I often see people when critiquing certain titles, they may mention how the game being linear hurts it yadda yadda. I'd argue that, outside of the GTA games, Skyrim and maybe one or two other games that don't come to mind, open world games for the most part are wasted resources that could have went towards better things. 
Devs create these huge sprawling masses of land with cookie cutter places and architecture that doesn't really do much. The games "linearity" so to speak is masqueraded by it's missions simply split and relocated to key locations on the world map.
Sleeping Dogs has this big city with damn near nothing to do in it. The novelty of Far Cry 3's overworld wore out once you've reached a certain point in the story and then it just became redundant side missions such as capturing bases, score attacks etc.
Tomb Raider's huge island was nice to look at (PC Master Race) and kind of alright to traverse but it really served no purpose. Those little treasure artifacts and collectibles are simply scattered throughout the world and it just seems a bit wasted. The game is still great but I felt that they should have toned that shyt down and focused more on character development and story telling.
Mass Effect 2 gets a pass because damn near each location was integral to the story's progression and you seldom didn't have jack squat to do when you got somewhere. Part 3 was not as good though since it felt like it regressed and even more so than how Part 1 was. (Those moon areas :childplease)
A game that does linearity right I'd say is TLOU. It's wide linear in a sense that there are often key spots in certain locations that have important things there such as supplies, collectibles, and notes left by past inhabitants. Once you finished scavenging the area, you went forward with the game and you felt a brief sense of exploration but it didn't get too crazy. Not to mention the acting was unmatched by anything out right now, it creates a scenario where you want to know what happens next and it keeps you hooked.
Maybe another reason why I sort of preferred Arkham Asylum's focused wide linearity vs Arkham City's more open structure that feels overwhelming at times.
Am I saying no games should be open world?? Nah.. Just that most games pale in comparison to GTA and Skyrim/Fallout's open world elements. Also devs touting "CREATE YOUR OWN PATH!!" as the end all be all of story development isn't all that imo. I'd rather a game where there's clearly a story to be told as how the devs wanted it versus loose stories where the player makes key choices that alter parts of the story.
I'm just rambling some thoughts I had about these type of games, put your 0.02 cents in.
Devs create these huge sprawling masses of land with cookie cutter places and architecture that doesn't really do much. The games "linearity" so to speak is masqueraded by it's missions simply split and relocated to key locations on the world map.
Sleeping Dogs has this big city with damn near nothing to do in it. The novelty of Far Cry 3's overworld wore out once you've reached a certain point in the story and then it just became redundant side missions such as capturing bases, score attacks etc.
Tomb Raider's huge island was nice to look at (PC Master Race) and kind of alright to traverse but it really served no purpose. Those little treasure artifacts and collectibles are simply scattered throughout the world and it just seems a bit wasted. The game is still great but I felt that they should have toned that shyt down and focused more on character development and story telling.
Mass Effect 2 gets a pass because damn near each location was integral to the story's progression and you seldom didn't have jack squat to do when you got somewhere. Part 3 was not as good though since it felt like it regressed and even more so than how Part 1 was. (Those moon areas :childplease)
A game that does linearity right I'd say is TLOU. It's wide linear in a sense that there are often key spots in certain locations that have important things there such as supplies, collectibles, and notes left by past inhabitants. Once you finished scavenging the area, you went forward with the game and you felt a brief sense of exploration but it didn't get too crazy. Not to mention the acting was unmatched by anything out right now, it creates a scenario where you want to know what happens next and it keeps you hooked.
Maybe another reason why I sort of preferred Arkham Asylum's focused wide linearity vs Arkham City's more open structure that feels overwhelming at times.
Am I saying no games should be open world?? Nah.. Just that most games pale in comparison to GTA and Skyrim/Fallout's open world elements. Also devs touting "CREATE YOUR OWN PATH!!" as the end all be all of story development isn't all that imo. I'd rather a game where there's clearly a story to be told as how the devs wanted it versus loose stories where the player makes key choices that alter parts of the story.
I'm just rambling some thoughts I had about these type of games, put your 0.02 cents in.
you movie gamers are gonna be 
