Greentext

I pretty much always prefer open world, or at least something interconnected like a Metroidvania. Linear makes me feel like my back is against the wall.

I would definitely say Gothic 1 and 2. Cannot imagine the games being better without it.

Elden Ring did it very well.

Thursday

Star Wars Galaxy's was a great open world game.

Open world =/= giant map

Take resident evil games, Control, Batman. Some larger maps than others, but the key is open. Most of the map or level is available to you to explore how you like, with a linear story guiding you through as well, and then progression opens smaller locked areas and new levels.

Yes. Many. Stop playing Ubisoft checklist simulators.

I play Fallout 4 like Sims with guns.

Also, mods.

Not much. Open-world is often a design for a looooot of space without intention. It used to be a technical prowess, but now it's mostly for bland chores simulators. Generic open-worlds and mobile games have hurt game design a lot, especially in the 2010's, but IMHO, Fromsoft has saved us from that by creating a semi-open, interconnected world design that felt vast and intentional. Elden Ring was their first modern open-world and they nailed it with all that Souls experience.

Generally, good open world games have a lot more emergent content - situations that emerge from the interaction of agents and simple mechanics (in the style of how simple rules create complex outcomes in the "Game of Life") - whilst good linear games have highly curated set-pieces scenarios which were created by level designers directly.

For an example of the former, imagine you're running around the Game World looking for a special kind of plant to create a potion that you need. You come across a battle between bears and a bandit group. When they die their drops are free for the taking and both groups are too high level for you to take on your own. None of this was setup to happen when you crossed some trigger line, it literally just happened because those the entities in those groups are part of enemy "factions" and the patrol route of one group (a route which might itself be procedural rather than fixed) passed near enough the position of the encampment of the other.

This kind of thing randomly happen is just not something you get in linear games which are generally just set-pieces and even the ability to pull on group of high level enemies to another group has to be designed in (mainly by making the restricted game area big enough for it in that section and placing the groups in the right places).

This is also why in a linear game if you die and restart you get the same fights in the same places you had before up to the place were you died unless that section of the game was designed with enough alternate paths of mechanics (say, hide mechanics) that you can go around and avoid certain fights.

Emergent content is also why Multiplayer can be a lot of fun, though in this case the "agent" whose interactions can give rise to all sorts of situations are other players.

Being able to fuck around can be fun. A linear Elder Scrolls (morrowind, oblivion, skyrim) would be boring

The benefit is the experience. The difference in experiences comes down to the level design. Are you in a maze or in a field?

The best game designs masks this in both scenarios.

The well designed linear game doesn't always feel like a maze, and has sections that feel like fields between mazes.

The well designed open world game contains mazes that you discover in a field that feels roped off into clearly defined sections that differ from each other and contain large landmarks to orient and draw you in.

Both feel bad if they don't include (at least the illusion of) the other. A linear game is boring without any choice. An open world game is boring without linear moments.

I think elden ring probably couldn't be told in a smaller scale level design.

You hear about massive spanning battlefields, wars with gods, etc. Could not be correctly portrayed with a more compact level design. And the vistas are gorgeous.

Open worlds benefit the game when exploration is the point.

The problem is not "open world" but "the ubisoft game". New region, find watchtower, reveal map, do 1 quest, attack enemy camp, liberate area, new area, find watchtower, ...

Most open worlds are also just way to big. GTA San Andreas felt huge but is tiny compared to V. And it was better for it. Modern open worlds never have a hub. A place that you actually build a relationship with and see change over the course of the game. Its always: area completed, next!

When progression is properly controlled such as in fallout: new vegas or hollow knight, then a larger map can do wonders

Yes, but the open world has to exist in the game as a meaningful set of gameplay systems/potentialities.

There have to actually be things that could challenge you, cost you, reward you, capture your attention, present you with a secret if investigated, set off an actually meaningful chain of events, etc.

If 'open world' is implemented as simply 'big space with occasional trash mobs wholly disconnected from the rest of the game'... you have a very shitty implementation of an open world.

Open world doesn't, or I guess shouldn't simply mean 'big empty space'.

If your game has a fast travel option that you regularly or often use to skip the open world, your open world sucks.

I dont think Minecraft would do too well being linear.

Witcher 3 is so much better than 2 or even 1 (which was also confusing).

Also, imagine Gothic, Skyrim or Dragon Age in linear.

While Crysis would be worse with a fully open world. It plays as a narrative.

RDR2, GTA, Elder Scrolls, is this a shitpost?

I like a game world that's just fun to be in even when I'm not advancing the story. Taking a break to explore is awesome, and much easier in an open world.