How do people feel about open world games. This seems to have become a silent issue in the last few years. Ever since Skyrim, it's almost assumed that every AAA game that fits the bill needs to have an open world.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think it can be done to good effect, and very good effect in some cases. But often it just detracts from the narrative.
Notable games that succeeded in this were Skyrim and Xenoblade Chronicles. I think these games succeed because the worlds are so dense and interesting that they almost become the main subject of the game (lets assume that's a coherent thought).
Then there are others like Just Cause 2 and I'd even include Wind waker, as games where the open world is a great novelty for a while, but just ends up severely impeding progression.
I am keenly looking forward to Zelda and Xenoblade X, and I think both will probably fall down on the right side of the issue.
But part of me also can't help thinking the game world in Ocarina of Time was probably the best I can think of. It's concise, characterful and large enough to feel wild but small enough that you can't spend 10 minutes doing nothing without a lot of effort (as you easily can in wind waker).
Thoughts and comments?
Then there are others like Just Cause 2...but just ends up severely impeding progression.
...Progressing what? The story? Did Just Cause 2 even have a story? I certainly don't recall it during all those hours hijacking helicopters and blowing up skyscrapers (then parashooting to safety, hijacking a tank, blowing up more skyscrapers...).
I think Open World is great when you don't want to feel you have to progress in a certain way. I mean, a lot of Open World games still have linear stories, but you make the pace. You want to run around and do side missions? Sure. You want to explore an uncharted region without having to be told to go there? Go right ahead! The point of it is the feeling of freedom. If you feel like there's nothing to do, it's probably because you just want to be told what to do. That's not freedom. That's not the point.
Then there are others like Just Cause 2...but just ends up severely impeding progression.
...Progressing what? The story? Did Just Cause 2 even have a story? I certainly don't recall it during all those hours hijacking helicopters and blowing up skyscrapers (then parashooting to safety, hijacking a tank, blowing up more skyscrapers...).
There was a blur of terrible accents and stereotypes that somehow justified the next awesome set-piece. It was about as thought provoking as a rubber boot.
I don't think Ocarina of Time's overworld has aged all that well: it's fairly small and even though there are a few quirky characters, the world just doesn't feel alive. They exist in these secluded areas, their own little bubbles. I hope Zelda U will pull off Elder Scrollsesque daily routines for NPCs, on top of having both bunch of straight up side-quests and hidden secrets, such as mini-dungeons, so that the world will be breathing and filled to the brim with content.
Currently on the plate:
Mount and Blade: Warband – Napoleonic Wars
Chivalry
Super Mario 3D World – Finishing the last few levels.
Mario Kart 8
I think Open World is great when you don't want to feel you have to progress in a certain way. I mean, a lot of Open World games still have linear stories, but you make the pace. You want to run around and do side missions? Sure. You want to explore an uncharted region without having to be told to go there? Go right ahead! The point of it is the feeling of freedom. If you feel like there's nothing to do, it's probably because you just want to be told what to do. That's not freedom. That's not the point.
What's the point of exploring when there is nothing to discover?
Then there are others like Just Cause 2...but just ends up severely impeding progression.
This would sum up my thoughts on Ocarina's overworld too.
...Progressing what? The story? Did Just Cause 2 even have a story? I certainly don't recall it during all those hours hijacking helicopters and blowing up skyscrapers (then parashooting to safety, hijacking a tank, blowing up more skyscrapers...).
There was a blur of terrible accents and stereotypes that somehow justified the next awesome set-piece. It was about as thought provoking as a rubber boot.
I don't think Ocarina of Time's overworld has aged all that well: it's fairly small and even though there are a few quirky characters, the world just doesn't feel alive. They exist in these secluded areas, their own little bubbles. I hope Zelda U will pull off Elder Scrollsesque daily routines for NPCs, on top of having both bunch of straight up side-quests and hidden secrets, such as mini-dungeons, so that the world will be breathing and filled to the brim with content.
