PDA

View Full Version : Less is more?



Tecstar70
4th Oct 2013, 14:27
Is it me or is the phrase "open world" hanging around a lot of games at the moment. Its almost like its a measure of a games quality or greatness if it is open world. Does everything need to be open world? There is still room for some good on-the-rails platformers out there isn't there?

How open world would you like to see TR10?

Metalrocks
4th Oct 2013, 14:42
some games can be linear like half life but being open world means more exploration and a little break from all the fighting or even puzzle solving (depends on the game of course).
i enjoyed wondering around on the island, fighting hardly nothing, just enjoying the scenery and see things you would have missed if you would just follow the path.

how open i want TR to be?
big enough to explore and having different paths to reach your goal like being stealthy.

Jurre
4th Oct 2013, 14:51
Well there's a number of things that do well in a linear world but become so much better in an open world, like: finding collectables, moving around in a fast paced way like freerunning, gliding, flying or rope-swinging and solving inventory-based puzzles. All of that fits perfectly in the Tomb Raider formula.

I am stunned how much the already solid gameplay of Batman Arkham Asylum was improved in the sequel by going open world and I can see how it could work the same way for Tomb Raider.

Letting Lara loose on a tropical Island like in Far Cry 3 with tons of collectable artifacts and upgradable abilities and tools, ancient pyramids (and preferably dinosaurs as well) would be a guaranteed succes... I think.

pirate1802
4th Oct 2013, 15:45
Agreed. I think Tomb Raider should remain as it is, sort of semi-open world. Just include more nonlinear paths through enemy encampment, but don't make it fully open world like GTA or AC.

a_big_house
5th Oct 2013, 13:06
Unless the world is Just Cause 2 size, and actually full of stuff to do, I'd rather the game stayed as it is

pirate1802
5th Oct 2013, 13:14
And yes you are right, publishers seem to be throwing around that phrase a lot these days, inspired by GTA I guess. Making a game open wold doesn't automatically make it better.

Gemma_Darkmoon_
5th Oct 2013, 18:55
How open world would you like to see TR10?

There was so much talk about how much open world TR9 would have and some more open areas did appear in mountain village and Shipwreck beach areas. Most of the game did still feel like a linear path in the same way as it did LAU. That being said I wouldn't want to see full open world with vast area's like a JC or GTA map.

What I do want to see is complex interior level designs. something like St Frances folly, Midas palace or Lost city of Tinnos. Where there are lots of floors and levels to climb, jump and explore and just as importantly where the route to go doesn't stand out like an obvious path.

_Ninja_
5th Oct 2013, 21:59
It should only big as big as to avoid gratuitous amounts of empty filler that many open world games have. It should be dense with non-repetitive interesting content. If they can make a huge open world with that philosophy then go for it, otherwise no.

XylophoneDealers
6th Oct 2013, 12:21
I would love it both ways because:

>If it were to be open world, I would like CD to create a vast, detail-full world. I'm talking a lot of interesting sights, interesting facts, superb history and many, many tombs. I imagined something like (if she were to go globe trotting) somewhere like Maccu Piccu where the whole area is to be explored. Or maybe somewhere like an old Japanese town.
>If the game were to be semi-open/linear, then I would want to to be full of multiple paths, a lot of areas, and with many different things to do.

But if I had to pick one option, it would have to be open world.

larafan25
6th Oct 2013, 16:05
Tomb Raider 2013 may be on rails, but it hardly tests us as platformers.

Open world is a measure of quality when the game is about exploring and discovering. I'd rather TR not be an on-rails platformer, Uncharted exists for that purpose, and it's overbearing combat encounters.

AnnomaLee
7th Oct 2013, 08:20
I find it good as it was in the actually Tomb Raider, because it never felt like work, it was just really fluent to play through.
Open world could ruin the gameplay, it don't has to, but it's possible, why taking the risk?

BridgetFisher
7th Oct 2013, 18:06
Id like TR to be open world levels could be linear that is how a nice balance could be found.

pirate1802
7th Oct 2013, 18:25
I find it good as it was in the actually Tomb Raider, because it never felt like work, it was just really fluent to play through.
Open world could ruin the gameplay, it don't has to, but it's possible, why taking the risk?

Exactly.

Jurre
8th Oct 2013, 16:19
Open world could ruin the gameplay, it don't has to, but it's possible, why taking the risk?

