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.

 

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

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

 

Great! Keep them coming.

 

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.

 

In terms of development, or consumer level presentation?

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.