• Asteroids is back as an open world survival game. Honestly, it is
    17 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamesn.com/asteroids-outpost/asteroids-is-back-as-an-open-world-survival-game-honestly-it-is[/url]
Fuck it with the open world games. Just give me a good linear singleplayer game please.
[QUOTE=The golden;47121320]I don't trust developers with linear games anymore. At least with open-world I have some sort of guarantee that I can actually jump over a box or open a door.[/QUOTE] I don't know. I would rather play a very solid linear game than a bugged open world one, thanks.
So Q*bert is getting a remake and now Asteroids is too? So what's left, an E.T. game and Centipede?
[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;47121344]E.T.[/QUOTE] Landfill simulator 2016
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65370244/000-wat.png[/img] huh?
[QUOTE=The golden;47121320]I don't trust developers with linear games anymore. At least with open-world I have some sort of guarantee that I can actually jump over a box or open a door.[/QUOTE] Most of the missions in open world games are linear as hell anyway.
[QUOTE={TFS} Rock Su;47121306]Fuck it with the open world games. Just give me a good linear singleplayer game please.[/QUOTE] Go play CoD or MoH or BF. No, I'm serious. I at least enjoyed them when I did them.
[QUOTE=cdr248;47122438]Most of the missions in open world games are linear as hell anyway.[/QUOTE] The point isn't linearity, it's quality. In linear single player games, the focus should be (if done right) a solid story and gameplay since they are expected to be done a certain way, all the time. Open world games trade those 2 things off for freedom and quantity of things to do. This doesn't mean that open world games lack quality. Assuming though that 2 identical teams of workers had the same amount of time to work on a game (assuming no problems), and each did the different style, if both were forced to finish at the same time, the single player game would probably have a higher quality story or at the very least a more coherent gameplay experience due to the restriction of linearity.
[QUOTE=gk99;47122912]Go play CoD or MoH or BF. No, I'm serious. I at least enjoyed them when I did them.[/QUOTE] cod AW campaign was pretty good imo, i had fun
[QUOTE=gk99;47122912]Go play CoD or MoH or BF. No, I'm serious. I at least enjoyed them when I did them.[/QUOTE] Say what you will about COD, they have some solid campaigns.
[QUOTE=Karmah;47122943]The point isn't linearity, it's quality. In linear single player games, the focus should be (if done right) a solid story and gameplay since they are expected to be done a certain way, all the time. Open world games trade those 2 things off for freedom and quantity of things to do. This doesn't mean that open world games lack quality. Assuming though that 2 identical teams of workers had the same amount of time to work on a game (assuming no problems), and each did the different style, if both were forced to finish at the same time, the single player game would probably have a higher quality story or at the very least a more coherent gameplay experience due to the restriction of linearity.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Which is why I don't understand why he is praising the non-linearity of open world games. Half the time games like GTA and Far Cry still have missions that are just as linear as your regular corridor shooters, and sometimes their openness causes them to compromise on some aspects of design which can make levels more boring in comparison to your more standard linear titles. He says he has "some sort of guarantee that I can actually jump over a box or open a door" but I feel that's just a low-blow to linear titles just because of modern military shooters being so hand hold-y. And most of GTA for me was spent moving around through corridors of buildings and following set paths whenever I wasn't driving to the next location or objective. So I honestly don't see how open world games are that much better, the only free part about it is the downtime between missions but I never liked tedious driving or golf mini-games of GTA and always felt that it detracted from the actual story missions. (also this is all assuming we are talking about GTA clone open world, RPGs usually handle it quite differently) [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] I just hate how people linearity in games somehow automatically a detriment. Wolfenstein: TNO, Max Payne, Half Life, Call of Juarez, Fear, Doom, Mafia, Metro 2033, Republic Commando ect are all fantastic games and I'd rather see more tight and focused games that do linearity right than big open worlds where I do nothing but feel bored.
