Open World Question!

[SniperHF]

So "open world" has been a hot design trend for 5 years or maybe a bit longer going back to Skyrim. Series that were previously not open world are now being designed that way. New IPs are more likely to be so.


I've never considered "open world" a design merit on its face. It can be done well or not and isn't always called for. But it's used as a marketing point to a large degree these days so someone must find it an inherent point of interest.


If you first heard about a game and one of the ways it was described was having an "open world" are you more likely to be interested in it?

Click to read more...

 

[Osprey]

I'm more interested. Open world implies freedom... the freedom to go where you want and when you want, do what you want and tackle problems in the way that you want. I like having freedom. When mom told us to go out and play, she didn't tell us that we had to ride bikes for an hour, then play frisbee at the park for an hour, then shoot hoops for an hour. That's what a lot of scripted, linear games are like. "Play" is most fun when you're let loose outside and can do whatever you feel like in the moment.

That doesn't mean that there can't be structure. A lot of open world games rely on missions and quests that you have to do to progress, but you can generally put them off if you don't want to do them immediately. You can also tackle them in your own way, and it's usually really rewarding. For example, a linear game might have you infiltrate a compound and present you with a front entrance and then a less obvious, "hidden" entrance. It's nice to find the hidden entrance, but it's not all that rewarding, since you're almost meant to find it and you know that countless other people have been that way before you. In an open world game, you might find a way in that no one's thought of, which is highly rewarding. Moments like that give me a high that I just don't often get from scripted, linear games.

That doesn't mean that everything that's open world is great or that it's not misused as a buzzword. Some games get called open world when they aren't really. You do need to be a little careful when it comes to the marketing. "Open world" definitely gets my attention, though, to answer your question, since even those that misrepresent themselves do tend to have some design decisions that I like. Maybe it's not as much freedom as some would like, especially for the use of that term, but just the fact that they decided to give the user some freedom is a good thing, IMO, even if it's for no other reason than it's trendy and allows them to use the buzzword. Freedom in games is a good thing.

 

[The Nemesis]

Neutral.

It has to fit the game. If the theme of the game is adventure and a living, breathing world and traipsing around all over the place to do things or find things or interact with different people, awesome.

But don't give me a sprawling world and nothing to fill it with because your game is designed to have a more narrow story scope. Like any design aspect, doing something poorly is often worse than not doing it at all.

 

[tmurfin]

My feelings are pretty much covered in the first post .

I love games where I roll up to a quest/mission area, and it's clear in any other game you are supposed to walk in the front and go room to room or area to area in order, and I just say nah **** it, pick the back door, kill the boss and be done with that area, or parachute my ass right in the middle and wreak havoc.

Point A to B games have to have incredible stories for me to be interested.

Edit: Obviously, playing the game and deciding if the open world was worth it or not, is a different matter, I just know, when I see "open world" before playing, I imagine all the possibilities that come with that setting etc.. So definitely more interested.

 

[RandV]

It used to get me really excited when it was a much rarer accomplishment, then Oblivion came along and ruined the enthusiasm. So now I'm just neutral on it, I'll judge based on the game and not open vs linear which both have their pro's and cons.

For me now the holy grail would be a good dynamic open world game, something that can give the same quality of a Bethesda game but runs off a random map generator like in Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, or the Civilization series.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

I'm actually getting less interested in open world games.

I feel like developers get lazy and throw it in there because it's a popular buzz word. Then they lose focus on making the gameplay engaging or having a good story. Very, very few games have had good side quests IMO and collecting hidden items is the dumbest thing to ever become popular.

You can still make non-open world games feel much more open. Look at games like Dishonored or Deus Ex. Those really aren't open world but still gives you freedom and lots of options to do things however you'd like. I'll take that over an entire open world.

 

[SniperHF]

A lot of the stuff Osprey mentioned is kinda getting at my next question which is "why" basically.

I think the reason open world is super effective as a buzzword is it means a lot of different things to different people. Open world games often have a lot of mechanical freedom, ways you can manipulate the gameplay to do unexpected things. "Emergent gameplay" as it were.

But since open world has gotten watered down a bit as a term, a lot of them don't offer that type of freedom anymore. People pick up a game that has open world associated with it and find it's not really what they thought.

Similarly I think a lot of people hear open world and think a big map where they can ignore the main quest and make their own fun. But just like with mechanical freedom a lot of "open world" games don't really offer that either because the interactivity isn't there.

Point A to B games have to have incredible stories for me to be interested.

