Worse trend: 7th gen linear games or 8th gen open world games?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Obvious a subjective subject but I can tell you one thing: I've certifiably grown more tired of the latter than I ever was of the former.

By the gods, it's become a comforting thought that The Witcher 3, Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Red Dead: Redemption 2 could be last open worlds for the rest of my gaming life, because I'll probably never buy or play another open world game. Cyberpunk 2077 and whatever the next GTA is will have to be revolutionary in their design to even warrant a closer look personally.

When the best I can hope for with an open world game is merely to hold my interest enough to finish it let alone entertain the thought of ever replaying it, it's probably time to close the book on them.

Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

Samtemdo8:
Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

I disagree, but I don't really see the value in doing the same "content" that's boring but is how the upgrades are sectioned off. Mad Max was a chore because it kept wanting me to do the same boring tasks in order to get scrap so I could upgrade the Opus.
Where's the value in collecting a billion animus shards in Assassins creed games?
In a hypothetical situation where it's "6 hours of good content" vs "60 hours of good content" then yeah, there's more value in the latter but a lot of the time it's just 6 hours of good content and 54 hours of repetitive faff.
But then again, I never buy games full priced anyway, so it's not like I ever spend $60 on a 6 hour experience anyway.

TrulyBritish:

Samtemdo8:
Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

I disagree, but I don't really see the value in doing the same "content" that's boring but is how the upgrades are sectioned off. Mad Max was a chore because it kept wanting me to do the same boring tasks in order to get scrap so I could upgrade the Opus.
Where's the value in collecting a billion animus shards in Assassins creed games?
In a hypothetical situation where it's "6 hours of good content" vs "60 hours of good content" then yeah, there's more value in the latter but a lot of the time it's just 6 hours of good content and 54 hours of repetitive faff.
But then again, I never buy games full priced anyway, so it's not like I ever spend $60 on a 6 hour experience anyway.

Try playing Far Cry games guns blazing in one playthrough. Then try playing it all sneaky and stealthy the next.

And I have said that I find the Far Cry games better then Assassin's Creed.

It all depends on how good/fun the game is. It's just a shame for people who don't like the current trend (as I didn't like the linear games trend). Not only 7th gen games tended to be linear, they tended to be (or use gameplay from) modern military shooters.

I'd say they're both equally bad, seeing as they're both rather obnoxious, though the linear 7th gen trend didn't include all the online money milking bullshit that the current open-world trend does.

Personally, I'll take linear over open-world nearly everytime. Open-world games overall feel less immersive to me, because the closer a game tries to get at simulating freedom the more restricting it ends up feeling when you ultimately reach the borders of that freedom. I was playing Breath of the Wild yesterday, arguably one of the best open-world games to date, and I came to the end of the gamemap only to be confronted by a sudden invisible wall and a text telling me 'you can't go beyond this point'. Stuff like this kills me. There wasn't even a chasm or a body of water cutting me off, no, just a forcefield stopping me from progressing.

Then there's the fact that I kinda wanna do/play something else once I get to a certain amount of playtime. If I've been playing a game daily for two weeks and I still haven't reached the end I find it hard to keep going with much enthusiasm, no matter how much I like the title. 10 to 15 hours is the perfect length for me, because whenever I start a new game or replay one it's those first 3 to 4 days where my excitement is at its peak.

Honestly, both.

Linear games and open world games can be fun so long as they're consistent with their rules (ICO and Just Cause 2, for example). But I hate having an open world game get linear, scripted, practically self-playing missions. The missions themselves in Assassin's Creed and Far Cry and GTA are always the worst parts of those games and go against everything I love from fucking about in the open world and enjoying emergent gameplay. I loved RDR2 for the story but boy if half of the missions don't play like cutscenes.

I don't think linearity versus open world games is the issue. Both game styles can be bad, and both can be great.

I think the biggest problem is the plague of half-assed games coming from AAA-publishers who think that releasing MVP's (Minimal Viable Product) is a sustainable good idea.

Releasing a barebones barely functional game only to spend six months fixing it with patches while the paying public fucking suffers through shit while they wait for their expensive game to become worth playing, is a fucking disaster.

