Is the "Open World" approach killing RPGs? And will it ever stop?

[major_chaos]

I don't think the idea of open worlds is killing RPGs, but I do find the constant dick measuring contest where devs are trying to outdo each other in raw square footage without considering if they can actually make good use of that space is having a detrimental effect on my personal ability to enjoy WRPGs.

I think the absolute nadir of this is Elite: Dangerous with its much hyped "ELEENTYBILLION WORLDZ OMG !!!1!1!" amounting to the most empty, sterile, samey game world imaginable. On a smaller scale, I know there was some controversy about Fallout 4's world map being smaller than the one in New Vegas but I actually preferred 4's smaller but extremely dense approach to NV's big map with vast swaths of absolutely fuck all.

 

[gsilver]

A lot of people were sending the message that PS4 and X1 were just too weak to really represent a generational leap in graphics and gameplay, especially after such a long and protracted PS360 generation. Now, after what would be about 5 years (rather normal historically for a console generation)

Actually, 4 years, assuming that the upgraded consoles come out next fall. Though even that's in-line with the time between the original XBOX and the 360 (albeit a short-lived console)


Though The Witcher 3 would certainly be more compelling without all of the vast land in-between its points of interest.
Just look at something like Baldur's Gate (I know, dated as hell, but a good example). It has a world map, and lets you select points of interest to travel to. You're never far from something interesting, and there's still a good amount of exploring to do... and none of it is the bland empty space of an open world game. Everything there exists for a reason.


But I can also think of an example where "Open world" really worked: Gothic 2. It's very much an open world, yet the developers had a good way of approaching it: Instead of making the landscape go on forever, just fill it with interesting things. So, it's both an open world, but the open world is over a limited geographic area (in this case, an island). It's also intricately crafted.

So basically... Open world isn't necessarily bad (although it very often is) but it's all about density of interesting content. Something like Far Cry 4 is just a bunch of uninteresting space that connects points of interest. And, really, they could keep the "approach your target from any angle" gameplay by just letting you pick an entry point on a map. Same with MGS5.
Witcher 3 is a lot more dense than the above games, but even it had problems.

//Apologies for the dated game references

 

[aozgolo]

As someone who genuinely loves sandbox and open world, I don't see them going anywhere. I can understand certain people's disdain for them, but in truth this seems partly built of preference, and partly built of poor game design. There are many open world games I dislike for their lack of meaningful content, whereas others lend themselves beautifully to offering many new opportunities.

The thing to keep in mind is that open world is never a narrative choice, it's not about the story, it's about player freedom and gameplay choice. You can choose how you want to approach an objective, but more importantly, good open world design lends itself to objective-free gameplay where you can create your own, which in my mind is true roleplaying.

There are just as many, if not more, smaller linear RPGs that have poor quest design and filler content that it can't be fully blamed on open worlds. I would also argue that one man's filler is another's treasured memory. You can boil the essence out of anything, you can call every quest a "go here, kill X" quest, but you'd be robbing it of it's story, and while you may not care about a particular quest, or call it filler, others may really enjoy a contract quest and it's narrative.

 

[CeeBod]

Here's an article that is rather relevant to the discussion - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6474/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php?print=1

I'm an rational/explorer personality so open world CRPGs are right in my wheelhouse, they appeal directly to the way I enjoy games, and the issue of whether I achieve 100% completion is largely irrelevant to me. For someone that's always about "winning the game" like this -

That playstyle is inconceivable to me personally, although I try to be respectful of other people's opinions. For me, if I don't finish a game, the whole experience has been a failure and a waste of time. I play to "win."

though, gaming is a completely different thing, appealing to different parts of the personality in different ways. Whilst I agree with the sentiment that a badly-done open-world game can feel like a bloated experience that just adds lots of filler to what otherwise would be a different experience, that's not because it open-world, it's because it's badly-made! If you don't like the gameplay aspects that are added by open world, then don't buy them! There's lots of games around for every playing style!

