Ghost of Tsushima

[PeteWorrell]

Ive seen a few reviews and it seems like my prediction was correct, it's a solid game but it's another Ubisoft style focus grouped open world game where you clear map markers

Wish devs would either find a new way to create content and or just cut that stuff altogether.

That has just become the go-to strategy in the industry to try and hide the fact that they make big maps that are actually very empty and dead. I would much rather have smaller maps like in the Yakuza games that are alive and filled with content instead of gigantic and lifeless worlds. It just makes them glorified Hyrule Fields from Ocarina of Time a game that is over 20 years old at this point and was mostly used as a demo in the early 3D era.

 

[Albatros]

I would much rather have smaller maps like in the Yakuza games that are alive and filled with content instead of gigantic and lifeless worlds.

Not that I disagree, but they've used the same map or two with very little variation in most of their games. One would expect that when you do add other miniature maps like in Yakuza 5 they would at least be made with sufficient care, but instead they managed to create miniature lifeless worlds.

 

[tealhockey]

That has just become the go-to strategy in the industry to try and hide the fact that they make big maps that are actually very empty and dead. I would much rather have smaller maps like in the Yakuza games that are alive and filled with content instead of gigantic and lifeless worlds. It just makes them glorified Hyrule Fields from Ocarina of Time a game that is over 20 years old at this point and was mostly used as a demo in the early 3D era.

Yeah, totally. I think it has to be so much easier to make these big maps where there isn't much depth at all, whereas making a city that is engaging and interesting has to take a lot of time and thought. In persona 5 where you can basically go in every building to find something at least quasi-unique but the city/locales are much smaller than open world equivalents, I find that so much more interesting. I want to see how cyberpunk hits that balance

 

[Static]

I just don't understand why games haven't straight up copied BOTW's open world design. Let players discover things on their own.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I just don't understand why games haven't straight up copied BOTW's open world design. Let players discover things on their own.

Because it’s too much, sometimes. I don’t always want to have to explore an entire video game world. Sometimes, even most of the time, I’d rather experience a linear story the game dev’s lay out for me.

Exploratory games can be awesome, but they can also be tedious, boring, and time-consuming.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

better or worse than Sekiro?

 

[Static]

Because it’s too much, sometimes. I don’t always want to have to explore an entire video game world. Sometimes, even most of the time, I’d rather experience a linear story the game dev’s lay out for me.

Exploratory games can be awesome, but they can also be tedious, boring, and time-consuming.

The Ubisoft way has also become tedious, boring, and time consuming though. The million icons on a map is just played out. Even if teams don't go full BOTW, they need to do something different than that.

 

[Static]

better or worse than Sekiro?

Completely different game. Sekiro is all about combat and I wouldn't call it an open world game even if it has several branching paths.

Sekiro had much more critical acclaim than ghost as well.

 

[RandV]

Because it’s too much, sometimes. I don’t always want to have to explore an entire video game world. Sometimes, even most of the time, I’d rather experience a linear story the game dev’s lay out for me.

Exploratory games can be awesome, but they can also be tedious, boring, and time-consuming.

Kind of an odd stance to take. There are plenty of linear games to be had, plenty of open world games that pretty much all follow the same Ubisoft/map marker style, and then there's BotW as kind of it's own thing.

This happens because Nintendo is just going to Nintendo, while every other big dev are going to focus group test their games to appeal to the largest base but then they all kind of end up being the same because rather than having a broad degree of artistic freedom you get a list of checkboxes from marketing they need to fulfill. Or however that goes.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Kind of an odd stance to take. There are plenty of linear games to be had, plenty of open world games that pretty much all follow the same Ubisoft/map marker style, and then there's BotW as kind of it's own thing.

This happens because Nintendo is just going to Nintendo, while every other big dev are going to focus group test their games to appeal to the largest base but then they all kind of end up being the same because rather than having a broad degree of artistic freedom you get a list of checkboxes from marketing they need to fulfill. Or however that goes.

1) list out some recent examples of linear AAA games please

2) both the Far Cry series and BOTW are open world, exploratory, crafting, huge map, go at your own pace, type games. They’re not all that different. Ninetendo just did it 10x better than Ubisoft

 

[Do Make Say Think]

better or worse than Sekiro?

Very different games.

I'd be surprised if this has the lasting appeal Sekiro has. Sounds like Ghost of Tsushima is a very well made, very common open world game: it is a crowded field and Ghost's strengths seem to be its presentation.

That being said, I wish I still had my PS4 cause I love samuraï movies so I'd love to give this game a whirl.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

1) list out some recent examples of linear AAA games please

2) both the Far Cry series and BOTW are open world, exploratory, crafting, huge map, go at your own pace, type games. They’re not all that different. Ninetendo just did it 10x better than Ubisoft

These are all more or less the same thing. So we have open world and crafting as similarities.

 

[Mikeaveli]

BOTW literally has you climbing towers to reveal your map and mark shrines on it. You have a minimap with quest markers. It's not all that different from a standard modern open world game. I also found that the exploration was the only fun part of the game and most of what you find while exploring are more tedious shrines or useless korok seeds. Good game but overrated.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

BOTW literally has you climbing towers to reveal your map and mark shrines on it. You have a minimap with quest markers. It's not all that different from a standard modern open world game. I also found that the exploration was the only fun part of the game and most of what you find while exploring are more tedious shrines or useless korok seeds. Good game but overrated.

