Captain Toad
Banned
I actually agree with that comment a lot more than I agree with the OP.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I really cant think of an OPEN WORLD game that wouldn't be better as a Wide Linear one. Its time to leave Open World games strictly to R*
- Thread starter Represent.
- Start date
I actually agree with that comment a lot more than I agree with the OP.
Sleepwalker
Member
Yes please, I would like boring RDR2 gameplay and a game remastered/remade for 10 years to be the only open world games around. Cannot wait at all.
I'd trade RDR2's open-world for a story half as long, wide-linear levels and better controls without even thinking.
R* open-worlds are the very definition of as wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle.
Lots of shit to do but it's all held back by a lack of gameplay depth and poor controls.
Impressive technically sure, no other dev could produce RDR2.
R* open-worlds are the very definition of as wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle.
Lots of shit to do but it's all held back by a lack of gameplay depth and poor controls.
Impressive technically sure, no other dev could produce RDR2.
Last edited:
Blond
Banned
Yay wind and weeb (hyperbole) samurai shit. I really hate to say but if this was Assassins Creed samurai edition and not a Sony exclusive we’d be over that open world collect a thon by now.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
Captain Toad
Banned
Lol, Ghost of Tsushima is "weeb" now?
Blond
Banned
Last edited:
N1tr0sOx1d3
Given another chance
How’s bugsnax?
Blond
Banned
I honestly don’t know I just liked the avatar I found I don’t even know where I got it... it was in my Macs download folder lol
Rhazer Fusion
Member
I think of linear games as a sports car and open world games as a big bus. Sure, the open world games are bigger, longer and more explorative, but imo their gameplay is usually just serviceable and since they are typically so long or bloated, it sometimes causes them to drag on. Linear games imo feel more structured, direct and generally feature better and tighter gameplay, but their exploration is usually more limited.
Personally, I like and always liked linear games better, but I don’t think leaving open world games to Rockstar is a good idea considering they seemingly make games like every 10 years. I do feel like the open world genre is getting way over saturated though.
Werewolfgrandma
Banned
I didn't overly like most of those.
ZoukGalaxy
Member
LOL what about NO.
Rockstar is so far away from the best open world I enjoyed the most: Fallout 3 and Skyrim made by Bethesda, exploration is so GOOD and BETTER. And I just don't care about awesome graphics and outstanding animation and life everywhere. Rockstar open world are so BORING outside of the story.
And yes, Bethesda could be renamed Bugthesda but I don't care, I love how they craft their worlds.
Rockstar is so far away from the best open world I enjoyed the most: Fallout 3 and Skyrim made by Bethesda, exploration is so GOOD and BETTER. And I just don't care about awesome graphics and outstanding animation and life everywhere. Rockstar open world are so BORING outside of the story.
And yes, Bethesda could be renamed Bugthesda but I don't care, I love how they craft their worlds.
Last edited:
MagnesG
Banned
Pretty disappointed with GTA5 open world, like 80% of the world are just window dressing.
RDR2 missions != open world interactivity is pure retard decision. "Mission Failed" for every off-mission interaction.
BOTW is still the best imo.
Immortal Fenyx copying it already made the game infinitely better on exploration based compared to ACs.
Genshin Impact copying it managed to make gachas into the open world market standards, easily garnering attention to the game.
RDR2 missions != open world interactivity is pure retard decision. "Mission Failed" for every off-mission interaction.
BOTW is still the best imo.
Immortal Fenyx copying it already made the game infinitely better on exploration based compared to ACs.
Genshin Impact copying it managed to make gachas into the open world market standards, easily garnering attention to the game.
Red Dead Redemption 2 is Rockstar's first game since San Andreas that actually has more than just missions to meaningfully engage with. Most of the GTA series is either completing missions or causing chaos. At least Bethesda open world games allow players to engage with the game world in a multitude of ways. RDR2 is a huge step in the right direction for their type of game to allow more ways to engage with the world that feels as fun as just playing through the scripted storylines.
O.v.e.rlord
Banned
Dark Star
Member
I do agree that more games should be tightly focused and linear in design. They're just more fun and you can actually finish them in a timely manner. Most open world games are bloated with content, the maps are too big, and they take your average person like a year to finish lol. Whereas as nicely paced linear game will actually be finished in the "20 hours" it's supposed to take, because the player is on the edge of their seat totally engaged moment to moment, chapter to chapter. Resident Evil games are a great example even though there's a lot of backtracking and you're given a lot of space to make your own playstyle choices.