One thing I think worth considering is that there are in-between models, what I usually refer to as "open map".

Something like the first part of Crysis is open map, you have a big place you can go in and do things on. There are clear paths and maybe even a few plot locks. But on the map you are in currently, there is still a relatively large degree of freedom.

The transition points are set and it allows for a little more control over the pacing which is where I think most open world games with stories go off the rails. This sort of in-between model is being dropped in favor of being able to slap the open world label on the marketing.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Depends on the game. And how they want it to work

 

[aleshemsky83]

At this point most games are open world in one form or another whether its dark souls, GTA, Deus Ex, Hitman, there is at least some element of open world game design most of the time.

I think its the reverse, where I'm actually intrugued by a game that is advertised as being a linear 5 hour experience with no open world or sandbox elements.

Only time open world has zero appeal to me and actively turns me off is racing games. It just hinders the experience for me there.

 

[542365]

Definitely depends on the game, but I would say in general I am less interested if it's open world. I honestly don't mind a straight missions system in a game. You pull up a menu, you have to beat mission 1 to progress to mission 2. Once you do that, mission 2 is unlocked and off you go. I personally have no issue with that format.

Hell, I even started playing Need for Speed Underground 2 on my PC a week ago or so because I missed the simplicity of it. I don't have to drive around and find the type of race I want to run, I can just select it from a menu. I don't have to find a garage to customize my car, it's right there in the menu. I honestly enjoy that style a lot more. I know I'm in the minority on that and that games are definitely distancing themselves from that style of game as it's seen as archaic in a lot of ways, but I like it. I know it doesn't "immerse" players nearly as well, but as I've said before, I don't get immersed in games(with the exception of The Last of Us). I just want to play the game.

EDIT: Probably should read all of the posts in the thread before I post. Ales's post touches on a lot of what I said

 

[Grazzy]

Honestly when I think of my two favourite non-sports/FPS games in the past couple of years games like GTA and Witcher 3 come to mind which, of course, are open-world. That being said, If I were to label my biggest letdowns I would probably call on The Division and Mass Effect which are also open world games. All in all, open-world games are incredibly hard to pull off, but when done well, they're hard to beat.

 

[Unaffiliated]

Give me thoughtful level design across every inch of a small map over a big open world any day of the week.

 

[Plural]

At face value I probably get more interested. But like others have said, a lot of games market themselves as open world games but are not really open world.

If I had to describe a game that would interest me the most, it would be open world game where I have one main goal and means to achieve that any way I want to. For a coarse example:

Let's say the world is similar to WoW. Several towns and cities spread out throughout the world. I play as a single character. I need to avenge the death of my father who was killed by a powerful villain. Technically I could beat the game by walking straight to the villain and kill him. Obviously the difference in power levels would make it practically impossible, but I'd have the option to go and try. How I choose to avenge my father would be 100% my choice. Maybe I purse a path where I gather fortune and arm myself with an army of mercenaries and attack the villain. Maybe I pursue royalty by means of bloodline or heroism and use my power af the ruler of the land to avenge my father. Maybe I practice myself in the art of warfare and become strong enough to avenge my father alone. I'd be able to get a job and make money to increase my prospects of traveling other places. I'd be able to completely ignore the main goal for as long as I wish and possibly never even attempt to overpower the villain.

A world that has practically same freedom as the real world has.

 

[KingBran]

Like others have said, it really depends on the scope of the game. And definition really. Like do people consider games like Diablo 3 open world? I mean you can go anywhere but at the same time are limited as to where you can actually go. You cannot go into every house / cave / path you see.

Also, for instance, when I first saw Z:BOTW was open world I had this idea of Skyrim but Zelda in my head and I got pumped! However if something like say Gears of War was going to be open world I don't think I would be as excited. I can't imagine it being fun rodie-running around a city or something doing quests. That game needs a story and a path. Zelda had the option and they did it to perfection.

 

[Ceremony]

An open world game is an open world game. I don't have any preference for one format over another. An open world isn't intrinsically any 'better' than a linear format, so it can only come down to personal preference, and I'll play anything.

 

[Gardner McKay]

It used to make me more interested but now it makes me less interested. When I think open world, I think of a game that is just going to devour time that I really don't have anymore. I also feel like too much time is spent on making sure that every inch of a massive world looks perfect and so much gets missed in the way of story, game mechanics, etc.

That isn't to say that I am not interested in open world games. I guess its like others have said, it all depends on the game.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Less interested, simply because it often means the narrative is lazily sacrificed for a bunch of ****** fetch quests to artificially extend the length of the game. I find that rather boring, and frankly it can make me feel like the game is wasting my time.


