I think I am getting a bit tired of open world games....

[FakeSympathy]

So there are a lot of open world games I have played in my 15 years of gaming, and what was once one of my favorite gaming genre is losing my interest.

Open world games often prompts the players go out and explore the world within the game, and I am no exception. I had great time exploring every unmarked locations in Skyrim. However, no matter how much the game advertises to have "bigger landscape than the previous game that was known to have big landscape", it will always have that invisible boundaries. For a game genre known for exploring freely, theses boundaries really break the immersion. I know a game must have some sort of limit, but the term "open-world" is ultimately a false statement, as we are bond to hit those walls.

Another problem is how there is little reason to continue on with the game once you have 100% on everything. I don't know about anyone else, but I am a "completionist" when it comes to games. I have to get all the collectibles, do all the side missions, get all upgrades for gears, and complete all challenges before beating the main game. But what am I left with after doing everything the game has to offer? Oh sure it's nice to see !00% on the save file, but now there really isn't any reason to open up that save file again. I am not saying all open-world games does this, but any game that has collectibles and challenges always seem to have this problem. The only reason I might play these types of open world games is if I started a new game.

My last problem is how every AAA game that's a not linear game is an open world. There are around 20 AAA open-world games scheduled for 2016 release. But no matter how much No-man's Sky and the new Zelda Wii U looks gorgeous, it's still joining an over crowded genre. For every three open world games, there's about one non-open world games released every year. I think those devs are bit to scared to try something different because they don't want another SW: Battlefront. Seriously, indie developers are the only ones that seems to try something different. Shovel Knights, Mark of the ninja, Stanley Parable, Paper's please, and To The Moon are all great indie games. And guess what? None of them are open world and I could list at least 5 more. There are open-world indie games here and there like Journey, but indie devs definitely seems to lead towards simpler yet fun games. But alas, they are still overshadowed by all these AAA games

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I agree. me too. nowadays every AAA game going open world which involve boring traveling from point A to point B. Semi open world games or linear games with open level design are best. like Deus Ex, Stalker, Crysis, Hitman etc. but stuff like GTA, assassins creed and far cry?? absolutely boring. waste of time.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I don't like the way open worlds are designed. Commuting isn't fun for me. Not in real life and not in a game.

However, no matter how much the game advertises to have "bigger landscape than the previous game that was known to have big landscape", it will always have that invisible boundaries. For a game genre known for exploring freely, theses boundaries really break the immersion. I know a game must have some sort of limit, but the term "open-world" is ultimately a false statement, as we are bond to hit those walls.

I'd set my open world in a dense, elaborate fantasy city surrounded by high walls. You would feel trapped, but it would (hopefully) be a believable boundary. An almost maze-like city with verticality and a hostile, depressing atmosphere. Every place would be distinct, even at the expense of size. It wouldn't be a collect-a-thon of items and quests. The whole world would just be a means to an end. Replayability would come from random enemy patrols, disordered objectives and environmental interaction.

That sounds like The Witness, aside from the enemy patrols - but why would you want those anyway? The Witness is the best designed open world game that exists.

 

[sanquin]

I'd set my open world in a dense, elaborate fantasy city surrounded by high walls. You would feel trapped, but it would (hopefully) be a believable boundary. An almost maze-like city with verticality and a hostile, depressing atmosphere. Every place would be distinct, even at the expense of size. It wouldn't be a collect-a-thon of items and quests. The whole world would just be a means to an end. Replayability would come from random enemy patrols, disordered objectives and environmental interaction.

Isn't that basically GTA 5? Well, apart from the depressing atmosphere and feeling trapped. But it's an open world that mostly takes place in a city, with a few nature area's around it. It's pretty maze-like without the navigation, it has plenty of verticality, plenty of hostility from the gangs and such, and area's are distinct.