Because nothing will ever be attempted or achieved if there's no risk being taken.

_Ninja_
8th Oct 2013, 16:46
If it ain't broke don't fix it.

pirate1802
8th Oct 2013, 17:49
Well in my not-so-extensive gaming knowledge, I can say two things:

1. If TR goes full-on open world, the graphics would take a hit. Linear games generally look better the open world ones because they don't have to render a bigass world, to put it simply. And I loved the scenery of TR.

2. I found that the story flow takes a hit in many open wold games. The thing I liked in TR was that it constantly keeps you pushing forward. Probably won't be so if TR becomes open world with side missions, activities and such.

As Ninja said, every game doesn't have to be open world to be awesome. Why try to fix something that ain't broken?

I_Jedi
8th Oct 2013, 18:45
Unless the world is Just Cause 2 size, and actually full of stuff to do, I'd rather the game stayed as it is

Problem is, I don't think any incarnation of Lara can actually skyjack a plane. And planes are needed to get around a world that big barring fast travel.



2. I found that the story flow takes a hit in many open wold games. The thing I liked in TR was that it constantly keeps you pushing forward. Probably won't be so if TR becomes open world with side missions, activities and such.

But there's lots of fun in the between bits right? In TR, you have to run around for about 5 very boring minutes to find a campfire to fast travel about the place. In Prototype, for example, you have fun slaughtering everything between you and the mission start point in a near constant state of combat. Also Prototype/Just Cause 2 have their own little stories on the side to complement the big one.

_Ninja_
8th Oct 2013, 20:12
As Ninja said, every game doesn't have to be open world to be awesome. Why try to fix something that ain't broken?

Besides open world is not risky, it's as common as anything else these days.

larafan25
8th Oct 2013, 21:59
Open world is a clear risk for TR considering how many people find story a pivotal aspect of the game, yet believe that both well-driven plots and open worlds oppose one another.

Though they don't and it's a risk that should be taken.

_Ninja_
8th Oct 2013, 22:24
Almost all modern open world games are story driven. Batman Arkham, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Sleeping Dogs, Skyrim, Fallout, etc.

It's just that aside from the usually linear main story they fill the world with countless side distractions.

TR is already practically that. The only things missing are more side quests and ability to travel multiple hubs from the beginning.

But I don't really care for that too much. I just want them to use the space of the hubs better for main story progression. Like doing non linear tasks that take you around the hubs for more than just collectibles and several pathways to get where you want or engage enemies with multiple options (like Summit Forest).

larafan25
8th Oct 2013, 22:34
Indeed, though most people I hear from don't seem to think story and open can go together.

I want enemies to feel natural in hubs, and I want to constantly be in stealth if I want (with some exceptions), so like you said I want several pathways to get around or engage enemies. But also, hubs cannot just be collectibles. We need gameplay back. Gates to open, objects to find, things to do. Side-missions would be a blessing.

Though I do yearn for the extra space and sense of journey that an open world would give.
_____________________________________________________________

The Witcher 3 is an incredibly gorgeous game, and it's an open world:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/The-Witcher-3.jpg

Would be a perfect world for a Lara who sets out alone, into the wilderness, to uncover and solve the mysteries of the area.

_Ninja_
8th Oct 2013, 23:06
Strangely enough I think open world games need heavier narrative directions than linear games. In a linear game you know what to so, getting further into the level is direction in itself. In an open world game you need to be given tasks in order to feel like you're accomplishing something. And since these tasks are bound to repeat gameplay and environment the simplest way to differentiate them is through story context.

AnnomaLee
9th Oct 2013, 06:02
I'm a huge, really huge open world fan, it's my favorite thing at all in games.

But it would really ruin Tomb Raider 10, just for the simple fact that open world is always about YOU and Tomb Raider is about Lara, not the player.

You get super powers and New York free to discover, this is when you want to BE the character, not find out about some back stories.
Fallout 3 was a very interesting world to explore, and YOU the player had to deal with, whatever you found there.

Even if we kept the old Lara, the badass one and she would just become a vessel for YOUR mind and you just play to be a badass chick, not Lara in particular.

But the new Tomb Raider is about her as a person, I'm interested what she is doing, not how I would deal with this circumstances.