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, Final Fantasy 13 experimented with something more linear and it didn't seem to help, so respectfully I must argue against the killing notion. Oh, and I like Fallout games, Saints Row games, Prototype, and more. So, I suppose the answer is no.

 

[The Madman]

TW3 is a solid game, the best modern slogfest out there, but it can't hold a candle to games like DS or Dragon Age Origins or Mass Effect 1-3 because those games are NOT an open world of boring nothingness. They provide nothing but quality content and that's all you get to play. They don't LET you become bored.

Funny you should mention Mass Effect, as I recall it receiving pretty heavy criticism on release for being full of fetch-questy side-quests and huge worlds to explore which ultimately were irrelevant save for the completionists out there. Copy-paste level design was another big complaint on the time of its release, so much so that for ME2 and 3 Bioware got rid of the rover entirely save for a few dlc missions.

Which isn't to say I dislike Mass Effect, I genuinely love that game, but I'm just pointing out this isn't exactly a new development in gaming nor are a number of older 'classics' out there immune to these very same complaints.

 

[pookie101]

personally i love open world games, they keep me pottering around the world long after any story focused game is long gone

 

[Amaror]

I know I'm just one consumer with one opinion, and I respect the fact that there are obviously a ton of people who like a Skyrim-style sandbox. What I don't like is that AAA game franchises like Dragon Age have changed dramatically to massive open world sandboxes because they feel like they have to in order to sell their games, ruining a franchise that was perfect the way it was. I'm terrified that Andromeda is going to take the same turn, and I fully expect it to happen.

I want the Skyrim's to stay over there and the DAO's and ME's to stay what they were over here.

Oh, I very much agree in the case of DAI. The open world in that game made it much worse with just shallow and boring sidequests everywhere.
But in the Witcher 3 the overworld just fits. A Witcher was always supposed to be a travelling vagabond doing contracts wereever he comes upon them. And that's exactly what you do in the Witcher 3.
I also understand being a completionist. I am one myself. But, and this is the important part, that is still your own choice to play the game in that way. It's no really the developers fault that you choose to do activities in the game that you personally find tedious.
Though I do think they could have done a better job with them in Skellige. In Velen and Novigrad I just finished up most of the questionmarks by just playing the game. Organically I would do a few in a row here and there before going back to questing. It was a lot of fun, when I just wanted to fight some dudes, and It really never got tedious. Skellige, which it's tons of pirate treasures, is a lot more tedious since you don't come across them organically doing quests and sidequests.

 

[Trunkage]

Funny, I felt like Witcher 3 was just like a Far Cry (or ubisoft openworld game apparently but I haven't played any of their games except Watch Dogs). There are inconsequential things to see that are marked on the map before you even get there. How about we make that more natural, like in an Elder Scrolls game you can ask for rumors and that marks your map (and at least unexplored places only show on your compass, not the map.) Also, other than one tower, there was no real landmarks to get that adventuring spirit excited. It was all bland, and I didn't go anywhere that they markers didn't tell me.

Also, in most other games there are other viable weapons other than a sword. Yes, you have a little magic, but the combat in Witcher 3 is really boring and defeating enemies 10 levels higher than you is easy. And if your going to spend 40hrs on a game, you need variety. They also made sure that you shouldn't do side quests as most of the rewards are worthless and the main story quest has huge xp boosts.

Witcher 3, I think, is open world done wrong.

 

[The Madman]

Funny, I felt like Witcher 3 was just like a Far Cry (or ubisoft openworld game apparently but I haven't played any of their games except Watch Dogs). There are inconsequential things to see that are marked on the map before you even get there. How about we make that more natural, like in an Elder Scrolls game you can ask for rumors and that marks your map (and at least unexplored places only show on your compass, not the map.) Also, other than one tower, there was no real landmarks to get that adventuring spirit excited. It was all bland, and I didn't go anywhere that they markers didn't tell me.

