Please support Game Informer. Print magazine subscriptions are less than $2 per issue
Reader Discussion: With So Many Games Going Open World, Should Linear Levels Be Left Behind?
Advancements in technology have given developers the power to make bigger and more detailed worlds. Sandbox-style design is no longer the exception, but the rule. But should it be the way every game goes?
Last year saw a strong blend, with open-world Grand Theft Auto V burning up sales charts and the linear The Last of Us sweeping through the awards scene. This year will see a broadened Dragon Age experience in Inquisition, a vast persistent experience in Destiny, and even a more open Sniper Elite. Is there still room for both styles of design, or are linear levels becoming passé?
Is it easier for you to return to sandbox games, or do you like jumping back into worlds that have a more directed path? Let us know in the comments.
I’d like to ask you to support Game Informer’s continued coverage of games with a subscription. For less than two dollars per issue, we mail you a full year of 10 print magazines, each with cover stories and preview features filled with exclusive details about the most exciting upcoming games. We profile and interview game creators. We look back on the rich history of gaming, and we celebrate what’s next.
Here on the website, we offer much of our content for free, including game reviews, daily news, videos, event coverage, and more – all with minimal ads.
We do so with a small editorial team, alongside contributing paid writers from around the world – over 65 individuals from 9 countries around the world, just in the last couple of years.
It’s not possible without support.
In a time when game makers and games coverage have faced hard struggles and layoffs, the future of this 30+ year magazine and community is at risk. Our new standalone magazine subscription is the number one way you can keep us alive – and we believe you’ll get a pretty fantastic gaming magazine in your mailbox every few weeks for your trouble.
Thank you.
