are designed/iterated on using what I've always sort of called the "Valve method" (although tons of developers have used it since HL2).
Basically, where games are aggressively playtested during development, and gone over with a fine-toothed comb to pinpoint every single area where any significant number of players are going to get even a little bit confused, or frustrated, or lost, or just otherwise not doing exactly what the designers want them to do. Then whatever "offending" bits of game design are causing those issues are modified, iterated on, signposted, or just flat-out removed, until basically anybody they put down in front of the game during testing will move through the game in the way the designers want, at the pace the designers want them to move at.


It's easy to see why developers do it - it's a reliable road to those 94+ Metacritic scores - but to me it's always very obvious when the game has been designed that way, and the end result will almost universally feel really tasteless, bland, and artificial to me, like the game was designed by committee rather than according to a designer's intuition.
So while I'm more than happy, in theory, to play a really good linear game, there aren't very many in practice that I can play without feeling really patronized.
 
I prefer linear games with some open areas like TLOU. There's a sense of momentum to the game/story and you get little sandboxes where you can use the mechanics as you wish.

The only open world games I really like are from R* because they know how to make compelling worlds.
 
More_Badass said:
An open world is more than just encounters and side missions. Skyrim's world was beautiful and awesome. I rarely did missions; the real thrill for me was cresting a hill and seeing some new city on the horizon or stumbling on some new enemy or discovery
Click to expand...

What you are saying does not contradict what I have said though. Level design, mission variety, mechanics etc are generally worse off in open world games. Of course for some gamers a beautiful playground can compensate for the shallowness in other aspects. For you missions were not important but I feel they are important in a game. I view Skyrim as a trekking simulator and nothing more.

I think the best combination therefore would be wide linear. Have it more like MGS, TLOU, RE4, Evil Within etc.. Wide enough to ensure player agency but focussed enough to have good mission variety and level design without trying to pad up games with filler quests.

MercuryLS said:
I prefer linear games with some open areas like TLOU. There's a sense of momentum to the game/story and you get little sandboxes where you can use the mechanics as you wish.

The only open world games I really like are from R* because they know how to make compelling worlds.
Click to expand...

This. While Rockstar cant seem to implement good TPS mechanics in their games ( GTA5 continues to control like shit ) their worlds are so believable that even I sometimes feel like giving them a pass.
 
Coxswain said:
Linearity doesn't inherently have anything to do with it, but linear games are definitely where you're more likely to encounter the thing that I do feel I've outgrown, which is games that are designed/iterated on using what I've always sort of called the "Valve method" (although tons of developers have used it since HL2).
Basically, where games are aggressively playtested during development, and gone over with a fine-toothed comb to pinpoint every single area where any significant number of players are going to get even a little bit confused, or frustrated, or lost, or just otherwise not doing exactly what the designers want them to do. Then whatever "offending" bits of game design are causing those issues are modified, iterated on, signposted, or just flat-out removed, until basically anybody they put down in front of the game during testing will move through the game in the way the designers want, at the pace the designers want them to move at.


It's easy to see why developers do it - it's a reliable road to those 94+ Metacritic scores - but to me it's always very obvious when the game has been designed that way, and the end result will almost universally feel really tasteless, bland, and artificial to me, like the game was designed by committee rather than according to a designer's intuition.
So while I'm more than happy, in theory, to play a really good linear game, there aren't very many in practice that I can play without feeling really patronized.
Click to expand...
I think that's more of a AAA development issue than anything to do with linearity. A AAA open world game would be just as heavily-playtested and refined.

Game4life said:
What you are saying does not contradict what I have said though. Level design, mission variety, mechanics etc are generally worse off in open world games. Of course for some gamers a beautiful playground can compensate for the shallowness in other aspects. For you missions were not important but I feel they are important in a game. I view Skyrim as a trekking simulator and nothing more.
Click to expand...
What made Skyrim poorly designed and mechanically horrible? It was my first Elder Scrolls games, absolutely loved it. Mixing and matching magic was fun, the combat was engaging. The dungeons and areas were always interesting. I tried Morrowind afterwards and just couldn't get into it
 
More_Badass said:
I see the ability to walk around and explore an open world and it still be entertaining, as a mark of quality. People bash Mafia 2 for its world because it "had nothing to do". Mafia's 2 city was a great place to explore, brimming with little details that made the world feel alive.

