I like my games to have more content, so open world >but open world content is boring and repetitive
Maybe the developers should make better content. Sounds like a developer problem, not a game design problem.
Quality and quantity are not mutually exclusive. >but modern open worlds suck!
Developer problem, not game design problem. You don't blame the pen when the author sucks at writing
What proportion of open world games are not full of bland filler content though? At a certain point, maybe it's not the developer's fault, maybe it's just too great of an undertaking to make such a large space feel tailor-made.
What proportion of linear games aren't forgettable bargain bin 'grandma Christmas gift bait' trash? You keep blaming the medium for shitty creators. Modern DEVS are shit. Shit devs make shit games, simple as. Doesn't matter if it's open world or linear or a single puzzle screen. If the dev is shit, the game will be shit. If the dev is good, the game will be good. When you blame the game, you excuse the developer.
That's a false equivalence. I'm not arguing that open world is flawed because a lot of open world games are shit. I'm arguing that perhaps the reason a lot of open world games feel empty and repetitive is because the manpower requirement is simply too great to fill an open world space with unique content for a normal sized developer team. That is a problem that is inherent to the scale and design of open world games itself and does not have such a significant impact on linear/hub-style games. >But it's possible!
Yes. In theory, you COULD make a perfectly tailor-made open world game if you had enough money, time and manpower, but with infinite resources you COULD make anything you want. In the real world you have to take feasibility into account. Regardless of what is possible in theory, there is a clear problem with open world games in the amount of unique content that can be created to fill a large space. If that problem is so common that it affects the majority of creators, you cannot dismiss it as being the fault of "shitty" creators, it is a problem with the format.
>You keep blaming
Just for clarity, that was my first post in the thread. This is my last.
10 months ago
Anonymous
You are arguing that it is "too hard" to make a 'good' open world game, which is patently false. You are making excuses for bad game developers. GTA San Andreas came out in 2004 and ran on the PS2, are you going to argue it had a 'boring repetitive empty open world'? Are you going to argue the old school sprite-based Dragon Quest games did? You sound like a little kid who has only experienced video games made post-2013.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>San Andreas and Dragon Quest >Games that were much smaller and needed orders of magnitude less processing power to make than any modern game
False equivalency, but you're free to spew more nonsensical fallacies in your next reply too.
Friendly reminder that Daggerfall came out in 1996, and it has a map the size of Great Britain
>Daggerfall >99% of the content was randomly spewed out by a computer
This moron knows nothing about video games. Everyone laugh at him.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>doesn't count
Like I said, you're stuck in the mindset of 'next gen = graphical upgrade'. You are the normalgay moron this board used to mock.
Yeah and most of it is empty and procedurally generated. You want more of that?
>game widely considered one of the greatest of all time ackshually sucks because Horizon Forbidden West wasn't a good open world game
Lol
Who the frick mentioned graphics? It's not about if it's feasible in terms of PC/consoles being able to handle it, you're the only one mentioning this because it's a moronic point. It's perfectly possible to make a game that has good graphics (or bad graphics) and has a massive open world with handcrafted content in every nook and cranny. But that would take much, much more time, effort and money than making a traditional empty padded open world or a hand-crafted linear game, and would make maybe 50% more money. Why would any studio make a game like that? And if they did, would you pay $300 for it?
You did, when you suggested a 'modern game' can't be made to have a deep open world because it would 'require too much manpower'. The manpower that goes to modeling atom-correct acne could instead go to making gameplay content, it's that simple. You are treating them as mutually exclusive because the idea of downgrading graphics to free up RAM and manpower to develop the game world and mechanics instead is unthinkable to you. Because you are a zoomer normalgay who thinks new console gen = better graphics, rather than better gameplay. >stop asking developers to put in effort and make good games
Stop making excuses for lazy developers. Demand the world, it is your duty is a consumer and a gamer to hold developer's feet to the fire. Otherwise they'll just crank out garbage like GoW Ragnarok and Pokemon Scarlet-Violet because "you'll buy it anyways"
10 months ago
Anonymous
>putting "modern game" in between quotation marks as if it's something I actually said
Legitimate schizo. When I say "manpower" I mean people making content, not graphics. You are arguing against yourself.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Well you can't exactly make a new old game, can you
Dumbfrick
10 months ago
Anonymous
>when I say manpower I mean people making content
Your argument is that developers only have a set amount of manpower available to make content. Let's break that down, shall we? Two studios exist, both with 100 developers; Studio A has 80 of their devs working on graphics and 20 working on gameplay/content. Studio B has 20 of their devs working on graphics and 80 working on gameplay/content. Studio B is better prepared to make an 'open world' game than studio A, simply because they are devoting more of their available manpower to the stuff relevant to that type of game.
It's a gross oversimplification, but seee how a studio can rearrange its structure to focus more on developing good open worlds, without having to "build an elevator to the moon"? It's a simple matter of not wasting so much of their manpower on exponentially increasing polygon counts.
You are stuck in the mindset that ALL studios MUST be like hypothetical Studio A; throwing as much manpower as they can at graphics, leaving few available to work on the world and the player's actual mechanical interactions with it. And this is your problem. You think I am asking for them to squeeze more out of the five dudes they've got working on gameplay content, when I'm actually asking them to hire more content dudes rather than graphics dudes.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>he's still going
Who the FRICK are you arguing against, anon? I haven't made any of the points you're trying to refute.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>deflects
You implicitly made them when you imply it's a zero-sum game. Try not being a moron in your next reply.
>Morrowind
you mean that game where everything is physically close together but you're forced to walk through winding, mazelike hills that have invisible walls on them?
Also, a mission-based game can have infinitely more content than open world ever could. This is where Kojima fricked up with MGSV. A series of structured sandboxes like Camp Omega would have been infinitely better than just spending 70% of the game in either traversal or base building.
Only games like Death Stranding and Outward truly make the open world really part of the gameplay.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>a mission based game can have more content
An open world game can have missions. Developer problem, not a medium problem.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Not as much as a mission-based game that isn't burdened by an overmap. See the Armored Core Series.
Nobody is stopping the devs from making the map bigger to fit in the content as they keep adding more. In the same time it takes to create X amount of content for a normal naturally growing area those same devs would create slightly less than that X amount of content for an open world map 5 times larger because some of the content-creating time would have to be dedicated to sculpting the terrain of the empty areas between content instead.
