Open world - wearing me out

Archaea said:
I agree with the title.

I'm not fond of open world games in general. I have a life, a job, kids, 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).

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.
Click to expand...


Agreed with Wolfenstein. The story wasn't excellent and cheesy (that was their intention though) , but it was certainly good enough to carry the game. I found the gameplay in that game to be fairly good as well. And the levels were nice and varied. Going from what was war torn areas from WWII, to submarines, to space to a giant castle at the end. It kept the game from getting stale. IMO it was far better than Doom. Excellent length to at around 15 hours if I recall.

I don't mind longer games as long as they are focused within reason (Mass Effect 1-3). 20-26 hours is a great length. I don't mind games stretching further, but often times it does get hard to find the time to finish them.
 
I think one issue with open world games tends to be that they demand a lot of dedication. If you don't have the time (or just skip straight to the core plotline) you miss almost all of the content. You can complete a lot of open world games and not even see 1/4 of the actual game. Sometimes far, far less than that. Depending on the game, that's often "the good stuff." Other times you do all of the side stuff only to discover that you wasted hundreds of hours experiencing the same things over and over. FOMO.
There's a time and a place for an open world, but I'm kinda over every developer acting like everyone wants to dump 50-100 hours into their fetch quests and giant empty map. There are a lot of games that would benefit from a laser-focused 8-15 hour journey to achieve a far greater impact. You have an opportunity to see the entire scope of a game with no hoops to jump through and no wandering aimlessly just for the sake of tacking on hours of gameplay.
 
I don't mind an open world game that includes a linear story-line that you can finish first, then do side-quests later if you're still interested... games that force you to deal with "filler" are the ones that annoy me
 
I feel the same as the OP. Even TW3, which could have been a wonderful game had it not been open world, is full of fetch quests that completely distract from otherwise a good game.
 
It almost feels like they're doing it because they can and people have the hardware to support rendering massive landscapes, we just have to wait for the next flavor to come along I guess, whatever that may be.
 
Gotta agree. Good example for me right now is Ghost Recon Wildlands. There are so many things I like about that game, but fucking fuck man I am sick and tired of traveling GTA style to everything I need to do. There is no reason why even a game like there where it's built like a sandbox can be more linear and still give you freedom on how to tackle your objectives. Not to mention that things like weapons parts, and new unlocks are just fucking scattered all over the place as if the god of the game world just did 52 card pickup of everything you can unlock in the game and scattered everything to the wind for you to go fetch.
 
Libertad said:
It almost feels like they're doing it because they can and people have the hardware to support rendering massive landscapes, we just have to wait for the next flavor to come along I guess, whatever that may be.
Click to expand...

I would like to see an Elder Scrolls VI, rendered in Frostbite engine.
 
I'd also love to see them do a smaller open world but with much more detail. Even a .1mile square city or neighborhood that you can go into every building and every drawer, interact with every objects... fully interactable including ability to punch through walls and mow down buildings with a forklift... dig down into the earth and push the rubble into it, etc...
 
I love open world games!

Thanks op for the list, I should look into some of these.
 
I find it very good to let the player freedom. You can explore, search, get out of the story when you want. The scenarios all directed are not for me.
 
I like open world shooters like Arma, Player Unknown Battlegrounds, Miscreated, NewZ Infestation, Day Z but single player is a no no, the same tediously poor AI drives me nuts.
 
Tricky one. Sometimes feel the same as you did re: Doom etc.

No Mans Sky is the ultimate 'open world' for me and have tried many of the usual ones. Fills that niche so well I'm waiting for VR FO4 to even try FO4 - damn TES/FO needs a major engine overhaul though.

These days I almost get more out of indie games than AAs really. E.g. Antichamber, New N'Tasty (new Abes Oddysee) etc.
Check out Syria Warfare. Destructible buildings and really realistic to what I've seen in Syria over the years. Pretty well reviewed for an indie game.
 