It depends entirely on how much the game grabs me. There are open world games and linear games that I've played through many, many times. Old GTA games like Vice City and San Andreas, every TES game and The Witcher 3. I must have played through each more than 6 times. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've played through The Witcher 3 10 times, maybe more. And I'm still playing it. I just freakin' love that game.

Same goes for some of the linear games like Max Payne 2 or Resident Evil 4 etc.

I'm a huge fan of sandbox games. In contrast, linear always leaves me feeling boxed in, trapped, and I tire of that quickly -it's the illusion of being in control of my character's destiny that I appreciate.

I've played 20 minutes of Metro Exodus so far, and it's really been me just watching characters talk, and then walking to a new spot, and watching scripted events unfold. It's really well made, but I'm just shy of watching a movie - in fact, one of the playmodes is a walk-through, if I remember correctly. So I'm playing Call Of Chernobyl again, and having much more fun. I mean, I'm not done playing Metro, I'll see some more of it before passing judgement. Just, you know... not a great start for my tastes.

Out of curiosity, has anyone played a S.T.A.L.K.E.R mod that they would recommend? I've got CoC and love it, and I also played Misery (was a bit too micro-managy for me).

Can't we just have a little bit of both
Sometimes open world is good, sometimes linear and its going to change based on my mood

Samtemdo8:
There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

It's the opposite for me. I usually play a good, relatively short, linear game multiple times, and then come back to it again later for more replays. Games like...

Mass Effect trilogy (4+ playthroughs)
Dragon Age: Origins (4+ playthroughs)
Dragon Age II (2 playthroughs)
Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

^^All games that even a completionist can finish in under 100 hours.

Whereas the massive open world games I've completed, Dragon Age: Inquisition and Witcher 3, each took me like 200-300 hours, and I was soooo ready for them to be overwith by the end that I never came back to them and probably never will.

For me, replay value is about quality of content. A smaller, more linear game with high quality content is going to have much more replay value for me than a massive, bloated game with lots of boring padded content and maps so big that exploration becomes a tedious chore.

Linear is better because I prefer master-of-one vs jack-of-all-trades.

Kerg3927:

Samtemdo8:
There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

It's the opposite for me. I usually play a good, relatively short, linear game multiple times, and then come back to it again later for more replays. Games like...

Mass Effect trilogy (4+ playthroughs)
Dragon Age: Origins (4+ playthroughs)
Dragon Age II (2 playthroughs)
Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

^^All games that even a completionist can finish in under 100 hours.

Whereas the massive open world games I've completed, Dragon Age: Inquisition and Witcher 3, each took me like 200-300 hours, and I was soooo ready for them to be overwith by the end that I never came back to them and probably never will.

For me, replay value is about quality of content. A smaller, more linear game with high quality content is going to have much more replay value for me than a massive, bloated game with lots of boring padded content and maps so big that exploration becomes a tedious chore.

This. Open-World games don't have much to offer now as they're all to similar to each other. It's either Far Cry, GTA, a GTA clone, Assassin's Creed, or some other game made by a publisher that does not stand out from the crowd. The last open world game I enjoyed was Saints Row 2. Aside from playing GTAV's single player with my older brother, I checked out of sandbox games, because they got too repetitive.

Samtemdo8:
Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

i disagree. While I understand open worlds have some benefits, I feel linear games are at least a one-time purchase. Open world games have become 'live services' and are just vectors for DLC and micotransactions. And that level of anti-consumerism is way worse than merely boring linear games

Honestly all trends sort of show the worst sides of their respective genre.

It's not about linearity vs open world. I love the game Dark Cloud 2, I love the artstyle, music, characters, plot, and gameplay, but I am never EVER going to replay it because while the amount of stuff you can do in it is amazing, it's also overwhelming.

Dark Cloud 2 is a linear game but it has a lot of things that one has come to expect from modern open world games with the amount of different things you can do in it but not always a lot of reason to do it and a lot of time required to do it in. My issue with current open world games is that they're too big. Either they have a lot of good unique content that you're never going to see all of before you get tired of it or it's all repetitive stuff that you're doing constantly.

People need to stop taking the open WORLD part of the genre so strictly. You can have a big playground to run around in while still not taking up ten city blocks.

Kerg3927:

Samtemdo8:
There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

It's the opposite for me. I usually play a good, relatively short, linear game multiple times, and then come back to it again later for more replays. Games like...

