Open-ended vs. Linear games

[aimeeandbeatles]

Do you prefer open-ended or linear games, or a combination of both?

I once seen a good quality game, a horse game, where it had a combination -- you could make decisions, which affected the ending of the game. And there were maybe two or three different endings -- not sure, I've played it twice and had a different ending each time. I like that.

 

[GoodGame]

I prefer it in between. Games that are too open-ended are frequently not very playable. Games that are too linear are not very re-playable.

 

[Maniacal]

With a linear game mode they can focus on putting in various cool effects and make sure the first playthrough or two is a fun and unique experiance, it's also easier to tell a story that doesn't get broken up by unknown amounts of who knows what the player is going to do. However after that it loses replayability fast.

Open games are awesome, provided they supply you with more to do than wander. Oblivion and Morrowind for exampl,e you don't have to do the main quest at all and there is lots of other activities to do but it is still limited, luckily they are heavily modded.

If the game is however only going to be a 6-10 hour singleplayer with no multiplayer or other stuff then I don't want to play full price, it's simply not worth $50-60s (Dead Space is a recent example, and actually so are many console games).

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I like both - Call of Duty 4 and Far Cry 2 are two of my favourite FPS games. Open world games tend to suck up more hours and are more replayable, tho this doesn't nessesarily make them better.

 

[Maniacal]

Eh I found Far Cry 2 to be disapointing, the world was far more linear than it was supposed to be (there is not even close to 50 square kms of land, at least HALF or MORE is blocked off!).

 

[King of Town]

I need it to be totally open ended otherwise I have a hard time playing it a second time.

 

[Yeekim]

I think The Witcher strikes a fine balance in this regard.

 

[PhroX]

I like "open-ended" freeform games in principle, but most of the time they just end up boring. Take the Elder Scrolls games. Sure, you can do pretty much anything, but very little of it is actually fun. Generally, games which strike a balance work best IMO. Take, say, Baldur's Gate - there's a strong core story which you have to follow, but there's plenty of optional side quests you can do (almost) whenever you want to.

Of course, it depends on the type of game. Strategy/God games are much more suited to being freeform than FPSs for example.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I love open games a lot more usually. But it's very hard to do properly for a game company. It takes a lot of work.

PrinceScamp mention Oblivion... For your open-ended gameplay you pay the price of their stupid monster-levelling system where all the monsters level up with you (so that wherever you go, the challenge will be "just right"). I had to use Francesco's mod to make this a bit more bearable.

I think we're losing the essence of open-ended though. The Witcher and Fallout 3 aren't really open-ended. I mean, you're going to go essentially through the same motions when you play it again.

So yeah, as PhroX says, Strategy and God games are some of my favorite types of games because of this. That being said, Spore was supposed to be my ultimate game, it turned out to be cabbage dung (yes, cabbage dung).

The thing is that linear games CAN be fun... We did play Mario 1 and Megaman 2 like nuts (you could argue Megaman 2 had some level of choice by choosing which bot you wanted to fight first... but ...). These days however, linear games are turning into movies, and that's not good at all.

 

[Maniacal]

I got rid of the stupid monstor leveling system pretty fast.

And actually, good movies can be watched over and over again, and they are under half the price of a video game, which does not have the same replayability.

 

[Rub'Rum]

And actually, good movies can be watched over and over again, and they are under half the price of a video game, which does not have the same replayability.

I guess that explains why I rarely watch movies and don't understand why people would ever buy them

 

[carmen510]

Linear is fine by me so long as its like a good movie, you just can't stop watching it.

But open-ended are great too, so long as you can screw around and at least the majority of the world is open and not totally glitched. GTA IV is a good example of this.

 

[Dachs]

Linear is fine by me so long as its like a good movie, you just can't stop watching it.

But open-ended are great too, so long as you can screw around and at least the majority of the world is open and not totally glitched. GTA IV is a good example of this.

I agree with this post. GTA IV is IMHO one of the few examples of open-ended games that are done in a fashion that I enjoy, though.

 

[hossam]

elder scrolls 3 is one of the bestes games ever.

 

[Civfan333]

I like a mixture in between, because if it's too linear, not much replay value, thus buying= wasting money, while in too-open games, I tend to lose interest.....

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

My favorite game of all time is both open-ended and linear.

The story is linear, but you can veer off course whenever you feel like it and the game won't penalize you at all. If you're having trouble fighting enemies, scout out for some heart pieces or arrow upgrades.

I agree with CivFan333, in other words. And yes, I did get around to playing the, uhm, MOST CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED GAME OF ALL TIME.

 

[Harbringer]

Morrowind is the best game ever.

 

[azzaman333]

I like fun.

 

[Maniacal]

Fun is fun!

 

[Izipo]

Fun is the best game
Morrowind comes a close second.