If you can strip out all the extraneous side missions and the open world is still compelling to be in and experience, that's a good open world IMO

Then again, I value exploration and atmosphere a lot. I spent hours just walking across RDR's West and taking in the sights of Los Santos
Click to expand...

To me, in my situation, just walking around and enjoying the sights is complete waste of time. When I think of open world games, I think of a main story that's being wrapped around a bunch of filler to give the illusion of getting your money's worth. When things like that are added, I feel it's not worth my valuable time to sift through all the bullshit to get to the meat of the game. I absolutely hate having to grind for hours when I'm at the perfectly right level just to get to the next part of the story.
 
More_Badass said:
I think that's more of a AAA development issue than anything to do with linearity. A AAA open world game would be just as heavily-playtested and refined.

Do you play indie games as well?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely wasn't saying that linear games are the only place where you'll run into that sort of design - just that it's more likely to be used in a linear game than an open-world game. An open-world game is also, by necessity, not going to be able to lean quite as heavily on that sort of design ethos, as they're inherently a little more systems-driven than a linear game. Still, you're right, though; I can't stomach open-world games that come from, say, Rockstar or Ubisoft, because they actually have put so much time and money into figuring out how to translate the overly-playtested style of design into an open-world format.

Most of what I play these days is indie, handheld, mobile, or from the small number of Japanese developers that haven't yet folded or completely adopted the more 'typical' western styles of development, though.
 
Coxswain said:
Yeah, I definitely wasn't saying that linear games are the only place where you'll run into that sort of design - just that it's more likely to be used in a linear game than an open-world game. An open-world game is also, by necessity, not going to be able to lean quite as heavily on that sort of design ethos, as they're inherently a little more systems-driven than a linear game. Still, you're right, though; I can't stomach open-world games that come from, say, Rockstar or Ubisoft, because they actually have put so much time and money into figuring out how to translate the overly-playtested style of design into an open-world format.

Most of what I play these days is indie, handheld, mobile, or from the small number of Japanese developers that haven't yet folded or completely adopted the more 'typical' western styles of development, though.
Click to expand...
I guess I go into open world games for different reasons. I love the worlds that Rockstar and Ubisoft make. I never finish the campaigns and I never touch the side missions, but those worlds...just so good. I love being able to explore Rome or Revolution-era Boston or watch the storm clouds roll in as I walk across the mid-west plains. Hell, I just stroll through the streets of Los Santos and Liberty City and people-watch for an hour. No one else does open worlds like Rockstar and Ubisoft. The actual missions may be repetive and not as unique or innovative as a more focused game, but the worlds are second to none.

But given a choice, I'll always go for the linear focused game over the open world game
 
No, I like to mix up the style of game i played. I am 40+ hours into xenoblade at the moment, so recently I felt the need for a change of scene and had a strong yearning for trying out uncharted 3 (yet to play it). It turned out I hadn't downloaded it so I ended up playing limbo on my vita.
Sometimes I really want some of that blockbuster action, especially if I am a bit tired and not looking to be challenged.
 
hexagforest.jpg

I outgrew sandboxes years ago

rollercoaster-603x401.jpg

This never gets old

A good linear game generally has so many benefits over openworld/sandboxes, they are generally paced better making much tighter experiences, they are also better at repetition imo. Openworld's have you repeating the same tasks over and over for XP or an item but a good gameplay focussed linear game can use score attack / time attack that forces the player to use their brain and be more creative rather than grinding away.
 
I still prefer linear experiences to be honest. They're generally more focused on storytelling which is what I enjoy the most.
 
Nah, if a game is good, it's good; I don't care what kind of game it happens to be. I can enjoy David Cage games, open world games, linear shooters, 2D indies, baseball games, old point and click adventure games, etc..

Even visual novels with minimal input is a vastly superior experience for me when I'm actually playing/reading it myself instead of watching someone else.
 
Linear experiences can be absolutely great, but it's when they throw in so many canned events and blockbuster cutscenes that it becomes a little patronizing and fairly tedious. Like, "you're a video game; your story isn't that good. quit bombarding me." But to be fair I'm incredibly jaded and have had my fill of that kind of crap.

Generally though I prefer games with a certain degree of freedom and role play.

I'm with the other guy who said that he outgrew open world. However, it isn't like I've outgrown the sense of scale and discovery a sandbox brings. I just don't care to dick around so much in them anymore. Evading police and wanton chaos just aren't all that fun anymore.
 
