In theory, open world is used to designate videogames that put not restrictions on how the world is navigated or explored. In practiced however, is is employed for videogames in either the RPG or shooter tradition, and because of this fact, many people would include old RPGs in that category.
However that doesn't make any sense, people who play Open Worlds nowadays expect:
- Loads of optional content (side quests), main quest can be ignored and the game is still entertaining.
- Independent content (you can solve quests in any order and without any attachments in the future).
- Visit location once, forget immediately. Locations are like levels you beat and move on.
However none of that makes sense for old RPGs.
- There is barely any optional content.
- You can visit any location any time, but the main quest is still lineal.
- Usually you need to go back and forth between several locations, not "visit and forget".
Using open world to designate old RPGs is anachronistic, don't do this.
I will do it.
thanks
How is that "anachronistic"?
I don't think old RPGs are "open world", but there's got to be a way to say they have a less linear than -those- RPGs where you hold right to proceed. Their world is semi-open. What about those with moderate optional content?
really open world games of today just shouldn't be called an RPG, they dont have enough roleplaying in them to begin with.
Role playing means d&d mechanics, not your community theatre gayry.
you're too stupid to get this, but old editions of D&D was more about the roles you played than you're putting on.
No, they fucking weren't. They were called role playing simply because you play 1 character instead of an entire army (like axis & allies). Dumb cunt. Classic d&d was meat grinder dungeon crawling.
players would routinely run multiple characters due to the lethality of early game, you fucking larping piece of shit
>They were called role playing simply because you play 1 character
So, using "RPG" for party-based video games is anachronistic.
I disagree. The idea of calling a game "open world" is that the world is open, aka. it has aspects like,
> There is barely any optional content.
> You can visit any location any time, but the main quest is still lineal.
> Usually you need to go back and forth between several locations, not "visit and forget".(?)
It's best seen as a continuum.
FF1 has optional content, you can go travel to any city once you get a boat, and I don't get the third aspect.
The continuum logic represents well what people want from open-world games; the world is open, you're free like a pirate (hence you get the boat from a pirate). A world might be more or less open; Zelda I is more open than FF1 as it lets you go anywhere from the beginning. The non-continuum logic is "I want only X to be called that." "Why?" "because." It's simplistic and doesn't tell us anything about why X came to be called that in the first place.
Calling them a RPG is also valid. The D&D manual is full of stats for fighting monsters, which for whatever reason the D&D player tries to shrug under the carpet, pretending they don't exist so they can validate their experience or whatever, and a RPG game simulates that as far as a computer is able to.
>I disagree. The idea of calling a game "open world" is that the world is open, aka. it has aspects like,
But there exists more expectations than the world being open. The fact is, people playing new games are using nowadays this term, if you were to recommend a game from the 80s or 90s based on the assumption that "the world is open" is what people mean by openworld, they will reject these recommendations. Now I don't think such a discrepancy exist for jrpgs. Octopath travelers is not that different from FF1 or DQ2.
and usually people refer to some of those older games as non-linear anyway, no need to reuse the term open world when it's a loaded term now.
Not an argument.
Mispost. For you I meant to say that I own the 80s Red Box, and it is very much a glorified boardgame (only the board is optional). It sells itself on being a single player experience even. Just move the pieces and roll the die.
Now this
is not an argument.
>It sells itself on being a single player experience
not even trying now
Semantically it makes sense, I'll use OP.
I often don't manage to get into open world stuff anymore, to me it just feels like a huge hub world really, a level select that just happens to take lots of time and feels like padding.
You're just listing (supposed) expectations, not definitions.
It's like saying old FPS games aren't FPS, because "modern gamers" expect ADS, carrying max 2 weapons at a time, SBMM, battle passes and ultimate abilities.
Well, no.
Modern games in the same genre may be made in a different way than the old games and have a different set of features, doesn't mean they're a different genre entirely, especially when there's a fairly clear definition (games where you explore the world non-linearly)
but old games do get called boomer shooters and arena shooters now, because they don't fit the bill no more.
There's still a clear understanding those are subgenres falling under the wider umbrella term of FPS.
No one goes full retard like OP and argues Doom and Wolfenstein 3D are not shooters played from a first-person perspective.
Even if a purist might point out the term FPS wasn't invented and retroactively applied to those games until years later.