Mass Effect trilogy (4+ playthroughs)
Dragon Age: Origins (4+ playthroughs)
Dragon Age II (2 playthroughs)
Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

^^All games that even a completionist can finish in under 100 hours.

Whereas the massive open world games I've completed, Dragon Age: Inquisition and Witcher 3, each took me like 200-300 hours, and I was soooo ready for them to be overwith by the end that I never came back to them and probably never will.

For me, replay value is about quality of content. A smaller, more linear game with high quality content is going to have much more replay value for me than a massive, bloated game with lots of boring padded content and maps so big that exploration becomes a tedious chore.

Same. SoulsBorne and most recently Uncharted 4 are games where I really enjoy multiple playthrough's; often times more-so with each successive run because I find new things or new ways of doing things. SoulsBorne replay speaks for itself, but Uncharted 4 is surprisingly adept at yielding a good variety of strategies in almost every decent size combat encounter due to multiple approaches like stealth, guns blazing, sniping, rope swinging in and out of danger, platforming to your positional advantage, etc. The levels are big and varied enough to encourage all of this without any unused terrain there simply to fill a map out.

I thoroughly understand the appeal of open worlds, and I'm really enjoying my time in the immersive world of Kingdom Come: Deliverance and The Witcher 3, as well as RDR2 and even Mad Max, but once I'm done with everything that pops up on their maps I will feel like I've exhausted every significant bit they have to offer and be too fatigued by it all to go back at all. Maybe a decade or so later for nostalgia if I had absolutely nothing else to play, but it simply wouldn't hold the same appeal in terms of gamepaly that a smaller scale, more tightly designed game has.

Open world no doubt.

All it's done is filled games with pointless, rewardless tasks meant to waste our time.

Man that's a real toughie. But as bland and uninspiring as Sandboxes are in general these days, I'm not sure they're as bad as that awful plague of chest-high wall linear shooters from last gen. Honestly those were far more disposable and forgettable than the open worlds of today, so my vote's going for the linear 7th genners being the worse option.

Silentpony:

Samtemdo8:
Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

i disagree. While I understand open worlds have some benefits, I feel linear games are at least a one-time purchase. Open world games have become 'live services' and are just vectors for DLC and micotransactions. And that level of anti-consumerism is way worse than merely boring linear games

So do you think Warhammer 40K: Space Marine is worth 60 dollars for its campaign alone?

Squilookle:
Man that's a real toughie. But as bland and uninspiring as Sandboxes are in general these days, I'm not sure they're as bad as that awful plague of chest-high wall linear shooters from last gen. Honestly those were far more disposable and forgettable than the open worlds of today, so my vote's going for the linear 7th genners being the worse option.

To me they're equally generic but for different reasons. Design-wise chest high walls are a bane regardless, but the trade off would be the linear game isn't wasting quite as much of your time with pointless filler.

as with almost all genres in every medium, it's all down to execution; no genre is interently bad on its own. a trend of bad executions may often lead to the perception the genre is to blame, like a trend of bad relationships may lead some people to believe an entire gender is to blame

and maybe I'm doing all entertainment wrong here, but the most I always hope for is it holding my attention till the end, as that means it doing something right and being an effective escape, otherwise that shit get turned off real quick cause videogames soak up way more free time than film, book or music and can't waste time on anything not engaging. the drug must be effective, uncut

grindfests are the worst if a trend is required for sacrifice. I only put up with Warframe through determined self-moderation as it was free with an interesting sci-fi aesthetic and Canadian

oh and leaving aside the current depressing "live service" push/trend that has been covered greatly already everywhere, another trend of annoyance is games getting awards long before they're ever released. like, seeing Sekiro advertise itself as "winner of over 50 awards and nominations" on its pre-order menu, I'm left wondering hang on one baby-smothering minute, for fucking what exactly? ...its marketing?? yes, no doubt the awards each claim something otherwise, but marketing is the only exposure it's experienced through

Kerg3927:

Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

I hardly consider a game linear when you can backtrack and find new things and new paths as a result.

Probably open world.