Give me a shorter, more linear game with a strong plot and/or characters that both actually make me invested in what I'm doing over endless hours of repetitive side missions any day. Exploration within a game world is amazing, but only if you actually have a strong core that creates interest in the world you are supposed to explore.


If done right an open world can have both a strong core and exploration/side quests (case in point: currently playing The Witcher 3). That's perfect, and makes for some of the best games out there. However, the games that strike this balance are few and far between.

I feel recent BioWare games are a great example of the negative effect (sacrificing what used to be some of the more interesting writing in gaming for more side quests and "exploration").

 

[tmurfin]

One thing I think worth considering is that there are in-between models, what I usually refer to as "open map".

Something like the first part of Crysis is open map, you have a big place you can go in and do things on. There are clear paths and maybe even a few plot locks. But on the map you are in currently, there is still a relatively large degree of freedom.

The transition points are set and it allows for a little more control over the pacing which is where I think most open world games with stories go off the rails. This sort of in-between model is being dropped in favor of being able to slap the open world label on the marketing.

I agree here, it can be done well, I still consider Dragon Age Origins to be one of my favorite games of all time, the open areas are just big enough to feel open world-ish and not force A to B, but also not big enough to completely lose yourself and your objective. Perfect balance in that game for me. Definitely give me more games like that instead of ones doing open world just to do open world.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Less interested, simply because it often means the narrative is lazily sacrificed for a bunch of ****** fetch quests to artificially extend the length of the game. I find that rather boring, and frankly it can make me feel like the game is wasting my time.


Give me a shorter, more linear game with a strong plot and/or characters that both actually make me invested in what I'm doing over endless hours of repetitive side missions any day. Exploration within a game world is amazing, but only if you actually have a strong core that creates interest in the world you are supposed to explore.


If done right an open world can have both a strong core and exploration/side quests (case in point: currently playing The Witcher 3). That's perfect, and makes for some of the best games out there. However, the games that strike this balance are few and far between.

I feel recent BioWare games are a great example of the negative effect (sacrificing what used to be some of the more interesting writing in gaming for more side quests and "exploration").

This really sums up how I feel. There will be tons of "go find item x, return it to person y".

I also think that smaller open world games would result in a higher quality game all around. For example, FFXV didn't need to be the massive size that it was. If they cut that map size down by 25%, they could have focused on improving a lot of other areas of that game, like the lack luster story.

 

[KingBran]

I really think people are going to start modeling their open world games after BOTW now. They showed its possible to have a story and a "linear" path and still make an amazing game. Basically you get as much of the story as you want.

If you just want to run to the end, go for it. If you want to explore and "level up" and get better and do side quests (even fetch ones) by all means... But the core of the game is something unique.

 

[Blender]

Neutral. It can be done well and it cane be done very poorly. For example, I love the Elder Scrolls series and the Fallout series, but hated how the open world was done with Dragon Age:Inquisition.

 

[Diamondillium]

I mean, I suppose I would tend to lean towards the open world design, however it's a pretty small factor.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Neutral.

Open world games scratch my main itch for video games which is exploration but so few open world games pull it off well that I can't say I'll be more intrigued by the sole mention of it being open world.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I really think people are going to start modeling their open world games after BOTW now. They showed its possible to have a story and a "linear" path and still make an amazing game. Basically you get as much of the story as you want.

If you just want to run to the end, go for it. If you want to explore and "level up" and get better and do side quests (even fetch ones) by all means... But the core of the game is something unique.

Not enough appreciation as to how difficult it is to reach BotW heights.

Definitely agree that it has set the bar but expect to see a lot of misses on that front: BotW is a design masterpiece IMO and good design is something that goes unnoticed due to how seamless it feels.

 

[KingBran]

Not enough appreciation as to how difficult it is to reach BotW heights.

Definitely agree that it has set the bar but expect to see a lot of misses on that front: BotW is a design masterpiece IMO and good design is something that goes unnoticed due to how seamless it feels.

It was actually pretty funny. My brother, who doesn't game as much, I let play BOTW and he was having a hard time getting it through his head that yes, you can climb virtually any surface. He kept looking for ways around mountains like in Skyrim or something and I was like "Dude! Link can climb mountains!"

He was surprised by that element but finally got the hang of it. The whole weapons system too... anyways I could go on for days about it but just wanted to comment and say spot on with your assessment on difficulty. We will see clones of it soon me thinks.