What is the point of open world games?

[AngloDoom]

If spider-man 2 didn't have an open world then it would have sucked. Hard. Webslinging around New York is hands down the most fun thing about that game.

This. A thousand times, this.

It's the first game that made me enjoy a sequence where I was pursuing a moving objective under time constraints. Every time I ballsed up a jump I'd quickly have to leap a different direction, run across a different roof, and totally change my 'plan of attack' in assuming where the objective was headed.

Open worlds, if they feel integral to the game and more organically implemented, add to a game. If not, like in No More Heroes they are the world's least effective menu screen.

 

[Woodsey]

That's because you're playing Sleeping Dogs, a rather lazy and unimaginative affair, and not a game that actually really does anything with its open-world. TES and Just Cause 2 are prime examples.

 

[Catrixa]

Depending on how they're done, it can either be an immersive experience or a really tedious puzzle (this usually only comes about after someone in marketing land beats the "sandbox" buzzword over the developer's heads until they can't walk straight, though). For games like Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim, it's great, since I don't always want to play a hero (sometimes I just want to create my own compelling story where I kill everyone and steal their stuff). For other games (last really bad example I can think of is Brutal Legend), it seems tacked on to arbitrarily lengthen gameplay.

There's exploration, too, but I think everyone else in this thread has done a pretty substantive job explaining that already.

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

It occurred to me while playing Sleeping Dogs that I don't think I've ever seen an open world game that was improved by it's open world aspect.

What exactly does having an open map add to a game? I suppose you could say it adds a certain degree of veracity. After all, the real world isn't arranged in a neat linear sequence. That's the only advantage I can come up with.

There's the "non-linear screwing around" aspect. But when does that ever amount to anything beyond killing random civilians or doing vehicle jumps?

I would have thought that the appeal of an open world was allowing the player to get into spontaneous unscripted situations and then having to find creative solutions to them. However, I've never seen an open world game with sufficiently complex or in-depth mechanics to allow the players actions to have any impact beyond the immediate. (The one exception is Dwarf Fortress, but I don't play that because the interface can go fuck itself.)

To me, an open world just means I have to bloody commute between missions.

Go play Risen. Not 2, that one is alright, but go play Risen 1. The first. Half the atmosphere of that game is purely in running around and discovering the island. Its probably one of my favorite games of all time. The open world aspect of that game is well done, immersive and probably my favorite thing to do. I literally spent 20 minutes in the beginning before even reviving the quest NPC to get to the next area. I found a really nice weapon, a shield, some gold and a few potions that i never would have seen if i just ran to the next objective. During the first quest, theres an entire cave/side dungeon you can wander into and find all kinds of stuff along with new enemies. Its great fun.


If Risen isn't your bag, then go for Just Cause 2. Exploring places, hijacking a plane and buzzing treetops is probably the best part of the game, hearing people start screaming when a massive jet comes screaming past them and then at the last second pulls up, does a loop-de-loop and then a barrel roll and spirals out of sight as i grapple onto a building spiderman style and then drop gracefully to the ground is something that is just fun to do.

Captcha: It's Super Delicious

Yes.... Yes it is Captcha

 

[SextusMaximus]

This is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be a question.

 

[trooper6]

Many people say exploration. I suppose that is true. I'd like to inflect exploration though. Because, for me, exploration by itself isn't enough. I think that in the best open world games, the location itself is also a character. Exploring is not just an end to itself, but a way to learn more about the world you are in, and ideally will inflect the central gameplay.

I think Morrowind was the best at this. All the exploring I did in parts of the world revealed to me complex culture and politics of the Dunmer society in Morrowind, it's relationship to Dunmer on the mainland, and its relationship to the Empire. I learned about religious conflict, cultural conflict, tradition and innovation. All that I learned made my journey towards Nerevarine much more nuanced, rich, and complicated.

Quite a few people said they didn't like Oblivion as much as Skyrim and Bethesda said they learned their lesson--more weirdness to explore! But I think that was the wrong lesson. What made Morrowind so great as an open world, was the real complexity of society they achieved.

