Support NeoGAF

[levyjl1988]

It seems like they are always following a trend.

Assassin's Creed does it.
The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild does it.
Mass Effect Andromeda does it.
Horizon Zero Dawn does it.
Dragon Age Inquisition does it.
Elder Scrolls games does it.
Fallout does it.
Far Cry dies it.
Ghost Recon does it.

But in those examples, only a few of them succeeded.
The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild was simply amazing for going open world. Players got to fool around with the physics and mechanics.
Mass Effect Andromeda failed colossally, it was just huge open spaces of fucking absolutely nothing, but a means to put and scatter artificial shit to collect, it felt tedious as fuck.
Dragon Age Inquisition was just fucking awful, two hours in the game I stopped and went back to playing Dragon Age Origins. Fuck the hinterlands, if this was going to be the fate of Dragon Age, I was done.
Assassin's Creed always had open world, so far the most positive experience with Assassin's Creed was Syndicate because of the setting and your option to switch between brother and sister. It was the last Assassin's Creed game before they went the RPG route and making one hit kills a thing of the past. You strike their head with a knife and they are walking just fine in future titles that I was done.
Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion and Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, I lost many hours. that was enjoyable, wandering around nomad and encountering other people's problems and solving them.

Most open-world games fucking suck because there is just empty fucking space.
Gears 5 went open-world for some of their single-player areas and it was, well it didn't contribute to anything really. It did however ruin the pace and artificially extended the game.
There was a whole lot of nothing.
I'm noticing a trend in games that were never open world in the first place are going open world. Some times this succeeds, and most of the time it fails.
The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild succeeded.
Gears 5, Dragon Age, Mass Effect have no business going open world because the developers don't know jack shit about how to make a good open world. Just stop. Control your pacing and do what you've always done, make good narratives, that's it. I don't play Dragon Age: Origins for the open world, no, I got for the fucking story and narrative. No future Dragon Age titles has ever lived up to Origins, I felt more attached to my Warden after experiencing their Origins story than the Champion or Inquisitors.

But it seems like games should abandon "Open World" as a catchphrase. It feels like it's artificially generated content.
We don't want procedurally generated levels. I look at Watch Dogs and I'm like wtf is the point of this empty area. I'm guessing developers put a collectible there to showcase the area they worked on. But I once I enter it, I honestly
don't pay attention to the area, I'm there for the collectible and I'm fucking out of there.

Why can't we get more well thought out handcrafted levels like Dark Souls.
Now if Elder Ring is an open world Dark Souls like game, where each area is handcrafted with well thought out areas like Dark Souls where everything is fully integrated to that degree I would bust a nut.

"Open World" has already developed a negative stigma, similar to how they make 4:3 aspect ration 16:9 widescreen and all they fucking do is zoom in and cut off the edges, the original 4:3 is much better but then they fuck that up to by converting the 16:9 that was converted from the 4:3 to the 4:3 but then it is butchered as fuck. eg) Dragonball Z DVDs

Open World is not something to praise, most of the time it just means. A lot of empty fucking pointless shit with artificially generated things.
God, it's just as bad as Radiant quests in Skyrim. They all feel like a god damn fucking chore.

Also, introductory levels are important, hell The Last of Us level design was hilariously bad.


Anyway more videos regarding Open World.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Counter point: Most linear games suck. Open world games give developers + players more choice so open world games have more potential.

 

[Spukc]

i want more diablo clones.

all i want is more ARPG games with loot

 

[01011001]

Counter point: Most linear games suck. Open world games give developers + players more choice so open world games have more potential.

that would be true if they weren't as terribly designed most of the time.

RDR2 is absolutely dogshit with its super linear mission design that gives you precisely ZERO chance for creative play.
and sadly many games are like that nowadays.

honestly, the only AAA open world games in recent memory that still gives you a lot of freedom for creativity while doing main objectives are Watch Dogs 2, Zelda BOTW and Outer Worlds (not sure if the latter would count as an open world game tho... most likely not)

can't really think of many others

 

[Abriael_GN]

Citing jim sterling does no favors to your argument.