[QUOTE=cdr248;47124110]Exactly. Which is why I don't understand why he is praising the non-linearity of open world games. Half the time games like GTA and Far Cry still have missions that are just as linear as your regular corridor shooters, and sometimes their openness causes them to compromise on some aspects of design which can make levels more boring in comparison to your more standard linear titles. He says he has "some sort of guarantee that I can actually jump over a box or open a door" but I feel that's just a low-blow to linear titles just because of modern military shooters being so hand hold-y. And most of GTA for me was spent moving around through corridors of buildings and following set paths whenever I wasn't driving to the next location or objective. So I honestly don't see how open world games are that much better, the only free part about it is the downtime between missions but I never liked tedious driving or golf mini-games of GTA and always felt that it detracted from the actual story missions. (also this is all assuming we are talking about GTA clone open world, RPGs usually handle it quite differently) [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] I just hate how people linearity in games somehow automatically a detriment. Wolfenstein: TNO, Max Payne, Half Life, Call of Juarez, Fear, Doom, Mafia, Metro 2033, Republic Commando ect are all fantastic games and I'd rather see more tight and focused games that do linearity right than big open worlds where I do nothing but feel bored.[/QUOTE] My mistake, I thought you were quoting someone else, so all context was lost. You are right.
[QUOTE=cdr248;47124110]Exactly. Which is why I don't understand why he is praising the non-linearity of open world games. Half the time games like GTA and Far Cry still have missions that are just as linear as your regular corridor shooters, and sometimes their openness causes them to compromise on some aspects of design which can make levels more boring in comparison to your more standard linear titles. He says he has "some sort of guarantee that I can actually jump over a box or open a door" but I feel that's just a low-blow to linear titles just because of modern military shooters being so hand hold-y. And most of GTA for me was spent moving around through corridors of buildings and following set paths whenever I wasn't driving to the next location or objective. So I honestly don't see how open world games are that much better, the only free part about it is the downtime between missions but I never liked tedious driving or golf mini-games of GTA and always felt that it detracted from the actual story missions. (also this is all assuming we are talking about GTA clone open world, RPGs usually handle it quite differently) [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] I just hate how people linearity in games somehow automatically a detriment. Wolfenstein: TNO, Max Payne, Half Life, Call of Juarez, Fear, Doom, Mafia, Metro 2033, Republic Commando ect are all fantastic games and I'd rather see more tight and focused games that do linearity right than big open worlds where I do nothing but feel bored.[/QUOTE] Well GTA, Far Cry, etc. are still linear games really imo. They're linear games set in an open world, where you follow a linear story but can fuck around in a sandbox in between missions. Non-linear games are games like Mount & Blade, Dwarf Fortress, Minecraft-likes, grand strategy games...
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47125607]Well GTA, Far Cry, etc. are still linear games really imo. They're linear games set in an open world, where you follow a linear story but can fuck around in a sandbox in between missions. Non-linear games are games like Mount & Blade, Dwarf Fortress, Minecraft-likes, grand strategy games...[/QUOTE] That's basically my point. Open world games often don't know how to incorporate their large worlds into their story, so they just end up throwing in missions that are as locked down as ones in corridor shooters, making it unreasonable to say that open world games are some kind of pinnacle of player agency when they usually aren't. Should probably just replace every instance of "non-linear" in my post with "open world".
[QUOTE=JerryK;47123758]cod AW campaign was pretty good imo, i had fun[/QUOTE] TBH the only CoD games I haven't beaten since 4 were MW2 and Ghosts, and I had to push myself to beat MW3. [editline]12th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=cdr248;47128108]That's basically my point. Open world games often don't know how to incorporate their large worlds into their story, so they just end up throwing in missions that are as locked down as ones in corridor shooters, making it unreasonable to say that open world games are some kind of pinnacle of player agency when they usually aren't. Should probably just replace every instance of "non-linear" in my post with "open world".[/QUOTE] I want missions that are like the outposts and shit in Far Cry 3/4 where you just use whatever shit you want to take it over.
[QUOTE=cdr248;47128108]That's basically my point. Open world games often don't know how to incorporate their large worlds into their story, so they just end up throwing in missions that are as locked down as ones in corridor shooters, making it unreasonable to say that open world games are some kind of pinnacle of player agency when they usually aren't. Should probably just replace every instance of "non-linear" in my post with "open world".[/QUOTE] I just meant that "open world" isn't the opposite of "linear" as the two aren't even mutually exclusive. "Open-worldness" is just an attribute any game can have really. It can range from games where you aimlessly roam around a randomly generated world and accomplish randomly generated quests to linear games where the open world is just a hub for the different missions. There's nothing wrong with either, it just means being open world isn't a central defining aspect like linearity vs non-linearity. What I'm getting at is basically your point I guess. Praising open world games as a whole makes little sense because being open world doesn't necessarily mean much. It can be a defining feature of a game but it can also be a detail.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.