But I do think many developers do open world just fine compared to Rockstar, and there should be strong competition to make them more refined. I personally just don't enjoy the slog of many open world games, including Rockstar games like RDR2. Boring, loose story/missions, no reason or desire to finish it. It's been installed on my PS4 since November 2019 and I've yet to get even past the 4th chapter lol. I just don't have the time or energy to traverse that huge map and get sucked into hour long missions that are only 0.5% of the main story. It's so "meh" even though the writing and graphics and everything else is top notch (well, everything aside from the sluggish, clunky, heavy and stiff controls)
But I do think many developers do open world just fine compared to Rockstar, and there should be strong competition to make them more refined. I personally just don't enjoy the slog of many open world games, including Rockstar games like RDR2. Boring, loose story/missions, no reason or desire to finish it. It's been installed on my PS4 since November 2019 and I've yet to get even past the 4th chapter lol. I just don't have the time or energy to traverse that huge map and get sucked into hour long missions that are only 0.5% of the main story. It's so "meh" even though the writing and graphics and everything else is top notch (well, everything aside from the sluggish, clunky, heavy and stiff controls)
Last edited:
Cyberpunkd
Member
Ballsy claims there.
For one thing I give Rockstar credit - nobody does convoluted control schemes like they do - RDR2 is pure garbage here.
UltimaKilo
Gold Member
I’m sos sorry that OP has missed out on so many games like GoT, Xenoblade series, Zelda, heck, even Sea of Thieves, that they have no idea what they’re talking about. Sad!
Sentenza
Member
It's a stupid claim, but not without some (incidental) merit, because a lot of "open world" games as the triple A industry imagines them are actually bloated shit without a single care in the world about making their sub-systems work properly.
That said, I STILL generally disagree with the notion that linearity makes for a better game. If anything, the opposite. I can't think of any excellent linear game that wouldn't gain something from a revamp expanding its horizons and inserting more systemic core mechanics (environmental navigation, NPC behavior, etc) rather than scripted moments.
STALKER would be a better game if the "Zone" would be a seamless environment rather than a series of separate maps, Vampire Bloodlines would be an even better "vampire sim" if exploring LA and interacting with more than a handful of major characters was a bit more seamless, etc, etc.
Some of the greatest RPGs of all time (Gothic 2, Risen 1, Ultima VII) shine precisely when their sub-systems allow for spontaneous emergent narrative over pre-scripted interactions.
On a side note, one thing I'm absolutely confident about is that almost any modern game would be immediately better without their fucking bloated itemization systems inspired by the dreadful looter shooter genre.
That said, I STILL generally disagree with the notion that linearity makes for a better game. If anything, the opposite. I can't think of any excellent linear game that wouldn't gain something from a revamp expanding its horizons and inserting more systemic core mechanics (environmental navigation, NPC behavior, etc) rather than scripted moments.
STALKER would be a better game if the "Zone" would be a seamless environment rather than a series of separate maps, Vampire Bloodlines would be an even better "vampire sim" if exploring LA and interacting with more than a handful of major characters was a bit more seamless, etc, etc.
Some of the greatest RPGs of all time (Gothic 2, Risen 1, Ultima VII) shine precisely when their sub-systems allow for spontaneous emergent narrative over pre-scripted interactions.
On a side note, one thing I'm absolutely confident about is that almost any modern game would be immediately better without their fucking bloated itemization systems inspired by the dreadful looter shooter genre.
Yes those are actual sandbox games.
I collect VHS tapes
Member
OP, this is an embarrassingly bad take.
Icymanipulator
Member
It’s too bad the OP didn’t actually form any argument of substance because this is a
worthwhile subject. Also, formatting your post spacing for emphasis is cringe. Make a good argument, not a fancy looking post.
worthwhile subject. Also, formatting your post spacing for emphasis is cringe. Make a good argument, not a fancy looking post.
Venom Snake
Member
Aidah
Member
Rockstar makes good looking dense open worlds with a lot of cool simulation. Then they don't know what the to do with it and you end up with generally uninteresting gameplay and activities.
While I agree that a lot of games use open worlds in order to be able to substitute quantity for quality, when I think about games that made the best gameplay related use of the open world concept, Rockstar games wouldn't get a mention.
While I agree that a lot of games use open worlds in order to be able to substitute quantity for quality, when I think about games that made the best gameplay related use of the open world concept, Rockstar games wouldn't get a mention.
Bartski
Gold Member
My main issue with open-world games is usually the economy and how heavily exploration is incentivized by the need to collect tons of trash aka "resources" to then sell or use for crafting to make progress, instead of environmental storytelling or just handcrafted, unique, and interesting locations.