... which incidentally is wrong, so I guess that's appropriate.

Developers need to develop what they want to develop. The great thing about the gaming industry is that it produces all kinds of games.

 

[levyjl1988]

Jim said it best.

Games are conforming to open world because of industry trends without regard to how it will affect the actual game negatively.

I don't want a lot of filler content and artificial garbage in my games. I want a whole hearty content, content that is well designed and executed.
People who support garbage open-world games is like ordering wontons and there is like 3 wontons and all the rest is soup, or like ordering a meal with one piece of chicken and all of it is rice. Rice, you know what that does, it fills you up. What you want is more fucking meat, not god damn rice.

 

[Guilty_AI]

In the end the problem isn't so much open worlds as much as developers trying to tick trend checkboxes. The rule should be 'Does it help improving the main experience? If not, dont do it'.

 

[wolffy71]

Kind of agree mostly. Its open world but they follow such a basic script really. Main story is there somewhere. Everything else you kinda walk around til you meet that group of enemies, fight an easily winnable engagement and repeat. Then you wonder to a dungeon/cave/whatver and do some sort of raid type thing. Add in a bunch of meaningless fetch quests. Just change the setting, character designs, and weapons, got urself a new game.

 

[UltimaKilo]

There’s nothing better than open-world games. I simply won’t play linear games. There’s a reason why the best games of each generation are usually open-world.

 

[Angry Fork]

Assassins Creed is considered stale with too much bloat mainly because there's so much repetition. Red Dead 2 is maybe the best realized open world game ever made though imo. I think great open world games make you feel like everywhere you go on the map there could be something meaningful there, a new meeting with unique NPC's or missions that aren't repeated, something interesting and new that you don't expect (and the best open world games deliver on this). Red Dead 2 felt that way to me for the majority of time playing it.

Fallout 3/New Vegas felt like that the first time I played them. But if you play a modern AC game for an hour you already know what to expect out of the rest of the game in terms of exploration. The only reason to explore is to see landscapes which is nice but not quite enough, there have to be random moments that you don't expect to make it special.

As far as 'empty' sandboxes go, at the end of the day that's up to personal preference. Mafia 1/2 have 'empty' sandboxes in the sense that there's nothing to do in them, it's just a backdrop for a linear story, but I personally loved those games because I love the setting/time period and enjoy just driving around, so it's not so bad to me.

 

[Abriael_GN]

Jim said it best.

Games are conforming to open world because of industry trends without regard to how it will affect the actual game negatively.

He has no idea of what he's talking about because literally all he does is shopping around social media for something to whine about and then fabricate arguments to support that whining.

There are many open-world games (There is no "conforming" as there are objectively many more linear games than open-world games out there) because developers have always wanted to create worlds, and now the technology allows them to do so more and to an increasingly better extent than it used to.

 

[Wunray]

I think more games should take the dishonoured/deus ex open linear approach, like a small set of sandboxes linked together by 1 entry and 1 exit but many ways to get there.

 

[WellSheet]

I prefer that “middle” zone honestly.

the Metroidvania or the quasi open world; or the interconnected design akin to a Metroidvania...

examples are games like God of War 2018, Control, Darksiders 3, Sekiro, Dark Souls, Arkham Series (to a degree), Tye Evil Within 2...

those types of quasi/semi open worlds (or however you’d want to classify it) do it just right (or close to it)

they don’t over stay their welcome with their core mechanics, and they aren’t filling up a map with 200000 “?” That revolve around the same said mechanics is fairly mundane ways. They have a handful of side quests/objectives and they are more bespoke/tailored - in a way that gives you that MAIN MISSION sort of feel when done right - and they’re usually integrated into the games story/flow way better too.

I get not every game can bethose listed above, but I think it’s the closest “cake and eat it too”situation we have had

 

[01011001]

I think more games should take the dishonoured/deus ex open linear approach, like a small set of sandboxes linked together by 1 entry and 1 exit but many ways to get there.

