I totally agree, in the end it comes to what I've bolded!

And in my case story seems to be more important than an open world I can lose myself into. I remember playing Morrowind once when I was younger and it really didn't motivate me to play further...

Haven't played the new one much yet but the previous generation of TR games (Legend, Anniversary and Underworld) were already extremely accessible. Legend was the first TR game I actually ever finished (at least without cheats, that is). They already played like modern platformers, closer to Assassin's Creed than the original Tomb Raider games as I recall. I think there was some rather challenging platforming in these ones but not nearly as tough as that crazy stuff in the old games that made you feel like you're calibrating an intercontinental missile before each jump.

Could be you're right. I gave up at TR2... As for Assassin's Creed, I never could figure that game out. I've tried it once, and despite its claims of open world and yadayada I've found it extremely boring... Maybe I should give it one more try some day...

Alright, let's see...I suppose it depends on the genre and really it depends on what the developer was trying to do with the genre for instance: FPS, compare and contrast an extremely linear experience like CoD4 (It's the most recent one I've played) versus a linear, but slightly more open game like Far Cry. In CoD I think the relative lack in choice of where you can go kind of breaks the illusion, since you have to cross invisible trip wires for the NPC's to stop re-spawning in the exact same place over and over again and repeating the exact same sequence of dying in that spot over and over again. Whereas in Far Cry it will give you relatively linear paths and levels, but with small areas with a limited number of enemies where you need to figure out a way to kill them with a relative lack of health. Then you have the older games where advancement was determined by collecting keys and I personally can never find the blasted things without scouring the whole level a dozen times because the level design didn't do an excellent job of pointing them out in the first place, but that may be more subjective than objective.

As far as RPG's are concerned there are things to be said about both. I tend to like the games that tell good story better than the ones that focus more on exploration, but honestly either is good. However, the rule still is the more open an RPG is the less good a story it will tell, the opposite is not true of the more linear the better the story. Games like Fallout are all about exploring this strange new world and are not necessarily about telling a gripping tale, thus they need to be less linear in order to achieve that goal. I did find having an open overworld the main downfall of ToS, because I found it rather annoying having to do things like fight plains monsters until the right one randomly generated, then I think the game glitched on me and I didn't pick up the right item, nonetheless the overworld I felt hampered the experience and I wouldn't have missed it being replaced by roads that led to the different towns and dungeons. Xenoblade is sort of linear, but the level design sure isn't as it gives you plenty of downtime to just explore (it even rewards exploration with experience) or do sidequests with the option to just continue the story should you want to do so (though you will be underleveled). Finally, Witcher 2 is about the most linear RPG I could think of being only about 25 hours long with levels for story progression, sure it had branching paths and the ability to do sidequests, but in small contained areas. Although I did rather enjoy Witcher 2's relative lack of openness for its focus on narrative.

Those are the main two genres of which I can think where linearity would be much of an issue. (Hopefully this wasn't really a discussion of lineality as I don't know what that is.)

Yeah, that's how all the CoDs until World at War worked. I was quite surprised to see that they replaced that system in the later ones. The last one I played was Modern Warfare 2 (just recently, a few months ago I grew a bit tired of all the hardcore and oldschool shooters I've been playing and felt like checking out how this series developed after Modern Warfare/World at War). Starting with MW2 the amount of spawning enemies is actually limited so you can actually make progress just by killing enemies - it never really feels like clone wars. Quite an improvement since now you make progress via combat, not triggering the invisible tripwires you mentioned. There's also been *a few* semi-open areas, the game was certainly most enjoyable in those rare cases, and from what I've read/heard the Black Ops games went even a bit further. So apparently even the biggest modern shooters have moved on from the extreme tunnel shooter formula set by the earlier CoD games where you have to move forward through a literally infinite stream of enemies. Surprisingly also Call of Duty 3, released between CoD2 and MW1 exclusively for consoles, seems to have had limited enemies, at least most of the time. I haven't played it that much, though, so I can't say for sure.

In fact - yes.
If I had the time, I'd do that (at least modding or total conversion) as well and I encourage everyone that isn't already as polluted with active hobbies as me, but a bit time has to be left to actually enjoy the art of others. ;)
Maybe you just hit the nail on the head and people tend to be near one of two extremes: Makers and Consumers - this would actually explain the vast amount of linearity in games.

I've only played the Wii version of CoD 3, but there are some defensive missions that require you to hold for say five minutes and the enemies will respawn from certain spots until the time is up. Usually however, there are things like mortar teams and tanks that will occasionally need to be dealt with during those moments, it's been a while since I've played it so it's not all crystal clear to me right now.

I feel some games work great telling a story. (You don't hate a book because it's not a "Choose Your Own Adventure" style.)

I feel some games offer you a vast world you feel compelled to explore. (Sandbox titles.)

And again, in my own opinion, I think that some games should be non-linear because the developers and designers put forth so much detail that I feel it would be a shame not to add a branch here, or a side-quest there. (Or because they cut something out, but still left some indication of what should have been there.)

To me, being totally open-ended is a minus because I have lost that wanderlust of my youth. Now, I would prefer some direction or a pre-made guide/map so I don't spend hours in cartography or creating journal-entries. If I had any inclination to do that, I would ask that I be paid because I would then publish it as an FAQ or Guide for others.

Old school games, like Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy are about as "non-linear" as I would like. Relative to today's environments, they have a much smaller map to explore. The first Final Fantasy even gives you an "entry quest" (save the princess, find the Earth Orb) before forcing you to find alternate forms of travel (ship, raft, dirigible). The first Zelda game has easy paths to follow (barring the insane 2nd quest with its one-way walls and hidden passages) and a limited number of quests to achieve.

Or maybe I'm just getting too old.

Well, I didn't aim for any nails, but feel free to interpret my question any way you like. :) (Personally I find your theory a bit extreme in itself.)

What they said.