Open-world gaming, the new trend?

[Deleted_171835]

- The Witcher 3
- Dead Rising 3
- The Crew
- Dying Light
- Dragon Age
- FF XV
- Infamous
- Mad Max
- MGS V
- Watch Dogs
- The Division
- Need for Speed: Rivals
- Monolith Soft's 'X'
- Mirror's Edge 2

thoughts?

 

[nryn99]

This sounds fun. I like open-world since I've spent a lot of time in MMORPGs.
Open world gaming is better with mupltiplayer and lots of content.

 

[Ethevion]

I don't mind it. The Crew, FF XV, MGS V, and X are all appealing to me. The crew is especially appealing because it's open world.

 

[weavile001]

wait, The Witcher 3 is Open World?
FACK YEA!

i think the open world makes you explore more places out of order, obviously.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't really see it as a new trend, rather new nomenclature. Sandbox games are nothing new, really.

 

[GameWinner]

Great! Keep them coming.

 

[stomp_442]

not a big fan of rail shooters, much rather have open world.

 

[Sterling]

I'm definitely a fan of open world games. It's the natural evolution of gaming. Before you could only fit so much narrative in a linear plot. Now you can fit a more encompassing world with many different peoples and histories. To the player it's just like reading a choose your own adventure book, and it's much more rewarding to go out and learn about an immersive world without any real worries (ie don't have to follow the main quest if you don't want to). Sandboxing is an amazing way of getting the player to feel the grandness of the world.

 

[air2004]

Open world does have it's difficulties ....

 

[Sterling]

Open world does have it's difficulties ....

In terms of development, or consumer level presentation?

 

[Pedeadstrian]

Open world = more freedom and choices. It's great. Especially when there's no stupid, invisible walls.

 

[Gahars]

I certainly like a good open world game, but it has its fair share of problems. It's incredibly difficult to create open worlds that feel like they'e alive; most just feel like hollow, lifeless expanses. It becomes an albatross around the game's neck, an annoying slog that needlessly drags out the experience. Open worlds can also make it all the more difficult to maintain the cohesiveness, direction, and pacing of a story in check.

"Linear" is all too often thrown around as a dirty word, and I think that's a mistake. It isn't less advanced or interesting than the (sometimes hollow) freedom an open world provides. Would The Walking Dead or Spec Ops: The Line's stories have been improved if you had to wander around between important scenes? I don't think so.

If developers can create meaningful open worlds, more power to them. If they're arbitrarily expanding the map size because that's the hip thing to do, however, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Sterling]

I certainly like a good open world game, but it has its fair share of problems. It's incredibly difficult to create open worlds that feel like alive; most just feel like hollow, lifeless expanses. It becomes an albatross around the game's neck, an annoying slog that needlessly drags out the experience. Open worlds can also make it all the more difficult to maintain the cohesiveness, direction, and pacing of a story in check.

"Linear" is all too often thrown around as a dirty word, and I think that's a mistake. It isn't less advanced or interesting than the (sometimes hollow) freedom an open world provides. Would The Walking Dead or Spec Ops: The Line's stories have been improved if you had to wander around between important scenes? I don't think so.

If developers can create meaningful open worlds, more power to them. If they're arbitrarily expanding the map size because that's the hip thing to do, however, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot.

It is a dirty word in my mind. The model that has worked fine for so long has lost its luster. The lack of lively world mechanics is not a product of poor design, but a physical limitation. You're only given so much to work with. Only so much memory to cram words, textures and personalities into the scene.

 

[IBNobody]

I certainly like a good open world game, but it has its fair share of problems. It's incredibly difficult to create open worlds that feel like alive; most just feel like hollow, lifeless expanses. It becomes an albatross around the game's neck, an annoying slog that needlessly drags out the experience. Open worlds can also make it all the more difficult to maintain the cohesiveness, direction, and pacing of a story in check.