THIS

Prey (the new one), Deus Ex or Outer Worlds... these games feel way less bloated and way more focused. and they usually give players way more freedom when it comes to accomplishing main objectives/missions than any open world game ever did.

 

[PapyDoc]

that would be true if they weren't as terribly designed most of the time.

RDR2 is absolutely dogshit with its super linear mission design that gives you precisely ZERO chance for creative play.
and sadly many games are like that nowadays.

honestly, the only AAA open world games in recent memory that still gives you a lot of freedom for creativity while doing main objectives are Watch Dogs 2, Zelda BOTW and Outer Worlds (not sure if the latter would count as an open world game tho... most likely not)

can't really think of many others

I think you point something more interesting than Open World> Corridors games.
The linearity and the lack of créativity on level design or games mechanics is a big factor on the lack of enjoyment,. When you think about it, a game like F.E.A.R, BOTW, Bioshock or Far Cry (1) will be more enjoyable than a RDR2 or a COD solo campaign.

For the "Yes but you can enjoy a narrative-driven game" crowd...Yes...But that's not the subject,

 

[01011001]

I think you point something more interesting than Open World> Corridors games.
The linearity and the lack of créativity on level design or games mechanics is a big factor on the lack of enjoyment,. When you think about it, a game like F.E.A.R, BOTW, Bioshock or Far Cry (1) will be more enjoyable than a RDR2 or a COD solo campaign.

For the "Yes but you can enjoy a narrative-driven game" crowd...Yes...But that's not the subject,

that's true. in open world games the lack of interesting mechanics sticks out way more tho, which negatively impacts the opinion and enjoyment of a game as well.

if you have a super linear and arcady game with only a limited playstyle, that feels way more fitting than an open world game where you have no freedom to accomplish the main goals of the game even tho the world and its possibilities would he immense if designed well.

so when a game like Call of Duty doesn't let me go somewhere and wants me to follow the way that is layed out for me, that's way less of a bad feeling than playing RDR2 and getting a game over because you dared to take a wrong turn because you thought you had a great idea on how to tackle a fight or chase etc.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

But in those examples, only a few of them succeeded.

lol names a half dozen critically acclaimed games that sold millions, says that "only a few succeeded". ok dude. sure.

maybe it's just not for you. but i disagree on them sucking, or even being done poorly. certainly some improvements can be made but im not a fan of "this method of game design is inherently flawed".

i still hear dumb takes about MGSV's open world being entirely empty, even though every single mission is designed that so it never takes you more than a minute or two to get anywhere. i suppose people were upset that warzones in the Afghanistan desert were not crawling with distractions and things to do. "where are the people?" players asked, because i guess during the Russia-US proxy war there must have been flourishing villages and mini games all over the desert. "you have to run from helicopter to the camp for a whole minute!" they whined, even though that's about as long as it takes to make a speedrun from the bonfire to any boss in any a Software game.

imo "open world is trash" is an outrage meme. there is a reason Jimquisition is one of your videos. the fatty farms outrage for a living.

 

[levyjl1988]

Sales = Does not mean quality, it just means copies sold.
A bad game like Pokemon Sword and Shield can sell well, but the game absolutely fucking sucks. They Thanos snapped half of the Pokemon and are reintroducing them as content or DLC. It's not revolutionary, it's fucking lazy.

Game Design is what I am focused on.

And a lot of the open-world games are fucking shit.

So much open space, not a lot to do.
All markers and no fucking sense of discovery.

Everyone is hating on Jim but he is really making a lot of convincing arguments, hell check out the other sources, they say the same damn thing.

 

[levyjl1988]

 

[Abriael_GN]

Sales = Does not mean quality, it just means copies sold.
A bad game like Pokemon Sword and Shield can sell well, but the game absolutely fucking sucks. They Thanos snapped half of the Pokemon and are reintroducing them as content or DLC. It's not revolutionary, it's fucking lazy.

