Open world - wearing me out

K

KickAssCop

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
8,328
Open world games are wearing me out so fast. Every damn thing is an RPG of sorts with an open world with repetitive crap thrown at you. Every single game. It is really becoming a chore to finish even the simplest of games.

Mafia 3 - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Ghost Recon Wildlands - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Dying Light - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Mass Effect Andromeda - Could have done without a full open world? Dafuq!
Division - Again open world? Dafuq!
Gravity Rush 2 - Wanted to play but full on open world!
Horizon Zero Dawn - Love it but open world again!
Deus Ex Mankind Divided - Again open world sort of!
Zelda - Wanted to try but open world.
Nier Automata - Again and RPG almost open world so skipped.
MGS V - Haven't gotten past the point where you do a couple of open world missions.
Homefront Revolution - Again, no need to make it open world imo.

I really appreciated some story driven stuff like Doom, TF2 and COD IW this past few months. Other than that, it seems everything I touch is open world/RPG nonsense. You guys getting tired of this?
 
It does become daunting. I get why they're doing it, but it makes playing anything casually a total pain because you have to traverse miles and miles of terrain to get anything done.
Hopefully we start to see more games go back to a controlled environment, kind of like the first few Uncharted games. I miss having some pacing.
 
I'm with you. Like you said, it's a chore. Open world games are about chasing icons on maps. Fetch quest after fetch quest. No direction. No sense of urgency. Long stretches of busy work that does nothing to move the story along. Emotionless NPCs that spew out the same robotic lines every time you talk to them. Large empty stretches of landscape with nothing to do.

That being said, Zelda, Horizon, and Nier are all fantastic in their own way. I wouldn't skip those.
 
Depends on the game.

Elder Scrolls type games, it is almost a must, and yes they typically suffer from clone npcs/voice actors etc. Even The Witcher 3, had the same npc faces/voices spread across several dozen NPC's.

Filler/fetch quests are probably a necessity as well, if nothing else for development time restraints, it is just a matter of how well they are implemented. Also fetch type quests should never be tied to main story line.

I thought the Far Cry and Assassins Creed games did open world pretty well. Yes there were a crap ton of filler quests.

I do agree that many of the OPs mentioned games really had no reasom to be open world though. I would much rather have a very well designed and thought out "level" then open world for a majority of that list.
 
You should try survivalist MMOs :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Just tried Conan exiles for two hours only to find one area to be blocked off by someone's structure they built.
Wrong server I guess.
 
I enjoy them in the sense I can carve out my own story on my terms. The more recent Fallouts and Elder Scrolls games let me poke around, explore, maim/kill/dungeon-dive at my leisure building my own story line. Meh - for me that's the appeal.. well, at least with those games mentioned.
 
Personally I love this style of game! I prefer it since it is open ended and I can do whatever I please. Ghost Recon - Wildlands is damn near perfect to me. I love traveling around, doing whatever I want...whenever....and doing coop with random people or friends. It's almost a perfect game!
 
There's open world and then there's "open world".

Something like Elder Scrolls is awesome in an open world. Sometimes I'll just pick a direction and walk, being able to stumble upon a burned down shack or a camp is really immersive. And if you don't want to deal with it, you've got fast-travel, both immersive (hire a ride) and not (click icon). But sometimes, games implement "open world" as a way to pad out hours of gameplay. Yeah, I wish I could find other things to do not part of the main story in lots of games, but that doesn't mean make a version of the game with required gaps filled with uninspired busywork.

Open world takes a lot of dev work and care. "Open world" still takes a lot of dev work but I can tell they don't really care. Maybe developers have been pushing it to open up the wallets of increasingly stingy publishers?
 
KickAssCop said:
Open world games are wearing me out so fast. Every damn thing is an RPG of sorts with an open world with repetitive crap thrown at you. Every single game. It is really becoming a chore to finish even the simplest of games.

Mafia 3 - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Ghost Recon Wildlands - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Dying Light - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Mass Effect Andromeda - Could have done without a full open world? Dafuq!
Division - Again open world? Dafuq!
Gravity Rush 2 - Wanted to play but full on open world!
Horizon Zero Dawn - Love it but open world again!
Deus Ex Mankind Divided - Again open world sort of!
Zelda - Wanted to try but open world.
Nier Automata - Again and RPG almost open world so skipped.
MGS V - Haven't gotten past the point where you do a couple of open world missions.
Homefront Revolution - Again, no need to make it open world imo.

