I dont think Minecraft would do too well being linear.

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.

I'm not sure that it's *better*, but it's hilarious when you go off and do all the side quests and end up completely over powered by the time you get round to the main quest and just beat the shit out of the main bad guy without realizing that they're important.

Yes. Many. Stop playing Ubisoft checklist simulators.

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

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!

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.

I think sequence breaking is fun, and it works better in open world games. IME many modern open world games avoid this by tightly tying loot to levels or stats that you increase by leveling or even advancing the main story, which kinda defeats the point of open world games IMO.

Though honestly, I do enjoy having at least an illusion of choice, very linear games that don't even maintain an illusion of openness feel really restricting to me. Modern open world RPGs just took it way too far while getting some of the important details wrong.

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

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

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.

Cyberpunk 2077.

I like the linear missions, but just exploring the open world and discovering things naturally is fun too. I think they could have done more with that, and it definitely feels like the game was way more linear in early development, but with all the updates CDPR managed to make something pretty cool IMO.

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.

As a completionist open-world games give me progressively more anxiety. Worried I might miss something or mess up a quest line I like.

I am perfectly fine with a clean story or just don't bog me down with a growing list of uninteresting side quests. No I don't want to harvest 500 goblin dicks for a helmet that completes my set.

I think Elden Ring is excellent for being open world. People often criticize the open world aspect because the crafting system is kinda dumb, the caves are samey and don't offer much in terms of benefits or exciting stuff. It's also hard to find quests and easy to miss them (on top of the bullshit story telling of Souls). And experienced people often just basically do a boss rush where they run from boss to boss. But I actually think it's excellent and brilliant game design.

I absolutely loved the feeling of having an entire world to explore. The world did actually feel alive for me, with people and stuff everywhere. Different biomes and decent enemy variety (even though there are plenty of repeats). Looking for quests, exploring caves and doing it all felt like fun. Even though I didn't engage with the crafting much (I did do a bow and consumables challenge run once, but I stuck to just a few kinds of pots and arrows throughout). I felt for me personally it added to the experience.

But in terms of game design it's a huge step forward. With the older games if you got hard stuck on a boss, that was it. You could go grind the previous level if you were really desperate, but that was about it. Especially for new people, this often meant they didn't finish the game. A lot of them didn't even make it past the tutorial boss. With a community telling them to Git Gud, people would assume the games weren't for them and quit. Which is a shame, because the games are good and worth playing imho. With the open world aspect, there's no rush to beat a boss. You can go explore, level up, find better weapons and better armor. And with the way the world is laid out, you can go pretty far without ever beating a single boss. Then come back later and beat the boss, maybe a bit over leveled, but that's fine. If you want the challenge, it's there, but if you are just a casual gamer looking for a fun time, it's there as well.

It's not all upsides tho, as people can also easily get lost and feel like they don't know where to go. Or miss entire areas because they were following the main quest. So not all rainbow and sunshine, but overall a positive aspect.

The open world also makes for an excellent randomizer, I've been absolutely addicted to Elden Ring Rando. So much fun!

Last night I had a realization that the whole reason fallout 3 was given a radio is to fill the hours and hours of nothing in between locations. And also for the dungeon crawling.

Midnight club 2 was pretty dang cool.

The open world nature made the races very fun and was a big (arguably genre defining) departure from other racing games with invisible walls.

It’s had a rare combination of skill, map utilization, and novelty that made it a fun game to play

Outer wilds is the only true open world game since you are exploring a whole (kind of miniature) solar system and you can just fly in one direction forever (kind of). And it's open worldness is integral part of the gameplay. There is literally no story arch (except the ending), you are just exploring.

Anon desires the string.

The Witcher 3. Linear as hell story, super fun open world. It was literally gwent simulator for me by the time I finished that game.

I’m certain nearly 25% of my crimson desert playtime is climbing mountains for fun then flying back down

Elden Ring did it very well.

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.

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.

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.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild & Tears of the Kingdom.

It's all about exploring. It would be impossible with a linear structure.

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.