Game Design is what I am focused on.

And a lot of the open-world games are fucking shit.

So much open space, not a lot to do.
All markers and no fucking sense of discovery.

Everyone is hating on Jim but he is really making a lot of convincing arguments, hell check out the other sources, they say the same damn thing.

Calling things "fucking shit" over and over doesn't make it true.

"something I arbitrarily agree with because it supports my narrative" =/= "convincing argument."

 

[zcaa0g]

"The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild was simply amazing for going open world. Players got to fool around with the physics and mechanics."


So you are a Nintendo fanboy. Got it. BoTW was a mild wide and an inch deep.

 

[Stuart360]

I have said this before but i really struggle with linear games these days, they just seem so dated. Open World games are my thing. A living breathing world to explore and do what you want, when you want, and in what order you want.
Gaming is escapism for me, and whats better than escaping into a virtual world?.

 

[Zoro7]

Sales = Does not mean quality, it just means copies sold.
A bad game like Pokemon Sword and Shield can sell well, but the game absolutely fucking sucks. They Thanos snapped half of the Pokemon and are reintroducing them as content or DLC. It's not revolutionary, it's fucking lazy.

Game Design is what I am focused on.

And a lot of the open-world games are fucking shit.

So much open space, not a lot to do.
All markers and no fucking sense of discovery.

Everyone is hating on Jim but he is really making a lot of convincing arguments, hell check out the other sources, they say the same damn thing.

Just because some content is missing does mean its bad. I actually really enjoyed Pokemon Sword. Tried to go back and play heart gold and couldn't finish it because of the annoyances (go back and play an old Pokemon game...its torture).

 

[teezzy]

Depends on the game, honestly.

I love the open world sandbox experience. If a game can effectively guide me through their open world and show me cool shit along the way, then it's all the better.

But I also adore the ability to mess around with NPCs and explore at my leisure. Makes the games more engaging overall.

I'm still a fan.

 

[PapyDoc]

that's true. in open world games the lack of interesting mechanics sticks out way more tho, which negatively impacts the opinion and enjoyment of a game as well.

if you have a super linear and arcady game with only a limited playstyle, that feels way more fitting than an open world game where you have no freedom to accomplish the main goals of the game even tho the world and its possibilities would he immense if designed well.

so when a game like Call of Duty doesn't let me go somewhere and wants me to follow the way that is layed out for me, that's way less of a bad feeling than playing RDR2 and getting a game over because you dared to take a wrong turn because you thought you had a great idea on how to tackle a fight or chase etc.

Of course, there is difference in taste, for me having these problems on a Corridor or an Open World is sinful.
But to give some counter-argument, let's find a mediocre series with 2 "different" game: Homefront. The first one was a really bad COD clone and the second one was a shitty Far Cry 3-like.
In the first one, you can't do anything, you have nothing to take from the game, you do what the game told you to do and that's all. It's a very forgettable experience.
The second one thy tried to give you some tools to let the player play more like they want, the problem was this game was repetitive (yes) and boring. But if I must choose, I choose the second because with enough IRL booze i can ride a bike with some TNT in it and blow a base.
I think a bad open world could be a better cover-up than bad corridor. But in the end, the problem here is not wich type of design they choose, but how bad the game is.

 

[jaysius]

The issue with the entire game industry, is that game devs only follow what's safe and they're probably forced to by people with the money because doing anything outside of safe is a HUGE RISK, so if one awful open world game sells well gets great reviews, has rabid fanbois then the money people will dictate that that model is "good enough".

So bad sandboxes are because they're relatively easy to do and safe.

 

[wolywood]

that would be true if they weren't as terribly designed most of the time.

RDR2 is absolutely dogshit with its super linear mission design that gives you precisely ZERO chance for creative play.
and sadly many games are like that nowadays.

honestly, the only AAA open world games in recent memory that still gives you a lot of freedom for creativity while doing main objectives are Watch Dogs 2, Zelda BOTW and Outer Worlds (not sure if the latter would count as an open world game tho... most likely not)

can't really think of many others

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is another good example.