"Linear" is all too often thrown around as a dirty word, and I think that's a mistake. It isn't less advanced or interesting than the (sometimes hollow) freedom an open world provides. Would The Walking Dead or Spec Ops: The Line's stories have been improved if you had to wander around between important scenes? I don't think so.

If developers can create meaningful open worlds, more power to them. If they're arbitrarily expanding the map size because that's the hip thing to do, however, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot.

I agree 100%. I'll take a linear game with a good story over an open world any day. As you said, open worlds dilute the storyline.

They also often penalize you for not exploring every nook and cranny, and they tend to do it more than closed world games. Because I didn't talk to a specific NPC in a remote area at exactly 7:49 AM, I miss out on a huge quest arc, an uber-powerful item, or a key recruit. The completionist in me groans whenever this happens.

 

[Gahars]

It is a dirty word in my mind. The model that has worked fine for so long has lost its luster.

Again, I wouldn't say that. Linearity isn't just a gameplay model - it's a narrative choice, a choice of scope. If you want a tight, concise story, for example, an open world is a needless distraction.

Just because we can have games with wide, expansive worlds doesn't mean every game should.

The lack of lively world mechanics is not a product of poor design, but a physical limitation. You're only given so much to work with. Only so much memory to cram words, textures and personalities into the scene.

Not necessarily. Those limitations can have an impact, sure, but they're not the end all, be all. You can work within your limitations and still deliver a world that's still fun to engage in. An open world doesn't have to look lifelike to feel alive .

Rockstar, for example, is a developer that understands this. Even the PS2 GTA games offered cities with personality and flavor, filled to the brim with fun activities to engage in. Hell, some of my best memories from the games were just parking in a quiet section of the city and listening to the radio.

 

[Sterling]

Again, I wouldn't say that. Linearity isn't just a gameplay model - it's a narrative choice, a choice of scope. If you want a tight, concise story, for example, an open world is a needless distraction.

Just because we can have games with wide, expansive worlds doesn't mean every game should.




Not necessarily. Those limitations can have an impact, sure, but they're not the end all, be all. You can work within your limitations and still deliver a world that's still fun to engage in. An open world doesn't have to look lifelike to feel alive .

Rockstar, for example, is a developer that understands this. Even the PS2 GTA games offered cities with personality and flavor, filled to the brim with fun activities to engage in. Hell, some of my best memories from the games were just parking in a quiet section of the city and listening to the radio.

I see your point. Perhaps this is just me then. I think I've been addicted to getting as much out of my games as an MMO. Spending a lot of money on a game that will last me ten hours at most seems like a waste compared to the games that give me two hundred or more. Linear is just a turn off at this point since the key word to me is 'replayability'.

 

[Gahars]

I see your point. Perhaps this is just me then. I think I've been addicted to getting as much out of my games as an MMO. Spending a lot of money on a game that will last me ten hours at most seems like a waste compared to the games that give me two hundred or more. Linear is just a turn off at this point since the key word to me is 'replayability'.

I get what you're saying; I get wanting to get the most bang for your buck. Still, I'd personally prefer a shorter but meaningful experience (like Spec Ops or TWD, as I mentioned before - both are around 10 hours or so, but man, what an amazing 10 hours) than a game that's needlessly padded out.

 

[BORTZ]

I usually have pretty big problems with "open world" games. I tend to get lost, miss things, or bored in open world enviroments. Because like Gahars said, most of them feel hollow. I do no like games that make me run from A to B to do something that has little bearing on the story. Or advancing the gameplay.

Most of the time when i see the "open world" invite, i usually tend to file that under "do not play"

 

[The Catboy]

Old trend is old. The last generation you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting an open-world game.
It's not a bad thing though since they are really fun, but my only gripe about them is that I rarely ever finish one. Which kinda makes them feel less rewarding. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I thought this E3 was Year of the Car.

Literally every conference showed a realistic car racing game minus Nintendo (which technically was a Nintendo Direct and not a conference so I'll keep my record).

Not just car racers, but like people getting grotesquely into the details of cars. Like basically blowing their load over the fiber in the seats.