SonyToo!™;156878743 said:
hexagforest.jpg

I outgrew sandboxes years ago

rollercoaster-603x401.jpg

This never gets old

A good linear game generally has so many benefits over openworld/sandboxes, they are generally paced better making much tighter experiences, they are also better at repetition imo. Openworld's have you repeating the same tasks over and over for XP or an item but a good gameplay focussed linear game can use score attack / time attack that forces the player to use their brain and be more creative rather than grinding away.
Click to expand...
An open world game can do the same thing with its missions. See Assassin's Creed's Lairs of Romulus or taking over outposts in Far Cry 3.
 
I have outgrown bad, boring, derivative or unambitious games. I no longer have the will or the inclination to forgive genuinely bad games just because of platform, developer or series history.

My time is at a premium and I play games that respect my time and offer me engagement and interest without resorting to hamster wheel grind reward techniques or the promise of an improved experience once I get to ng+.
 
Wagram said:
I still prefer linear experiences to be honest. They're generally more focused on storytelling which is what I enjoy the most.
Click to expand...

This is me. Generally speaking i love JRPG's because they tend to focus on the characters and storylines. A lot of open world WRPG's kinda let the story suffer to let the player have free agency. I like having a main character that has his own name motivations and storyline and a definable plot along with other characters that the writers and devs shape.

Then again, i like single player games in general for this reason as well. Even though i can enjoy it every once in a while, multiplayer only games do nothing for me where the main novelty is socializing with other players
 
This thread (and even the past page) is proof that too many poorly-done linear and open-world games are turning some people off to the entire concept of one or the other.

When I think of what open-world games are actually well-done I struggle to come up with any examples from the PS3/360 era. Rockstar's games continue to be the main example, I think because that company still properly understands the concept of the sandbox. It's not supposed to be a map full of "content" for you to go down like a list, but rather an open environment for you to play around in. Rockstar might actually be the only console developer that get's this.

Open-world RPGs are kind of a different breed since they didn't exactly spring from the GTA (or general British open-world design) school of thought. If you count those then I guess you could consider a lot of them well-made open-world games.

Assassin's Creed started out as the GTA style of open-world but AC2 made things more limited and began to pad out the content with what are essentially collect-a-thongs and fetch quests. It's snowballed from there, but Black Flag by nature of a fresh gameplay mechanic, very much feels like Grand Theft Boat. That old free-form design is palpable in AC4, but the collect-a-thons, bases, and checklist map intrude on it.

Far Cry basically started out as Crysis 0. Far Cry 2 tried to be a sandbox immersive simulation but failed in a lot of people's eyes due to a couple of dumb design decisions. Ever since, Far Cry games have basically been the AC2 design grafted on top the original Crytek skeleton, which you can still sense at times.

Looking forward, The Witcher 3 seems to be taking a hard look at basically every WRPG of the 3D era and trying to nail the best of their strengths while avoiding their weaknesses. If we're lucky it might turn out to be "Skyrim done right." Metal Gear Solid V videos remind me a lot of Far Cry 2 but with much better level design that kind of feels like some earlier western stealth games (Thief, Chaos Theory). No Man's Sky is definitely the same old school British sandbox philosophy that Rockstar came from, but in a much more unfiltered form.

We'll see if 2015 gives us better open-world games.
 
I love linear games as their mechanics tend to be more complex and concise. Something like Skyrim is entirely too simplistic to hold my attention despite boasting a huge and beautiful world. I much prefer experiences like TLOU and Halo. Linear experiences whose gameplay sandbox allows a lot of variety in how to tackle them. Which ultimately gives me more replayability and enjoyment.
 
KePoW said:
I'm 38 and I want more linear games nowdays

I don't have time to search around for random shit anymore
Click to expand...

Same. 34 with 2 young children, the more 8-12 hour linear experiences the better.

I still enjoy diving into GTA and I'm a huge fan on of sports games which are perfect for my gaming time.
 
It's all linear guys. If it has a beginning and an end, it's linear. If it has a story, it's linear. The only thing I can think of being non-linear is something like Minecraft's creation mode.
 
With VR coming out Im hoping Companies Produce BETTER Linear experiences. Tired of Open Worlds with the depth of a Kiddie Pool.
 
Exactly the opposite for me. I've outgrown open-world and otherwise non-linear games. I'm old enough now that I really appreciate when a game just gets to the point and doesn't make me wander around for hours in a giant world in search of the actual "game" part. For me, especially these days, guided experiences are amazing and much appreciated.
 