 

[GlassAwful]

The industry squandered and bastardized what the appeal of going open world was supposed to mean 2-3 generations ago.

When people dreamt up their favorite franchise going open world they were thinking about how it would open up approaches to objectives, require more systemic game mechanics and better AI, cut down on scripted sequences and allow player creativity to tackle obstacles with physics and destructible environments.

Instead we got stuff like RDR2, the most linear game imaginable not made by Quantic Dreams or Call of Duty devs.

 

[Sushen]

Counter point: Most linear games suck. Open world games give developers + players more choice so open world games have more potential.

Dev: you can do anything
Gamer: like what?
Dev: anything
Gamer: name a few
Dev: too many to name

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

that would be true if they weren't as terribly designed most of the time.

RDR2 is absolutely dogshit with its super linear mission design that gives you precisely ZERO chance for creative play.
and sadly many games are like that nowadays.

honestly, the only AAA open world games in recent memory that still gives you a lot of freedom for creativity while doing main objectives are Watch Dogs 2, Zelda BOTW and Outer Worlds (not sure if the latter would count as an open world game tho... most likely not)

can't really think of many others

I'm not going to disagree with you that most open world games suck. They do.

But most linear games suck as well.

And I'd argue the Fortnites, Breath of the Wilds, the Hitmans of the industry prove the more choice is very much superior to more "press up on left stick" level design.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I love games with a cohesive system. If the open world is just a backdrop for your narrative, save me the time and make levels. If you've built a cohesive open world with interconnected mechanics and there just so happens to be a story that takes place, sweet! I'm more liable to pay attention.

 

[Md Ray]

Yeah.

 

[Keihart]

I disagree, i think the only sin in sandboxes are laundry lists, those are the worst. Games like Ass Creed and Ubisoft likes, regarless of their mechanics end up becoming like a solo player MMO full of busy work and no mechanic seems to really integrate with the structure of the missions themselves.

Hitman and Zelda BoTW are really good examples of sandbox design because their missions are completly structured around what the game is about taking advantage of some level of systemic design.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I gotta disagree does a couple of reasons

*linear games weren’t going anywhere

*quests are spread out

Open world has been gaming’s hero.

 

[SentientStone]

Agreed, I prefer more linear or wide-linear games.
Just give me those staples such as GTA and Ass Creed, but do not convert everything into open world.
If I want open world I would just walk outside and get a coffee. lol

 

[nemiroff]

Developers needs to stray away from games _I_ don't like!

 

[anthraticus]

Avoid the typical formulaic AAA cut & paste garb and just play the good stuff.

 

[Kydd BlaZe]

Yeah. I used to really enjoy open world games before this gen, but with the over-saturation of them now, I dread these type of titles now.

 

[JimmyRustler]

I honestly long for some new current, short games that rather have me replay them than having to take vacation to takle them. How the fuck does everyone seem to have such a boner for these Open World games? How do you even got the time? You only play 2 games per year?

Fuck me... I just had vacation this week and decided to finally go one RDR2. Man, what the fuck? As beautiful and impressive as this game is, why in gods name do I still get tutorials about new game mechanics 5 or more hours in. just STAHHP! Same shit made me quit Death Stranding. I'm sick of this. What the hell is going on? The other day I just wanted to test if I can get the emulation of Metroid Prime running and once I did I stuck to it in favour of RDR2. 30 minutes to an hour to learn how the game's to be played and there you go. Completed it yesterday. In RDR2 I'm at 11% now...

Not that I mind games like RDR2. I think it's great they are made. But it's getting out of hand. Every god damn MP game is made in a way that a 5 year old can pick up the controller and have fun with it. But SP... It's like the total opposite. Having only limited time it often takes me up to a week to even get through the tutorials. Is this really what folks want these days? Gimme more games like RE7+RE2 and RE3 Remake. When I was little and had time for these long ass games I didn't get them, now that I do not have the time everyone is shoving them up my butt...

