they just want to ditch it with something.

since WRPG aren't linear and its only thing they have against RPG king FF.

though WRPG suffer from so so characters and story, shooter-like gameplay.

the only bad things its some good hours to be able to freeroam where you like to, but FFX was that way too, u couldn't actually do anything until u are done with zanarkand.

btw ppl, in a JRPG open world and linear world have slightly different meanings Open world= DQ8, FFXlll Linaer = Grandia, Xenogears

lol...glad we can agree on something.

I have freinds that can't play non sandbox games. It gets to be too much for them... they find it relaxing just going around and doing score side quests or similar missions. I just grew up with 8bit systems which were all about challenge challenge challenge! No breaks allowed.

there's towns, but they are deffinitley less than before.

OT - It all depends on the game. The reason you're hearing a big fuss about it lately is...well I'm not even sure, people need a reason to beef iwth FFXIII.

I don't mind side quests if the objective is clear.  I just remember playing the newest Zelda on Wii and getting to the part where the guy kept pushing you off the cliff.  I spent an hour trying to figure how to get passed it (and that was the only way to continue).  Eventually I looked up the guide and you had to go two towns back and talk to the mayor and fight him...but there was no way whatsoever of knowing that.  So players are apparently just supposed to go talk to every single character in the game up until that point till they hit pay dirt.  I just don't see how that is fun.

Some open world games I'm ok - inFamous was great because you always knew where the next mission started at, and if you wanted to do sidequests you could, but it showed you right where they were at and they helped level your character up.  But the crap in GTA4 was nothing but tedious and worthless crap the lengthened the game for no reason other than to seem more realistic, I guess.

No idea. A linear experience will always be easier to control and often produces better results, particularly for games with a narrative or a story.

Open world can be fun, too, but it brings challenges rarely overcome if you want a narrative, too. Even the big open worlds are really little more than a playground to mess around in until you decide to follow a quest for a while, then the become as ruthlessly linear as anything else.

I guess it depends on what people expect. I mean, I can understand if you want the ability to wander about picking and choosing quests you'd find RPG type games that don't do this to not suit your tastes.

But it's just an option like any, and not inherently bad.

Normally I'd agree with the principle, but after playing inFamous, I can say that there are of course exceptions (though that might just be my playstyle). Normally I'm much in favor of a linear experience, GTA bores me as hell, but in inFamous, I would take huge breaks from the main story and just go out to conquer territory. It broke up the story in ways it wasn't meant to be of course, but it was still fun.

Yeah I agree there are exceptions. I didn't play Infamous but I played prototype...and one thing that game did right is tell me "this is main quest/mission and this is just for fucking around" I knew which missions to play and which to skip.

A game like Darksiders for example...while not that open world...is still somewhat sandboxish and very good in my opinion.

I'm still getting ff13 day 1 but I'm more worried about stuff like fixed chars, no leveling, only 2 stats, useless shops, etc than linearity. IMO, linearity isn't even a problem

A linear game setup is usually far more competent for telling a story or add extra polish as events can be far more deeply scripted and pre-determined. But there's also room for open world or mixtures. Those who diss either options in advance are IMO close minded people.