Can open world games be designed so they don't end up being Ubisoft collectathons?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Can open world games be designed so they don't end up being Ubisoft collectathons?
No since too many devs and gamers conflate "open world" meaning "extremely wide play space but with little to nothing to do in it". Especially bad are the people who think just because it's a big play space/open world that it automatically makes it good; which in most cases it's the opposite.
Open world games are unironically better when they are smaller but have more stuff to do in them that is closer together. I'm not saying it needs to be small, but would you rather have a 1000000x1000000 wide open world with like 6 things to do it in it where you spend 90% of your time just traveling between those things (aka doing nothing) or a smaller world where everything is more readily accessible and the game is actually fun and engaging to play?
And even worse is that people actually shit on "linear" games when the vast majority of games (especially ones that are open world) would be better served as a linear title.
To be honest, people would definitely notice how much dumb padding there is in these games if they removed fast travel completely.
No. Your best options are either semi-open or gated.
Semi-open is shit because eventually it'll convince you to fast travel everywhere.
because open worlds don't? oh wait...
I still consider stuff like semi-open to be open world.
OOT or Dark Souls are things I'd consider open world.
I don't think needing to be able to scale every cliff face is a hard requirement for open-world.
If you can go in multiple directions and see a large majority of the game world without progressing terribly far in the game, that's open world to me.
Well by those metrics, I'm just thankful I can say Ys 8 is my favourite open worlds ever.
ys8 doesn't have anything close to an open world
t. 100%ed it, even those shitty camp defending missions
Eleden Ring is a good open world that's not Ubishit.
>it doesn't have map markers so it's better
this is the difference between a good and bad open-world game according to gays that play this stuff
turn the markers back on and Elden Ring is no different than your average Ubishit game
You're an idiot
not an argument
Present one yoursself first you fricking moron.
Elden Ring ruined itself with the catacombs/caves, it got way too repetitive with it. You cant evn ignore them because so much loot is there and once in a while there is an actually interesting cave/catacomb. It really brings the game down.
nah, the magic wears off when you notice all the copy/pasted assets across zones
When you get to a new zone you know you're just gonna do a catacomb, a fort, run around and find mushrooms, and then fight the boss, and then go to the next zone
exactly
why does it get so much praise from the media
they didnt beat it
its not diverse
its copy pasted
what gives with the endless praise?
Sorry pal but you clearly didn't get the souls pamphlet where you have to suck off everything from from as if they were the first/only company to do literally everything in video games.
ill give you good but not great, not excellent not genre defining. Zelda OOT is the goat in terms of open world done right.
at risk of being that guy, OoT is not a true open-world game. It's an Action-Adventure which gradually opens up areas as you gain new equipment from completing dungeons in earlier areas. It has more in common with metroid-vanias than it does with open worlds or RPGs (its not a RPG like some claim)
Zeld didnt do it
>but muh koroks
You're not supposed to find them all, there are so many so any player will find enough through normal gameplay
Yeah just make them linear and open up as you progress the story like they used to, instead of doing the "lmao go beat the final boss in le 5 minutes" meme
Yes, every structure you explore should be unique. Think Outer Wilds, or Elden Ring without the catacombs. This might lead to smaller but more densely packed open worlds
Which is why Bully is a better game than the early GTAs.
No. You have to fill the world with stuff to do. It takes time to make stuff to do. The bigger the map the more stuff. After a certain size the ability to fill the world with stuff to do diminishes and they stat padding and copy pasting. Look at Elden Ring. Literal cookie cutter dungeons and bosses. Wide open spaces with nothing to do or interact with. Most things to get from dungeons or exploring you will never use. Such an overrated pos.
Gothic/Elex - handcrafted worlds where every corner turn holds surprise.
Hubs in Deus Ex etc. are ok.
Genshin Impact is ok as rewards exploration.
Main thing about open worlds is not that its - you can go whereever you see, but - game doesnt tell you where to go and you have freedom. For that, "open world" can be for example pretty damn closed, consisting of some corridor levels even.
I'm convinced most video game locations only exist because idea guys want to give them cool names
Worlds should be no bigger than OOT/ Nier. Anything bigger is bloat
Yes.
yeah, elden ring and xenoblade x
xenoblade is just "lets put a bunch of enemies everywhere that ranges in low level and a random super high level enemy in the area". and they also just spread item orbs everywhere as well.
>Unique encounters and locations
>Story changes locations over time, providing dynamics to an area that can be experienced with multiple visits
>no generic/radiant quests. Events can be radiant, but the player should not seek it out. It should be an incidental property of exploration.
>No collect-all items, unless it's for a specific quest and each item in the set has a purpose. Collecting bird feathers or musical notes to complete a collection achievement = bad. Collecting pieces of a shattered magical gem in a quest to save a city = good.
Collectathon element is not necessarily a bad thing. It is only bad if
1. there are an insane number of collectibles
2 they are insanely hidden in boring difficult to access places (and no hint maps purchasable not even a collected count by area so you have no idea where that last damn feather is)
and
3 no reward for collecting (making their inclusion totally pointless other than bragging rights. points to AC1)
no, anon, you want to know the REALLY BAD things about modern open world games? these are:
1 huge map (it is impressive but usually means that there is no interesting content so you have these huge empty places with nothing in them)
2 boring generic open world which feels the same as every other open world the only difference is a different setting & costumes. (look i'm running on roofs in tyre, look i'm running on roofs in venice, look i'm running on roofs in boston) at least make all the buildings enter-able and I dont mean only the 3-4 unique bases/inns/mission locations in each town. having enterable buildings would mean a change of scenery, a chance to use steal mechanics, a better way to chat/romance/fight NPCs. that's something that the Elder Scroll games got right.
3 Crafting. shit. how did devs manage to pad out games before crafting became a thing.
But there is ONE thing worse than crafting. When crafting is forced on you because...
4 breakable weapons/equipment. that's not "realism". its laziness. its a tactic to force you to use crafting to repair or make new equipment. which forces you to back track to boring empty locations simply to harvest that rare plant that only grows there in order to repair your sword so you can get back to, i dont know, actually playing the damn game?!