As much fun as the likes of Fallout New Vegas, Saints row 2 through 4 and Red Dead Redemption have given me over the years, there was always the niggling doubt that something in these games felt a bit inconsequential or absent and then it hit me, every that happened in these games was at my behest and as a result paced horribly. The resulting feeling was that the games structures all felt a bit disjointed or in Red Deads? case, nonsensical, why couldn't I leave the country after they gave my wife and kids back? Well because they have their ending to show. Likewise the opposite doesn't work either because when I?m given the choice to save all of New Vegas and rule over it as the benevolent god man I am, free of all misery because I made the right decisions, then the story might as well be thrown out the window at that point because what?s the point.
What about Prototype and the very saints row 3 and 4 you mentioned? I hear you say. They like a Mario game don?t care much for the story, their open worlds act as just a toy box for you to roll around in and get lost in the many joyous challenges. Well then there a new problem arises, in that the open world then instead of watering down the story, unnecessarily pads out the gameplay. What can you tell me did an open world add to Saints 3 and 4 other then an overly massive hub world to hold the missions that require me to drag my arse back and forth from; surely a sizeable arena would replace the testing environment? The better step, I offer, would have been to make a selection of well-made smaller worlds that serve to complement each mini game and Mission, instead of sending me down the same cave or street I passed on the way here.
So on the one side of the open world story telling it?s too disjointed and on the other side it?s too watered down to be vague enough for 50 alternatives. Whilst sandboxes serve little purpose then to waste a lot of time scoring points in the same old giant world. Now there is something to be said for the seamlessness of it all, but what does it add? No loading times? That?s alright I suppose, but surely you?d prefer a well-made variety of gauntlets and arenas to got to town with your crazy powers then different points of the same city each time. Or maybe just a better laid out city, smaller but well refined.
I think these doubts about open world as a thing, really began to set in with Skyrim and they?ve been budding ever since. There you have a game that?s open world undermines everything it does and sacrifices all depth and soul to make a giant forest of hills. Its quest to make everything seamless resulted in some really damaging decisions, ever notice RPG fans how Skyrim conversations don?t last longer than a minute? Well that?s because they?re in real game time, so the developers knew they couldn?t keep the old, long branches of dialogue trees that allowed for proper character and story to be developed, because a dragon could squash you whilst your conversation locked. That was by in large one of Skyrims? bigger mistakes, its Xbox exclusivity deals were another but I?ll save that for if I ever have a go at Bethesda?s business practices.
These are all I?ll admit case by case problems, but they all stem from a focus on this one united ultimate world, and like realistic graphics, I have to ask is it worth sacrificing gameplay for it? When we can make better more defined worlds, look at the Deus exs? and any of the Bioware games, infinitely richer in character and story then their open world counter parts. Look at Dishonoured and Hitman: Blood Money, their gameplay and level design undoubtedly more interesting and deeper then Saints or Prototype.
However despite my moaning and groaning over the gimmick, I?m too optimistic to say it will never add to gameplay, because way back when RPG elements seemed degrading to gameplay, remember the old NES RPG elements, like the stuff we saw in Castlevania 2. They were weak back then because of a lack of storage and horsepower to properly flesh out the elements, so soon along came the SNES and with that boosted power Symphony of the night came to use RPG elements much better. With games like Symphony and World of Warcraft to sight a more recent example, they needed more powerful systems to feed all the effects, sounds and graphics that make the grind of an RPG satisfying.
Likewise for open world to play the core experience of these games without sacrificing depth two things will need to be overcome. First is the focus on size over depth, as long as the focus is on making your open world larger in landmass rather than making the already impressive mass more interesting, then open world gameplay will never improve. Second is good writing, for an open world game to even be subpar you need an interesting story and angle to enter at that flows well with the mechanics. I brought up Red Dead Redemption early and despite all its story telling faults I will give it credit, that, the setting and character they went with really work. John Marston is broad enough a character that the player killing everything in sight or saving all isn't too implausible but he still retains enough basic character that there is still a character for us to read into. The plot is where the open world hamstrings the game as it is a plot written with a fair bit of urgency, that is get your family back. It would have been better if it had been a more relaxed plot like Fallout New Vegas, where you?re getting your revenge but you can take your time, as far as the plot suggests the guy isn?t going anywhere.