Then I think about another great open world: LA Noir and True Crime: Los Angeles. Both did such a wonderful job recreating Los Angeles, the feel of it's different places and locations. Places I know really well! It was wonderful to catch the feel of something so well.

And also, I think for me, the open world means that the game can focus on the small as well as the big. What I mean by that is this: In a linear game, the story is usually about how great you are as the main character. Everything revolves around you. It is quite solipsistic and self-centered. But in an open world game, you can come upon communities that aren't caught up in your messiah, save-the-world mission, that just need fresh drinking water or to resolve a conflict between neighbors. Without small things, the world can feel hollow.

I love a good open world.
A bad open world on the other hand...is just bad.
But then, bad linear games are bad, too.

 

[hatseflats]

snip

This. Absolutely this. Exploration (or challenge, for that matter) is pointless without a higher purpose. Which is, in the best cases, increasing one's comprehension of the real world (or the Primary World as Tolkien called it), at least in my view.

 

[omicron1]

I summarize it thus:
A linear game is a ladder. You climb it. The end.
An open world done wrong is a field with a flag at one end. You run towards it; sure, you can sidetrack, but there's no point.
An open world done right is a field full of caves, hills, ladders with cool stuff at the top. Sure, you can run to the end, but that's missing the point.
Minecraft is a field with no flag, but plenty of caves. There's nothing to run towards; if you're playing to finish the game, you're definitely missing the point.

 

[teqrevisited]

There might be some loose narrative to follow but it all comes down to these three points: Here's a world. Here are some abilities. Go nuts.

 

[Zyst]

My favorite RPG in WC3 maps were the open kind. There were quests, and bosses lurked in dungeons/caverns/even in the open and you pretty much just grinded levels, got gear from random drops, there were some quests in towns which sometimes just gave gold/exp or gear. Overall it became my favorite type of RPG. Actually I've been searching for more like that so if anyone knows please do hook me up.

But yeah, in those there wasn't necessarily any super quest you had to go through, there wasn't anywhere to go you just went where you wanted and leveled up, got gear, unlocked classes or conversely you sometimes started as a certain class and then "evolved" to a better class (sometimes with two-four different branches (think Maple Story sort of)) Anyhow, they have their place. Not everyone wants to follow the rails given by the system.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

To boldly go ape-shit monkey-nuts insane like no one has ever done before and feel completely justified in doing so.

Also fun, if you count that kinda ridiculous thingy.

 

[DustyDrB]

An open world can be a great supplement (New Vegas, The Elder Scrolls) or a great detriment (LA Noire) to a game. Done right, exploring that open world is rewarding. You get more story uncover, interesting locations to behold, new challenges to overcome, and loot to revel in. Done wrong, you only get vapid time-padding travel mechanics.

I did love Sleeping Dogs, but still would like it better if it weren't open world. The city felt unique enough and the driving was arcadey enough that it didn't draw my ire. But really I just wanted more of the story and that enjoyable combat. It wasn't long before I used a taxi at every opportunity. LA Noire punished you if you let your partner do the driving. Because the landmarks play an important role in one mission, you will just meander about in that part if you haven't found them yet until you either happen upon the landmark or until Cole just "remembers" where they are himself (at which point it is marked on the map). So I drove from that point on in the game because I didn't want that to happen again. But the open world was completely unwanted in that game. It added nothing, but only detracted from the experience.

I'd say Red Dead Redemption is somewhat guilty of this as well. However, I love the views and the horse-riding in that game enough to where it didn't bother me so much. And there were times when the open world added, such as riding into each new area (Mexico as that song plays, and Blackwater's contrastingly developed town).

 

[skywolfblue]

What exactly does having an open map add to a game?

- Exploration
- Tackling things from multiple sides
- A sense of continuity (The town stays put, you can still return, unlike a linear game)
- Less invisible walls to bar your way

To me, an open world just means I have to bloody commute between missions.

