Why is it so hard to fill an open world with unique and meaningful content?

SantaC

SantaC

Member
Let's take Zelda BotW as an example. The overworld is great with all the freedom in the world to explore. No compliants there.

But why does it have so much copy and paste design? I am thinking about the shrines and the stables. When you explore you want to discover unique places and secrets that makes you go Aha!

The shrines have too many bosses that are the same, but worst of all is the rewards. A heart piece or stamina meter. It gets old after 10+ shrines. Then we have the korok seeds. 900 of them? It seems nintendo themselves were desperate to fill up their world of something. But is just useless padding.

You get all cool gadgets within the first hour of the game and thats it.

Botw's Hyrule is vast and fun to explore, the problem is meaningful rewards and unique content. If you are doing an open world game, try to find out different ways to reward the player.

Botw is just one example. Take Final Fantasy XV as another example. That game suffer from the same problem. Copy paste gas stations, lots of empty space with nothing.
 
Last edited:
I think the repeating of similar ideas in combat shrines is because they assume most people wouldn't do every shrine so its boring to do them all for people like you or me who 100% the game but most players wouldn't feel the repetition.

The 900 Korok seeds are there for people who just like being in the world and want to stay there for as long as possible + the same reason I gave above about most players not 100%ing so they can still find a trail of korok seeds on the way between "quests", no matter what route they take
 
Last edited:
Kuranghi said:
I think the repeating of similar ideas in combat shrines is because they assume most people wouldn't do every shrine so its boring to do them all for people like you or me who 100% the game but most players wouldn't feel the repetition.

The 900 Korok seeds are there for people who just like being in the world and want to stay there for as long as possible + the same reason I gave above about most players not 100%ing so they can still find a trail of korok seeds on the way between "quests", no matter what route they take
Click to expand...
Thats the problem I have with it. It is about rewarding the player with unique content.
 
Rdr 2 is the most fleshed out world with tons of unique encounters and places. But it took thousands of people, a huge amount of time and an enormous budget.

So that's your answer
 
Last edited:
An idea I just had is It would be great if in BotW 2 shrines give you variations of the items that have unique qualities, like in Skyward Sword where you get a wooden shield, then metal, then a magic shield, etc. With more subdivisions though, not down to just palette swaps or anything [Maybe that too but as a bonus], but make them feel like a bit more of a unique reward that way.

In fact, there should just generally be a ton of items that make everything you do in the game more efficient/fun, like the sandshoes in BotW or climbing gear. I wished the earrings were more useful, but it was their first attempt at a non-linear Zelda so I understand why its not perfect.
 
Last edited:
That's one of things i dont like about open world games. There are so many icons scattered all over but most of them are just not very interesting or fun to do and just mostly bloat to increase play time. Hence i mostly tend to focus on the main story and don't focus on side quests unless they're really interesting.
 
I think the biggest problem is that every meaningful feature has to be supported by the core game mechanics. If you kept filling in innovative content it Will potentially break the gameplay.
 
Last edited:
SantaC2 said:
Let's take Zelda BotW as an example. The overworld is great with all the freedom in the world to explore. No compliants there.

But why does it have so much copy and paste design? I am thinking about the shrines and the stables. When you explore you want to discover unique places and secrets that makes you go Aha!

The shrines have too many bosses that are the same, but worst of all is the rewards. A heart piece or stamina meter. It gets old after 10+ shrines. Then we have the korok seeds. 900 of them? It seems nintendo themselves were desperate to fill up their world of something. But is just useless padding.

You get all cool gadgets within the first hour of the game and thats it.

Botw's Hyrule is vast and fun to explore, the problem is meaningful rewards and unique content. If you are doing an open world game, try to find out different ways to reward the player.

Botw is just one example. Take Final Fantasy XV as another example. That game suffer from the same problem. Copy paste gas stations, lots of empty space with nothing.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, BotW is a huge empty world with nothing interesting to do. No motivation to go forward or explore, as there is nothing meaningful to find.
 