BOTW's towers reveal the topographical map of the area you can see from the tower. Ubisoft games make you beat a tower so they can fill in your map with "things to do." The point of exploring the world in Zelda is to get to a high point and find places to go. Tower often= the highest point in an area.

And how are the shrines tedious? They are like the best part of the game.

 

[robertmac43]

And how are the shrines tedious? They are like the best part of the game.

So much variety in them as well. Personally I loved the Shrine aspect of the game.

 

[Commander Clueless]

And how are the shrines tedious? They are like the best part of the game.

I agree with this.

BOTW wasn't my cup of tea, but the shrines were pretty awesome IMO.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

The reviews all seem to basically be overwhelmingly positive.

 

[Mikeaveli]

BOTW's towers reveal the topographical map of the area you can see from the tower. Ubisoft games make you beat a tower so they can fill in your map with "things to do." The point of exploring the world in Zelda is to get to a high point and find places to go. Tower often= the highest point in an area.

I still don't see how it is that different. You climb to the top of the tower and mark the shrines on your map yourself instead of the game automatically doing it. Also you actually summed up my problem with the game right there. The point of exploring the world is to find other places to explore. In other words, the act of exploring itself is what makes the game good and what you are actually finding is meaningless.

And how are the shrines tedious? They are like the best part of the game.

There are 120 of them. They all have the exact same visual style. They all fall into four distinct categories (puzzle, combat, annoying motion control puzzle, or a free shrine). So essentially two categories. I don't know how anyone can say the shrines have variety when you have to fight the same guardian robot like 20 times in separate shrines. The puzzles are easy and not nearly as interesting as the proper dungeon puzzles in past Zelda games. The combat is a joke after you realize you can pause and instantly heal to full health at any moment. I never once got excited when finding a shrine during my playthrough, instead wanting it to be over quickly so I could get back to looking around the beautiful open world.

But let's not derail this thread too far. Lol

 

[Shareefruck]

The idea that linear is treated like an inherent flaw is ridiculous. Strong design is strong design, and the ability to go and do whatever you want wherever you want is a completely superficial novelty that comes at the expense of focus and creative direction. First and foremost, I want to appreciate a creative's finely honed vision, not play around aimlessly in some stupid sandbox. Operation within specific and carefully thought out restrictions and limitations are what makes game design and storytelling satisfying in the first place.

 

[Commander Clueless]

The idea that linear is treated like an inherent flaw is ridiculous. Strong design is strong design, and the ability to go and do whatever you want wherever you want is a completely superficial novelty that comes at the expense of focus and creative direction. First and foremost, I want to appreciate a creative's finely honed vision, not play around aimlessly in some stupid sandbox. Operation within specific and carefully thought out restrictions and limitations are what makes game design and storytelling satisfying in the first place.

I very much agree with you, but I can't help but wonder if that's more indicative of creative bankruptcy in open worlds than a problem with the open world mechanic itself.

 

[Shareefruck]

I very much agree with you, but I can't help but wonder if that's more indicative of creative bankruptcy in open worlds than a problem with the open world mechanic itself.

I think that hypothetically, given limitless resources, open world games can be just as creative and well designed as linear games can. However, it a) takes such a gargantuan effort just to create the superficially novel side of it and b) introduces so many moving pieces, complications, and variables into the equation that a) making all of it well designed would be somewhat unmanageable and unrealistic and b) companies are unlikely to have enough time and resources left to worry about that anyways.

While it's not impossible, I think that open-world games are fundamentally unlikely to be done as well in comparison to linear games-- they're working at a massive disadvantage/inefficiency that makes creatively bankrupt efforts the reasonable norm, I think.

It's weirdly the same principle as what allows indie developers to make games that are just as good if not better than AAA games by simplifying their approach and focusing on just the non-superficial elements that actually matter.

 

[542365]

Looks very pretty, but the gameplay doesn’t look like my cup of tea. I’ll probably play it at some point, though.

 

[Fantomas]

I like open world games set in urban environments, because they are dense. There's a lot to do. GTA, even the last Spider-man. A lot of fun.

But open world games with a lot of plains and forests and shit put me to sleep. I know I'm in the minority on this.

 

[Static]

The idea that linear is treated like an inherent flaw is ridiculous. Strong design is strong design, and the ability to go and do whatever you want wherever you want is a completely superficial novelty that comes at the expense of focus and creative direction. First and foremost, I want to appreciate a creative's finely honed vision, not play around aimlessly in some stupid sandbox. Operation within specific and carefully thought out restrictions and limitations are what makes game design and storytelling satisfying in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Player choice can just as easily be integral to both story and design structure rather than a superficial novelty. What you are saying is just as dismissive as the argument that linear games are worse because they are linear.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't agree with this at all. Player choice can just as easily be integral to both story and design structure rather than a superficial novelty. What you are saying is just as dismissive as the argument that linear games are worse because they are linear.

I agree, but player choice and a completely open world are two very different concepts. Providing a carefully considered set of options and paths can be valuable (especially when it's still closed enough to not compromise creative direction, and still manageable/small enough to allow the creator to consider and fine-tune and streamline the possible outcomes--- like with Metroidvanias for example), but total freedom to do anything in any way at any time isn't, IMO. That degree of sand-boxy/immersive freedom (in an almost VR simulation kind of way) is pure novelty in my opinion.