You must log in or register to comment.
Yes. Many. Stop playing Ubisoft checklist simulators.
AAA needs a bit of a reset and it looks like that’s what’s happening now.
Generally, good open world games have a lot more emergent content - situations that emerge from the interaction of agents and simple mechanics (in the style of how simple rules create complex outcomes in the “Game of Life”) - whilst good linear games have highly curated set-pieces scenarios which were created by level designers directly.
For an example of the former, imagine you’re running around the Game World looking for a special kind of plant to create a potion that you need. You come across a battle between bears and a bandit group. When they die their drops are free for the taking and both groups are too high level for you to take on your own. None of this was setup to happen when you crossed some trigger line, it literally just happened because those the entities in those groups are part of enemy “factions” and the patrol route of one group (a route which might itself be procedural rather than fixed) passed near enough the position of the encampment of the other.
This kind of thing randomly happen is just not something you get in linear games which are generally just set-pieces and even the ability to pull on group of high level enemies to another group has to be designed in (mainly by making the restricted game area big enough for it in that section and placing the groups in the right places).
This is also why in a linear game if you die and restart you get the same fights in the same places you had before up to the place were you died unless that section of the game was designed with enough alternate paths of mechanics (say, hide mechanics) that you can go around and avoid certain fights.
Emergent content is also why Multiplayer can be a lot of fun, though in this case the “agent” whose interactions can give rise to all sorts of situations are other players.
Emergent content is what I liked about loading a ton of Skyrim mods. Too bad it was also crashy as hell.
I’d like to start a new game but since I’m Linux only these days it makes it harder.
Oh hell yes.
I’m playing Horizon Zero Dawn Complete (it includes the DLC) and as soon as I got to Daytower, I ran into a guy named Ohtur who mentioned The Cut… I pivoted and headed up there and by sneaking around everything with higher stats than I had, (which was almost everything) I managed to find resources that got me a wickedly powerful weapon. Game changer. Literally.
Getting to any part of the map and find it’s hidden goodies is amazing.
Open world =/= giant map
Take resident evil games, Control, Batman. Some larger maps than others, but the key is open. Most of the map or level is available to you to explore how you like, with a linear story guiding you through as well, and then progression opens smaller locked areas and new levels.
Had to explain this to a friend when I called the original Deus Ex titles “open world” games. (It’s technically semi-open world but, meh, nuances)
It’s 100% Open World I’d argue. It was just ahead of it’s time
The Witcher 3. Linear as hell story, super fun open world. It was literally gwent simulator for me by the time I finished that game.
RDR2, GTA, Elder Scrolls, is this a shitpost?
Breath of the Wild.
Arguably Outer Wilds.
BotW is one of the most boring games ever. Zelda games were fun because of the linearity thanks to finding items that let you progress… And FUCK weapon degradation. What a terrible mechanic.
Oh look, another Korok Seed. How meaningful and rewarding and not complete bullshit or anything.
I think this is a difference between us as players. I’m not a competitionist at all, and I don’t even remember what economy the Korok seeds were for. I probably finished the game with a ton of them collected and unspent.
But in my mind they weren’t meant to be collected as a goal on their own. I’d be exploring up a mountain or whatever, just because I wanted to know what was on the other side, and when I got up to the peak I’d look out over the landscape and enjoy it for what it is. And then while I was up there I’d see a weird rock and go “ah, the developers wanted me to be up here looking at this view” and I’d move the rock, get some little fireworks, and then I’d have a buddy to enjoy the scenery with.
And then hours later, maybe months in real time, I’d be climbing around and see a Korok and go “Oh! I must have been up here before! Hey little guy” and then keep going.
So I liked them because it was something put there by the devs to show that they intended this place to be visited; that they put some attention here, and I had come to a place that wasn’t just endless grass or empty procedural trees or something. It was full of stuff, even if it was silly little guys.
Oh, and you can drop rocks on their heads and they go “oof”. That’s a good one.
Definitely a difference, because I am a completionist. Especially when it comes to Zelda games.
just because I wanted to know what was on the other side
The problem is that the answer is “nothing”. There’s nothing on the other side. Just more scenery, maybe a shrine or another Korok. The core gameplay loop is still just Zelda, so there’s nothing they can do to populate the world with meaningful things to find.
Right, I get that. But I wouldn’t consider the scenery nothing! I liked the scenery!
