Linear or Open Overworld: Which Do You Prefer?

[JuicieJ]

I gotta say, I like the progressive style of overworld more, but I do think both styles should be in the games. I think the areas leading up to dungeons should be filled with puzzles, but there should also be an open hub filled with room to explore and secrets galore. Y'know... like The Minish Cap or Skyward Sword (with stuff to do in the Sky).

[kram1032]

As usually, with almost all themes, topics, styles, what ever you can think of really, out there:
It's all about the proper balance.
Don't have it too linear. That can feel quite restrictive and in the end all you're doing is watching a movie.
Don't make it too open. People will get lost and frustrated and potentially never even finish the game.
The other thing is that the more openness you add into the mix, the more inevidable it becomes that you need to rely on pure randomness.
There are certain games that did amazing jobs at relying on randomness - some of them are quite recent phenomena...
For instance:

• Minecraft
• Terraria
• Dwarf Fortress

However, neither of those have any full-fledged storytelling. (Although Dwarf Fortress comes close to that in many ways)
Such games certainly do have a place but if you want some kind of at least somewhat set story, you rely on a certain amount of linearity.
You *can* do a quite open world while having a story but you can't become indefinitely open.
Something, many games do to balance this issue is having a linear main story but quite alinear side-quests, in that you can do them in a wide variety of orders. (Most of the time, you can do them in ANY order if you wait for basically the final section of the game where everything is unlocked and you can go collect it all...)
But that comes with a certain limitation that all those sidequest can only minorly affect the main story.
Examples of this kind of planning are so plentiful, I don't think I have to list any.

Games of another kind popped up too: Diamond-graph-storytelling.
You basically have two choices. The outcomes are very different. But after a while over the course of several actions, you'll end up at the very same point, no matter what path you previously chose.
These storyline splits can happen indefinitely often and be interconnected in very complex ways. Some games do another split at the final fight, causing multiple endings.
We all know one game that did so implicitly.

And then there is the rarely taken route (I right now can only think of a single example), where you go through the same storyline over and over but you can affect single events and modify the faith of each person on your way. Suddenly, you don't even have to fulfill major story-driving events (It might even be impossible to do so right way) and sidequests can take much stronger effect on the main storyline.
This concept is ingenious but it shouldn't be overdone. Despite that, a bit more games with a similar mechanic wouldn't be bad.
It should be clear what game I'm refering to...

All in all, I'd say: There are many balances that work really well. Entirely linear is the most boring path but it already worked on so many games that shine for several qualities, so linearity is usually not a problem in them. Entirely open only works well if you have the creativity to go through it. The whole world is open to you. If you run out of ideas, it might soon become boring, depending on what kind of person you are (or what kinds of persons you play with).
The other mixtures in between all had varying success, depending on how well their corresponding concepts were executed. And I think, that's the key:
Find the right balance for what ever you're trying to produce. Execute that balance in the best way possible.

[Finch]

Why not both?

[Emhave]

I'd definitely prefer to have a mix of both. Didn't we already discuss this topic in another thread?

[JuicieJ]

I'd definitely prefer to have a mix of both. Didn't we already discuss this topic in another thread?

Sort of. I asked if you would like to see a TMC style overworld in Zelda 3DS in the thread you're talking about. This thread is more about which kind of overworld you prefer.

[Bendoli]

Definitely more towards open. Handholding just sickens me. But having like a dungeon type overworld leading up to the dungeon is pretty cool, as long as it's not completely linear. (SS did this quite well)
Really disliked the hub overworld setup though...

[kram1032]

I don't think "linear" and "handholding" are the same thing.
Handholding can happen in very open games too, where you have a questlog and that log includes all the tiny puzzle elements you need to solve the quest -> no surprises given despite openness.
Also, you can have a very linear game that doesn't come with any kind of help at all.

[Bendoli]

I don't think "linear" and "handholding" are the same thing.
Handholding can happen in very open games too, where you have a questlog and that log includes all the tiny puzzle elements you need to solve the quest -> no surprises given despite openness.
Also, you can have a very linear game that doesn't come with any kind of help at all.

Well, I guess you have a point. Still, I prefer exploration over having a completely set in stone objective. If you know what I mean.

[JuicieJ]

I don't think "linear" and "handholding" are the same thing.
Handholding can happen in very open games too, where you have a questlog and that log includes all the tiny puzzle elements you need to solve the quest -> no surprises given despite openness.
Also, you can have a very linear game that doesn't come with any kind of help at all.

Exactly. I've seen way too many people blame SS for handholding due to the linear overworld. What they fail to realize is SS barely holds your hand. The only legitimate help the game offers comes from directly asking for it. (Fi's obvious statements don't count. Obvious statements are obvious.)

[Emhave]

The only legitimate help the game offers comes from directly asking for it. (Fi's obvious statements don't count. Obvious statements are obvious.)

I... have never thought about that before. Still it is so very true... =|

[kram1032]

I guess you could call it "handholding on demand" and there really isn't anything wrong with that.
Although a problem with is that often, Fi will keep bugging you about it until you finally listen to her.
So it's handholding on demand but if you don't use the handholding, she'll annoy the hell out of you. - And there is a substantial chance that she doesn't hold your hand at all but just gives you very obvious comments.
Of course, unlike Navi, she'll at the very least wait with her hints until you fail enough and then progressively give you more and more usable hints. That general idea is great. It's just that sometimes, when you "fail" is messured not ideally.
Or the hint she gives doesn't apply to how you failed. - But making sure that this is correct takes a LOT of extra work. If they seriously got a helping system that accounts for the way you're having difficulties for an arbitrary system, then... Well, I don't think it could become much better than that. It would certainly be a true accomplishment on an artifical intelligence / machine-learning type level.

Either way, that's off topic. Sorry, heh.