I really appreciated some story driven stuff like Doom, TF2 and COD IW this past few months. Other than that, it seems everything I touch is open world/RPG nonsense. You guys getting tired of this?
Click to expand...

Mafia 3 - Mafia has always been open world, why change it?
Ghost Recon Wildlands - Testing the waters, I could agree a linear coop Ghost Recon would've done better.
Dying Light - Zombie games tend to be, it's hard to make a linear zombie game where you aren't just fighting wave after wave.
Mass Effect Andromeda - Haven't played yet but ME uses mostly large city HUBs with the quests being the linear part.
Division - It was supposed to be an MMO style game. Largely it's very linear when doing quests, the city is more of a HUB.
Horizon Zero Dawn - One of the greatest open world games in my opinion. Really lets you setup ambushes and attack objectives with your own style.
Deus Ex Mankind Divided - Again, not open world, the main cities are just HUBs that connect to linear quests. The city is mostly for gearing up and doing a few side objectives.
Zelda - And is considered the best Zelda game for a reason. Going open world was probably the best thing for the game as the old formula was beginning to stale.
MGS V - Yeah this one is a mix bag, I don't think they needed to deviate from the formula for this one.

Most of these games can be beaten relatively quickly so I don't see why it's such a big deal to be open world. It wasn't long ago that people were bitching that too many games followed a linear formula and people were getting sick and tired of linear. Thus this generation has been focused on open world gaming. Can't please everyone I suppose.
 
I think the new Tomb Raider games do it right with their hub style. They are linear enough to keep the player engaged and open enough to still have some sense of freedom.

I'd agree that MGS V didn't need to be open world whatsoever. Talk about an empty landscape. There is literally nothing but desert between bases. It's the only MGS game I didn't beat and I've been a rabid fan of the series since the original. I think the empty open world combined with almost no cut scenes (you know, the defining feature of a Metal Gear game) turned me off.
 
I don't mind open world as long as I don't have to walk/run through the whole thing. Give me a car or plane or tank or something I can move around easily throughout the world.

I heard all the good things about Skyrim and The Witcher so I thought I would give them a shot. Bah, so much walking...uninstall.

Just Cause, Borderlands etc. make for a fun open world type game without the long drag of walking everywhere.
 
IMO it's not that open world is bad but that seemingly every developer sees it as the direction they have to take. The games are all bleeding together as a result. It's almost like the 8-bit era where every developer felt that they had to make everything into a run, jump, and shoot side-scroller. Many of them were fantastic, but at a certain point the whole idea got old. People were getting as sick of Mega Man and Castlevania as Assassin's Creed and COD. Even when they're good/great it's still just more of the same.
Bethesda and Rockstar probably get a pass since that's all they do (or have ever really done) but it feels like most others are checking boxes and copying everyone else.
I'd like to see some more focus on storylines and artistic direction rather than "you can go anywhere you want!" only to find a whole lot of nothing there.
 
jaguax said:
I think the new Tomb Raider games do it right with their hub style. They are linear enough to keep the player engaged and open enough to still have some sense of freedom.
Click to expand...
I don't think those games have any freedom. You can still have an open world and not be bogged down by fetch quests. Just look at the original mafia.

The best way is probably the way deus ex games do it. Especially the original.
 
Not tired of it myself , as I can't stand linear games , nor being steered at all. Very much prefer open world everything.

Don't really care if I ever "finish" a game, just want to have fun while playing it.
 
i used to enjoy that open world feel more, as i get older, i grow tired (as it seems the OP has) of doing endless fetch quests. it's kind of like taking single player games and turning them into MMO's without the multiplayer part, but the questing is similar. main quest, lots of side bullshit to do. i would prefer less fluff and more well thought side quests. less can be more sometimes. that being said, some good ole' mission based games or corridor style shooters are fun every once in a while, but you tend to run through them very quickly as they don't seem to make those kind of games very LONG in this day and age. so you either get a 9 hour playtime that's great, but short lived, or a 100 hour long game that you spent 60-70 of the hours picking flowers and killing random creatures over and over again to satisfy some pointless NPC's.
 
open world games are great because it allows the player to choose what they want to do...yes there are too many collectables and crap side quests but you can always skip them...
 
im totally oposed, I love as much as possible everygame to be open world... I do enjoy some non-open world games but is not the same, you can enjoy those games just couple of times before getting bored, you can have an open world with lot of things to do on side quest/missions/tasks and linear stories and enjoy a game forever.
 