Yeah, I think that’s why open world games are so divisive. Some people want the game to reward them for doing the things they’re supposed to do, while some people just view playing the game itself as the reward, and just do what they want within it. The prior hates how difficult it is to find and get to the next objective in an open world, while the latter doesn’t need or sometimes even want objectives, preferring to just be in the world.
The old Zelda games were also open world.
Not really. The 2D ones at least. You literally can’t access areas until you’ve progressed by finding an item, usually by killing a boss in a dungeon. Its a fairly linear design actually.
There is some non-linearity in the 2D games. In the first game, you can do some of the dungeons out of order. For example, some people like to save dungeon 6 for last because it’s difficult. Some dungeons do require items from previous dungeons, but not every one.
A Link to The Past also has some nonlinearity in the same way. The dungeons in the dark world are numbered, but you can still do some of them out of order for the same reason as the first game.
Hmmm… I see what you to mean… but it’s in my top 5 games of all time, and none of the other Zelda games are. So I think it just shimmied into a different genre, which I get could be a problem for an existing fanbase that liked the old genre.
You’re spot on!
Breath of the Wild has to be the single worst example of an open world game. I am still mad it did not even have any cool dungeons whatsoever.
Breath of the wild. No dungeons.
GG on your base health/stamina finish I guess
They said cool dungeons, which I understand, BotW shrines all have the same visual style, same enemy types, they can be boring.
I loved BotW as it was… but to be honest if they offered more dungeons without changing the exploring part, I would have taken that on top, for sure.
I did hate Tears of the Kingdom, though, so I guess it’s a delicate balance that just happened to land in my hitbox on BotW.
…this is greentext so…yes, obviously
The problem is not “open world” but “the ubisoft game”. New region, find watchtower, reveal map, do 1 quest, attack enemy camp, liberate area, new area, find watchtower, …
Most open worlds are also just way to big. GTA San Andreas felt huge but is tiny compared to V. And it was better for it. Modern open worlds never have a hub. A place that you actually build a relationship with and see change over the course of the game. Its always: area completed, next!
I love a good hub, especially when it actually changes and grows
Yeah San Andreas was the open world game I was thinking of too, with the expanding of your crime syndicate. It’s pretty much the only game I’ve played that implements an open world properly and I’ve been chasing that since then. Fallout 4 maybe, but building settlements or forts didn’t have real impact. Diablo IV is way too driven to rush through and get to the endgame.
I think you really need to design it to be more of a simulation game that reacts to player actions and with a story inserted, not as a “feature” to check off. And a distinct goal or win condition for playing the open world.
If every place/area only serves one purpose then the game should be linear. Some of my favourite games are the old Gothic and Gothic 2 RPGs. They are open world, but tiny compared to modern RPGs. They dont have “areas” with a set difficulty that you can complete and then move on, instead the map is like a skeleton of fairly save roads and settlements and the further you go away from the roads the harder it gets. So you see the whole map in the first chapter but have explored very little of it. You always return to the same areas and they feel like home. And every chapter of the story adds new enemies, quests and events to all areas of the game. All of it is hand picked. No “radient quests” to trick you into going to an completed dungeon again, no random encounters on the roads to make travel through the world feel less empty…
IMO, they have the best open worlds I have ever seen. The studios follow up open world games (Gothic 3, elex 1&2) fell flat because they tried to be huge as well and felt empty as a result.
Working with constraints does actually produce gems. Fallout, farcry, GTA, skyrim just throw billions of dollars at a project to make it huge. But everything there is is just a set piece to be looked at once and be discarded …
Gothic does sound awesome especially with the Gothic 1 Remake.
Being able to fuck around can be fun. A linear Elder Scrolls (morrowind, oblivion, skyrim) would be boring
GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas. Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 (yes), New Vegas. Elden Ring. Subnautica.
Try making San Andreas linear and you would instantly destroy one of the best games ever made.
On the other hand later GTAs didn’t embrace the open worlds for which the series is known. Once you start a mission the games turn extremely linear without giving the player options.
Very true! I remember in GTA3, some missions could be done in different ways, if you already knew what would happen.
OTOH, just drifting along the map and running into a total stranger who feels perfectly safe in trusting you to escort his daughter or something is kinda meh.
I like open-world, but procedural anything, not so much.
Minecraft made a bajillion dollars.