Having an open world game doesn't mean you're getting more content, having more time spent on creating the content gives you more content regardless of whether the game is called open world or not.
Also, videogames are the medium. Open world or otherwise is simply a design convention. Words mean things.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>stop pointing out my incorrect arguments
Open world games are the medium, similar to 'fantasy novel'. How you go about using that medium is up to you. When someone writes a shitty fantasy novel, you don't say "fantasy novels are shit", you say that author is shit. Same as with an open world game map; if the map is poorly designed, it's not the fault of open worlds but rather the fault of the person who designed it. You're not going to get a good linear game by putting the developer who made a shitty open world game in charge of developing it, you're gonna get a shitty linear game. When you blame 'open worlds' wholesale, you're making excuses for shitty game devs by lowering the bar for them. Telling them they don't have to try as hard, you'll just lower your standards so they're easier to meet. (You) are the problem with gaming.
Or, to put it simply:
developer problem, not a medium problem.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Go play your Ubishit and stop pretending you know anything about games lmao.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Quit making excuses for bad developers and go back to your indie pixelshit hallway walking simulators.
10 months ago
Anonymous
seething lmao
10 months ago
Anonymous
Projecting lmao
10 months ago
Anonymous
Nah, open world games are shit for the most part. The game you dream off will come in maybe 20 years, but until such time you'll have to cope with reality. Enjoy your night 🙂
10 months ago
Anonymous
Developer problem, not a medium problem
Keep blaming the tool rather than the craftsman, though! Maybe the thirtieth new chisel will finally allow him to create the masterpiece he promises he can make
10 months ago
Anonymous
>99% of open world are boring slop fests >"UM ACKSHUALLY IT'S A DEV PROBLEM"
moron
10 months ago
Anonymous
You are technically right that an open world game COULD be as good as a linear game, but it's simply not financially feasible, so it won't happen. You can screech "developer issue not medium issue" all you want, but it's not about laziness. It's simply not worth investing 5 times the effort, since nobody is gonna pay $300 for a game. You're simply dodging the actual question of "do you prefer a smaller, more tightly designed game or a larger game with more sparse, less bespoke content" by saying "hurr durr we could have both". No we couldn't. Stop being a wiseass.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Damn, you murdered that anon..
10 months ago
Anonymous
Not him but Elden Ring and Outer Wilds exists.
Both managed to translate a linear formula into open world.
10 months ago
Anonymous
ER's open world sucks ass aside from Limgrave, the game is only saved by the legacy dungeons
10 months ago
Anonymous
I think it accomplished what it tried pretty well: a souls game in an open world structure. Legacy dungeons are Souls levels. They are supposed to be superior yes.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Not feasible
Excusing bad game developers.
You are treating 'good' and 'open world' as a mutually exclusive dichotomy, when it is not. We CAN have both, and the reason we don't anymore is because excusers like you say we can't which grants shitty game devs the slack they need to not try but instead phone in the work. Putting the devs behind No Man's Sky in charge of a linear game wouldn't lead to them making Deus Ex, they would make Gollum. The reason an open world game would take '5x more effort' is because you are stuck in the mindset of graphics being the end-all for game advancement. THIS is the cancer that has created the false dichotomy of 'good' vs 'open world'. You think exactly like the consolewarring kiddies Ganker used to mock. Games should be thought about in regards to their mechanics, not their graphics. You could make a game as wide and as deep as the Pacific Ocean, if we didn't need to spend 2gb of RAM just to rendering the hair on the protagonist's arsehole.
It's a game developer problem, not a medium problem. stop excusing bad game devs. Stop cooming your shorts over particle effects and raytracing.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Build me a space elevator! >Sir, that would require an enormous amount of time and investment and given the minimal infrastructure currently in orbit there is presently very little benef- >REEEEE YOU ARE BAD ARCHITECTS BUILD ME A SPACE ELEVATOR NOW
10 months ago
Anonymous
Minecraft is a space elevator now.
10 months ago
Anonymous
False equivalency, but you're free to spew more nonsensical fallacies in your next reply too.
Friendly reminder that Daggerfall came out in 1996, and it has a map the size of Great Britain
10 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah and most of it is empty and procedurally generated. You want more of that?
10 months ago
Anonymous
Who the frick mentioned graphics? It's not about if it's feasible in terms of PC/consoles being able to handle it, you're the only one mentioning this because it's a moronic point. It's perfectly possible to make a game that has good graphics (or bad graphics) and has a massive open world with handcrafted content in every nook and cranny. But that would take much, much more time, effort and money than making a traditional empty padded open world or a hand-crafted linear game, and would make maybe 50% more money. Why would any studio make a game like that? And if they did, would you pay $300 for it?
It's not feasible for open world slop to have better content because nobody has the manpower and time for mass production of high quality content. Such games would cost absurd amounts of money, 20 years to make and would then bankrupt the studio.
>Not feasible
Making excuses. Game developer problem, not a medium problem. Stop demanding 40,000 polygons for each pore on the skin of a single-use npc and they could focus more on fleshing out the game world
>content
There is no content in open world games, that is the whole point. What you want is to meander about in a shallow, hollowed out world that wasnt crafted by human hands, but thrown together by an algorithm while pretend you're having fun.
>I like my games to have more content, so open world
but open world content is boring and repetitive >Maybe the developers should make better content.
that's cool and all but the problem is they don't, so all open world games feature boring and repetitive content. It's such a prevalent open world issue that it's in practice a hallmark of the genre, and has in fact turned into a feature instead.
It really depends on the game as a whole. One thing is that open world game probably needs to be somewhat closer to my desires and wants, because otherwise it just becomes a long slog.
Yeah, open zones or linear are ideal. Open world games simply copy and paste a bunch of busywork side shit to justify its vast expanses of nothingness.
>game >with that armor
Most fantasy games have fantasy armor, sadly, I wish more used early - high medieval armor (think Bannerlord), instead of some pseudo plate but with fantasy elements.
>IS..... IS THAT MORE SPACE I HAVE TO COVER FOR LIKE 10 SECONDS MORE BEFORE I GET TO THE TREASURE????? >NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT MORE SPACE!!!! THIS IS TERRIBLE!!!!!