It's not a RPG game and it will always be a casual game, and I think that good casual games are rare and they shouldn't change too much on the way the game is now, it's probably a fragile concept.

And yes games should try new methods out and give us great new games like Portal, but there still is lots of stuff they can make some experiments with, beginning with the QTE's and replace it with a combat system XP

BridgetFisher
9th Oct 2013, 08:56
Maybe open world like a globe and we pick places to cultures to go loot stealing their treasures thats what I liked about the old games. Bringing their culture back where people will appreciate it. (perhaps a trophy room would be nice too.)

Jurre
9th Oct 2013, 15:52
I think the posts in this thread perfectly highlight the possible pro's and risks of going open world. But the thing is that we'll never know unless it is tried. Sometimes something just has to be tried, and if it fails: lesson learned. There's nothing wrong with that. If it succeedes, we're glad that we tried it.

But this 'if it ain't broken' argument that is always used by traditionalists is nothing but a proscription against progress. How about this saying: 'you don't have to be sick to get better.'

a_big_house
9th Oct 2013, 16:23
Actually, with the whole SE sinking ship thing, if the next TR fails (open world or not), i'd say it's unlikely that there will be another TR, so why take the risk?

larafan25
9th Oct 2013, 17:31
I'm a huge, really huge open world fan, it's my favorite thing at all in games.

But it would really ruin Tomb Raider 10, just for the simple fact that open world is always about YOU and Tomb Raider is about Lara, not the player.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg295/randomperson_2008/Emoticons/omfgeeeee_zpseda244eb.gif (http://s251.photobucket.com/user/randomperson_2008/media/Emoticons/omfgeeeee_zpseda244eb.gif.html)

Y'all until they remove the controller from your hands, no matter how much a gorl dun talk you still gonna be experiencing it. You can't tape your eyes shut and rip off your ears to play the game.

pirate1802
9th Oct 2013, 19:38
Actually, with the whole SE sinking ship thing, if the next TR fails (open world or not), i'd say it's unlikely that there will be another TR, so why take the risk?

Naah there will be more TRs whether SE lives or not. Just like it survived Eidos's fall. :p

Jurre
9th Oct 2013, 22:38
Besides, even if the Tr franchise was at the edge of extinction, the question would be why not take the risk? There would be nothing to lose...

Rai
10th Oct 2013, 00:15
I have no experience with Open World games. So I can only go on my own experience of gaming which is also very little and mostly only with Tomb Raider.

I love Tomb Raider. I love the open spaces from the Core games, though I admit I found being lost for too long frustrating. I enjoyed LAU from Crystal, though I am aware that those games had little in the way of using space, proper exploration etc. I loved the hub system in TR'13. I loved the freedom of exploring mostly in isolation.

With that in mind, I'd be perfectly happy for Tomb Raider to continue using the hub system. But with more of it. With using the hubs more in the story. In TR'13, we sort of visited a hub space, but it was all too briefly and didn't take in the entire area. The best example of hub/story was, going after Jessop in Mountain Village, and the Summit Forest segment. If CD can improve the hubs in the future, it's to make some of the exploration mandatory for story advancement and not rely so much on the linear path to take the story forward. You can still have optional exploration as well as story led exploration. However, that's not to say linearity doesn't have its place. Linearity can be used for parts of the story that require a quicker pace. There just needs to be a better mix between the linear story path and the use of the hubs. I would get tired of having to explore each and every hub and then back tracking to the more linear path in order to continue, for example. I also don't appreciate feeling of the 'hurry, urgency needed to get tot eh next bit', being led bits all the time. A mixture of pacing is needed. TR'13 tried to have a mixture, but ultimately, the second half of the game, from Shanty Town onwards was pretty much Go Go Go!, which is a shame.

Open world seems to me to be too big; a massive space that could mean you're randomly wondering around trying to find your way to the next 'mission' with little real progression. I like having a fairly linear story to follow. Going from one random mission to another doesn't appeal to me. The hubs, even large ones, still mean you and the story are somewhat contained. I prefer that. That does not mean I prefer 'on rails' linearity.

Chocolate_shake
10th Oct 2013, 06:33
Very well said Rai !

Hubs should definitely include more story based exploration .

Instead of open world , a good balance of huge outdoors ( Mountain village , beach ) and complex interior hubs ( which were sorely missing in TR9 ) should be the way to go .