Also, on the topic of "after I completed everything in an open world game 100% there's not much else to do." How many hours have you spent doing everything? 100? 200? Maybe more? For a 60 dollar game that sounds like great value. So what if you're done with the game after that? You've gotten PLENTY of entertainment out of the game by that point. Simply move on to another game after that. More linear games generally have 15~30 hours of gameplay compared to that.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Not only GTA5. entire GTA series has been mediocre, boring and dull.

bad driving
bad shooting mechanics
boring missions to point A to point B
very unlikable protagonists
etc

I cant believe how this franchise recieve 10/10 but i guess money talks.

 

[Jandau]

The problem isn't the idea of open worlds, it's that the open worlds feel lifeless for the most part. They feel the same, like there's nothing under the surface (and there isn't), providing quantity at the expense of quality. Very few open world games try for a real sandbox, settling only for an illusion. And so on and so forth...

The problem isn't the open world as a concept, it's the fact that it's become a safe, easy bet. The open worlds we have today are not that more advanced than the open worlds of 5 or 10 years ago. They look nicer and the physics engines are better, but for the most part that's it. And while those kinds of worlds were innovative at that time, nowadays they are just par for course.

Personally, I wish they'd scale it back, stop trying to outdo each other in square mileage and focus instead on making smaller but more involved and interconnected game worlds. Less filler content and all that. And you know what, I'm pretty sure we're going to start getting exactly that soon enough.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

The last good open world game I played, and I mean a game that was good in being an open world game (for example, Black Flag was a fun game but as an open world game its as bad as the other AC games), is either Arkham City, Skyrim, or Fallout 3.

I do think there are a lot of open world games that barely involve the open world. Arkham Knight could have easily been linear. The world just serves as a place that contains levels, it somehow devolved from City. Shadows of Mordor as well, and all the Ubi games are all essentially the same.

Skyrim fills you with wanderlust, and the Wasteland with dread. When you look at the map in Far Cry or in AC, you're just like: I have to go all the way there? Bleh...

 

[Chungus]

Much denser and more survival based than GTA. Dense and vertical enough and with enough interiors for platforming. GTA V is another commuting game. My ideal game world wouldn't have any vehicles, and the streets would therefore be far narrower, the city far smaller. I'm also not a fan of grids. I think it's a boring (though logical) way to design a city, and American cities and those parodied by GTA are almost all about grids. I'd prefer more rounded architecture as well. When I say "hostile", I mean a place that's in chaos. Not just a few hoods and cops, but an environment so bad that the passages in the walls surrounding it have been demolished to contain it.

If you haven't already, (and don't mind zombie games) try out Dying Light. It's all about getting from point A to B by climbing onto buildings and going over rooftops, 'cause going through the streets is a great way to get mauled by hordes of zombies. Said travel is done by Mirror's Edge-style parkour, and it feels great.

There aren't any hunger, dehydration or sleep meters or the like, but it does have a survival element to it in the fact that it's a very bad idea to stay outside safe zones after the sun goes down, which is when the vastly more dangerous types of zombies start to pop up. Even so, staying out after dark grants the player double xp for actions, making for a nice risk/reward balancing act.

They've added a buggie in the DLC, but the base game has no vehicles.

 

[Zhukov]

If you haven't already, (and don't mind zombie games) try out Dying Light. It's all about getting from point A to B by climbing onto buildings and going over rooftops, 'cause going through the streets is a great way to get mauled by hordes of zombies. Said travel is done by Mirror's Edge-style parkour, and it feels great.

That's... not exactly accurate.

You can run around the streets just fine so long as you don't waddle directly into the middle of a zombie pack. And after you get the vault-off-zombie skill you can run into anything and be just one tap of the spacebar away from safety.

Not to mention the parkour somehow manages to be worse than Mirror's Edge, a game six years older than it. That was very disappointing.