I can understand shithead devs not understanding what makes a good open world game, but the scholars of vidya on this board have no excuse for brainlet takes like, open world bad!
The strength of the open world genre is not linear content created by the developer, it's the emergent gameplay that happens when the different systems in the open world interact. How can some of you not understand this?
You completely missed the point.
He didn't say linear games are easier, he said they require less effort and thinking from the player because they're handheld through a linear path that they cannot stray away from.
>emergent gameplay that happens when the different systems in the open world interact
Games with tightly designed self contained levels do it far better, Hitman series is a prime example, vast and open gameplay doesn't require a large map size, just well designed mechanics and freedom to play with them.
I would say that 90% of open world games aren't truly open world and don't even attempt to be. The open world only serves as a hub to place the main missions (linear) and random side content around the map. Look at the level/game design of Assassin's Creed, GTA 4, GTA 5, RDR2, FF16, etc.
Quiet time doesn't work in games too well, not singleplayer ones at least. Quiet time is a break from work. Games are already break from work. Unless you have to spend 4-6 hours a day "working" inside the game, you won't get to feel quiet time, you're better off putting some 3 hour forest soundscapes video.
You might sit on a bench to look at the sea on your way back from home, but nobody has time to do that in a game when you can only play a limited amount per day, and if you have the time why wouldn't you do it in real life?
>It is a question of pacing and structuring the game.
In theory if you play the game from start to finish in a single session, yes you're right and I'd agree. But in practice, people pick up and play the game at different times. You can have an intense fight, then save, quit, go to sleep, wake up the next day, prepare yourself, get hyped to continue the game and then you're met with forced "quiet time" by the game because according to the pace you should chill a bit right now. But you already did that in real life and now you want to continue playing, so it just ends up being frustrating.
This is something you could do with movies because it's just 2 hours long and you're sure the majority of viewers won't take a break halfway through, but not so much with games.
I started playing XV a while ago and it's insane how bad the open world is.
>go to car >open map and click on quest location >wait 4 minutes in real time while a slow ass car automatically drives to the location, straight up watch youtube videos on my second monitor to starve off the boredom like I'm fricking commuting to work IRL >exit car, run/ride for 1-2 minutes to fetch-quest item location >fast travel back to car so I can fast travel back to the quest location >turn in quest >great, now go do the same exact thing in a different location >repeat for 30+ hours
I don't know why I'm still playing. What's wrong with me?
10 months ago
Anonymous
You are playing a game developed by square enix. That what's wrong with you.
The bottom one, why? Because the top one isn't a game. The top one is an instant gratification dopamine dispenser on the same level of a slot machine with less RNG meaning the dopamine doesn't even feel good.
Games need some form of annoying shit in order to make the good shit actually feel good.
It's unfortunate that the second one is often what open world games end up being. I don't inherently hate the idea of open worlds, but you need to do more now than just HAVE an open world for it to be interesting. I feel like it's been very slow going getting that message to developers because we still just keep getting worlds that are massive but with absolutely gigantic spaces of frick all between meaningful content. I'd say Ubisoft is probably the biggest perpetrator at this very moment in gaming, but there are other developers as well. Otherwise we should just go back to creating tighter, more deliberately designed areas/worlds/dungeons/etc because I don't give a shit about play time if most of that time was spent walking from point A to point B in retrospect.
I don't understand why there are people that b***h about fast travelling in Skyrim, for example. It's not like you're forced to use it, and I sometimes intentionally just walk around the map since game is pretty enough in way, and music also adds charm, but having an option to skip some walking when you feel like is good.
More open worlds need to be bigger to sate my autism for endless travel.
If your game has cars in it, I shouldn't be able to drive from one end to the other in less than an hour at least.
I want an open world game that presents even a fraction of the scale that The Long Drive gives you. Make me genuinely worried about running out of fuel.
I mean I've put a ton of hours into it, it's generally a very chill experience driving along endless desert or planes, occasionally rummaging around gas pumps or wrecked ships.
I just want something like it where there's more goals. Have the distances be that kind of realistic length, but with things in-between.
Slaverian Trucker has elements of that - it's more MSC than TLD but it's in a similar vibe, and you can take cargo jobs and just drive for half an hour between places. Comfy as frick.
>Make me genuinely worried about running out of fuel.
Play snowrunner, unlock the ANK and never use anything else. You'll never stop stressing about running dry with that thing even though the maps are quite small.
Oh cool protag, go collect 50 wolf skulls from the gloomy forest and I'll give you the item you need for the next main quest chain. Chop chop, I haven't got all day.
You know the problem with this is that there's just no challenge. Part of the appeal of an open world game, or any game for that matter, is seeing how much the game pushes back against you, and makes you work for your victory. Before you even leave the great plateau, or the great plateau in the sky, you're already broken in terms of abilities and powers, and nothing in the game will really challenge you.
open world isn't inherently bad
the reason it's usually bad is because devs never try to understand what the point of an open world is, even anons in this thread regurgitate the same moronic notions open world = more content
Starfield has 1000 open worlds. You think there's going to be a lot of content there? No, most of it is going to be barren worlds that you walk around in and collect crafting materials and then leave, a total waste of space and money.
The ONLY point of an open world is choice. And the problem is, most open worlds don't even give you that. Look at Skyrim (or any Bethesda game). You can pick any race, but your race changes nothing except a combat taunt voice line. You can join any guild, but none of them affect the main story, or prevent you from joining anything else. There's hundreds of caves and bandit forts, but only a select few have quests and curated content made for them.
They're literally saying 'look at all this content you can do, in any order, but we only put effort in these specific places, so your only actual choice is do those, or you can do filler garbage content'
And 'filler garbage content' is exactly what most open world games end up being. Something like Skyrim would be infinitely better as a linear game, even if it was 10x smaller. It would have actual storylines, good combat, good dungeons, unique assets, etc.
But people are too braindead to realize that and just continue to drool and scream OPEN WORLD UNGA BUNGA ME LIKE BIG BIG MEAN GOOD
You want to look at an open world done well, look at BG3. It's not huge, and every area and section has interesting shit in it to see and do, and the order in which you go to places and do shit actually matters and changes things. It is a game that actually utilizes it's semi open world to benefit it, not just to sell games under the pretense of it being 'big'.
I like an "instanced" open world.