 

[-Arcadia-]

If developers can't back these massive open worlds with a reason to be there; with actual, fun gameplay to exploit such large spaces...

I'd much prefer they do the old linear style, or better yet, something like TLOU2 (no matter what you think of the story) where it's kind of a mix of both -- these hyper-focused, well-designed spaces with a lot of scripting, but with a ton of freedom and player choice in how to handle things, and where to explore next.

I just can't do another open world checklist of menial tasks, and pretend this is somehow a fun game. If I somehow get suckered into one, I'll smash the home button and uninstall.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Bro just stop buying Ubisoft games

 

[hyperbertha]

People are starting to expect higher standards from open world games. Filler checklists won't do anymore. Looking at you Ubisoft.

 

[Vawn]

There's plenty of good games in every genre. There's a bunch of great open-world games -

Horizon Zero Dawn
Breath of the Wild
Ghost of Tsushima
Witcher 3
Days Gone
AC Odyssey
Red Dead Redemption 2

These are all good games, even if there are things I may change about some of them.

 

[levyjl1988]

I prefer that “middle” zone honestly.

the Metroidvania or the quasi open world; or the interconnected design akin to a Metroidvania...

examples are games like God of War 2018, Control, Darksiders 3, Sekiro, Dark Souls, Arkham Series (to a degree), Tye Evil Within 2...

those types of quasi/semi open worlds (or however you’d want to classify it) do it just right (or close to it)

they don’t over stay their welcome with their core mechanics, and they aren’t filling up a map with 200000 “?” That revolve around the same said mechanics is fairly mundane ways. They have a handful of side quests/objectives and they are more bespoke/tailored - in a way that gives you that MAIN MISSION sort of feel when done right - and they’re usually integrated into the games story/flow way better too.

I get not every game can bethose listed above, but I think it’s the closest “cake and eat it too”situation we have had

Definitely agree with you here. Not too much, not too little, but just enough. The handcrafted levels design of Dark Souls is the absolute best.
You can tell how everything is interwoven from the story, mechanics, lore, and settings to supplement it. That game changed everything. It challenged the status quo for games and supplemented itself as it's own genre that many try to replicate because it works so well. The best part is when you explore the unknown and build short cuts that weave back upon itself, just pure mastery. Truly excellent and I wished all games held itself to such high standards while taking on the risk. Many companies play it way too safe.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

I’ve always preferred linear games over open world. There is room for both open world, linear and everything in between. There are just way too many open world games now and they are permeating literally everything. It’s the new FPS.

I don’t mind some games being open world as it can add to the experience when excecuted properly, but I feel most open world games just don’t have as much structure, are bloated and are not as focused as linear games. Imo, they are usually filled to the brim with a plethora of filler, average combat engines, large empty areas and pointless side quests.

 

[01011001]

I'm not going to disagree with you that most open world games suck. They do.

But most linear games suck as well.

And I'd argue the Fortnites, Breath of the Wilds, the Hitmans of the industry prove the more choice is very much superior to more "press up on left stick" level design.

seems like many developers don't get that memo tho. and of course they ignore that, because having a gameplay setup with lots of systemic and dynamic interactions that all have to work together flawlessly during gameplay is way harder than having every jump be partly context sensitive and having every major gameplay event be fully scripte like in games such as Uncharted 4 or [insert linear cinematic AAA game here]

 

[Tsukumo]

They actually keep getting better and better... Even Ubisoft is making increasingly better sandbox games.

 

[INC]

But I enjoyed both HzD and GoT.............oh well

 

[GrayFoxPL]

Dev: you can do anything
Gamer: like what?
Dev: anything
Gamer: name a few
Dev: too many to name

 

[V4skunk]

But I enjoyed both HzD and GoT.............oh well

I enjoyed RDR2. Played it in first person and it was amazing.