It's a balance. If every experience in an open world was wholly unique, I don't think the game would ever ship. BotW has enough unique content and was smart of repeating the FUN experiences, that it was a great balance.
 
SantaC2 said:
Botw is just one example. Take Final Fantasy XV as another example. That game suffer from the same problem.
Click to expand...
I mean... you can go to the end of the game as soon as you leave the Great Plataeu so calling the open world and everything in it "padding" assumes it's mandatory, which it's not.
Can't say the same for the Backstreet Boys Simulator since if you want to get to the ending, you're forced to play Final Fantasy XV, which is a punishment in and of itself.
 
Last edited:
The answer is always that most people don't play games for 300 hours, I played Mad Max for over 100 hours and there was still a bunch of scrap to collect and locations to visit but its was almost all copy-paste at that point so I stopped after looking up a list of the unique locations I hadn't been to yet.

I hope we see more dense enviroments in nex-jen stuff, SantaC SantaC , check out Hitman 2016+2018 it has some of the coolest, detail-dense, levels I've seen in a game, in terms of detail and interactability, you can shoot so much stuff so if you happen to have a gunfight in any room there will be realistic damage to the objects of the room. I think the starter pack is free, which contains the first level(s).

edit - Oh no wait, the demo for both of them is just the tutorials levels now, they are a great intro to the game and I still spent 10 hours at least in each of them but its not really the detail-density I was talking about above. If you want to check it out PM me and I'll sort you out unless you are on Xbox, I only have PC and PS keys.
 
Last edited:
Creating unique content takes the most time and money, especially if it's polished content.

The random encounters in Red Dead 2 have better animation and voice acting than the main content in most open world games.
 
Terenty said:
Rdr 2 is the most fleshed out world with tons of unique encounters and places. But it took thousands of people, a huge amount of time and an enormous budget.

So that's your answer
Click to expand...

Yeah. RDR2 and Witched 3 do it the best imo

The answer to the OP is clear. It's hard because it takes time and manpower. It takes effort.
 
Lawrence 'Chunk' Cohen said:
Yeah. RDR2 and Witched 3 do it the best imo

The answer to the OP is clear. It's hard because it takes time and manpower. It takes effort.
Click to expand...
Yep, agree with this.

I always thought it'd be interesting to let players make open world events, but you'd have to filter/check them all still.
 
It is most likely due to hardware constrains and engineering budget. I hope next gen helps.

IMHO to improve the current quest systems you need to implement a dynamic quest system. It isn't possible to nurture a massive open world with scripted quests. There is not enough talent to write, implement and test thousands of quest for a AAA game. The dynamic quests can be scripted at a macro level, but the details of your experience will be shaped by your decisions and other random factors that the game content designers cannot anticipate, but empower. Some games like TES have been trying to do this for years and I hear they get better every time. However, they have still been severely limited by the memory constrains of the current generation hardware. TES6 will be worth a shot.
 
Because the game developers of today aren't as talented as those who came before. Look at the sheer number of games today that launch in a broken or semi-broken state. The redundant nature of the Triple A industry.

Compare it to the 90s and early 2000s. Game developers were pioneers and were doing amazing things. Their games were far more stable at launch. We had innovative and unique games in the Triple A space back then.

Today's fame developers don't care about innovation. They don't care if a game is stable at launch. Because fuck it. We can always patch it later. That's their mentality. You're asking the wrong question, OP. Its not an open world games problem. It's a games problem.

It just so happens that today's game developers and publishers think everything has to be open world. Just like they think everything has to be a live service and just like how they thought every game, even a game like fuckibg Dead Space, needed a strong emphasis on co-op.

The open world concept allows the mediocre game developers of today to be mediocre while still managing to make their products look impressive just by the sheer size of their games. But let me tell you, there is nothing impressive about stuffing your big open world with boring radiant fetch quests or NPCs that make a fucking amusement park animatronic seem realistic by comparison.