Or how do you call it, when you have a world map and the game either generates or loads pre-made locations for you. It creates the sense of scale but it's not seamless like a true open world but it still feels immersive for me. Pro-open world crowd would say that the seamless aspect is the best thing and crucial to maintain immersion. I would agree that it contributes to immersion but the shallowness and emptiness of the world kills it, so it ends up not worth it.
You can also use seamless transition in a linear game with level streaming in modern games, even without the mini loading pauses like in Half-Life.
I think there still needs to be some overarching, non-instanced tissue that connects the instanced parts. Mountain Blade does this well - a feeling of a living, open world, without the pointless minutia of a Ubisoft open world.
It understood the importance of gated progression, without overtly restricting the player. Yes, you can theoretically visit the whole game without going in a sequence, but in the end you still do have to engage in all the dungeons. If you could fight ganon from the start, it wouldn't feel fun. You didn't earn it, you didn't build up to it. Worst of all, he'd be made even easier to compensate for the poor kiddos who want to fight him within the first 15 minutes.
>white
I'm a low IQ brown man who is dumb enough to be affected by games way too much and vulnerable to falling for the vast space in games and feeling the awe of a believable expansive world.
Also, my favelas are cramped enough, I want to see big beautiful open fields like the ones you guys have in first world countries.
I pick bottom, you can have top my high IQ white friends.
>my favelas are cramped enough, I want to see big beautiful open fields like the ones you guys have in first world countries.
lmao this monkeh think he suffers
>I want to see big beautiful open fields like the ones you guys have in first world countries.
Make a field trip to the heart of a wild dense rainforest jungle. Jungles are cool and rarely done in video games properly because of how detailed and diverse they are in real life. A large dense shadowy jungle level where you can lost would have been great.
>Jungles are so fricked we evolved to not trust them.
If they invoke sense of fear and mistrust then there is even more reason to use them in video games.
GAME (Open World) With Guns (so those open spaces are actually put to use with ranged combat)
If the game is melee and short range projectiles, frick open world.
Also, Urban Open World >>>>>>>>> Medieval empty hills and plains world
Open world in theory should be the best but in practice the developpers never pull it off unless you think sailing in Skellige to get to the island was a good experience or the empty fields of Hyrule are great. In which case you have terminal shit taste and current open worlds are right up your alley.
Bottom.
Top only gives you 1 choice (kill the goblin).
Bottom gives you more freedom to approach. You could bait the goblin away then get the chest. Go back to the door. Ignore the dilemma altogether. Or just kill the goblin (with melee or ranged).
I like exploration and freedom of movement. I like erratically wandering the overworld fighting enemies and bumping into random encounters. I like roleplaying and doing whatever I want instead of being stuck in a linear hallway where I HAVE to follow the objective and then rinse and repeat.
Open world is good and boomers can suck my nuts.
I think by this point consumers have hit open world fatigue. Maybe give it a couple more years, but even normies can get bored with the same old same old.
>cinegrid
>movie
>Which way, white man?
People like having the illusion of choice, anon.
It's why you get to vote.
botw and totk are the greatest adventure games of all time albeit
5/10 games propped up by trannies with low standards
Darksiders are
your troony globohomosexual games are shit
>Darksiders
troonyslop made by globohomo
perchance
I like my games to have more content, so open world
>but open world content is boring and repetitive
Maybe the developers should make better content. Sounds like a developer problem, not a game design problem.
quality of time>quantity of time
Quality and quantity are not mutually exclusive.
>but modern open worlds suck!
Developer problem, not game design problem. You don't blame the pen when the author sucks at writing
What proportion of open world games are not full of bland filler content though? At a certain point, maybe it's not the developer's fault, maybe it's just too great of an undertaking to make such a large space feel tailor-made.
What proportion of linear games aren't forgettable bargain bin 'grandma Christmas gift bait' trash? You keep blaming the medium for shitty creators. Modern DEVS are shit. Shit devs make shit games, simple as. Doesn't matter if it's open world or linear or a single puzzle screen. If the dev is shit, the game will be shit. If the dev is good, the game will be good. When you blame the game, you excuse the developer.
That's a false equivalence. I'm not arguing that open world is flawed because a lot of open world games are shit. I'm arguing that perhaps the reason a lot of open world games feel empty and repetitive is because the manpower requirement is simply too great to fill an open world space with unique content for a normal sized developer team. That is a problem that is inherent to the scale and design of open world games itself and does not have such a significant impact on linear/hub-style games.
>But it's possible!
Yes. In theory, you COULD make a perfectly tailor-made open world game if you had enough money, time and manpower, but with infinite resources you COULD make anything you want. In the real world you have to take feasibility into account. Regardless of what is possible in theory, there is a clear problem with open world games in the amount of unique content that can be created to fill a large space. If that problem is so common that it affects the majority of creators, you cannot dismiss it as being the fault of "shitty" creators, it is a problem with the format.
>You keep blaming
Just for clarity, that was my first post in the thread. This is my last.
You are arguing that it is "too hard" to make a 'good' open world game, which is patently false. You are making excuses for bad game developers. GTA San Andreas came out in 2004 and ran on the PS2, are you going to argue it had a 'boring repetitive empty open world'? Are you going to argue the old school sprite-based Dragon Quest games did? You sound like a little kid who has only experienced video games made post-2013.
>San Andreas and Dragon Quest
>Games that were much smaller and needed orders of magnitude less processing power to make than any modern game
>Daggerfall
>99% of the content was randomly spewed out by a computer
This moron knows nothing about video games. Everyone laugh at him.
>doesn't count
Like I said, you're stuck in the mindset of 'next gen = graphical upgrade'. You are the normalgay moron this board used to mock.
>game widely considered one of the greatest of all time ackshually sucks because Horizon Forbidden West wasn't a good open world game
Lol
You did, when you suggested a 'modern game' can't be made to have a deep open world because it would 'require too much manpower'. The manpower that goes to modeling atom-correct acne could instead go to making gameplay content, it's that simple. You are treating them as mutually exclusive because the idea of downgrading graphics to free up RAM and manpower to develop the game world and mechanics instead is unthinkable to you. Because you are a zoomer normalgay who thinks new console gen = better graphics, rather than better gameplay.