If you add me, I need to at least know you or I won't add you back.
I think Open World is great when you don't want to feel you have to progress in a certain way. I mean, a lot of Open World games still have linear stories, but you make the pace. You want to run around and do side missions? Sure. You want to explore an uncharted region without having to be told to go there? Go right ahead! The point of it is the feeling of freedom. If you feel like there's nothing to do, it's probably because you just want to be told what to do. That's not freedom. That's not the point.
What's the point of exploring when there is nothing to discover?
It depends. To me, I tend to prefer smaller open worlds, like Arkham City and the divided areas of Xenoblade. Allows openness while still having memorable areas and traveling is fun instead of overdone. I otherwise only like open world games at all when it feels compelling to travel in that world, and even then its frequently not preferable. That's probably the main reason so many of them have the focus on the radio while driving, because songs help so much to keep your interest. GTA5 is great partially because traveling is more often than not, fine. Between the great controls, Franklin's weird slowdown powers and the amazing variety of music (especially the not very good songs, which fits for a world of satirical stupidity), it works out great usually. Still has issues though...
Elder Scrolls games usually work too if you're into exploring areas you find a lot.
Well, to start, I hate the term "Open World", because it's incredibly vague. I'm going to stick to games in the adventure "supergenre" here, because I don't want to open up the can of worms that would come from adding platformers, puzzlers, etc. You have seamless worlds that are completely open to the player without much of a strict, linear plot progression like GTA or Skyrim. Then you have your open overworlds like Wind Waker, where most of the world is free to be visited, but there is a very strict progression, and it's not completely seamless. Then you have your Xenoblade and Twilight Princess style overworlds, which, while linear, offer a vast plain for sidequesting. Last, you have your tradtional JRPG open overworlds, where, at some points, you have free movement throughout the entire world, but how it's used tends to vary.
I think the different approaches work well for different games. I haven't played any full open world games, but all of the other styles have worked well in their respective games. Now, should every game push for an open world, no. IMO I can get exploration burnout, so I like a good mix.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
They use to call them "sandbox games", which I always felt was a better term. Open World is more like early (Alpha stage) Minecraft and Elite, where you're free to do whatever, with little-to-no artificial barriers. There are enhancements and stuff that you can do, but you're never forced to do anything you don't want to. The enhancements only make the game considerably easier, but aren't always essential to progression.
Sandbox game is more where you have linear progression, but you still have a "big playground" with lots of things to do in between story missions.
They use to call them "sandbox games", which I always felt was a better term. Open World is more like early (Alpha stage) Minecraft and Elite, where you're free to do whatever, with little-to-no artificial barriers. There are enhancements and stuff that you can do, but you're never forced to do anything you don't want to. The enhancements only make the game considerably easier, but aren't always essential to progression.
Sandbox game is more where you have linear progression, but you still have a "big playground" with lots of things to do in between story missions.
Fun fact, I've heard the exact same reasoning given to me, but with the terms switched. So replace open world with sandbox and vice-versa. Not even kidding.
As long as there's a story and an ending to the game. If it's just an open world game with just mini quests and no ending, that would be boring. At least in my opinion.
They use to call them "sandbox games", which I always felt was a better term. Open World is more like early (Alpha stage) Minecraft and Elite, where you're free to do whatever, with little-to-no artificial barriers. There are enhancements and stuff that you can do, but you're never forced to do anything you don't want to. The enhancements only make the game considerably easier, but aren't always essential to progression.
Sandbox game is more where you have linear progression, but you still have a "big playground" with lots of things to do in between story missions.
I'd say the exact opposite. I think 'sandbox' as a term is much more fitting of games like Minecraft, which is your example of pure 'open world'.
I've been hearing the term sandbox used to describe games like GTA and Spiderman 2 long before people started abusing the word "Open World". I'm not making this up, either. At the very least, I got that from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world
Forums
Topic: To be openworld or not to be?
Posts 1 to 16 of 16
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.