In short, open world game design is largely used as a lazy attempt to make mediocre game developers look better than they really are. And I know I'm going to get shit for talking bad about game developers in a negative way, since they are treated as some sacred cow. But I really don't give a fuck.
 
Even the Witcher 3 had to resort to procedurally generating the conversation animations because there was so damn much dialog.

Too much time and money, bottom line. Especially when you consider how few people even beat games, let alone would visit a random spot on a huge ass map that some poor guy spent a whole day of manpower designing.
 
If you "fill an open world with unique and meaningful content" it would feel fake.

It's my one grip with TW3 and the only thing that Bethesda does better.
 
Last edited:
As many other pointed out here, it takes a lot of time and money to fill a open world with unique content. If the world is too big it may even be impossible (like No man's sky for example).

Its possible to amend this using dynamic systems rather than purely scripted events (Like Elite Dangerous with all the systems involving factions and influence). While quests wouldn't necessarely feel unique, their semi-unpredictable nature would help making sure they're still interesting to a level.
It also helps if you have solid gameplay-loops. Rogue-like games rely just on that, allowing them to basically generate infinite content with just some randomic variations between them while still being fun.
 
Last edited:
The problem isn't filling the open world with content, it's the fact that they choose to go open world to begin with. They don't need to. There are an infinite number of games throughout gaming history that are amazing and beloved without having an open world. Not every game needs one. Most connect RPGs with open worlds, but they don't need it either. Chrono Trigger, the original FF titles, Suikoden wild arms, etc. I think devs think they need to do it because everyone else does and you don't.

If you have the budget and great ambitions for one, then go for it. If you know you don't have the manpower, time, or budget to make it a world worth exploring then scrap the damn open world and make a smaller world lush with content and equipment and stories and people will love it just fine.

The problem is so many want to be followers not leaders. Step out of the line and stand out with your own unique style, don't just go open world because everyone else is.
 
Last edited:
VGEsoterica said:
It's a balance. If every experience in an open world was wholly unique, I don't think the game would ever ship. BotW has enough unique content and was smart of repeating the FUN experiences, that it was a great balance.
Click to expand...

There was way too much stuff recycled. There's no ignoring that. It even translated to enemies and mini bosses.

The world although impressive on thr surface was unfortunately pretty empty. Had they not had the korok seeds most people probably wouldn't have seen the incentive to explore other areas. It's fun seeing new places, but when there's nothing to do besides fight some random enemy, it's like what's the point. Coming across hyrule lake, I was impressed, but then I realized it's just a giant mass of water with 1-2 islands without anything on them. No secrets, nothing.
 
It's the curse of the open world games. Filling it with content without feeling to repetitive, it's just not easy.
 
Play the first two Gothic games OP. They were made by a team of 25 people and they are probably the best designed open world games ever.

Everything in those world's is placed by hand with extreme care to always reward your exploration.

Enemies and monsters don't respawn after you kill them so you always feel like you're really progressing.
 
Kuranghi said:
An idea I just had is It would be great if in BotW 2 shrines give you variations of the items that have unique qualities, like in Skyward Sword where you get a wooden shield, then metal, then a magic shield, etc. With more subdivisions though, not down to just palette swaps or anything [Maybe that too but as a bonus], but make them feel like a bit more of a unique reward that way.

In fact, there should just generally be a ton of items that make everything you do in the game more efficient/fun, like the sandshoes in BotW or climbing gear. I wished the earrings were more useful, but it was their first attempt at a non-linear Zelda so I understand why its not perfect.
Click to expand...

there is that, but also 90% of the writing is about giving the player a reason to murder, there are only so many reasons to link kill rooms together.

Think about how bad big budget movie writing would be if all it was about was giving the characters reasons to fight.
 
Budget and trying to catter to majority of the players... I'd rather have a game with less but more meaningfull content than having a shitton of things to do since it feels overwhelming and will most probably make me skip a game or leave it with some frustration because I have other stuff to do and other stuff to play.

