Lately the trend in vidya gaming has been to make everything open world, or at least a partially open world with various gates separating large areas, and call it open world. Rockstar and bethesda have been making open world games for years, and they have really nailed the formula down. The only problem is that a lot of studios have difficulties knowing how open to make the world. Sometimes the game is so open you have no idea what to do and you get frustrated. Other times the game is so linear that It the lack of exploration kills the game (FF13 is the main culprit) What do you think is going to happen with upcoming games that promise an open world (LOZ on the WiiU and FF15 in particular)? Do you think that they will be able to do open world correctly?
A game can't be "too open." If you're playing a game where you can go anywhere you see and you have no idea where you're supposed to be going, doesn't that just make it better?
I feel like this is more of a problem in mmo's than in singleplayer games
It's only too big if there isn't shit around to do. For a recent example, most of Dragon Age: Inquisition's areas are huge but it works and I never even feel compelled to ride my horse anywhere because every 10 meters there's an asshole to kill, something to pick up, or a cave or whatever to explore.
You look nice today.
This guy brutally sodomizes me.
Cereal is pretty cool. If you're cool you'll add me on Steam. Also, Letterboxd.
It wouldn't be a matter of the world being "too open", but being too empty.
Open world is never too open as long there is plenty of stuff to do.
I just love to find secret places that I never knew existed once I replay the games
At 1/2/15 01:57 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: too empty.
And even then, it could still be fun.
As many said already, it's not about a game being too open, but rather that it just will feel empty if the size of the map doesn't match up the content of the game. Which also something you have balance because if you throw to much stuff in a players face they will feel chained down and the experience of the open world game will feel less liberating. But as it is, you can't just throw a kid into a sandbox without appropriate toys to go with.
Huh, guess that's why they call it "sandbox games"
This is where I wrote something funny
Open world games are often easier for the developers to think of because it allows them to put in many different side-quests, collectibles and so on into a sprawling world for you to discover. We've seen in recent years that the best games, or at least the more memorable ones are completely {or partially} open right from the start, which creates a sense of immersion within the game world.
Of course even with all that, it's possible that they can screw it up badly, usually by skimping on gameplay and having numerous amounts of bugs and glitches, making exploring the whole world pointless. {Dead Island is a big example} There are also games that simply cannot work for open world gameplay because they would be either impractical or simply wouldn't fit.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
I personally love open world games. There's plenty to do, plus offers tons of replay value. It's amazing to see what have you missed on your second playthrough.
Games like Skyrim, Dragon Age Inquisition or something among the line really encourages you to explore the worlds around you. I kinda wanna make a game up to that caliber.
I would say never ... but one time I was playing Rust and ran for about 10 minutes and found myself in a barren area with no way to survive.
Monthly animations, sketchbook tours, and weekly art streams.
I have never seen it. It would be hard to imagine.
I'm gonna have to agree, there can't be too much open world.
One of my most favorite things in Fallout 3/Fallout New Vegas/Skyrim etc. was that you could see so much from one place and it really encouraged exploring and discovering. I liked that if you used your map, you could eventually get to anywhere in that world. (Taking the scenic route) finding those random encounters etc.
| It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose|||Love belongs to Desire, and Desire is always cruel.||||
At 1/3/15 09:24 PM, DELUCA2400 wrote:
Thank God for fast travel though. One of my favorite games of last generation Dragon's Dogma had a huge open world, but without any fast travel, or horse it really slowed the game down for me. Especially if I wanted to end a quest line quickly.
Oh definitely. No one wants to walk all the way back all those stairs to high hrothgar.
| It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose|||Love belongs to Desire, and Desire is always cruel.||||
At 1/3/15 09:44 PM, FurryGod wrote: I would like to hear examples of linear games besides FF13 because there is really no such game. 99% of games are non linear.
Please tell me that you're only talking about a specific genre. Most games are linear. Linear games are easy to make. Most shooters are linear, most fighting games are linear, a fair amount of platforms are linear.
It's only really adventure, RPG, and to an extent strategy games that have a fair amount of non-linear, and even then it' only been the past generation of games that have had open world environments be a normal thing. They were either too costly or impractical to create. If you need an example look at early RPGs, especially ones by Square Enix. Big, open maps with very little actually going on.
Even in Chrono Trigger, one of the most fabled RPGs, there was practically nothing to do in the Future, Prehistory, and the Dark Ages; especially end game.
When you have to travel 20 minutes between your objectives and it says the game promise over a hundred hours of gameplay on the box. Well, maybe it's too empty rather than too open but that depends on you.