The markers appear when you read the town notice boards and occasionally overhear rumours, they do not appear on their own on your map. They can also be turned off. Not all quests or treasures are marked on the map either and some can only be found through exploration. Similarly following the exact instructions during a quest, as in only following the quest marker, can sometimes lead to the 'bad ending' whereas looking around and exploring further can sometimes get you different endings for even minor quests.

I thought it was rather cleverly done, although I can only imagine how many people just followed the markers and didn't realize there was more they could have done, maybe wondering why the quest was so simple or straightforward. That's partly why I really enjoyed a lot of Witcher 3's side-quests in spite of knowing I wasn't going to get any phat l00t from it, I did it for the story and to see what would happen next, something few other open world games inspire in me.

That's why Witcher 3, I think, is open world done right. Not perfectly mind you, but far better than most other recent competition.

(For immersion I played with map markers off and a mod installed that makes it so that minimap and quest notes only show while in detective mode. That combo worked really well I found in encouraging me to explore and act on my own without depriving me of those tools for when I truly needed them.)

 

[Trunkage]

snip

The other problem, I just remembered, when discussing map marker is the Dark Souls problem. Number three didn't really need it as it was far more linear, but Dark Souls 1 and 2 let you roam wherever you wanted, and you could easily get lost. I remember DS1 where I specially looked up Let's Plays to figure out where I should go. I would get the title card and try to find the way there myself. I had to make my own map markers but I had to look it up on the internet. I think it was poorly designed that way.

Similarly, in DS2 I followed DS1 logic - keep going til you achieve your goal. I didn't look up Lets Plays because I thought I had 'got good'. I did Forest of Giants and the straight to the Bastille. It was so challenging, I almost gave up. After doing that, I did Heide's Tower and found it so easy. I cant play it again, because the stupid design just makes me cranky.

Its why DS3 is design so linearly this time, because while its good to go adventuring, having a direction or objective saves unnecessary frustration. (Another issue was the no respecing in DS1 because poor choice lead to harder battles. And you had no idea what a bad choice was at the start. It was unnecessary frustration.)

 

[infohippie]

So I finally got around to getting a PS4 and sinking some hours into The Witcher 3 (have played previously, but only in fits & starts on a mates PS4). As a BIG fan of TW2, poss my fave game of all time, I can only say how utterly gutted I am that they've essentially taken TW2 and spread it out thinner than Donald Trump's hair across barren, boring, empty, souless filler landscapes which add absolutely nothing to the experience, but which do kill the pacing and add to the dullness.

"Spread thin"? Are you serious? TW3 is by far the densest RPG I've played in a long time. There is a hell of a lot more in it than you'll find in TW2. I've never seen open world done as well as TW3 does it. Have you gotten very far in it yet? I mean, I adored TW2, but TW3 is a far, far better game. Try not to use fast travel at all if possible and enjoy the quests and discoveries that you encounter along the way.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

The problem with open world RPGs is that almost always end up sacrificing quality for quantity and don't respect the player's time. I spent 105 hours on DAI, but only the main story chapters were worthwhile and felt like what I expect from a Bioware RPG, the rest of the time was like playing a fairly boring MMO. A 40-60 hour game of the quality of the main story chapters, would have been far more worthwhile than 100+ hours of what we got. It seems like ever since Skyrim, there seems to be a more=better attitude, with each developer trying to make their open world bigger than the last without ever bothering to consider if it actually adds to the game in a meaningful way, or just makes it needlessly longer.

Also, by going open world, it ends up breaking up the important story events with long periods of filler, which killed any tension in the narrative. Dragon Age Inquisition suffered from this problem; you were supposed to be racing against time to stop the demonic magister before he enters the Fade and becomes a god, but there is plenty of time to go mine for ore, or pick Elfroot, kill random dragons, or do whatever. Even Witcher 3 suffered from it; you're meant to be trying to find Ciri before the Wild Hunt finds her, but there are Nekker contracts and Gwent games to be had. Open worlds are fine for games with little story focus (Mad Max being a good example) or where exploration is the focus, but it's rarely a good fit for story heavy games or where urgency is central to the plot.