For a long time I was under the impression that Himiko's palace was a big complex hub in itself with interconnected passages and stuff . But in reality , it was only a setpiece , which really put me off since the whole palace complex and the towers were huge but you could only look , not explore .

Ditto for Chasm monastery

a_big_house
10th Oct 2013, 07:56
Naah there will be more TRs whether SE lives or not. Just like it survived Eidos's fall. :p

But Eidos didn't really fall, they were more caught :lol:

pirate1802
10th Oct 2013, 08:10
But Eidos didn't really fall, they were more caught :lol:

Well I'm sure SE would be caught that way too, should they fall. And TR would continue. As long as they don't get caught by EA or Activision I'm fine with it. :p

a_big_house
10th Oct 2013, 08:27
Or Rockstar :whistle:

SeanCordernay
10th Oct 2013, 20:15
Am I the only one who thinks that the next TR should have a linear plot that follows a certain path but still allow side exploration/missions in an "open-worldesque" environment? Does that sound too much like GTA?

larafan25
10th Oct 2013, 20:29
^Like. I want TR to be open world. But with a plot. Yas. I tend to not like plot choices like AOD had.... there's only a certain way I'd have them.

"Yo Lara I know you got all this world and stuff to explore but leik, come here to that place with the name for a sec because **** about to unold u kno".

_Ninja_
10th Oct 2013, 22:45
I definitely do not want branching narrative. Leave that to the rpgs. Lara should not be muddled by multiple choice creating an undefined character, especially going forward into multiple games. Don't have a problem with it in other games but it shouldn't be here.

Rai
10th Oct 2013, 23:29
Very well said Rai !



For a long time I was under the impression that Himiko's palace was a big complex hub in itself with interconnected passages and stuff . But in reality , it was only a setpiece , which really put me off since the whole palace complex and the towers were huge but you could only look , not explore .

Ditto for Chasm monastery

Thanks :D. Yeah, it was huge shame that the Palace and the outbuildings weren't explorable. The Throne Room on its own was beautiful, it was such a shame it went up in flames before we got a chance to look at it properly. Although what we did see appeared to be a lot of corridors, I imagine that building to be not unlike Barkhang Monastary, full of tapestries, statues and other rooms that reflect the wealth of Yamtai. CD steered clear of traps in this game, but I'd expected to see evidence of the age of the place, so parts would indeed be in ruins, being unstable and hazardous.

However, I actually did enjoy the escape, even if it was an epic set-piece. Ideally though we could explore first and maybe the Solarii, realising 'the outsider' was in there still, then they storm the place, the fires would start and then we escape. I hope CD can consider a temple or something in the next game we can explore.

BridgetFisher
11th Oct 2013, 13:57
The risk of not going open world is noone buys the game.
/thread

Players on next gen consoles dont want an old style of gameplay, that is the new standard. If its not bigger or more immersive there is no point in making the game considering the cost involved knowing it will fail. Dont kill the messenger, a new console is an example of everything having to be bigger and better than before like anything new, its just the way it is. If this game doesnt evolve it wont sell, that is just how people will perceive not just TR but every game on these next gen consoles. Being a PC owner I could care less but all big games are made for multi platform use to reach the widest audience possible, so consoles always set the standard.

pirate1802
11th Oct 2013, 16:03
The risk of not going open world is noone buys the game.
/thread

No it isn't. Would people simply stop buying TR because it is linear? I feel this whole buzz about nonlinearity and open-worl is overblown. Such they are amazing if done ight, but a game doesn't NEED these to be great. One example: Alan Wake. That game was non-open and linear as ****. yet people liked it. Open world games aren't a "new" thing. There existed such games back then and there will be in future. Just like linear games existed before and will continue to be so.


Or Rockstar :whistle:

Rockstar is all good in my books. :D


I definitely do not want branching narrative. Leave that to the rpgs. Lara should not be muddled by multiple choice creating an undefined character, especially going forward into multiple games. Don't have a problem with it in other games but it shouldn't be here.

Yup and multitudes of complaints: MY Lara didn't do this! How dare the devs force that on me??

But still, I'd like to see gameplay-related choices. Nonlethal options, ability to bypass enemy confrontation altogether if you are skilled enough, etc.

