Should open worlds be used more sparingly?

[endtherapture]

I've been playing some open world games recently - Skyrim, Dragons Dogma, Assassin's Creed 2 and the Arkham series. This has got me thinking about the overuse of open worlds in videogames. Open world games have sort of been the way this generation will be remembered, with huge amounts of games shoving them in as a way to increase the play time.

Open worlds don't really work in a lot of games, encouraging a lot of busywork and content which doesn't add to the core game. I feel in Dragons Dogma and Assassin's Creed and Arkham City, more linear experiences would've been better. Dragon's Dogma is at its' peak when you're fighting through non-linear but cramped dungeon areas or fighting a beast on the summit of a tower. Assassin's Creed 2 is full of busywork which whilst fun, often detracts from the story (like collecting feathers, races and stuff), which is weird given how cinematic the story is, and I feel the open world takes away from that. The Arkham games peaked with Asylum because of how tightly paced the experience was, and the open world of the next few games really took away from that and it hasn't found its feet properly in the open world. In an open world game with a strong focus on narrative it's tough to craft the right kind of atmosphere for the world.

However, games like Skyrim and GTA which are built around open world and sandbox gameplay rather than a fixed narrative, don't have this problem of busy work and padding game times with travelling - because busywork and travelling IS the game, and the fun creates itself rather than being set to a story.

Overall I think more games should cut down on true open worlds and go for a sort of semi-linear approach, like in Dark Souls.

 

[Human Flotsam]

Now I love Skyrim, don't get me wrong. Put a lot of hours into that game with different builds. Loved the exploration aspects. Could just wander the world, looking for those little, off-the-beaten path caves, harvesting, watching the sunrise or sunset. Was amazing.

However, the world was suppose to be destroyed by a returning dragon. I think. That's how much I really didn't pay attention. What I would love to see in a game like this is some sort of push towards the conclusion, some sort of hidden timer. If some creature is going to destroy the world, why is it waiting patiently for me to level up my Alchemy and Light Armor? Push me along. And then, after the main bad thing is defeated, maybe make it where there are still bad groups wandering the world that I need to go mop up. Maybe cult members who have seen their returning savior killed and are now running amok. This way, you can see the story as intended but can still wander the world with a purpose after it's over.

 

[Keoul]

If it were me all games would be completely linear.
All encounters tailor made for the situation, perfect scenarios leading from one to the next. Done well it wouldn't even feel linear.

 

[Mezahmay]

Both styles have their merits. Sandbox games where the fun is derived from taking the tools available and screwing around would be completely undermined in a linear map, and you've already stated that directed experiences become too diffuse and slow when you add in side quests. Unfortunately, the people who make those decisions are not the designers. All these business people "know" is open world is the new hotness and is "the future of gaming". That being said, I think there are still plenty of directed experiences with nice level design that are being made and we just need AAA development to catch up with other development philosophies. An alternative I'm waiting for is AAA eventually goes by the way side and we get more "AA" developers making solid niche experiences for everyone to enjoy.

 

[Starbird]

Now I love Skyrim, don't get me wrong. Put a lot of hours into that game with different builds. Loved the exploration aspects. Could just wander the world, looking for those little, off-the-beaten path caves, harvesting, watching the sunrise or sunset. Was amazing.

However, the world was suppose to be destroyed by a returning dragon. I think. That's how much I really didn't pay attention. What I would love to see in a game like this is some sort of push towards the conclusion, some sort of hidden timer. If some creature is going to destroy the world, why is it waiting patiently for me to level up my Alchemy and Light Armor? Push me along. And then, after the main bad thing is defeated, maybe make it where there are still bad groups wandering the world that I need to go mop up. Maybe cult members who have seen their returning savior killed and are now running amok. This way, you can see the story as intended but can still wander the world with a purpose after it's over.

I love sandbox games but one thing kills them for me - rubberband leveling. Meaning that as I level up, monsters level up too.

Some of my best sandboxy games didn't have this - and allowed me to get out of my depth if I went to the wrong areas, while giving me potentially amazing rewards if I didn't die.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I think that it primarily shouldn't be considered a black and white state. Because then you can run that openness as far as your content allows, and if most of your game time is spent on empty areas then you went too far.
And when solving empty parts I would love it if devs stopped being cheap, don't do fucking RNG spawns, don't bullshit with insta teleports, and don't just auto-adjust all monster levels so you don't need to properly design shit.

So do your shit properly, figure out the travel, figure out enough interesting areas and the levels they should be at.