 

[deadish]

Traditional RPGs are open world to my knowledge. Games with a linear path and strong linear story are typically called adventure games.

Along the way the 2 genres kind of merged. I think it was the Japanese that started doing it first. FFVI I believe cemented the format.

 

[DementedSheep]

Funny, I felt like Witcher 3 was just like a Far Cry (or ubisoft openworld game apparently but I haven't played any of their games except Watch Dogs). There are inconsequential things to see that are marked on the map before you even get there. How about we make that more natural, like in an Elder Scrolls game you can ask for rumors and that marks your map (and at least unexplored places only show on your compass, not the map.) Also, other than one tower, there was no real landmarks to get that adventuring spirit excited. It was all bland, and I didn't go anywhere that they markers didn't tell me.

Also, in most other games there are other viable weapons other than a sword. Yes, you have a little magic, but the combat in Witcher 3 is really boring and defeating enemies 10 levels higher than you is easy. And if your going to spend 40hrs on a game, you need variety. They also made sure that you shouldn't do side quests as most of the rewards are worthless and the main story quest has huge xp boosts.

Witcher 3, I think, is open world done wrong.

I think the witcher 3 gives way too much information by default. Having POIs marked just destroys any actual exploration and when minimap leads you by the nose to your objectives (sometimes it will be in a circle area but that's often not very big and what you're looking for glows red) the investigations feel pointless. A peasant will mention when you go past that there is haunted ruins nearby or you'll overhear a conversation about about a witcher being sent to some crypt but meh, who cares? I'll get to to it while I systematically go through all the POIs. About 3/4 of the way through the main valen quests I turned the minimap and POI indicators off and it makes it a MUCH better game, I wish I had done that from the start. A lot of the quests actually do give you enough directions that between that, Geralt talking to himself or telling the quest giver exactly what he is going to do to give the player hints and the witcher senses (often if you're looking for someone injured or dead following sounds of necrophages will take you to them) you can find quest objectives on your own. Suddenly the large spaces make sense because you have to think about where you're going, suddenly the investigate parts of quests make you feel like you are actually investigating rather than going from A-Z listening to Geralt talk and fighting a few generic mobs until you hit a boss.


I don't mind that the side quests don't give you much in the way of XP or gear. In fact I think I prefer it that way. I do the quests because I want to do them. I'd rather not be too overleved as a result (though the game still has this issue) and it means if you don't want to do them you aren't underleveled. I do kinda feel like a lot of RPG elements are just there because...that's what an RPGs is suppose to have, right? all the weapons and armors apart from the witcher sets you craft are briefly usable at most, it's 99% vendor trash that might as well not be there. You have some build customization but not a huge amount because you're playing a defined character with a very specific fighting style. Leveling is just content and ability gating, story wise Geralt is an experience Witcher already and past his prime so he might learn a few new tricks but he shouldn't be getting much better.

 

[deadish]

double post

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I refuse to play any RPG that is linear, that is boring as hell and only play Open world games these days, and prefer MMORPGs. I am insanely bored of developer written blah blah stories entirely, and want instead a more player immersive world where the story is created by the players and anything can happen. The books in the in game libraries are written by the players about their adventures, the history of the game is that of the players actual battles and rivalries. The wanted posters in town are that of the players with the most kills and the statues gracing the buildings and gardens are the statues of players with the best skills. Where everything in the game is craftable, salvageable, tradable, dropable, and customizable. A truly immersive world where the players ARE the story and a part of the world. To me that is far more interesting than anything the developers could come up with really.

Games haven't quite gotten there yet though have been flirting with the idea for a while now. The more player immersive and involved the better. I see linear games as the opposite direction they need to go and counterproductive to the type of games I want to play.

 

[Akjosch]

The "open world" approach isn't killing RPGs, it's making them go to their roots - to be games where you can be someone else, immersed into a foreign world, doing things the way your chosen character would.