Open world or Linear?

[Slimebeast]

twesterm said:

Slimebeast said:

Kirameo said:

Xxain said:

Slimebeast said:

"Go there, then over here... no, not there. Kill those two enemies, then jump here. Walk forward, cross this line and we'll scare you. Keep moving. No, you can't go right or left because there's rubble blocking. Can't go back either because the bridge collapsed. Push this block to open the door and we'll give you a secret bonus. Move forward a bit to trigger cut-scene. Avoid the big monster, you aren't allowed to kill it yet, take on the small guys instead then cross the line and the enemies will stop spawning, move forward and do not ever look back. Walk until you trigger next cut-cene and boss encounter."

How is this trolling? if a design document was written for a linear game this is exactly how it would be written!! this isnt trolling when you get to college take a game design class and ask to read a design document it would sound and look like this.

1) The way in which it is written. For example, the mocking expresions.

2) This is not a "post your game design document" thread.

1. What mocking expressions?

2. No, but it's a thread where to discuss the pros and cons of two basic forms of gameplay structure.

So now people get upset when someone describes linear gameplay? Did you feel that offensive? If yes, can you explain please.

Meh, you can do the same thing for open world:

"Start in the open world, accept quests, fetch sticks, open a new area, repeat."

:-p

Of course you can.

I know you were joking, but often the side-quests can feel very artificial and meaningless in open world games. I wish it could be designed better, for them to feel much more natural and important.