this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
481 points (96.5% liked)
Greentext
4488 readers
686 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do find that 'open world' is used interchangeably with 'non-linear'. I think this is a problem because they're quite different.
Open world needs some kind of sandboxing mechanic. Whether it is building something, changing the environment, or whatever. It doesn't have to be base building but it is the common go-to. There is usually less 'progression' and more isolated 'accomplishments' which may or may not have tangible rewards impacting game mechanics. Open worlds don't even have to have 'endings'.
Non linear gameplay needs things like optional and auxiliary components but also missable/altered content/choices matter, different paths/routes, and/or multiple endings affecting a core/linear game progression. Non linear games tend to 'open up' and 'close off' with lineated progression.
Open world is in contrast to the mission structure of a doom or call of duty. Games where the world is a series of single use maps progressed through once.