I love open world games, tired of the corridor shit. Games IMO have to be designed well and better to work with open world. There are a few types, where sections are blocked until x event/level, where the entire world levels with you, or only you/your equipment levels for greater challenges. It gives much more play value. If your issue is with grinding/play required, well, I have done tons of FPS that have had between 6 to 20 hours of content. I mean if that is what you like, cool, but seems like a waste to spend $50 for only a few hours of play.
 
Games can be great and linear at the same time.

Couldn't get into Mafia 3 or Mass Effect: Andromeda, maybe I could have if they weren't open world.

I get it OP, I get it.
 
jiminator said:
I love open world games, tired of the corridor shit. Games IMO have to be designed well and better to work with open world. There are a few types, where sections are blocked until x event/level, where the entire world levels with you, or only you/your equipment levels for greater challenges. It gives much more play value. If your issue is with grinding/play required, well, I have done tons of FPS that have had between 6 to 20 hours of content. I mean if that is what you like, cool, but seems like a waste to spend $50 for only a few hours of play.
Click to expand...

I definitely don't want to go back to 2005 when the market was rife with 6-hour long, primrose-path rail shooters where you felt like you were playing a glorified balloon-pop carnival game. A good game is a good game regardless of the genre/mechanics, but there was a time when you only had a few options if you wanted to play an open world game.
 
A game i finished recently which i thought i would hate was Metro 2033 (the first one).

I initially thought for a fairly linear game it was overwhelming. Then i gave it a second try
and it really wasn't.
 
If you don't like open world games then don't buy them. Personally, I prefer open world and don't like linear games.
 
jiminator said:
I love open world games, tired of the corridor shit. Games IMO have to be designed well and better to work with open world. There are a few types, where sections are blocked until x event/level, where the entire world levels with you, or only you/your equipment levels for greater challenges. It gives much more play value. If your issue is with grinding/play required, well, I have done tons of FPS that have had between 6 to 20 hours of content. I mean if that is what you like, cool, but seems like a waste to spend $50 for only a few hours of play.
Click to expand...

Quality over quantity. Most games have been becoming longer without making the changes needed to keep the game fresh. Only so many times you can go to outpost after outpost, hold down the trigger while wiping out enemies, only for them to respawn 5 minutes later. Or drive somewhere, run across 4 outposts, 2 puzzles, 3 of the same mini games you've already done 20 times, only to come to an area, press E to deliver/pickup something... while killing a bunch of enemies the same way. Only to drive back and rinse repeat.

The original Mass Effect compared to Andromeda is an excellent example. In ME:A's case, the extra content hurts the game. You forget the context of the mission due to the length of the game, getting distracted but a bunch of other not so interesting side quests, and extra outposts puzzle things litter the environment which really hurt the story. Minor spoiler:
To likely fill an hour/length requirement, the first planet you settle ends up having a massive hostile alien presence. Outposts and massive structures just behind your settlement with no real purpose other than to make drives to quests take longer. But you can't help but think why the hell didn't you notice these from orbit before landing? How can you not miss the massive towering structures within driving distance? It kills immersion. And while the game is fun enough, the combat really isn't that stellar. Driving around and clearing out camp after camp, time and time again, just isn't fun without context or purpose.
 
ok, the "capture base" model has been overly abused by the far cry franchise. so yeah, that is tiresome but there are better open world models. the gothic series comes to mind.
 
jiminator said:
ok, the "capture base" model has been overly abused by the far cry franchise. so yeah, that is tiresome but there are better open world models. the gothic series comes to mind.
Click to expand...

My problem is 80% or more of these open world games devolve into that. The issue is when you make game series that were not intended for it (Mass Effect, Mirror's Edge, ect.) which results in a watered down experience. It worked fine in Far Cry 3/4, because the stories were not central and they were enough unique mechanics to make the camps have varying combinations and methods to take them down.

I'll be honest, I can't think of a single open world game that I've played in years that has not followed the Assassin's Creed/Far Cry model. Fallout series and STALKER is the only ones that come to mind. Although Fallout has a weak story and the 1st and 2nd STALKER game did have some fetch quests, they were minimal. CoP was nice in that most of the missions were unique and there were no liberation camps/areas. Sure, enemies would concentrate around certain areas. But for the most part, each point of interest was a unique structure with unique problems to tackle.
 
w35t said:
Games can be great and linear at the same time.