I pretty much always prefer open world, or at least something interconnected like a Metroidvania. Linear makes me feel like my back is against the wall.
You missed a collectable 4 missions ago? I guess I’ll see you in New Game+
Missables are the bane of my existence.
Yes? Completing objectives in the order I feel like at the time can absolutely be a better experience than a forced sequence of objectives that are misaligned with how I feel at the moment.
Elden Ring did it very well.
I’ll have to agree with this statement.
However, it recently has come to my attention that, unfortunately, the abundance of land between each settlement and the hereby caused long travel times have significantly lowered the property values in regions that have not yet been attached to the Gold Road Transport Enterprises® public transit network.
Unhappy with this status quo, the city council of Liurnia under mayor Boggart reached out to me.
In cooperation with the “Multifunctional Anti-Gravity Intelligent Carriages” research team at the Academy of Raya Lucaria, we have developed plans for a fleet of self-driving, hovering vehicles which will provide a convenient and reliable way of commute around the wetlands, with the central station soon joining the GoldRoad network.
Totally free of charge and non-invasive to the habitat of all local swamp life, this project will be realized by the FIERY GIANT Construction & Regenerative Energy Crucible Technologies LLC.
Death Stranding / Elden Ring cross over?
count me in.
I’ll try to bribe Kojima with exclusive Malenia
feetfoot pics, understood!(The research on limb replacement at the Stormveil Medical Center is currently halted following an investigation into ethical concerns regarding the origin of grafting materials, during which a serious breach of the hygiene protocol caused by the decomposing body of a dead demigod that recently lost its immortality was discovered in the building complex’s basement facilities. Our department of divine biohazard containment is scrambling to minimize the ecological damage, describing phenomena like crabs suddenly turning goth or swamp lobsters gathering around a death metal festival music stage.
As soon as these issues are addressed, research is bound to continue and treatments will be approved for the social healthcare program.)
eh, too many repeated bosses
When progression is properly controlled such as in fallout: new vegas or hollow knight, then a larger map can do wonders
I wouldn’t put Metroidvanias (with large maps, back tracking, ability gating and flexibility in which area to go to next) alongside other open world adventure games (like GTA, Witcher, Breath of the Wild, etc). I love Metroidvanias and linear games, but I wouldn’t touch open world adventure RPGs with a 10 foot pole.
That’s what I’m saying. The only open world games that truly utilise their worlds are ones that first close it off
The benefit is the experience. The difference in experiences comes down to the level design. Are you in a maze or in a field?
The best game designs masks this in both scenarios.
The well designed linear game doesn’t always feel like a maze, and has sections that feel like fields between mazes.
The well designed open world game contains mazes that you discover in a field that feels roped off into clearly defined sections that differ from each other and contain large landmarks to orient and draw you in.
Both feel bad if they don’t include (at least the illusion of) the other. A linear game is boring without any choice. An open world game is boring without linear moments.
I mean like, compare a … hub and spokes style immersive sim game, to any given open world game.
With an ImSim, you often get planted into an area, with a single or multiple main quests, and a whole bunch of essentially discoverable sidequests… and, when done well, those optional sidequests significantly affect how the main quests play out, and may give you different options for how to approach or conclude those main quests.
Then, onto the next hub/spoke section.
ImSims are not typically associated with literal huge open spaces… but the spaces they do have tend to be well interwoven.
There are often entirely optional, missable ‘sidequests and submazes’, basically, even in a typically smaller amount of literal space.
But also, they’re not strictly linear in the way of like … an FPS campaign/single player mode usually is. Sure you can have the literal levels be maze like, but typically/traditionally, theres usually only one entrance and exit, and the specifics of what you did in any given maze don’t really impact the next maze beyond your weapon and ammo count and health maybe carrying over.
ImSims open up the conceptual field of a given linear sequence of levels, by allowing totally different play styles to yield signifcantly different experiences, and often the additional mechanics they do this with are more than just combat… social and exploratory play can be rewarded or punished by altering the narrative itself.
Cyberpunk 2077.
I like the linear missions, but just exploring the open world and discovering things naturally is fun too. I think they could have done more with that, and it definitely feels like the game was way more linear in early development, but with all the updates CDPR managed to make something pretty cool IMO.
You might like the Dark Future mod, its roughly the equivalent of New Vegas’ hardcore/jsawyer mode.
I would definitely say Gothic 1 and 2. Cannot imagine the games being better without it.