BridgetFisher
12th Oct 2013, 03:19
Yes they would simply not buy a game TR or otherwise thats linear, on next gens unless it was like 10$ but even then there will be too many HUGE games that it wouldnt get any attention. With any new console certain things die, take for example side scrollers they have been dead since the console wars. Or hmmmm take text based games their dead like Zork, well maybe more because the online deathmatch for Zork sucked, heh heh heeeeeeeh

pirate1802
12th Oct 2013, 03:43
Yes they would simply not buy a game TR or otherwise thats linear, on next gens unless it was like 10$ but even then there will be too many HUGE games that it wouldnt get any attention. With any new console certain things die, take for example side scrollers they have been dead since the console wars. Or hmmmm take text based games their dead like Zork, well maybe more because the online deathmatch for Zork sucked, heh heh heeeeeeeh

Well then its their loss. I see plenty of linear games which have been well received. Better not artificially turn your franchise into open just to pander to the fickle minded people who'd pass on a linear game just cuz its linear. The HUGE games that are coming out are huge since their birth and people know what they will get. Same with linear games. As long as the games are well made and they don't advertise them as open world games when they are linear, I don't see their sales falling just because they are linear. See I have no problem with open wold TR, if its done properly (though I prefer the present approach). But I don't think it should be because Omg!! need to maek open wrld geams of ppl won't buy it!! That's simply no true, or an unproved assumption at best..

Btw side scrollers are alive and well. They have just adapted themselves to the indie market. Limbo and Mark of the Ninja. And more whose names I'm sure I'm forgetting.

BridgetFisher
13th Oct 2013, 02:21
Well then its their loss. I see plenty of linear games which have been well received. Better not artificially turn your franchise into open just to pander to the fickle minded people who'd pass on a linear game just cuz its linear. The HUGE games that are coming out are huge since their birth and people know what they will get. Same with linear games. As long as the games are well made and they don't advertise them as open world games when they are linear, I don't see their sales falling just because they are linear. See I have no problem with open wold TR, if its done properly (though I prefer the present approach). But I don't think it should be because Omg!! need to maek open wrld geams of ppl won't buy it!! That's simply no true, or an unproved assumption at best..
.

Bigger is always better with gaming, companies that fail to adapt to new markets die resulting in the loss of our beloved franchises like. All sales of non open world games will suffer on next gen due to the power they have to deliver a bigger more immersive experience for the gamer. Hence the comment about text based games being a dead genre, same with side scrollers, fine for indy or bargain bin devs on a budget. Those games will never outsell say COD ghosts or Bioshock infinite, big game studios cant make games that people dont want or a few people will buy. They need games that everyone will buy like the reboot of DMC for example it sold more copies on launch day than every other DMC game ever made put together proving people hated the old Dante wanting the franchise to move on, evolving to utilize the power of the current gen of technology.

Just like Zelda, notice that whole top down look from the 8bit days or side view look from Zelda 2 or Super mario bros which was a side scroller contrary to popular belief that super mario galaxy was the first mario game.

(besides the TR2013 is pretty much open world minus the loading zones, with some better game design it coulda been open world instead of the handholding that was done using the easy way out of scripted events. This new AC4 coming out could show a new way to do open world with a linear contained story so that might help CD figure out how to pull it off. keep in mind noone cares about story, and lara is an explorer so yes of course an open world for exploring would be most good.)

Question is does Square enix even have the money to make an open world game, its a HUGE resource hog financially.

pirate1802
13th Oct 2013, 07:27
Bigger is always better with gaming, companies that fail to adapt to new markets die resulting in the loss of our beloved franchises like. All sales of non open world games will suffer on next gen due to the power they have to deliver a bigger more immersive experience for the gamer. Hence the comment about text based games being a dead genre, same with side scrollers, fine for indy or bargain bin devs on a budget. Those games will never outsell say COD ghosts or Bioshock infinite, big game studios cant make games that people dont want or a few people will buy. They need games that everyone will buy like the reboot of DMC for example it sold more copies on launch day than every other DMC game ever made put together proving people hated the old Dante wanting the franchise to move on, evolving to utilize the power of the current gen of technology.

Just like Zelda, notice that whole top down look from the 8bit days or side view look from Zelda 2 or Super mario bros which was a side scroller contrary to popular belief that super mario galaxy was the first mario game.