So take from my rambling what you will, I think that open world as a gameplay element at the moment is still largely a gimmick, but it has the potential to be something really special down the line.
What about Prototype and the very saints row 3 and 4 you mentioned? I hear you say. They like a Mario game don?t care much for the story, their open worlds act as just a toy box for you to roll around in and get lost in the many joyous challenges. Well then there a new problem arises, in that the open world then instead of watering down the story, unnecessarily pads out the gameplay. What can you tell me did an open world add to Saints 3 and 4 other then an overly massive hub world to hold the missions that require me to drag my arse back and forth from; surely a sizeable arena would replace the testing environment? The better step, I offer, would have been to make a selection of well-made smaller worlds that serve to complement each mini game and Mission, instead of sending me down the same cave or street I passed on the way here.
So on the one side of the open world story telling it?s too disjointed and on the other side it?s too watered down to be vague enough for 50 alternatives. Whilst sandboxes serve little purpose then to waste a lot of time scoring points in the same old giant world. Now there is something to be said for the seamlessness of it all, but what does it add? No loading times? That?s alright I suppose, but surely you?d prefer a well-made variety of gauntlets and arenas to got to town with your crazy powers then different points of the same city each time. Or maybe just a better laid out city, smaller but well refined.
I think these doubts about open world as a thing, really began to set in with Skyrim and they?ve been budding ever since. There you have a game that?s open world undermines everything it does and sacrifices all depth and soul to make a giant forest of hills. Its quest to make everything seamless resulted in some really damaging decisions, ever notice RPG fans how Skyrim conversations don?t last longer than a minute? Well that?s because they?re in real game time, so the developers knew they couldn?t keep the old, long branches of dialogue trees that allowed for proper character and story to be developed, because a dragon could squash you whilst your conversation locked. That was by in large one of Skyrims? bigger mistakes, its Xbox exclusivity deals were another but I?ll save that for if I ever have a go at Bethesda?s business practices.
These are all I?ll admit case by case problems, but they all stem from a focus on this one united ultimate world, and like realistic graphics, I have to ask is it worth sacrificing gameplay for it? When we can make better more defined worlds, look at the Deus exs? and any of the Bioware games, infinitely richer in character and story then their open world counter parts. Look at Dishonoured and Hitman: Blood Money, their gameplay and level design undoubtedly more interesting and deeper then Saints or Prototype.
However despite my moaning and groaning over the gimmick, I?m too optimistic to say it will never add to gameplay, because way back when RPG elements seemed degrading to gameplay, remember the old NES RPG elements, like the stuff we saw in Castlevania 2. They were weak back then because of a lack of storage and horsepower to properly flesh out the elements, so soon along came the SNES and with that boosted power Symphony of the night came to use RPG elements much better. With games like Symphony and World of Warcraft to sight a more recent example, they needed more powerful systems to feed all the effects, sounds and graphics that make the grind of an RPG satisfying.
Likewise for open world to play the core experience of these games without sacrificing depth two things will need to be overcome. First is the focus on size over depth, as long as the focus is on making your open world larger in landmass rather than making the already impressive mass more interesting, then open world gameplay will never improve. Second is good writing, for an open world game to even be subpar you need an interesting story and angle to enter at that flows well with the mechanics. I brought up Red Dead Redemption early and despite all its story telling faults I will give it credit, that, the setting and character they went with really work. John Marston is broad enough a character that the player killing everything in sight or saving all isn't too implausible but he still retains enough basic character that there is still a character for us to read into. The plot is where the open world hamstrings the game as it is a plot written with a fair bit of urgency, that is get your family back. It would have been better if it had been a more relaxed plot like Fallout New Vegas, where you?re getting your revenge but you can take your time, as far as the plot suggests the guy isn?t going anywhere.
So take from my rambling what you will, I think that open world as a gameplay element at the moment is still largely a gimmick, but it has the potential to be something really special down the line.