I guess many more people feels like this and devs know it...

So, they'd rather keep a balance with that majority so it's more probable they get their next entry on the franchise.

IDK, Maybe.
 
Last edited:
Lawrence 'Chunk' Cohen said:
Yeah. RDR2 and Witched 3 do it the best imo

The answer to the OP is clear. It's hard because it takes time and manpower. It takes effort.
Click to expand...
Witcher 3 does it only to some extent, because the mechanics are repeated over and over again across different missions, as most of the times you follow the same pattern of: talk to someone > go to point A > use the witcher's vision to follow a path to point B > combat encounter > return to the quest giver.

What's great about them is that Witcher 3 does a good work at filling them with interesting stories, but RDR2 goes beyond that by often creating specific gameplay mechanics and interactions to some of it's sidequests.
 
Last edited:
Essentially Money and laziness.

If every game could be RDR2 easily, everyone would've done it. They are happy hitting a certain point putting in the minimum effort (copy paste locations, etc)
 
I must just have a different perspective on BoTW and it's rewards.

I thought it's economy balance and rewards were great.

I liked getting rupies in the first part of the game. It let me buy arrows.

I playedon master mode and had to learnthe systems, avoid combat and gear up over long periods of time. I'd say 20-30 hours.

Then I reached mid game where I participated in more combat. Had a fair amount of money but still not a lot.

Was still gearing up and finally towards the end and where I'm at now am I have an inventory full of savage lonely weapons and anything with huge attack buffs. Plus 30k in rupies and growing. I can't get enough elemental arrows or arrows in general now.

it's still not old I'm just more powerful and capable of taking down any enemy or area I want

I never sought out korok seeds. I'd just get them while running around to new areas. It was like a bonus to exploration. And slowly you get to carry more stuff.

I'd say after the mid game I was pretty good on them once I got enough weapon slots.
After 4 or 5 slots for bows and shields you basically have enough.

Would I like more gear variation and different bonus attributes to weapons? Sure but The reward of this game was tHe exploration and finding new areas and enemies.

I could always count on chests or weapons laying around to constantly get a bit better gear as well.
 
Terenty said:
Rdr 2 is the most fleshed out world with tons of unique encounters and places. But it took thousands of people, a huge amount of time and an enormous budget.

So that's your answer
Click to expand...

Yes, developers need to consider their resources before committing to scope. I'd much rather have an intimate, dense and well-crafted experience than something I can walk for hours within. Everything just gets diluted without any benefit.

But if the dev has the man-power and creative capital, blow it up and go wild, sure.
 
BotW is an odd example (personally) because it is one of the best open-world games of all time regarding this issue you've identified (lack of unique and meaningful content).

"Content" is expensive. So the new open-world trend kicked off by Minecraft has a lot of clockwork mechanisms (weather, physics, crafting, resource-gathering, etc) to pad out the experience.

And to be honest, Minecraft has the right idea. If given the choice between a world full of lore books, voiced NPCs, and unique textures versus an open-world crafting survival game with dozens of interacting systems, I'll pick Minecraft instead of Witcher 3 every time. I prefer a wealth of mechanics that I can use to mess around and make my own fun instead of a guided tour.

There's a reason the genre used to be called "sandbox".
 
As others have said, mostly time and money.
Creating and designing 20 unique and meaningful quests is going to take a lot more time than making 1 activity and pasting 40 slightly different versions of it around the world.

I think marketing and market research also has a bit of a role. A lot of open world games seem to go for the "quantity over quality" approach in many ways. Better to have a giant world than a smaller and better designed one, better for it to be 40 hours long with tons of padding and repetition instead of 20 hours long with a better pacing and no padding, better to have tons of "stuff" to do and a world filled with icons instead of a limited number of more meaningful things to do.

