Im Slightly Confused

[OmegaFenix]

So I was browesing the Bit-Tech.net website like i do and came across a preview for an up and coming WWII sandbox game called The Saboteur. (http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/20...teur-preview/1)

Here is a quote:
Quote:

Rather than limiting you to a single, linear and heavily scripted path The Saboteur drops you in an entirely open sandbox from the star.

Later I read a different article about the canceled Dark Knight movie-tie in game from Pandemic.

(http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2009/01...emic-closure/1)

Here is another quote from this article:
Quote:

In order to help save time, Pandemic decided that the best idea was to use an existing engine that they already owned - so, they chose the engine for Pandemic LA's upcoming WWII shooter, Saboteur. Unfortunately, that engine was designed very much for linear games with small, complex levels and didn't mesh well with the free-roaming design Pandemic had ham-handedly developed.

Now this is slightly confusing, is the Saboteur open world or linear?
__________________

[Maplassie]

it's a linear open world Shooter

[aldyr]

Methinks some people don't understand the concepts, they're reporting about. Linear, usually refers to the single player story having 1 ending. Open world, usually leans towards a map design, that gives the player, the illusion of much more freedom of movement per map/level. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[OmegaFenix]

Hehe. Mind explaining that concept to me?

You have a huge open world but are forced to only explore a linear path?

[aldyr]

No. You have huge open world. There is only 1 possible conclusion to the story, that you're playing through in Singleplayer mode. Stating the obvious, it's like this: No matter what order, or in fact what ever you choose to do in the Singleplayer mode, the ending to the story is still exactly the same. As opposed to a game like Fable.

[OmegaFenix]

I understand what your saying aldyr, I understand the concept. Its the article i don't understand. The two comments contradict each other as far as i can understand. One ending in Dark Knight vs multiple endings in the Saboteur would not cause big issues as far as gameplay go, i mean u simply remove the excess endings.

[Maplassie]

hehe. Mind explaining that concept to me?

You have a huge open world but are forced to only explore a linear path?

stalker??!?!?!?!?!?!

[OmegaFenix]

(Sorry i thought you where making a joke)
Stalker is an open world shooter with linear missions conceded.

for linear games with small, complex levels

That doesn't sound open world, does it?
I am not arguing the concept at all, i understand it. Its the quotes in the article i don't understand.

If the Saboteur drops you into an open sandbox from the start why would the same engine not mesh with Dark Knights free roaming.

Rather than limiting you to a single, linear and heavily scripted path The Saboteur drops you in an entirely open sandbox from the start.

That right there is a contradiction to this:

Unfortunately, that engine was designed very much for linear games with small, complex levels and didn't mesh well with the free-roaming design

Would you agree that those two statements contradict each other?