Open World or Linear? The two main styles of level and game design. Both offer great and exciting experiences in games, but which one is better? Is it the one with a better story or the one with more options?
17 years on from release and 5 years into a botting epidemic, Team Fortress 2 is on its knees, and it's high time Valve stepped in to fix it.
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay debuted 20 years ago, and to this day is a surprisingly good film franchise adaptation.
I'd love a remaster of both games with 4K, raytracing, and the ability to have both AA and AO at the same time.
Remasters were made for Xbox 360 and PS3 in 2009 Chronicles of Riddick Assault on Dark Athena
MS owns the developer, if only they wanted to bother with the license, could be a nice addition to Series X BC program. These titles and Arx Fatalis.
Microsoft does not own Starbreeze Studios; it is owned by Digital Bros through its subsidiary, 505 Games.
Tigon Studios, founded by Vin Diesel, primarily develops games featuring him and holds licenses related to these games.
ScreenRant's Ben Brosofsky writes, "There have been a lot of great co-op games over the years, and the best of the best cover a wide variety of genres while maintaining the fun."
Wait...when you talk about open world you might have to more specific, cause it could mean a lot of things. Unless of course you mean sandbox games.
I say this because I've come to understand linear games as level by level, you get no choice in the matter. Like, a game like Mushroom Men, complete level one, move on, level two, move on, etc. and then there is a game like Super Mario Galaxy (or heck Super Mario 64) where you get to choose everything you want to do, get everything, get the bare minimum etc.
On the other side, you can even argue that an "open world" game is a linear game because while you have the freedom to do as you please, you really don't, everything is still scripted, the story and events halt until you do the very next planned event.
I'm just saying that in a sense, we aren't really looking at too different types of games, just ones with a different interfaces but overall, similar experiences. Like...what if Mirror's Edge had been open world, and you can jump all over the city and whatnot. Would that have made the game better or worse? Probably neither, it just would have been different, maybe only appealing to a slightly different audience. Heck, if you were to ask one of the game professors at my University, he would probably say we haven't reached open world gaming until we can make the AI making the story and being affected by the players actions because even in "open world" games, the players are going to receive similar experiences based on what the developers want.
Oh, and as for "open world" games putting the player in charge...that's what game designers want you to think, if they are good, they're more likely using subtle techniques that perk senses of curiosity to make you do what they want. If the game is good, then that means the developer never let you leave what they intended and you are completely at their mercy like some kind of mind controlled sock puppet (muwhahahahaha)
next gen games expecially open worldgames are lacking major content.
pfft,MORE expeience goes to Open worldsandbox games but overall EXPERIENCE in depth then LINEAR FTW!
but will shall see wen inFAMOUS hits if you can combine great story depth with sanbox roaming.
You get more variety. Each scene is a picture to remember. Each chapter could be a different world.