KickAssCop said:
Open world games are wearing me out so fast. Every damn thing is an RPG of sorts with an open world with repetitive crap thrown at you. Every single game. It is really becoming a chore to finish even the simplest of games.

Mafia 3 - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Ghost Recon Wildlands - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Dying Light - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Mass Effect Andromeda - Could have done without a full open world? Dafuq!
Division - Again open world? Dafuq!
Gravity Rush 2 - Wanted to play but full on open world!
Horizon Zero Dawn - Love it but open world again!
Deus Ex Mankind Divided - Again open world sort of!
Zelda - Wanted to try but open world.
Nier Automata - Again and RPG almost open world so skipped.
MGS V - Haven't gotten past the point where you do a couple of open world missions.
Homefront Revolution - Again, no need to make it open world imo.

I really appreciated some story driven stuff like Doom, TF2 and COD IW this past few months. Other than that, it seems everything I touch is open world/RPG nonsense. You guys getting tired of this?
Click to expand...

Stop buying open world games? It's not like they're installing themselves in your Steam folder. :)

Outside of that I'm not really sure what the point here is. Are you asking for more linear/rail/corridor shooters?
 
I love Open World games. I enjoy them because I can play the game at my own pace and how I want.

This trend has been great and I hope they continue to improve on the concept. You can play most open world games by only going through the main story stuff if you want to avoid the 'grind'.
 
I really like the open world concept. I've been back at Fallout 4 for a couple of weeks now, and I find it works out well for casual play. If I have 30 minutes I pick a direction and walk until I find something cool, shoot some bad guys, save and quit. I've racked up almost 70 hours from the start of the game like this and barely finished the 3rd mission on the main quest. I'll get to it when I get to it.
 
I get what OP is saying, but I don't really think it's the open world aspect that's tiring me out: it's the near carbon-copy mechanics in most games. Games like Dishonored 2, Skyrim, Batman, Division, FO4, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Tomb Raider, Horizon, Uncharted basically interchange the same shooting, cover, upgrade mechanics -- so much so many of them feel like they're different skins of the same game. Even a game like FO3/4 that posits a "unique" VATS system is basically just a glorified bullet time mechanic. There are some games that put interesting spins on the old or perfects the formula e.g. XCOM2 in that it melded FPS with turn-based combat, Witcher 3 -- but still, most of the mechanics were still the same.

Most games just feel so gosh-darned similar I often get the feeling "I just played and finished this game" when picking up a new title i.e. why did I just pay money for this. I don't claim to know the solution, but there's got to be something new out there. Indie games have made some real innovation in mechanics and storytelling, I suppose...
 
I view open world as a plus, more content is more content. You usually don't HAVE to explore the entire map to beat the game if you don't want to. Games like Fallout and TES I will say I wouldn't be able to handle if they didn't have fast travel, but I do walk the entire map at least once throughout each play-through.
 
I feel the opposite in many cases. I enjoy open world games, I guess I like the idea of being able to go around the world and having perspective on the world in relation the geography. For myself games that are on rails yeah take a little of the immersion for me. So part of its freedom, but also giving the feeling of being in a living or persistent world as opposed to a level based rail game.

That is not to say I think every game should be open world. I'm ok if a game like Call of Duty or Overwatch don't become open world.

But for myself a game like MGSV is made way better because of it being open world. I also though the mechanics of the game were excellent as well. Only complaint is I think story telling to some degree took hit with the lack of cutscenes.

But I don't like zombies that much and it seems like too many games have zombies or zombie mode.
 
Last edited:
KickAssCop said:
Open world games are wearing me out so fast. Every damn thing is an RPG of sorts with an open world with repetitive crap thrown at you. Every single game. It is really becoming a chore to finish even the simplest of games.