Don't get me wrong, there were definitely super-abbreviated linear games that struggled to deliver on a value proposition. And the narrative/cinematic trend that went alongside much of that tended to eclipse out any replayability in game mechanics for presentation, exacerbating the issue. So one-and-done can be a big demerit if that one isn't a dense experience in itself (or reliant on mystery or twists to deliver).

Open World, I'd argue that no one has managed to really do it well. Its always been either a desolate void, or absolutely flooded with checklists, or inorganic constant spam. Pretty screenshot fodder, and the impressive (to many) "Lookit how big our map is", but ultimately kind of an unrealized potential, mostly suited to occupy your hands while you're listening to a podcast or whatever. Outside of an obligatory set of story missions that could've been told linear-style.

Samtemdo8:

Silentpony:

Samtemdo8:
Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

i disagree. While I understand open worlds have some benefits, I feel linear games are at least a one-time purchase. Open world games have become 'live services' and are just vectors for DLC and micotransactions. And that level of anti-consumerism is way worse than merely boring linear games

So do you think Warhammer 40K: Space Marine is worth 60 dollars for its campaign alone?

I do. But then again I live and breathe 40k.

I would say that how 8th gen games are going about being open world is worse. Open world games that are just a hollow shell with no central story, only to repeat a boring game play loop.

Collection has become the new "way of extending gameplay", and is seeping into every open world game in a bad way. I would point to Assassin's Creed and Dragon Age as examples of great series that got poisoned by collection. While I still liked DA: Inquisition, it definitely had it's whole story ripped out and replaced with "collect 50 shards"...

Horizon Zero Dawn on the other hand bucked that trend. The side quests are involved and unique, and there are only a few collectables.

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:

Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

I hardly consider a game linear when you can backtrack and find new things and new paths as a result.

Souls is a bunch of linear areas interconnected. Is RE2 not linear then? Unless the definition of linear is literally one long hallway that you only move forward and nothing else.

skywolfblue:
Horizon Zero Dawn on the other hand bucked that trend. The side quests are involved and unique, and there are only a few collectables.

Horizon is one of the few open world games that actually merits and needs its open world. The reserved nature of how many quests and collectibles also helps in keeping repetition to a minimum while keeping quality per piece of content rather high. Whereas something like FarCry could work in a new Tomb Raider or even Uncharted 4 sized worlds that have enough room in them for mini-sandboxes (for combat scenarios to be approached from different angles) along with enough room for hunting/crafting purposes. The only main FarCry I played was 3 and there was so much low quality content in that game if you did anymore than the occasional piece of side content and that map was so freaking big too.

Samtemdo8:

TrulyBritish:

Samtemdo8:
Linear.

There is more gameplay and replay value with Open World games.

I feel like 60 dollars is too expensive for a game like Call of Duty's campaigns.

I disagree, but I don't really see the value in doing the same "content" that's boring but is how the upgrades are sectioned off. Mad Max was a chore because it kept wanting me to do the same boring tasks in order to get scrap so I could upgrade the Opus.
Where's the value in collecting a billion animus shards in Assassins creed games?
In a hypothetical situation where it's "6 hours of good content" vs "60 hours of good content" then yeah, there's more value in the latter but a lot of the time it's just 6 hours of good content and 54 hours of repetitive faff.
But then again, I never buy games full priced anyway, so it's not like I ever spend $60 on a 6 hour experience anyway.

Try playing Far Cry games guns blazing in one playthrough. Then try playing it all sneaky and stealthy the next.

And I have said that I find the Far Cry games better then Assassin's Creed.

Far Cry games are long games, I've easily used both play-styles in a single game, and neither makes a difference to the core game. In fact I mostly stealthed in 3&4 when I could simply because I found the gunplay so generic that I couldn't stand having to actually waste time fighting the dudes when I could just snipe them off at a distance.
And it's not like those games didn't have shitty collectathons, like the bloody Masks of Yalung in 4 which gave XP and literally nothing else, no cool pay off to the serial killer, nothing. And scoping out a base and taking it once, cool, two times, alright but it goes for like 20 times (not counting the fucking stupid idea that enemies should attack your bases while you're trying to actually get on with the game) with so little variation between bases and, in fact, little variation from 3 to 4.
Then they tease you with the stronghold, the supposed fortresses for the entire Min regime and it's just the same as the camps! Same tactic, same enemies but there's like 3 alarms instead of 2.
When Far Cry 3 and 4 actually tried telling a story I was interested, but in 4 was got a whole bunch of unsatisfying villains who really got barely any screen time and in it's place was the same content copy pasted across a big map. At least they gave you easy access to the wing suit and those little chopper things so you could cross distances quickly.