We need objective games comparison to be specific to what OP meant rather then blowing smoke in the wind. Semantics is a tricky thing and usually retarded to discuss (because what is said here won't matter to anyone but autism).
genre is used to describe something, OP is spot on that calling these vastly different game experiences the same thing is silly
Boomer shooters are a modern fake-retro genre. Games made in 2020 with “ironic” pixel 2,5D gameplay, mostly duke nukem style meme games, or fps styled with low poly early quake look.
Arena shooters is also kind of bullshit as early fps maps tended to be smaller due to limited resources available, but honestly the COD games and other console focused FPS often had levels the size of my backyard, even smaller than many early 2000s “arena shooters” well into 2012. Rust and shoot house levels come to mind.
they're just used to describe those antiquated games
I have no respect for any moron that uses any of that terminology for any purpose.
didn't ask
Didn't need to; I'm letting you know up front that no opinion you utter will ever be valid.
i miss overhead camera angles, everything is goddamn near eye level now
Completely overhead would reduce everything to almost 2D.
I'll do whatever I want and your feelings on it matter not one whit.
The first class should have been named "open-ended" instead, so it's more clear that it's the freedom of choice that defines it. The term "open world" just makes it sound like you aren't in corridors all the time, which is why confusion exists.
Disregarding the fact that there are many old RPG's which exactly fit your description of open world games "nowadays", both those descriptions still describe open world games, just different kinds.
Also anachronistic is the wrong word choice.
>NOOOOOOO I DON'T LIKE GAMES THAT DON'T TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD DO AT EVERY MOMENT!!!
>DECIDING FOR MYSELF IS SCARY AAARGHH!!
>FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
This is not at all surprising from the zoomers on this board who give us such quality threads as "HELP SHOULD I PLAY THIS GAME, WHAT DO I NEED TO KNOW FIRST BEFORE GOING IN? IS VERSION 1.0001A OR 1.0002B BETTER???? I DON'T WANT TO PICK WRONG, I'M SCARED!"
Open worlds is a zoomer genre you subhuman. How can you be so blind lolmao. And deciding is not scary because there is nothing to decide. Play a videogame sometime retard.
Moronic random kneejerk seething reply, disregarded zoomzoom.
Openworld simply means that mandatory content is not restricted unnecessarily. That's it. That's all it means. The moment one game tilts over the 50% of its content can be done "outside of order" it's open world.
Zelda 1, AOL, ALttP, OoT are openworld Zeldas. LA, MM, OoS/OoA, and TWW are closed world Zeldas.
Does that make it make sense?
How does OoT match your criteria? Some of the dungeons can be done out of order, but the total freedom is not more than 50%. And GTAIII is a classic example of an "open world" game, but it doesn't meet that criteria either. It has "unnecessary" restrictions.
OoT back in its day was the original "openworld" 3D game. Sounds like you need to go back and replay the classics new friend.
>GTAIII
MORE THAN 50% OF ITS MANDATORY CONTENT BEING LINEAR DOESN'T MEAN OVER 50% OF ITS CONTENT IS MANDATORY.
>OoT
>open world
>11 mandatory dungeons (i.e. excluding G. training ground)
>only 3 of those (Deku Tree, Dodongo, Ganon) must be either beaten or started in a specific order.
>entire rest of the game, way more than 50%, is openended
ISSYHGTT
there's also the five temples which have an intended arrangement, and the world is only explorable after obtaining relevant items. not open world.
In theory, it is used to designate videogames with a dungeon crawl through procedurally generated levels and permanent death of the player character. In practiced however, is is employed for videogames in either the RPG or shooter tradition, and because of this fact, many people would include old roguelikes in that category.
However that doesn't make any sense, people who play roguelike nowadays expect:
- real-time graphics, sprites, background, etc.
- permanent progress
- action oriented gameplay
However none of that makes sense for old RPGs.
- only text
- You can save a seed any time, but maintain no progress
- everything is turn based
Using rougelike to designate the original rogue is anachronistic, don't do this.
>Using rougelike to designate the original rogue is anachronistic, don't do this.
that's silly for a genre that is called Rogue Like, as in it's like rogue
Great, for some reasons jannies decided to perma sage my thread. FUCK YOU RETARDS.