(besides the TR2013 is pretty much open world minus the loading zones, with some better game design it coulda been open world instead of the handholding that was done using the easy way out of scripted events. This new AC4 coming out could show a new way to do open world with a linear contained story so that might help CD figure out how to pull it off. keep in mind noone cares about story, and lara is an explorer so yes of course an open world for exploring would be most good.)

Question is does Square enix even have the money to make an open world game, its a HUGE resource hog financially.

Well, I see you point. And yeah, TR is semi-open already. Thing is, most open world games I played, I feel the story pace takes a backseat. Thee are so many side activities that they totally hog your attention. yes it is different for different people but I felt the new TR was a good compromise between making the world open-ish without having this problem, that is why I want it to stay the way it is.

Now if they make it open world with side activities that in some way contribute to the main story, for example say you notice a man trapped in a cave. You help him out, and he shares a discovery with you that tells you of a way to bypass an enemy encampment (in the main story) easily. Or say you spot a monkey about to be killed by a hunter. You rescue the monkey, and he becomes your pal, with various combat and non combat uses. Stuff like these, where even the side activities somehow tie in with you main quest, if they can do it this way then I'd have no problems at all with making it open world.

pirate1802
13th Oct 2013, 07:29
Bigger is always better with gaming, companies that fail to adapt to new markets die resulting in the loss of our beloved franchises like. All sales of non open world games will suffer on next gen due to the power they have to deliver a bigger more immersive experience for the gamer. Hence the comment about text based games being a dead genre, same with side scrollers, fine for indy or bargain bin devs on a budget. Those games will never outsell say COD ghosts or Bioshock infinite, big game studios cant make games that people dont want or a few people will buy. They need games that everyone will buy like the reboot of DMC for example it sold more copies on launch day than every other DMC game ever made put together proving people hated the old Dante wanting the franchise to move on, evolving to utilize the power of the current gen of technology.

Just like Zelda, notice that whole top down look from the 8bit days or side view look from Zelda 2 or Super mario bros which was a side scroller contrary to popular belief that super mario galaxy was the first mario game.

(besides the TR2013 is pretty much open world minus the loading zones, with some better game design it coulda been open world instead of the handholding that was done using the easy way out of scripted events. This new AC4 coming out could show a new way to do open world with a linear contained story so that might help CD figure out how to pull it off. keep in mind noone cares about story, and lara is an explorer so yes of course an open world for exploring would be most good.)

Question is does Square enix even have the money to make an open world game, its a HUGE resource hog financially.

Well, I see you point. And yeah, TR is semi-open already. Thing is, most open world games I played, I feel the story pace takes a backseat. Thee are so many side activities that they totally hog your attention. yes it is different for different people but I felt the new TR was a good compromise between making the world open-ish without having this problem, that is why I want it to stay the way it is. Don't know about AC4, but all the ACs before that has this same problem. Ezio beating up cheating husbands, discovering old books and Connor running after myths and legends.

Now if they make it open world with side activities that in some way contribute to the main story, for example say you notice a man trapped in a cave. You help him out, and he shares a discovery with you that tells you of a way to bypass an enemy encampment (in the main story) easily. Or say you spot a monkey about to be killed by a hunter. You rescue the monkey, and he becomes your pal, with various combat and non combat uses. Stuff like these, where even the side activities somehow tie in with you main quest, if they can do it this way then I'd have no problems at all with making it open world.

Btw, no one cares about the story? I do. :p

Jurre
3rd Nov 2013, 21:33
While I don't think I'm gonna get ACIV it does makes me enthousiastic for a tropical open world with lots of treasure hunting: I honestly believe that this would work wonderfully for Tomb Raider.

cj_l5wkWZws




By the way: did you see the red and white stripes on the sailes on that pirate ship? Reminds me of:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090110172330/lego/images/thumb/c/cf/6285006.jpg/250px-6285006.jpg

Heidi_W
5th May 2014, 06:51
I don't think there's a risk of TR ever becoming as open-world as Skyrim for example, and I'm fine with that. Skyrim is a great game, but it's not as immersive as TR9 was, despite the latter's design being fairly linear.

I do expect we'll have a bit more flexibility in TR10 regarding movement, but not much - the game will likely take place over several locations rather than a single geographical area, but will still be fairly linear within those hotspots.

The TR games are more into storytelling than Skyrim is, but then the games are different in concept - TR are third person shooter/adventures, while Skyrim is RPG.