Mafia 3 - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Ghost Recon Wildlands - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Dying Light - Why is it open world? Dafuq!
Mass Effect Andromeda - Could have done without a full open world? Dafuq!
Division - Again open world? Dafuq!
Gravity Rush 2 - Wanted to play but full on open world!
Horizon Zero Dawn - Love it but open world again!
Deus Ex Mankind Divided - Again open world sort of!
Zelda - Wanted to try but open world.
Nier Automata - Again and RPG almost open world so skipped.
MGS V - Haven't gotten past the point where you do a couple of open world missions.
Homefront Revolution - Again, no need to make it open world imo.

I really appreciated some story driven stuff like Doom, TF2 and COD IW this past few months. Other than that, it seems everything I touch is open world/RPG nonsense. You guys getting tired of this?
Click to expand...
Some of those games are "open world" as opposed to open world. Think of "open world" as Metroidvania in a 3D setting: progression is still linear, but you're free to go back and explore formally locked areas as your skills develop and/or the story progresses. Dying Light would be the perfect example of this, which is the type of "open world" game I enjoy, as opposed to a Grand Theft Auto type of game.
 
Some good points. I do believe, I have picked up way too many similar types of games lately and there is definitely fatigue. I haven't finished so many open world games that I have started it is becoming a bit daunting task to go through everything.

Some examples include Mad Max, Batman Arkham Knight DLCs, Ass Creed Syndicate some areas (even though finished the game and loved it), Dying Light, Division (left it at level 17 or so), Ghost Recon Wildlands (haven't even dug in), didn't buy Far Cry Primal, Mirror's Edge Catalyst since I am already bored of it because of it being open world, Mass Effect which to be honest needs more of my time before I trash it, MGS V as well, just left after a couple of missions in the desert and the whole base building crap.

HZD is possibly the only real open world I have spent hours in and it is still fun. The other open world type yet still linear games I liked were ROTTR and that's about it.

Anyways, as you were.
 
I usually limit myself to only playing 3-4 games at a time. One open world RPG (Witcher 3), one linear single player FPS (Titanfall 2), and one or two online FPS (BF1 and NS2).

I force myself to finish the single player games, open or linear, before moving on to the next title. This so as not to suffer from overload as described by the OP. It also forces me to actually finish games I start, if only so I can move on to that next title I really want to play.
 
NukeDukem said:
I usually limit myself to only playing 3-4 games at a time. One open world RPG (Witcher 3), one linear single player FPS (Titanfall 2), and one or two online FPS (BF1 and NS2).

I force myself to finish the single player games, open or linear, before moving on to the next title. This so as not to suffer from overload as described by the OP. It also forces me to actually finish games I start, if only so I can move on to that next title I really want to play.
Click to expand...

I do the same when it comes to single player games. It helps me as well. I also tend to play them on easy or normal so i can finish it in less time.
 
I started having open world fatigue because of my obsession with 100% completion. After I learned to just do what I felt like doing, and not worry about completing everything, I started enjoying the games again.
 
I'm starting to feel this as well now....I've got Horizon to beat, and then I have to go ahead and finish FFXV, and while I love both games dearly, I feel a sense of urgency (brought upon by who knows what) to just beat these games and skip the side shit (just to get them out of the way). I'm almost wishing they were more linear at times, but at the same time, wishing I didn't wish that. I don't know.
 
I agree. 5-7 years ago I was happy to see things become "bigger", but the formula has become too stale. Games are starting to feel too similar, and games that were more focused are being filled with more checklists of stuff to do. I agree it can be fun if the core mechanics are decent enough, such as in Far Cry 3. But the whole climb this, activate that to view/unlock a bunch of camps to liberate and sticks to collect has gotten too repetitive.

I play games like Mafia 3 and it feels straight out of the early 2000s when it comes to shooting mechanics and the inventory system. At least Sleeping Dogs brought fairly good fighting mechanics to the table.

Dues Ex HR/MD was fine because it wasn't obscenely large and the maps were not filled with repeated tasks. Sure there were side missions, but they all had a basic story, a variable approach and entirely different setup. Even the minor quests like finding some loot only to find yourself in a death trap setup for someone else was unique enough.

The problem is more and more games are falling victim to it. Mass Effect Andromeda has. The 2nd and 3rd game in the series could have been opened up but it didn't need to be filled with constant side mission pop ups. Ghost Recon under Ubi's watch is no longer like the original games, but it could have retained its shooter roots. Instead, they made it a mass open world of traveling back and fourth.