Couldn't get into Mafia 3 or Mass Effect: Andromeda, maybe I could have if they weren't open world.

I get it OP, I get it.
Click to expand...
Mafia 3 is open world in the loosest of terms.
 
I'm pretty picky with games period but recently have fallen in love with Bloodborne, Horizon and Nier... Everything else pretty much pales in comparison to me now. Who has that kind it time anyway ? To break up the open worldness I played the first uncharted recently. Talk about no brains involved !
 
I like most types of games. I can play open or tightly scripted, or old-style simple objective games too. I think the trick is, to play the style you want to play at the right time. Games are still made with linear progression. Good ones. Wolfenstein and Doom come to mind in recent years. There are tons of indie games if you know how to pick them. Play an old favorite in between. When you're all "storied out" then play something open world. Another suggestion I have is "play" an open world game incorrectly sometimes. I just hop into GTA once in a while, mess with things, then hop out. Another thing I'd suggest is to play an open world game slowly. Play it a bit, maybe do one objective/quest + some messing around or grinding or something, then quit for a bit. It's not like you'll lose your place. Just talk to another NPC, grab an objective, and head out. Then play something else for a bit. Play a Mario game, or Tetris to cleanse your mental palette. :D

I agree though, too many open world games at a time can kinda grate on you after a while. It's kind of like looking at your gaming backlog, spending more time trying to figure out what to play than actually playing. :D
 
Factum said:
I'd rather have an open world...that a lame console-port "movie"...holdning my hand and spoon-feeding me...
Click to expand...

Great post...

I love them both.

Some games are designed to tell fantastic, finite stories & I love them.

Some games are designed to give players a few major tasks + secondary busy work & tertiary / menial tasks & they tell mediocre stories.

I love those too.
 
Factum said:
I'd rather have an open world...that a lame console-port "movie"...holdning my hand and spoon-feeding me...
Click to expand...

That's not really a console versus computer thing. There are games on both that are like this, games on both that are open world, games on both that are intricate, twisting stories that you uncover as you go, and just about every platform has a storyless arcade game or two. Control methods and customization and engine menus are what are different between platforms. Games are games.

If you don't like a spoon fed game (say a Square JRPG for example) and then you play one anyway, of course you're not going to enjoy it. Some people like that though.

Personally, I like games. Like I said before, the trick is learning to play the game that you're actually in the mood for.
 
IcePickFreak said:
Mafia 3 is open world in the loosest of terms.
Click to expand...

Honestly didn't really play it. My point is that story driven narratives might be better off in a linear setting. Jumping around and doing random this and thats might derail an otherwise solid story-line.

I think if the main focus of a game is THE STORY, it should play out in order, maybe give the player some options on the direction of the plot but keep the game focused.

If we're in an open world environment then keep the story part secondary, focus on exploration, scenery, building (destroying?)... idk, stuff like that, make the game about THE WORLD you're in, not characters, drama and the like.
 
w35t said:
Honestly didn't really play it. My point is that story driven narratives might be better off in a linear setting. Jumping around and doing random this and thats might derail an otherwise solid story-line.

I think if the main focus of a game is THE STORY, it should play out in order, maybe give the player some options on the direction of the plot but keep the game focused.

If we're in an open world environment then keep the story part secondary, focus on exploration, scenery, building (destroying?)... idk, stuff like that, make the game about THE WORLD you're in, not characters, drama and the like.
Click to expand...

Mafia 3 is the candidate to point out how formulaic open world games have become. Everything in the game is designed around core "open world" gameplay mechanics, with the theme shoved right into it. Games should be developed around their setting, and this may mean tweaking how things work. Mafia 3 didn't do this and it shows. Just call in an ammo truck or reinforcements. The main character, talks aloud to himself, and someone your allies can magically hear you. This game takes place in the 1960s, well before cell phones existed. Just pulled it straight from GTA and other generic open world games. And it just stands out. It looks ridiculous. Not the worse game ever made, but certainly very plain and lacking its own identity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top