Oh, and the combat inevitably devolves into just mashing left click. That or standing on a platform and head-stomping zombies as they try and climb up. You get other moves but they're all extremely inefficient at actually killing shit.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

My favorite open world games are GTA and Fallout.
GTA because getting to the missions is a lot more fun than the actual missions. I've spent countless hours just driving around Liberty City or San Andreas trying to obey basic traffic laws, and it's always exciting when I turn a fender bender into a full blown SWAT team police chase

And fallout is the same as Skyrim, which I would find boring if it weren't an actual city I've been to that I was exploring. I never felt more "immersed" than when I explored the capitol wasteland and felt familiar with it, yet so curious about how it all went to shit

All other open world games suck ass, though. Especially the goddamn hinterlands in Dragon Age: Inquisition. Damn that was the most boring area I've ever explored in a game

 

[Something Amyss]

Personally, I wish they'd scale it back, stop trying to outdo each other in square mileage and focus instead on making smaller but more involved and interconnected game worlds.

The Crew is basically indicative of the need for that. It can be a novelty to drive across the deformed version of the US they have, but once you've done it once there's no real reason to not just use fast travel anywhere the game'll let you. In fact, the devs seemed to know this, as they made it super easy to fast travel directly to collectables and such.

One of my biggest gripes with GTA V is that it had a massive map and used it so little. There are areas with nothing more than a spaceship part or some other collectible. This ends up with a similar effect, as you seek to travel over the terrain in a supercar or fast jet to get to the three spots of importance.

A map GTA V's size would be awesome if they looked at it as an opportunity to engage players, rather than some sort of dick-measuring contest.

 

[happyninja42]

So there are a lot of open world games I have played in my 15 years of gaming, and what was once one of my favorite gaming genre is losing my interest.

Open world games often prompts the players go out and explore the world within the game, and I am no exception. I had great time exploring every unmarked locations in Skyrim. However, no matter how much the game advertises to have "bigger landscape than the previous game that was known to have big landscape", it will always have that invisible boundaries. For a game genre known for exploring freely, theses boundaries really break the immersion. I know a game must have some sort of limit, but the term "open-world" is ultimately a false statement, as we are bond to hit those walls.

Well yeah, that's exactly right. There has to be a limit to the game. The term "open world" doesn't mean infinite. It simply means that the progression of the character is left up to the player. You, and only you, decide what mission you do next. There is no scripted course you have to follow, and you can in fact, ignore the storyline entirely if you want. That's what open world means.

Another problem is how there is little reason to continue on with the game once you have 100% on everything. I don't know about anyone else, but I am a "completionist" when it comes to games. I have to get all the collectibles, do all the side missions, get all upgrades for gears, and complete all challenges before beating the main game.

I'm sorry, I'm so, so sorry. Don't feel bad though, there are many gamers with the same affliction as you. *insert infomercial music* Perhaps you should talk to your doctor about Can'tGiveAFuckicilin, a wonderful new product that can help combat the problems of completionism in most patients. Side effects include increased free time, lowered stress due to not wigging out about every little fetch quest the game puts in front of you, and diarrhea. Ask your doctor if Can'tGiveAFuckicilin is right for you.

My last problem is how every AAA game that's a not linear game is an open world. There are around 20 AAA open-world games scheduled for 2016 release. But no matter how much No-man's Sky and the new Zelda Wii U looks gorgeous, it's still joining an over crowded genre. For every three open world games, there's about one non-open world games released every year. I think those devs are bit to scared to try something different because they don't want another SW: Battlefront. Seriously, indie developers are the only ones that seems to try something different. Shovel Knights, Mark of the ninja, Stanley Parable, Paper's please, and To The Moon are all great indie games. And guess what? None of them are open world and I could list at least 5 more. There are open-world indie games here and there like Journey, but indie devs definitely seems to lead towards simpler yet fun games. But alas, they are still overshadowed by all these AAA games

....so then don't play them? *shrugs* I dunno. I don't really see what the problem is here. You are under no obligation to play open world games, if somehow the freedom to blaze your own path through the game is somehow restricting to you, rather ironic though. But let me ask you. You say that after you've done 100% of the game, you have no reason to play it again. How is that any different with any linear game? I mean since you've played it before, you know exactly how it's going to pan out. There is no deviation. So, how are linear games any better in this regard, based on what you've mentioned as being the negative aspect of the game?