A good open-world game will make that commute an interesting and generally worth-while experience.

In Red Dead Redemption and Skyrim you've got caves to explore and bandits to fight and citizens to save along the way.

One of the things I miss from playing World of Warcraft that I'd like to see in other games was the Gryphon/Wyvern riding, there's something very ~connected~ about flying over the zones, a sense of space that is somewhat lost if you can instantly travel anywhere.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

An open world only works if the developers put shit there to DO, give players an actual reason to explore. Otherwise it's just a big empty zone full of trees, rocks, buildings or whatever.
When the player spends ages poking around an open world and finds absolutely nothing interesting, they will start playing it like a linear game and just hop from objective to objective.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Exploration and faffing about. If done well, like Skyrim, you'll really never run out of stuff to do, or at least there is enough stuff to do that it feels like you will never run out.

I've completed quite a few quests in Skyrim, but I'm really only about 8 to 10 quests into the main story. How many hours have I played? Over 100.

I've been busy exploring and mainly collecting as much different stuff as I can to take home. I'm Skyrim's equivalent of a hoarder(yes I've seen that live action Skyrim parody of the show Hoarders).

At first I just completed maybe three or for main story quests before I went off on a tangent. I met the king, beat the first dragon, and became Thain of Whiterun. After that it was all pretty much oooh shiny, oooh what's over there.

Yes, I was the Dragonborn, but first and foremost my character was Lokar, a Nord master thief. After I beat that first dragon and got my house and bottomless chest. I went into every building and stole everything I could get my hands on, then I left and stole everything I a saw across the land. I never had to pay for training of skills, because right after training I would steal the money back. I was so good at pickpocketing that I could steal the money back be crouching right in front after training, taking the money in plain sight.

Lastly, I will add that every game style has its place. If you don't like open world games, do play them. I've been playing games for at least 23 years, and I've played thousands of games with many different world setups. I can't say I totally dislike any, because each kind of setup has its place with certain kinds of games.

 

[Warachia]

I would have thought that the appeal of an open world was allowing the player to get into spontaneous unscripted situations and then having to find creative solutions to them. However, I've never seen an open world game with sufficiently complex or in-depth mechanics to allow the players actions to have any impact beyond the immediate.

I'm pretty sure this was the original point of the games, recently I was looking at the older GTA games and those scenarios happen quite a bit, somebody phones you and you have to use your items and the environment to get them what they want.
I also thought the open world aspect helped in games like Saints Row, where you can sneak into the back of a store, crack the safe, steal everything inside, and then run for it with the cops in pursuit, no objectives or markers except HIDE! these sequences would have lost a lot if they weren't open world.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I also thought the open world aspect helped in games like Saints Row, where you can sneak into the back of a store, crack the safe, steal everything inside, and then run for it with the cops in pursuit, no objectives or markers except HIDE! these sequences would have lost a lot if they weren't open world.

Argh, I hate safe cracking in Saints Row. I think I've only been able to do it maybe twice. I played it on the 360 and turning the thumb stick is so imprecise. The slightest wrong movement and I had to start from the beginning, and 9 times out of 10, the cops were there beating down the door and shooting me point blank with a shotgun before was even halfway done with the combination.

I know it is realistic to make it like you are turning the safe combination nob, but I would have much preferred it to be just a sequence of letter bottom presses.

Come to think of it, I was almost two-thirds done with Saints Row, I need to get to completing it so I can get to Saints Row 2. I stopped with the first one because the last mission of the Westside Rollers story arch just pissed me off with that semi-trailer chase. If there ever was an example of artificial difficulty and "The computer is a cheating bastard" trope, that mission is it.

 

[Adam Locking]

I'm amazed nobody has mentioned Shadow of the Colossus yet, being as it goes against many of the points above. There are no extra quests, enemys, towns or multiple pathways, yet it still feels more 'open' than any other game. The fact that there aren't anyelements to mess up the continuity or make you seem out of character really play to it's advantage.