I'm not saying there should be no resource collecting etc, it's about the balance and how as a player you are being conditioned to automatically focus on scanning the environment for pick-ups, rather than curiosity and sense of visiting an interesting place in the game.
Too much pointless shit to pick up too few interesting things to see and experience in short.
edit:
Also, simulation and emergent systems become more important the more "open" the world gets, and depend on what kind of freedoms the game provides the player with.
The game simply needs to accommodate for the fact you're able to drive a car into a crowd or start shooting at NPCs, so the world reacts to what you do in a way that doesn't take you out of the experience. Which to me seems way more difficult to achieve in a modern or futuristic setting than a medieval or wild west setting just to use that one hot example of recent.
This is where wide linear games excel as they generally provide the player less freedom, therefore execute on the limited freedom they give in a more accurate and convincing way.
I'm not saying there should be no resource collecting etc, it's about the balance and how as a player you are being conditioned to automatically focus on scanning the environment for pick-ups, rather than curiosity and sense of visiting an interesting place in the game.
Too much pointless shit to pick up too few interesting things to see and experience in short.
edit:
Also, simulation and emergent systems become more important the more "open" the world gets, and depend on what kind of freedoms the game provides the player with.
The game simply needs to accommodate for the fact you're able to drive a car into a crowd or start shooting at NPCs, so the world reacts to what you do in a way that doesn't take you out of the experience. Which to me seems way more difficult to achieve in a modern or futuristic setting than a medieval or wild west setting just to use that one hot example of recent.
This is where wide linear games excel as they generally provide the player less freedom, therefore execute on the limited freedom they give in a more accurate and convincing way.
Last edited:
OldBoyGamer
Banned
Strange point of view. I’m hoping it’s more a bit of light heartedness as opposed to you really believing it’s true. Seems incredibly tunnel visions to me.
oh also wanted to add that I find linear games af. I end up stopping them after the first few hours.
oh also wanted to add that I find linear games af. I end up stopping them after the first few hours.
Last edited:
Represent.
Banned
I have no idea how one could ever come to this conclusion. Especially comnparing it to other games in the genre...
None of those games are special. Especially bland ass Ghosts of Tsushima.
"Cringe"? Go back to Era lol. This was a rant, not an argument.
I make my shit easier to read so people actually read it. And my rant made perfect sense. Its all laid out in bold.
How about you read it.
Bkdk
Member
Bethesda’s games are perfect for open world, especially the way they support robust modding. I played at least 400 hours for every one of their single player rpgs. 350 hours dedicated to modding the open world and character. Unless they are not badly done like death stranding or cyberpunk, I usually love playing open world games than linear ones.
Guilty_AI
Member
I explained one line below. They're useless for what their games usually focus on, which is linear storytelling.
The only way they're good most of the time is if you like wandering around for hours doing nothing or hunting for easter eggs, in the case of GTA also exploding stuff.
RDR2 should've been set in smaller hub areas similar to Yakuzas and Deus Ex's.
GTAs should've developed game systems similar to what they did with GTA2.
Umbral
Member
If you are going to tell a story, linear or wide linear is best. You are correct there.
If you are going to go open world then one goal that is far away and then having a bunch of intertwined systems that the player can mess with is perhaps a better option. I hate that most open world games are just filled with collectibles and menial tasks to do in between story beats. Survival games do well with open world because it’s about exploring, building, surviving, etc. You always have something important to do.
Horses are better at going off-road than a vehicle, unless that vehicle is specialized for it. Horses can go anywhere, they’re a metal gear made of meat.
Last edited:
TheMay30thMan
Member
I think that Fallout 3, New Vegas, and Skyrim have the best open worlds in all of gaming. I know that’s incredibly controversial, and while I believe it to be true, if only Bethesda was allowed to make open world games, well... That’d be boring as hell.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Sorta curious, what exactly do people expect from an open world these days?
Also how does the world being an urban sprawl versus a sparsely populated wilderness factor in?
What I mean is there are plenty of huge real-world locations that really don't contain much at all apart from terrain and wildlife. Would accurately modelling those sort of places not be sort of cool (say Antartica) even if they didn't really justify quest and event markers popping up around you like mushrooms?
Also how does the world being an urban sprawl versus a sparsely populated wilderness factor in?
What I mean is there are plenty of huge real-world locations that really don't contain much at all apart from terrain and wildlife. Would accurately modelling those sort of places not be sort of cool (say Antartica) even if they didn't really justify quest and event markers popping up around you like mushrooms?
Similar threads
- Poll