 

[Jandau]

Personally, I wish they'd scale it back, stop trying to outdo each other in square mileage and focus instead on making smaller but more involved and interconnected game worlds.

The Crew is basically indicative of the need for that. It can be a novelty to drive across the deformed version of the US they have, but once you've done it once there's no real reason to not just use fast travel anywhere the game'll let you. In fact, the devs seemed to know this, as they made it super easy to fast travel directly to collectables and such.

One of my biggest gripes with GTA V is that it had a massive map and used it so little. There are areas with nothing more than a spaceship part or some other collectible. This ends up with a similar effect, as you seek to travel over the terrain in a supercar or fast jet to get to the three spots of importance.

A map GTA V's size would be awesome if they looked at it as an opportunity to engage players, rather than some sort of dick-measuring contest.

The thing is, you literally CAN'T make a massive map and still make it engaging. It simply takes waaaay too much money. The closest anyone has gotten (IMO, of course) is CD Projekt with Witcher 3, which has a fairly large map which is littered with interesting content. And even then, there's still filler and the game world itself is fairly static.

A greater focus on dynamic events that happen proceduraly would be welcome when it comes to huge maps - that would allow all that real estate to be utilized organically. But most devs don't dare get into something like that, sadly...

 

[Fappy]

I'm really glad I am not the only one bitching about the prevalence of open worlds. I brought it up to a friend like six months ago and he didn't get where I was coming from at all.

I just don't get why every AAA game outside of hard genre games have to be open world these days. Most the time it just pads out the experience with boring fluff.

 

[CaitSeith]

Funny thought. A couple years ago the main complain was that we were getting tired of linear games. Maybe because most of them were corridor shooters; open-world games like GTA, Skyrim and Fallout 3 felt more unique back then.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm really glad I am not the only one bitching about the prevalence of open worlds. I brought it up to a friend like six months ago and he didn't get where I was coming from at all.

I just don't get why every AAA game outside of hard genre games have to be open world these days. Most the time it just pads out the experience with boring fluff.

Skyrim.

Skyrim was a game changer. The only games that have sold better than it were...

1. Nintendo franchises/ancient evergreen brands like Tetris and Pokemon
2. Modern Military Man Shoots
3. GTA, which is an open world game in its own right.
4. Diablo 3

If you were a fan of RPGs, or games with RPG like trappings...which includes a surprising percentage of FPS/3rd person action offerings these days...having a huge "open world" became THE marketing bullet point of choice as everyone fell over themselves to chase what they perceived as a budding new market. And a lot of these franchises/games have been highly successful in their own right, fueling the fever (most particularly Assassin's Creed and Far Cry).

It'll get over-saturated and die off, like these things always do. The real question is...why isn't everyone copying Diablo 3? Look at those sales! That's crazy!

 

[happyninja42]

I'm really glad I am not the only one bitching about the prevalence of open worlds. I brought it up to a friend like six months ago and he didn't get where I was coming from at all.

I just don't get why every AAA game outside of hard genre games have to be open world these days. Most the time it just pads out the experience with boring fluff.

Because a lot of people enjoy being able to approach the game in their own way. Now i will agree, that they are frequently loaded down with filler crap. Endless gather quests for no reason other than to gather them. Sidequests that break immersion for how odd they are, in the context of what you're doing. But at their core, being able to play the game how i want to play it instead of how the devs forced me to play it, is very appealing. It lets you adopt a bit of roleplay for the character, as you can voluntarily restrict your activities to some in game morality. Or just simply being able to decide if you want to sneak the objective, or go in guns blazing. As much as I love Mark of the Ninja, it does have a very structured, linear approach to it. You have few options on how to approach the challenges, compared to other games where you have a wider range of options.

Now sure, this isn't always a good thing, some games suffer from trying to be too many things at once, but overall, I think the open world model is incredibly fun. It's not the only type of game I enjoy, far from it. But I do enjoy the freedom of choosing my own path.