>stop asking developers to put in effort and make good games
Stop making excuses for lazy developers. Demand the world, it is your duty is a consumer and a gamer to hold developer's feet to the fire. Otherwise they'll just crank out garbage like GoW Ragnarok and Pokemon Scarlet-Violet because "you'll buy it anyways"
>putting "modern game" in between quotation marks as if it's something I actually said
Legitimate schizo. When I say "manpower" I mean people making content, not graphics. You are arguing against yourself.
Well you can't exactly make a new old game, can you
Dumbfrick
>when I say manpower I mean people making content
Your argument is that developers only have a set amount of manpower available to make content. Let's break that down, shall we? Two studios exist, both with 100 developers; Studio A has 80 of their devs working on graphics and 20 working on gameplay/content. Studio B has 20 of their devs working on graphics and 80 working on gameplay/content. Studio B is better prepared to make an 'open world' game than studio A, simply because they are devoting more of their available manpower to the stuff relevant to that type of game.
It's a gross oversimplification, but seee how a studio can rearrange its structure to focus more on developing good open worlds, without having to "build an elevator to the moon"? It's a simple matter of not wasting so much of their manpower on exponentially increasing polygon counts.
You are stuck in the mindset that ALL studios MUST be like hypothetical Studio A; throwing as much manpower as they can at graphics, leaving few available to work on the world and the player's actual mechanical interactions with it. And this is your problem. You think I am asking for them to squeeze more out of the five dudes they've got working on gameplay content, when I'm actually asking them to hire more content dudes rather than graphics dudes.
>he's still going
Who the FRICK are you arguing against, anon? I haven't made any of the points you're trying to refute.
>deflects
You implicitly made them when you imply it's a zero-sum game. Try not being a moron in your next reply.
Morrowind!?! It's all downhill from there though
>Morrowind
you mean that game where everything is physically close together but you're forced to walk through winding, mazelike hills that have invisible walls on them?
>he didn't major in acrobatics
A game doesn't need to be open world to have more content. "Open world" just tells us that the map is bigger, not what the map contains.
More space = more room for content
In theory, but...
Developer problem, not a medium problem. You don't blame the paper for bad novels.
Also, a mission-based game can have infinitely more content than open world ever could. This is where Kojima fricked up with MGSV. A series of structured sandboxes like Camp Omega would have been infinitely better than just spending 70% of the game in either traversal or base building.
Only games like Death Stranding and Outward truly make the open world really part of the gameplay.
>a mission based game can have more content
An open world game can have missions. Developer problem, not a medium problem.
Not as much as a mission-based game that isn't burdened by an overmap. See the Armored Core Series.
Nobody is stopping the devs from making the map bigger to fit in the content as they keep adding more. In the same time it takes to create X amount of content for a normal naturally growing area those same devs would create slightly less than that X amount of content for an open world map 5 times larger because some of the content-creating time would have to be dedicated to sculpting the terrain of the empty areas between content instead.
Having an open world game doesn't mean you're getting more content, having more time spent on creating the content gives you more content regardless of whether the game is called open world or not.
Developer problem, not a medium problem.
>burdened by
Developer problem, not a medium problem.
Well gents, I think I broke him lmao.
Also, videogames are the medium. Open world or otherwise is simply a design convention. Words mean things.
>stop pointing out my incorrect arguments
Open world games are the medium, similar to 'fantasy novel'. How you go about using that medium is up to you. When someone writes a shitty fantasy novel, you don't say "fantasy novels are shit", you say that author is shit. Same as with an open world game map; if the map is poorly designed, it's not the fault of open worlds but rather the fault of the person who designed it. You're not going to get a good linear game by putting the developer who made a shitty open world game in charge of developing it, you're gonna get a shitty linear game. When you blame 'open worlds' wholesale, you're making excuses for shitty game devs by lowering the bar for them. Telling them they don't have to try as hard, you'll just lower your standards so they're easier to meet. (You) are the problem with gaming.
Or, to put it simply:
developer problem, not a medium problem.
Go play your Ubishit and stop pretending you know anything about games lmao.
Quit making excuses for bad developers and go back to your indie pixelshit hallway walking simulators.
seething lmao
Projecting lmao
Nah, open world games are shit for the most part. The game you dream off will come in maybe 20 years, but until such time you'll have to cope with reality. Enjoy your night 🙂
Developer problem, not a medium problem
Keep blaming the tool rather than the craftsman, though! Maybe the thirtieth new chisel will finally allow him to create the masterpiece he promises he can make
>99% of open world are boring slop fests
>"UM ACKSHUALLY IT'S A DEV PROBLEM"
moron
You are technically right that an open world game COULD be as good as a linear game, but it's simply not financially feasible, so it won't happen. You can screech "developer issue not medium issue" all you want, but it's not about laziness. It's simply not worth investing 5 times the effort, since nobody is gonna pay $300 for a game. You're simply dodging the actual question of "do you prefer a smaller, more tightly designed game or a larger game with more sparse, less bespoke content" by saying "hurr durr we could have both". No we couldn't. Stop being a wiseass.
Damn, you murdered that anon..
Not him but Elden Ring and Outer Wilds exists.
Both managed to translate a linear formula into open world.
ER's open world sucks ass aside from Limgrave, the game is only saved by the legacy dungeons
I think it accomplished what it tried pretty well: a souls game in an open world structure. Legacy dungeons are Souls levels. They are supposed to be superior yes.
>Not feasible
Excusing bad game developers.
You are treating 'good' and 'open world' as a mutually exclusive dichotomy, when it is not. We CAN have both, and the reason we don't anymore is because excusers like you say we can't which grants shitty game devs the slack they need to not try but instead phone in the work. Putting the devs behind No Man's Sky in charge of a linear game wouldn't lead to them making Deus Ex, they would make Gollum. The reason an open world game would take '5x more effort' is because you are stuck in the mindset of graphics being the end-all for game advancement. THIS is the cancer that has created the false dichotomy of 'good' vs 'open world'. You think exactly like the consolewarring kiddies Ganker used to mock. Games should be thought about in regards to their mechanics, not their graphics. You could make a game as wide and as deep as the Pacific Ocean, if we didn't need to spend 2gb of RAM just to rendering the hair on the protagonist's arsehole.
It's a game developer problem, not a medium problem. stop excusing bad game devs. Stop cooming your shorts over particle effects and raytracing.
