I really need the game to have a good reason to be open world other than you can put how bighueg it is on the steam page so teenagers with all the free time in the world and little money get the feeling they can play it forever.

It makes sense for Death Stranding to be open world, kind of the point. I'm playing Mafia 3 now and same as with two I'm wondering why this needed to be open world

Like all true gamers: I don't like my games.

Honestly? Either can be good if they're well made. It all depends on the game. I think any genre has the potential to be good.

I like them in equal amounts really, guess I'm a genre centrist

After an open one I really enjoy 6 narrow ones and after 6 narrow ones I enjoy and open one

Funnel-shaped: narrow at the beginning to avoid overwhelming the player, gradually opening up to allow more freedom as the player progresses and comes to grip with the mechanics.

I can't stand narrow games.

A game should be a canvas upon which the player as an artist creates art.

With that said, most "open" games fail in their openness because they fail to restrict the player. Creating tonnes of systems and mechanics is useless if those systems and mechanics are not something you're forced to engage in through restrictions, or are not something that results in meaningful choices.

For example, there is little point in giving me a stealth method to achieve a mission if running straight through the front doors stabbing everyone in the face is easy, time efficient and holds no consequences. Why would I bother stealthing if I can press one button to counter the enemy attack and cut through hordes of enemies? It's shallow. It doesn't produce stories.

Restrictions are a necessary component of openness. You have to give the player reasons to make different choices. You don't have to lock them out of the "let's attack head on" approach entirely but at the very least you need to make it hard and hold consequences in order to make alternative methods enticing or to give people a "story" they feel was earned.

Too many games pile on a million possible options for the player and then utterly fail in giving the player any incentive to use any of them.

99% of the time open worlds result in lazy design.

generally speaking I prefer more linear games because they tend to be on the shorter side - I don't have the time or desire to spend 100+ hours on a game. now if I hit 80 and can't do stuff so much no more, that's when I break out the big ol JRPGs and such

I enjoy narrow games when they have a good story or vibe and game mechanic I like (for instance Disco Elysium, though with lots of pathways, isn't at all a sandbox and has a very well fleshed out social exploration/discovery system that just works unlike any other). What I hate most with "open games" are those that do the kitchen sink mechanic approach just because instead of systems that interlink and support upon each other. Why does your game need a fishing mini game? Because all the other games are doing it? Huh ok... see also games that copied the ubisoft tower map discovery system but didn't do much to make it interesting, the closest that did was Zelda BoTW only because it made each sheikah tower slightly unique (at the same time I think BoTW and especially ToTK have systems that interlink among each other amazingly well as a open world game).

I like games that respect my time.

Good narrow games generally don’t require a lot of time commitment up-front, and provide an enjoyable experience without overstaying their welcome, or requiring excessive repetition to see all the content. They often offer forms of replayability that don’t feel obligatory, like challenge modes or a new game+, which are really welcome when you play through a game and want to scratch the itch just a little more before putting it down.

Good open games usually reward a greater up-front time commitment with richness and variety that keep the game interesting through many hours of gameplay, and/or multiple playthroughs. They also often allow the player to set their own goals so that there’s no explicit pressure to grind or slog through content to get to the end, nor a feeling that you’ve abandoned the game if you get to a certain point and decide to stop.

In either case, I think a really good game allows you to pick it up and play for short periods while still being enjoyable. Narrow games sometimes fail here when the levels are just a bit too long, or where the save point system creates awkward situations when you want to stop, but can’t do so without losing progress. Open games sometimes fail at this when there’s too much travel time, or where completing a “loop” takes too much time.

If a game is good, I don’t care whether it’s open or narrow, I just want to get a good experience for my time.

Open games can overwhelm me a lot, but if it's done nicely and eases you in to all the details and options then it can be really fun. Satisfactory is a good example, I probably never had to open a wiki to read how to do something or what something was, the game does a great job of giving you more and more options progressively without giving you a headache

I really like both, but the time crunch is life keeps me away from the more open games.

Narrow ones can avoid just involving repetitiveness much more easily, and it seems to align with how boring open worlds are in the vast majority of cases.

At this point, I would much rather either engage with puzzles or narratives instead of wasting my time 'solving' the same primitive problem over and over again (especially when there is no narrative to elevate that loop). Actually, more generally, I think I don't like 'gameplay loops' at this point.

Sometimes I feel like going into a deeply rich open world that's alive and has a lot of lore to expand on with fleshed out charecters.

Other times I just want to sit down and pew pew pew at hordes.

Depends on the mood I'm in because I tend to soak up deep lore open world games and want to throughly enjoy them and find all the secrets instead of veging out. To really appreciate the art.

Open world games are great if I can mod them cos they just become toy boxes. Stalker anomaly is probably the single best open world game to exist imo. If it’s rigid and drm loaded like the ubishit games then I find they way too generic and dull to be fun. In those instances I’d rather a linear game.

I prefer narrow and linear. I get overwhelmed by open world stuff tbh. It doesn't have to be extremely narrow and linear, but I like to have a fairly clear path to follow, or at least a map marker for where to go next if I want something to do/if I want to progress. That's not to say that I don't enjoy an open world game if done well, but not my preference.

little bit of both. like most people i played open world games for the last decade or so bc its mostly what they make. but the last few years ive been making it a point to play linear story games. i like them both for different experiences. i do hate an open world full of bullshit tho. at a point it’s too overwhelming. i also hate an open world that doesn’t remember what you do

for example if there are enemy checkpoints or bases throughout the world if i clear it out i dont want the enemies respawning. too many games make them respawn and it feels like it ruins immersion

Generally more narrow. I only play older games for the most part and dont play often or for long periods of time. If I wanna play some games for a couple hours I dont wanna spend most of it doing fetch quests which is what most open world stuff is.