TrulyBritish:
Far Cry games are long games, I've easily used both play-styles in a single game, and neither makes a difference to the core game. In fact I mostly stealthed in 3&4 when I could simply because I found the gunplay so generic that I couldn't stand having to actually waste time fighting the dudes when I could just snipe them off at a distance.
And it's not like those games didn't have shitty collectathons, like the bloody Masks of Yalung in 4 which gave XP and literally nothing else, no cool pay off to the serial killer, nothing. And scoping out a base and taking it once, cool, two times, alright but it goes for like 20 times (not counting the fucking stupid idea that enemies should attack your bases while you're trying to actually get on with the game) with so little variation between bases and, in fact, little variation from 3 to 4.
Then they tease you with the stronghold, the supposed fortresses for the entire Min regime and it's just the same as the camps! Same tactic, same enemies but there's like 3 alarms instead of 2.
When Far Cry 3 and 4 actually tried telling a story I was interested, but in 4 was got a whole bunch of unsatisfying villains who really got barely any screen time and in it's place was the same content copy pasted across a big map. At least they gave you easy access to the wing suit and those little chopper things so you could cross distances quickly.

I had a lot of the same problems with FC 4. But I've heard that one complaint about enemies attacking bases while you are trying to get on with the game several times. While I agree it was a bad idea, at least it has no in-game effect if you ignore it and just do get on with playing the game.

As far as the question of liner vs open-world. There's ways to make both kinds of games great, and ways to completely screw up both as well. I think the real problem is the trend-chasing that leads to being able to equate a single type of game to an entire console generation. You'd think that publishers would realize that you can potentially make way bigger gains providing something the public can't get anywhere else than you do trying to make a knock-off of something people are already getting from someone else.

Phoenixmgs:

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:

Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

I hardly consider a game linear when you can backtrack and find new things and new paths as a result.

Souls is a bunch of linear areas interconnected. Is RE2 not linear then? Unless the definition of linear is literally one long hallway that you only move forward and nothing else.

skywolfblue:
Horizon Zero Dawn on the other hand bucked that trend. The side quests are involved and unique, and there are only a few collectables.

Horizon is one of the few open world games that actually merits and needs its open world. The reserved nature of how many quests and collectibles also helps in keeping repetition to a minimum while keeping quality per piece of content rather high. Whereas something like FarCry could work in a new Tomb Raider or even Uncharted 4 sized worlds that have enough room in them for mini-sandboxes (for combat scenarios to be approached from different angles) along with enough room for hunting/crafting purposes. The only main FarCry I played was 3 and there was so much low quality content in that game if you did anymore than the occasional piece of side content and that map was so freaking big too.

Horizon could've run fairly well on a basic hub structure really. Large chunks of the Open World had no content, or were obviously designed battle arenas. And the hyper-static MMO-spawns for enemies.

None of those are uncommon trappings for the open-world game style. But its really where the unused potential is. The robodinos should be moving around a migrating, and potentially running afoul of each other or the humans in the map (outside the few RNG roadside encounters). Instead they're all just relegated to hanging around their designated battlefield, literally marked on the map, and will happily abandon any combat with you when you hit their leash range.

That's where the open world sandbox will really earn its distinction as a genre of its own, rather then an awkward offline (or online as the case may be) MMO design. If they can fill it with content that will actually exist organically in the open world, and not just prefab encounters and static spawns. Until then we're left with giant maps of stuff that may certainly be fun to engage with (a la Dragons Dogma and Horizon ZD), but ultimately is always the same stuff in the same spots that we fight the same way under the same conditions. Or the even less organic method Ubisoft and Bethesda tend to do where stuff spawns on top of you from a D&D esque random encounter table even if you're in a place where its nonsensical.

Phoenixmgs:

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:

Dark Souls trilogy (3+ playthroughs)

I hardly consider a game linear when you can backtrack and find new things and new paths as a result.

Souls is a bunch of linear areas interconnected.