>Build me a space elevator!
>Sir, that would require an enormous amount of time and investment and given the minimal infrastructure currently in orbit there is presently very little benef-
>REEEEE YOU ARE BAD ARCHITECTS BUILD ME A SPACE ELEVATOR NOW
Minecraft is a space elevator now.
False equivalency, but you're free to spew more nonsensical fallacies in your next reply too.
Friendly reminder that Daggerfall came out in 1996, and it has a map the size of Great Britain
Yeah and most of it is empty and procedurally generated. You want more of that?
Who the frick mentioned graphics? It's not about if it's feasible in terms of PC/consoles being able to handle it, you're the only one mentioning this because it's a moronic point. It's perfectly possible to make a game that has good graphics (or bad graphics) and has a massive open world with handcrafted content in every nook and cranny. But that would take much, much more time, effort and money than making a traditional empty padded open world or a hand-crafted linear game, and would make maybe 50% more money. Why would any studio make a game like that? And if they did, would you pay $300 for it?
It's not feasible for open world slop to have better content because nobody has the manpower and time for mass production of high quality content. Such games would cost absurd amounts of money, 20 years to make and would then bankrupt the studio.
>Not feasible
Making excuses. Game developer problem, not a medium problem. Stop demanding 40,000 polygons for each pore on the skin of a single-use npc and they could focus more on fleshing out the game world
>content
There is no content in open world games, that is the whole point. What you want is to meander about in a shallow, hollowed out world that wasnt crafted by human hands, but thrown together by an algorithm while pretend you're having fun.
in b4 developer issue not medium issue
Developer problem, not a medium problem.
>t. doesn't know the difference between open world and open world sandbox
The irony of this post is so insane that Im sure you dont even realize what youve typed.
T. Zoomer who has never touched a console older than a PS3
>I like my games to have more content, so open world
but open world content is boring and repetitive
>Maybe the developers should make better content.
that's cool and all but the problem is they don't, so all open world games feature boring and repetitive content. It's such a prevalent open world issue that it's in practice a hallmark of the genre, and has in fact turned into a feature instead.
It really depends on the game as a whole. One thing is that open world game probably needs to be somewhat closer to my desires and wants, because otherwise it just becomes a long slog.
It's called "exploration" and it can be a fun pastime.
games should be as big as they can be without reusing the same three fights over and over.
Also treasure is meaningless and you get important stuff from side activities locked behind main story missions.
>open world
>content density
Pick one.
>same enemy copy/pasted repeatedly to make you "work for it"
>chest contains two mushrooms
yeah, content density as defined by from software
That's a Musou, anon.
legend of zelda before and after botw
Just call it an EA game and put dollar signs on the chest pieces. Easy.
reddit joke
Here's a real reddit joke, homosexual
>Nobody:
>No one:
>Literally not a soul:
>You: Reddit
Nailed it.
Im over the open world meme, seems like the best of two worlds are bigger zones like in bg3
Yeah, open zones or linear are ideal. Open world games simply copy and paste a bunch of busywork side shit to justify its vast expanses of nothingness.
Is this Loss?
No, idiot.
He clearly won the battle against the goblin and got the treasure.
Impressive, very nice.
It took too many posts for someone to finally do it.
i don't get it
The joke is older than you.
it's over 33 years old?
>the chest is empty
>game
>with that armor
Most fantasy games have fantasy armor, sadly, I wish more used early - high medieval armor (think Bannerlord), instead of some pseudo plate but with fantasy elements.
>IS..... IS THAT MORE SPACE I HAVE TO COVER FOR LIKE 10 SECONDS MORE BEFORE I GET TO THE TREASURE?????
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT MORE SPACE!!!! THIS IS TERRIBLE!!!!!
open world and level design are mutually exclusive, and I wish devs would stop creating "open worlds" by stitching levels together
(Open World) - Game
(Linear) - Game
(Shooter) - Game
(Milsim weapon) - Game
It kind of looks like a prison but the papers placed on the walls tell me it's not. What is it?
it's a golem manufacturing facility
It's an american school.
Shooting range
Bro, it's a school
which may as well be prison anyway
Giddy Up!
>linear
>there are literally 3 choices
Try again fricko.
don't worry, all three doors lead to the same room
comfy
ban open worlds NOW
I can understand shithead devs not understanding what makes a good open world game, but the scholars of vidya on this board have no excuse for brainlet takes like, open world bad!
Open world bad, but unironically.
Open world hub + Well designed level content
Openworld.
>the bot broke
Alright alright, Gothic is bad, happy now?
The strength of the open world genre is not linear content created by the developer, it's the emergent gameplay that happens when the different systems in the open world interact. How can some of you not understand this?
They're NPCs that don't enjoy anything unless it is sculpted to give them pleasure with the least amount of personal effort possible.
This is so hilariously ass-backwards. The more open a game the easier it often is. Just compare linear classicvanias to the GBA/DS games for example
You completely missed the point.
He didn't say linear games are easier, he said they require less effort and thinking from the player because they're handheld through a linear path that they cannot stray away from.
That's a low level strawman, the only alternative to open world isn't obstacle runner phone game or railshooters, you are just being disingenuous.
Only Stalker, after nearly 20 years, actually manages to do this in a good way. Open world is a meme for the most part.
ASCII Roguelikes accomplish the same thing without your open world bullshit lol.
>emergent gameplay that happens when the different systems in the open world interact
Games with tightly designed self contained levels do it far better, Hitman series is a prime example, vast and open gameplay doesn't require a large map size, just well designed mechanics and freedom to play with them.
I would say that 90% of open world games aren't truly open world and don't even attempt to be. The open world only serves as a hub to place the main missions (linear) and random side content around the map. Look at the level/game design of Assassin's Creed, GTA 4, GTA 5, RDR2, FF16, etc.
SOVLESS
SOVL
Which one is which?
ADHDtards can't into open-world "quiet time"
>"quiet time" is gaming
Why is the cookie so prominent?
Gotta stay warm in the Zone somehow, sdalger!
STALKER is pretty dense when held up against an open world game.
Quiet time doesn't work in games too well, not singleplayer ones at least. Quiet time is a break from work. Games are already break from work. Unless you have to spend 4-6 hours a day "working" inside the game, you won't get to feel quiet time, you're better off putting some 3 hour forest soundscapes video.
