The Flawed Disrespect of Linear Games
It's no secret. Open-world, sandbox-type games are in right now; they have been for a long time. As a gamer who grew up in the '80s and '90s, however, I prefer more linear games.
There are at least two camps of gaming that emerged from the beginning: the home-computer games, and arcade-games. The games I grew up with were mostly inspired by developers who played and developed arcade-games. Even Nintendo's roots were in the arcade, so it's only natural for me to enjoy linear games more.
The problem is that linear games are less-respected, especially, by professional game-reviewers, who will easily hand out high scores for open-world games, whereas they won't as easily for linear games. They let their left brain do most of the talking. In theory, it seems like you get more from open-world games: go anywhere, and do anything. The reality, however, is that linear games provide an experience that is more fun and challenging.
Personally, if you tell me that I can do anything in a game and bombard me with options, side-quests, and free exploration, I am just stunned; I can't do anything because I am overwhelmed. I prefer linear-ish games that give you the freedom to explore within a reasonable space - one that is not too small nor not too big. Within this space, I can look around and find things if I want to, or I can just move forward with the game.
Open-world games are marvels of technology and hard work, but is it good game-design? What is better? Crafting a bunch of toys, throwing them into a sandbox, and throwing the player into it, or carefully crafting an experience that feels meaningful? In the end, it is all up to personal taste. It seems like many people prefer the former over the latter. Let us not forget, nor disrespect, however, the merits of the latter.
There are at least two camps of gaming that emerged from the beginning: the home-computer games, and arcade-games. The games I grew up with were mostly inspired by developers who played and developed arcade-games. Even Nintendo's roots were in the arcade, so it's only natural for me to enjoy linear games more.
The problem is that linear games are less-respected, especially, by professional game-reviewers, who will easily hand out high scores for open-world games, whereas they won't as easily for linear games. They let their left brain do most of the talking. In theory, it seems like you get more from open-world games: go anywhere, and do anything. The reality, however, is that linear games provide an experience that is more fun and challenging.
Personally, if you tell me that I can do anything in a game and bombard me with options, side-quests, and free exploration, I am just stunned; I can't do anything because I am overwhelmed. I prefer linear-ish games that give you the freedom to explore within a reasonable space - one that is not too small nor not too big. Within this space, I can look around and find things if I want to, or I can just move forward with the game.
Open-world games are marvels of technology and hard work, but is it good game-design? What is better? Crafting a bunch of toys, throwing them into a sandbox, and throwing the player into it, or carefully crafting an experience that feels meaningful? In the end, it is all up to personal taste. It seems like many people prefer the former over the latter. Let us not forget, nor disrespect, however, the merits of the latter.
Comments
Post a Comment