I tend to switch constantly between both. They're diametrically opposed in terms of focus, which gives a really good balance when you switch to another because you're bored of one. Considering all game genres, those two are my favourites, sharing the same spot on my first buy list. Also - rant warning.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I want to go on a bit of a rant about games today, excuse me for derailing. I'm actually beginning to miss the more linear action games, be it hack-and-slash or first-person shooters. It used to be the focus could be making an intriguing plot, solid gameplay with a unique selling point, and good pacing without being too long while long enough to justify the price. Like a good meal, nothing has to last forever to be enjoyable.
Hell, most RPGs don't have open-world for the exploration - it's so that each area can be tackled in different order, which can lead to different consequences. It's the illusion of free-roaming, which is fine. RPGs were never the optimal format for the open-world. It wasn't about randomness and diversity in events - it was about having many tracks of linearity that sprawled over each other, combining to create multiple paths and effects, forming a scaled-down version of real-life choices.
The obsession with open-world games filled with repetitive activities (I term this the "Ubisoft standard") in current AAA games is getting excessive. Half-Life never had to bother with having thirty "optional" side quests where you retrieve some science battery for a scientist through a section of the a freely explorable Black Mesa. I like short games with replay content, I wish more games with that format would return. GTA V's missions and side missions are all unique, with different characters and objectives, something it took from RPGs and something I wish more open-world games would realise. Open-world games - RPGs or not - should not focus on size and quantity. It creates tedium and makes the game feel like a checklist rather than, well, a game.
Also, rule number one, never put grinding into a singleplayer game unless absolutely necessary. It's what ham-fisted politics or crappy comedy is to movies - pure, unadulterated, absolute shit. If you literally can't think of anything else to fill the time for players, even taking that whole section out or redesigning it entirely would be better. No game without multiplayer has ever worked better by having grinding. It has killed every singleplayer game that tried to add multiplayer. It has added nothing to any singleplayer game in existence. It is the literal embodiment of wasting time.
Outposts to reveal the maps? Collect this for that? Clear this base to unlock new items for this area? Had enough of that to last a lifetime from Far Cry 3 alone, and the past three years have done nothing but bring more of those games. It's unnecessary filler, to justify a $60 price tag. Even for all its greatness, I feel The Witcher 3 suffered a little from adding too many collectibles and irrelevant optional hunts to areas that were located away from everything else. It finally proved that no matter how good a game is, you can put too much in, especially things that never really were necessary.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry for the rant, almost over. My closing note - it doesn't matter these days what genre a game is - I just want to see the focus being on making each moment great, rather than having as many moments as possible.