That doesn't counter my statement (nor applies to Darkroot Garden).

Phoenixmgs:

Is RE2 not linear then? Unless the definition of linear is literally one long hallway that you only move forward and nothing else.

I consider linear a game where the exploration is one-way. Once you exit an area in RE2, you can't go back to previous ones. That isn't the case in Dark Souls. Seriously, do you consider Super Metroid linear too!?

skywolfblue:
Horizon Zero Dawn on the other hand bucked that trend. The side quests are involved and unique, and there are only a few collectables.

I wouldn't exactly call them unique, since it's pretty much the same 'go there and get/kill that' missions that most open-world games have. The Witcher 3 has a lot more identity from side-quest to side-quest. HZD simply cuts down on the filler content by only having about 5 Towers, 5 Cauldrons, dito Hunting Grounds etc. And it can do this because the main drive/gameplay loop is running around the environment fighting giant robots - that's what you're here to do. And because this provides a neverending stream of content it doesn't need to fill in what in other open-world games would be considered empty space in between missions/quests.

Seth Carter:
Horizon could've run fairly well on a basic hub structure really. Large chunks of the Open World had no content, or were obviously designed battle arenas. And the hyper-static MMO-spawns for enemies.

None of those are uncommon trappings for the open-world game style. But its really where the unused potential is. The robodinos should be moving around a migrating, and potentially running afoul of each other or the humans in the map (outside the few RNG roadside encounters). Instead they're all just relegated to hanging around their designated battlefield, literally marked on the map, and will happily abandon any combat with you when you hit their leash range.

I don't know how stable the gameworld would be if the dinos could wander everywhere, but I would like to see something like migration paths for a lot of the creatures for the sequel. They already sorta had something like that with the crab robots accompanied by the Watchers, and it would be great if this was extended to Thunderjaws and other more dangerous robots.

Seth Carter:
Horizon could've run fairly well on a basic hub structure really. Large chunks of the Open World had no content, or were obviously designed battle arenas. And the hyper-static MMO-spawns for enemies.

None of those are uncommon trappings for the open-world game style. But its really where the unused potential is. The robodinos should be moving around a migrating, and potentially running afoul of each other or the humans in the map (outside the few RNG roadside encounters). Instead they're all just relegated to hanging around their designated battlefield, literally marked on the map, and will happily abandon any combat with you when you hit their leash range.

That's where the open world sandbox will really earn its distinction as a genre of its own, rather then an awkward offline (or online as the case may be) MMO design. If they can fill it with content that will actually exist organically in the open world, and not just prefab encounters and static spawns. Until then we're left with giant maps of stuff that may certainly be fun to engage with (a la Dragons Dogma and Horizon ZD), but ultimately is always the same stuff in the same spots that we fight the same way under the same conditions. Or the even less organic method Ubisoft and Bethesda tend to do where stuff spawns on top of you from a D&D esque random encounter table even if you're in a place where its nonsensical.

The setup and story of Horizon actually makes sense with so many "game-y" elements. It actually makes sense for the robodinos to be basically always be in their areas as each is tasked with doing something specific like filtering water and whatnot. They aren't normal animals that will migrate, fight for territory, attack villages, etc. The one thing that could be implement for moving them across the map would be when you kill them they have to move from their cauldron to their spot on the map.

CaitSeith:
That doesn't counter my statement (nor applies to Darkroot Garden).

I consider linear a game where the exploration is one-way. Once you exit an area in RE2, you can't go back to previous ones. That isn't the case in Dark Souls. Seriously, do you consider Super Metroid linear too!?

If we are just saying there's linear and open world, then unless it's a big world you can go anywhere in, then it's linear in my book.

Phoenixmgs:

CaitSeith:
That doesn't counter my statement (nor applies to Darkroot Garden).

I consider linear a game where the exploration is one-way. Once you exit an area in RE2, you can't go back to previous ones. That isn't the case in Dark Souls. Seriously, do you consider Super Metroid linear too!?

If we are just saying there's linear and open world, then unless it's a big world you can go anywhere in, then it's linear in my book.

That isn't what we are saying. We are comparing the trend of linear games in 7th gen and the trend of open-world games in the 8th; and Darks Souls fits neither.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here