With that said I really enjoyed BoTW even though I would it did have a lot of things that could have been better
 
Last edited:
I think open worlds need to totally forget about "rewarding the player" The thing you did should have been fun and my reward should have been doing it. Best reward would be some fun dialouge or a pointer to the next fun thing to do.

I don't think open worlds need to be heavy in content unless you are forcing the player to explore them. They need to be a nice backdrop so that the player doesn't hit invisible walls on the way to your destination.

I think the best flow is this.
You give the player clear goals with fun unique gameplay, Getting to that gameplay should be fun enough but doesn't need to be the highlight of the game. You have things in the background that are fun enough to make the player change course. Basically things should feel natural and you should be free but doing absolutely everything doesn't need to feel good.

For me Botw nailed this, I didn't play it thinking I HAD to get every shrine or do every puzzle. I just do it when it's fun, on the way to things that look clearly important/fun.
 
a multicultural team of v said:
Even the Witcher 3 had to resort to procedurally generating the conversation animations because there was so damn much dialog.

Too much time and money, bottom line. Especially when you consider how few people even beat games, let alone would visit a random spot on a huge ass map that some poor guy spent a whole day of manpower designing.
Click to expand...
Not quite true.
They had a basic auto generation for prototyping and to get the most simple work out of the way, but most dialogue scenes were manually edited. Basic dialogue full body animations are simple to auto generate (because the anims weren't generated, just their useage), but when you want someone's head to track something for a specific time and in a specific way, procedural wouldn't be able to do the job unless the ruleset was very specific for the game.

This is however what I'm always suggesting. Tools for content creation make big scopes possible and that mindset was what allowed Witcher 3 to work.
I see way too many devs directly and specifically working on the content, rather than creating or using tools that, after the initial effort, make it a lot easier to create, maintain and tweak the content. I myself am working on a plugin for Unreal Engine 4 that is similar to what you've probably seen in the GDC talk detailing Witcher 3's dialogue tools, but it's got a long time to go given that I can't work on it full time.

When I worked on my last bigger game project (nothing commercial), I had to make due with a hyper bad dialogue system. I was thinking 'it has to be possible to improve this' and that's what sparked my passion for this kind of stuff.

If AAA can't make meaningful content in an open world game, AA can't make meaningful content in a more-linear game. It didn't use to be this way and my idea is to create a variety of content-related tools that make it a lot easier to create what you want to create. A great example is Borderlands 3. Gearbox was on Unreal's livestream and showcased some of their workflow and their tooling support. They had a custom time-of-day editor, that was used primarily for lighting changes as well as some game events, so that an event 'it's noon now' would be fired that any game system could be attached to to register some game logic, like NPCs behavior changing, enemies despawning, things like that.
My idea is to reproduce this at some point but also adding a sort of calendar functionality to it, so that it becomes possible to attach specific events not just to the time of day, but specific in-game days or durations as well. Basically providing a tool that is used for a lot more than primarily lighting changes.

For some reason, there are plenty of games that are scared of 'letting the world happen'. I don't think I've seen many games where a lot of the events are attached to primarily time (as well as conditions) rather than just gameplay conditions. That you can't keep on creating missable contant is obvious, but I'm sure many games would profit artistically if they'd let their game worlds breathe for a second rather than making everything directly dependent on the player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Is the only way to justify the price of a game is for it to be open world?
14
345
StreetsofBeige replied
Onimusha: Way of The Sword “Isn't an open-world game, and it certainly isn't a punishing die-and-retry (soulslike) game either,” director says
News Game Dev Hype 
48
627
Ceadeus replied
Industries first open source A.I. 3D world generation model
2
92
496
Buggy Loop replied
‘We tried and it didn’t work out’: CDPR co-founder says it shouldn’t stray from AAA open-world RPGs
24
553
DaciaJC replied
Wheel World (PS5, PC, Xbox) Review: Charming Open World Bicycle Racing Game Review
7
175
Kuranghi replied
Top Bottom