Quite the opposite. I have even less time to play games these days and linear games are a godsend in that regard.

I still love open world games but I foresee myself buying less of those in the future.
 
I'm the opposite. Open-worlds/large maps have just become an excuse to dump a ton of meaningless filler content into the game. I generally like long games but the copy-paste, repetitive nature of the side content in those games has really turned me off on them.
 
More_Badass said:
An open world game can do the same thing with its missions. See Assassin's Creed's Lairs of Romulus or taking over outposts in Far Cry 3.
Click to expand...

I haven't played either games but I'm guessing they're more one and done (finish to earn an item) challenge areas rather than something ppl replayed over and over to achieve the best rank/ score (eg Bayonetta, Pacman DX, Bulletstorm) although I guess time attack could be included without changing the gameplay mechanics that much (Like Dust the Elysian Tail's challenge areas)

My statement still stands, that linear games do lend themselves much better to score attack and re playability. As far as challenge is concerned it's other players in online multiplayer that is the sandbox's biggest asset, that's why Eve Online is one of the best gaming experiences there is imo due to it's meta gaming and high stakes PVP..
 
There's nothing childish or immature about linear games, which can be just as fun as non-linear games.

I generally prefer non-linear design, but not to the point where a linear game can't become one of my favorites, and that has nothing to do with age.
 
Coxswain said:
Linearity doesn't inherently have anything to do with it, but linear games are definitely where you're more likely to encounter the thing that I do feel I've outgrown, which is games that are designed/iterated on using what I've always sort of called the "Valve method" (although tons of developers have used it since HL2).
Basically, where games are aggressively playtested during development, and gone over with a fine-toothed comb to pinpoint every single area where any significant number of players are going to get even a little bit confused, or frustrated, or lost, or just otherwise not doing exactly what the designers want them to do. Then whatever "offending" bits of game design are causing those issues are modified, iterated on, signposted, or just flat-out removed, until basically anybody they put down in front of the game during testing will move through the game in the way the designers want, at the pace the designers want them to move at.


It's easy to see why developers do it - it's a reliable road to those 94+ Metacritic scores - but to me it's always very obvious when the game has been designed that way, and the end result will almost universally feel really tasteless, bland, and artificial to me, like the game was designed by committee rather than according to a designer's intuition.
So while I'm more than happy, in theory, to play a really good linear game, there aren't very many in practice that I can play without feeling really patronized.
Click to expand...
...

A game like Super Mario Galaxy feels designed by committee to you?

I think you're conflating three different pet peeves. You have focus group testing, which leads to zombie games; designed by committee, which leads to Assassin's Creed collectathons, i.e. a standard structure that ticks checkboxes; and you have playtesting to improve usability, cognitive load or efficiency in getting to a point. The latter usually leads to better games, if less (artificially) difficult ones.
 
SonyToo!™;156887539 said:
I haven't played either games but I'm guessing they're more one and done (finish to earn an item) challenge areas rather than something ppl replayed over and over to achieve the best rank/ score (eg Bayonetta, Pacman DX, Bulletstorm) although I guess time attack could be included without changing the gameplay mechanics that much (Like Dust the Elysian Tail's challenge areas)

My statement still stands, that linear games do lend themselves much better to score attack and re playability. As far as challenge is concerned it's other players in online multiplayer that is the sandbox's biggest asset, that's why Eve Online is one of the best gaming experiences there is imo due to it's meta gaming and high stakes PVP..
Click to expand...
The lairs in AC are one and done, but Far Cry 3 outposts are the best parts of the game. You can approach from any angle, go in stealthy or loud, plan your approach, and all kinds of awesome unscripted moments happen, like a tiger roaming into camp and killing everyone

And I just cant agree on linear games lending themselves better to score attack. Another open world example: the score attack side missions in Saint's Row 3 and 4 are incredible fun. Fight clubs, game show obstacle courses, insurance fraud, car surfing, riding around on a flaming ATV lighting people on fire
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anyone else skip this gen?
2
97
728
ThatOneGrunt replied
Anyone else playing Esoteric Ebb?
23
541
calico replied
Anyone else finds GOG “promos” scammy?
8
279
Fbh replied
Anyone else get the new Xbox Dash Update?
4
140
RPS37 replied
Anyone else going back to 30fps on console?
2 3
113
1K
winjer replied
Top Bottom