I'd love to see some games pull back and focus on the core gameplay. Imagine a first person shooter with Mirror's Edge level of control and perspective, mixed in with some fighting mechanics like in Sleeping Dogs. Would be a hell of a lot more interesting than another GTA/Mafia clone.

ChoGGi said:
Yeah, that one definitely suffered for being open world.
Click to expand...

The recent Mirror's Edge is a good example indeed. It wasn't that bad because the game was still fairly brief, but so many of those "deliver this" and time trial missions! And they were very hard to, which made playing 90% of them not even worthwhile. Considering you do the same thing for the main mission it seemed overdone.
 
Last edited:
Flogger23m said:
I agree. 5-7 years ago I was happy to see things become "bigger", but the formula has become too stale. Games are starting to feel too similar, and games that were more focused are being filled with more checklists of stuff to do. I agree it can be fun if the core mechanics are decent enough, such as in Far Cry 3. But the whole climb this, activate that to view/unlock a bunch of camps to liberate and sticks to collect has gotten too repetitive.

I play games like Mafia 3 and it feels straight out of the early 2000s when it comes to shooting mechanics and the inventory system. At least Sleeping Dogs brought fairly good fighting mechanics to the table.

Dues Ex HR/MD was fine because it wasn't obscenely large and the maps were not filled with repeated tasks. Sure there were side missions, but they all had a basic story, a variable approach and entirely different setup. Even the minor quests like finding some loot only to find yourself in a death trap setup for someone else was unique enough.

The problem is more and more games are falling victim to it. Mass Effect Andromeda has. The 2nd and 3rd game in the series could have been opened up but it didn't need to be filled with constant side mission pop ups. Ghost Recon under Ubi's watch is no longer like the original games, but it could have retained its shooter roots. Instead, they made it a mass open world of traveling back and fourth.

I'd love to see some games pull back and focus on the core gameplay. Imagine a first person shooter with Mirror's Edge level of control and perspective, mixed in with some fighting mechanics like in Sleeping Dogs. Would be a hell of a lot more interesting than another GTA/Mafia clone.



The recent Mirror's Edge is a good example indeed. It wasn't that bad because the same was still fairly brief, but so many of those "deliver this" and time trial missions! And they were very hard to, which made playing 90% of them not even worthwhile. Considering you do the same thing for the main mission it seemed overdone.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything. Just put a laser focus on the core gameplay, build a narrative around it, and the rest will flow. I think this is why Mass Effect 2 is so good. I've "only" put in around 15 hours in Andromeda so far and I'm already feeling burnt out after just completing one planet.
 
I'd prefer games focus on open-level design versus open-world. OW games are hard to do right (arguably, Rockstar is the best at them) and some game genres need more confined spaces. You'd think Ubisoft would be good at it, but they have a tendency to use a different engine for every game title so all of their releases are buggy or incomplete.

Games that have open-level design can allow the player to still be in control of the adventure while keeping to the narrative.

Take GR Wildlands for example. That game didn't need to be open world. It would have been better to spend the effort on actual AI and proper GR level design.
 
I agree with the title.

I'm not fond of open world games in general. I have a life, a wife and kids, a full time job -- and other things I like to do. I don't want to walk 5 minutes one way and then 5 minutes back to return a goat to the village shaman to advance the questline. (Witcher 3 I'm looking at you - and no I don't care how fantastic the graphics are --- if I'm going to walk somewhere that takes 5 minutes so I can look at game engine eye candy - I'd ACTUALLY rather walk 5 minutes outdoors).

The best game I've played recently was Wolfenstein New Order. I was late to the party but I really enjoyed the story line. There was only about 1 chapter of fluff in it (the submarine, swimming through the sewers chapter). The rest was all good storyline and it played quickly - like reading a good story.
I also enjoyed Shadow of Mordor - which was a bit more open world - but not overwhelming to me. Witcher 3 I just recently started playing --- I'm probably 1/2 through it now. I feel overwhelmed. I haven't played in a month or so. Every quest you try to do you get three more. You feel like you have to do them all or you'll miss something important. The quests are you unique and fun -- I don't find them boring --- but I don't want my gaming time to be like a second job. I would prefer a story single player be 6-8 hours at most. No fluff --- just great content and story. Move on to the next game --- let's wrap it up here folks. 40 year olds have responsibilities outside of games.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top