You might sit on a bench to look at the sea on your way back from home, but nobody has time to do that in a game when you can only play a limited amount per day, and if you have the time why wouldn't you do it in real life?
>Quiet time doesn't work in games too well, not singleplayer ones at least.
It is a question of pacing and structuring the game.
>It is a question of pacing and structuring the game.
In theory if you play the game from start to finish in a single session, yes you're right and I'd agree. But in practice, people pick up and play the game at different times. You can have an intense fight, then save, quit, go to sleep, wake up the next day, prepare yourself, get hyped to continue the game and then you're met with forced "quiet time" by the game because according to the pace you should chill a bit right now. But you already did that in real life and now you want to continue playing, so it just ends up being frustrating.
This is something you could do with movies because it's just 2 hours long and you're sure the majority of viewers won't take a break halfway through, but not so much with games.
I agree, Final Fantasy and rpg games in general always suffered from this severely.
I started playing XV a while ago and it's insane how bad the open world is.
>go to car
>open map and click on quest location
>wait 4 minutes in real time while a slow ass car automatically drives to the location, straight up watch youtube videos on my second monitor to starve off the boredom like I'm fricking commuting to work IRL
>exit car, run/ride for 1-2 minutes to fetch-quest item location
>fast travel back to car so I can fast travel back to the quest location
>turn in quest
>great, now go do the same exact thing in a different location
>repeat for 30+ hours
I don't know why I'm still playing. What's wrong with me?
You are playing a game developed by square enix. That what's wrong with you.
why would you light a fire outside during winter and not inside or at least within the walls of the barn?
GAME (open world)
If you don't feel an inherent call to explore, you aren't white.
As a shitskin, I'm suffering from the lack of open world games where you stay in place and the world explores you.
Ah you want the Chuck Norris experience
The bottom one, why? Because the top one isn't a game. The top one is an instant gratification dopamine dispenser on the same level of a slot machine with less RNG meaning the dopamine doesn't even feel good.
Games need some form of annoying shit in order to make the good shit actually feel good.
It's unfortunate that the second one is often what open world games end up being. I don't inherently hate the idea of open worlds, but you need to do more now than just HAVE an open world for it to be interesting. I feel like it's been very slow going getting that message to developers because we still just keep getting worlds that are massive but with absolutely gigantic spaces of frick all between meaningful content. I'd say Ubisoft is probably the biggest perpetrator at this very moment in gaming, but there are other developers as well. Otherwise we should just go back to creating tighter, more deliberately designed areas/worlds/dungeons/etc because I don't give a shit about play time if most of that time was spent walking from point A to point B in retrospect.
I don't understand why there are people that b***h about fast travelling in Skyrim, for example. It's not like you're forced to use it, and I sometimes intentionally just walk around the map since game is pretty enough in way, and music also adds charm, but having an option to skip some walking when you feel like is good.
More open worlds need to be bigger to sate my autism for endless travel.
If your game has cars in it, I shouldn't be able to drive from one end to the other in less than an hour at least.
I want an open world game that presents even a fraction of the scale that The Long Drive gives you. Make me genuinely worried about running out of fuel.
I wish there was a game like The Long Drive that isn't just a "le maymay Youtuber game" and actually tries. It's a pretty neat concept.
I mean I've put a ton of hours into it, it's generally a very chill experience driving along endless desert or planes, occasionally rummaging around gas pumps or wrecked ships.
I just want something like it where there's more goals. Have the distances be that kind of realistic length, but with things in-between.
Slaverian Trucker has elements of that - it's more MSC than TLD but it's in a similar vibe, and you can take cargo jobs and just drive for half an hour between places. Comfy as frick.
>Make me genuinely worried about running out of fuel.
Play snowrunner, unlock the ANK and never use anything else. You'll never stop stressing about running dry with that thing even though the maps are quite small.
THE ELDEN JOHN EXPERIENCE
perfect
Way too literal
Oh cool protag, go collect 50 wolf skulls from the gloomy forest and I'll give you the item you need for the next main quest chain. Chop chop, I haven't got all day.
Dark Souls vs. DS2 and DS3
I choose Dark Souls 1
>2010s
>HURR DURR CINEMATIC LINEAR GAMES BAD
>2020s
>HURR DURR OPEN WORLD GAMES BAD
>2030s
>HURR DURR AI GENERATED WORLD GAMES BAD
Yes, 90s games were peak ludo
>OLD GOOD NEW BAD OLD GOOD NEW BAD OLD GOOD NEW BAD
>I'm gonna post gigachad to show how BASED my OLD GOOD NEW BAD opinion is
cope
>>HURR DURR AI GENERATED WORLD GAMES BAD
I don't even need to try them to know that they will be bad.
Stop pretending linear games aren't full of padding
Midway you always start doing random shit that has nothing to do with the main story
Open world is better.
>gliding through an empty unity terrain
woah... so this is... the power of open world...... woaaah...
>THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING FOR ME TO FIGHT OR PICK UP EVERY 2 METERS
ADHD Zoomer brain
kek could they really not move the battery indicator lower or to a corner?
you tendies.
that looks so frickin moronic lmoa
You know the problem with this is that there's just no challenge. Part of the appeal of an open world game, or any game for that matter, is seeing how much the game pushes back against you, and makes you work for your victory. Before you even leave the great plateau, or the great plateau in the sky, you're already broken in terms of abilities and powers, and nothing in the game will really challenge you.
just make getting from A to B fun as well. just cause 3 did that right even if most of the rest of the game sucked.
The one where i can lose myself in and forget about the world for hours.
linearchads, what do we do about branching paths? i.e. forced fake exploration
>pick a way to go, worry that you went the "right" way and have to backtrack to get a (possibly important) item
Brun the bridges and increase the replay value.
open world isn't inherently bad
the reason it's usually bad is because devs never try to understand what the point of an open world is, even anons in this thread regurgitate the same moronic notions open world = more content
Starfield has 1000 open worlds. You think there's going to be a lot of content there? No, most of it is going to be barren worlds that you walk around in and collect crafting materials and then leave, a total waste of space and money.
The ONLY point of an open world is choice. And the problem is, most open worlds don't even give you that. Look at Skyrim (or any Bethesda game). You can pick any race, but your race changes nothing except a combat taunt voice line. You can join any guild, but none of them affect the main story, or prevent you from joining anything else. There's hundreds of caves and bandit forts, but only a select few have quests and curated content made for them.
They're literally saying 'look at all this content you can do, in any order, but we only put effort in these specific places, so your only actual choice is do those, or you can do filler garbage content'
And 'filler garbage content' is exactly what most open world games end up being. Something like Skyrim would be infinitely better as a linear game, even if it was 10x smaller. It would have actual storylines, good combat, good dungeons, unique assets, etc.
But people are too braindead to realize that and just continue to drool and scream OPEN WORLD UNGA BUNGA ME LIKE BIG BIG MEAN GOOD
You want to look at an open world done well, look at BG3. It's not huge, and every area and section has interesting shit in it to see and do, and the order in which you go to places and do shit actually matters and changes things. It is a game that actually utilizes it's semi open world to benefit it, not just to sell games under the pretense of it being 'big'.
>You can loot every pebble, potato and rag
Wow this is really enriching my game experience.
Game. Always.
Open word and it's consequences have been a disaster for video games.
I like an "instanced" open world.
Or how do you call it, when you have a world map and the game either generates or loads pre-made locations for you. It creates the sense of scale but it's not seamless like a true open world but it still feels immersive for me. Pro-open world crowd would say that the seamless aspect is the best thing and crucial to maintain immersion. I would agree that it contributes to immersion but the shallowness and emptiness of the world kills it, so it ends up not worth it.
You can also use seamless transition in a linear game with level streaming in modern games, even without the mini loading pauses like in Half-Life.
You mean like classic Fallout? It's a pretty good system, wonder why it's not used much anymore.
Those are "hubs".
Deus EX, VTMB and Witcher 3 are examples.
I think there still needs to be some overarching, non-instanced tissue that connects the instanced parts. Mountain Blade does this well - a feeling of a living, open world, without the pointless minutia of a Ubisoft open world.
Open world games are cancer. It's the reason Zelda is now a dead franchise
then how did the first zelda game ever get a sequel?
His first Zelda game was Twilight Princess, be gentle on him
At least TP is better than botw and totk
It really is
Hahahaha, you need to be 18 to post here
If I were underaged like you I'd be thinking that botw and totk were good games
Aonuma style
It understood the importance of gated progression, without overtly restricting the player. Yes, you can theoretically visit the whole game without going in a sequence, but in the end you still do have to engage in all the dungeons. If you could fight ganon from the start, it wouldn't feel fun. You didn't earn it, you didn't build up to it. Worst of all, he'd be made even easier to compensate for the poor kiddos who want to fight him within the first 15 minutes.
Stardew Valley is open world and made by one guy.
>white
I'm a low IQ brown man who is dumb enough to be affected by games way too much and vulnerable to falling for the vast space in games and feeling the awe of a believable expansive world.
Also, my favelas are cramped enough, I want to see big beautiful open fields like the ones you guys have in first world countries.
I pick bottom, you can have top my high IQ white friends.
>my favelas are cramped enough, I want to see big beautiful open fields like the ones you guys have in first world countries.
lmao this monkeh think he suffers
>I want to see big beautiful open fields like the ones you guys have in first world countries.
Make a field trip to the heart of a wild dense rainforest jungle. Jungles are cool and rarely done in video games properly because of how detailed and diverse they are in real life. A large dense shadowy jungle level where you can lost would have been great.
Jungles are awful man. There's an evolutionary reason why we enjoy open fields. Jungles are so fricked we evolved to not trust them.
>Jungles are so fricked we evolved to not trust them.
If they invoke sense of fear and mistrust then there is even more reason to use them in video games.
GAME (Open World) With Guns (so those open spaces are actually put to use with ranged combat)
If the game is melee and short range projectiles, frick open world.
Also, Urban Open World >>>>>>>>> Medieval empty hills and plains world
Open world should never be more "Open" than games like Ocarina of Time or Nier Automata.
>than Microsoft Flight SImulator
fix
Game:
>Chosen One!
>I'm coming!
Game (open world):
>Chosen One!
>I'm coming!
>Chosen One!
>I'm coming!
>Chosen One!
>I'm coming!
Open world in theory should be the best but in practice the developpers never pull it off unless you think sailing in Skellige to get to the island was a good experience or the empty fields of Hyrule are great. In which case you have terminal shit taste and current open worlds are right up your alley.
>PS3
you mean PS5.
rank them
Gated open world < semi-open map < full open world < semi-linear < hub < full linear
Would Sekiro be semi-linear or hub world?
Semi-linear.
Semi-Open Map > Hub World > Gated Open Map > Full Open Map > Semi-Linear > Full-Linear
Which one of them is world map with random encounters?
Red Dead Redemption 2?
for me it's gothic 2
hub and semi open >>> everything else
u get it
Hub or semi open, honorary mention for semi-linear. The rest can go rot in hell.
What is “gated” open world? You mean large open Zones like Witcher 3?
Open map but with a clear progression path. Other areas becoming accessible after certain key events etc.
Depends on the game, all can be good or bad.
What's the worst open world ever designed?
My answer is Mojave wasteland from Fallout: New Vegas
No.
Fallout, Baldur's Gate.
I'm not white, don't insult me.
The only good open world games are Betheshit. Literally everything else can not compete with their goddly jank engine that enables their open worlds.
Do you have some good adventure games to recommend?
Bottom.
Top only gives you 1 choice (kill the goblin).
Bottom gives you more freedom to approach. You could bait the goblin away then get the chest. Go back to the door. Ignore the dilemma altogether. Or just kill the goblin (with melee or ranged).
I like exploration and freedom of movement. I like erratically wandering the overworld fighting enemies and bumping into random encounters. I like roleplaying and doing whatever I want instead of being stuck in a linear hallway where I HAVE to follow the objective and then rinse and repeat.
Open world is good and boomers can suck my nuts.
I think by this point consumers have hit open world fatigue. Maybe give it a couple more years, but even normies can get bored with the same old same old.
>I think by this point consumers have hit open world fatigue
>He says in the year where Tears of the Kingdom sold 10 million copies day 1
Whatever the frick something like Baldur's Gate 3, being the most recent example of its type, is classified as