What makes a game great for you

[PapaGreg096]

-Game mechanics with a sense of physicality and appropriate weight that help your character feel connected to the world

-Immersive, atmospheric game world which stirs up a sense of wonder and desire to explore it

-Soundtrack which compliments your surroundings and gives texture to events happening within them

-Organic, non-intrusive storytelling that helps you care about the world and feel for its inhabitants in some form (whether good or bad)

-A progression system that feels rewarding and cohesive with the storytelling, yet also knows how and when give the player enough freedom to play at their own pace

Of course, these criteria certainly fit some genres better than others, and some of my favorites only focus on a fraction of them, but do so very strongly. Tony Hawk and Burnout were amazing back in the day, and MK as a series has seemed to improve with age like a fine wine. I?m also a sucker for attention to detail, and the more the better. Easter eggs are always welcome, but need some level of thoughtfulness. It?s a bit of a phenomenon when the more love and care a developer puts into the craft of game assets, the more it has a way of following through to the player.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You can't be precise on that though. Not even Ico has all it needs - no more no less. We don't know if a better alternate Ico with more mechanics could have existed, because it never got made.

It's all a feel thing really. I don't feel Ico needs anything different outside of combat. Mark Brown in the video said he felt combat was scaled back too much. However, I kinda think no combat would've been better with something like Ico needing to pull Yorda away from the shadow creatures as you'd think a normal object kinda wouldn't affect them.

How is modern RPGs' "wasting time" different from how RPGs used to be? RPGs have always been huge time sinks where the individual parts are kinda dodgy. The whole appeal of an RPG is putting a lot of time into it, carving out your own story with your own character. The trade off for that amount of freedom and content being that not everything is as polished as it would be in a non-RPG. And heck, it's not like these games force you to do every side-mission, you CAN just skip content if it doesn't interest you or you find it lacking in quality. And Mass Effect might be considered an RPG, but it is the least role-play friendly of any RPG I've ever played, apart from maybe ME1.

Content in games can't and shouldn't be some mathmatical equation, where everything has an exact purpose. Some things are going to work better than others, and something might lack a real purpose in the game. You can't tell me every single aspect of Ico, every shadow creature, every puzzle, served a specific purpose. It didn't. There's things that don't work in that game, and there's things that do work.

I've never really been a connoisseur video game RPGs as I didn't grow up PC gaming but console gaming and I hated JRPGs so I didn't really play much. Though, the older classic CRPGs like Fallout 1 and Baldur's Gate are not as long as today's RPGs. Today, it feels like every RPG is stuffed with a huge world, tons of meaningless quests, loot systems it doesn't need; even Bioware games (last DA and ME) went down that path. Yeah, you can skip content but if the content isn't good then don't put it to begin with. When I watch a good TV show, I don't need to read a wiki to skip the episodes that are shit because there aren't any. Mass Effect is more RPG than the vast majority of RPGs because more than half the game is spent role-playing (JRPGs have like 0 role-playing). Sure, you have to be Commander Shepard but the role-playing is completely tailored to role-play as Shepard in that specific role. Whereas other RPGs offer openness to take on more roles, what you can do in each role is far more limited. So it's a give/take. I prefer the ME style because, like I said in my 1st post, my favorite games are the ones that do one thing and do it really well (master-of-one vs jack-of-all-trades).

I'm not by any means saying there's some sorta mathematical equation to how much content a game should have. Though, the Fibonacci sequence might fit that bill as some artists consciously utilize it in their works. But anyway, it's more of a feel thing as you know when you're playing a game that this didn't belong or there should've been more of that. Going back to Ico, as it's an environmental puzzler, every puzzle fits the core game and it's only a matter quality of each puzzle and whether there were too many or too few (based on if you felt the game was too long or short). It's full of subjectivity obviously because games aren't objectively good or bad. I would've liked to see combat completely taken out as I said above but you need Yorda to be in trouble and Ico to save her so it works in accomplishing that but it probably wasn't the best way to accomplish that either. So many games nowadays have elements in them that literally don't accomplish anything related to the game's core.

 

[Yoshi178]

You can't be precise on that though. Not even Ico has all it needs - no more no less. We don't know if a better alternate Ico with more mechanics could have existed, because it never got made.

It's all a feel thing really. I don't feel Ico needs anything different outside of combat. Mark Brown in the video said he felt combat was scaled back too much. However, I kinda think no combat would've been better with something like Ico needing to pull Yorda away from the shadow creatures as you'd think a normal object kinda wouldn't affect them.

How is modern RPGs' "wasting time" different from how RPGs used to be? RPGs have always been huge time sinks where the individual parts are kinda dodgy. The whole appeal of an RPG is putting a lot of time into it, carving out your own story with your own character. The trade off for that amount of freedom and content being that not everything is as polished as it would be in a non-RPG. And heck, it's not like these games force you to do every side-mission, you CAN just skip content if it doesn't interest you or you find it lacking in quality. And Mass Effect might be considered an RPG, but it is the least role-play friendly of any RPG I've ever played, apart from maybe ME1.

Content in games can't and shouldn't be some mathmatical equation, where everything has an exact purpose. Some things are going to work better than others, and something might lack a real purpose in the game. You can't tell me every single aspect of Ico, every shadow creature, every puzzle, served a specific purpose. It didn't. There's things that don't work in that game, and there's things that do work.

I've never really been a connoisseur video game RPGs as I didn't grow up PC gaming but console gaming and I hated JRPGs so I didn't really play much. Though, the older classic CRPGs like Fallout 1 and Baldur's Gate are not as long as today's RPGs. Today, it feels like every RPG is stuffed with a huge world, tons of meaningless quests, loot systems it doesn't need; even Bioware games (last DA and ME) went down that path. Yeah, you can skip content but if the content isn't good then don't put it to begin with. When I watch a good TV show, I don't need to read a wiki to skip the episodes that are shit because there aren't any. Mass Effect is more RPG than the vast majority of RPGs because more than half the game is spent role-playing (JRPGs have like 0 role-playing). Sure, you have to be Commander Shepard but the role-playing is completely tailored to role-play as Shepard in that specific role. Whereas other RPGs offer openness to take on more roles, what you can do in each role is far more limited. So it's a give/take. I prefer the ME style because, like I said in my 1st post, my favorite games are the ones that do one thing and do it really well (master-of-one vs jack-of-all-trades).

I'm not by any means saying there's some sorta mathematical equation to how much content a game should have. Though, the Fibonacci sequence might fit that bill as some artists consciously utilize it in their works. But anyway, it's more of a feel thing as you know when you're playing a game that this didn't belong or there should've been more of that. Going back to Ico, as it's an environmental puzzler, every puzzle fits the core game and it's only a matter quality of each puzzle and whether there were too many or too few (based on if you felt the game was too long or short). It's full of subjectivity obviously because games aren't objectively good or bad. I would've liked to see combat completely taken out as I said above but you need Yorda to be in trouble and Ico to save her so it works in accomplishing that but it probably wasn't the best way to accomplish that either. So many games nowadays have elements in them that literally don't accomplish anything related to the game's core.

just because you hate spending time doing side quests doesn't mean everyone else does. some of us actually like playing our games and having them filled with content.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

just because you hate spending time doing side quests doesn't mean everyone else. some of us actually like playing our games and having them filled with content.

ME has good side quests...

I like when my entertainment respects my time.

Also...

It's full of subjectivity obviously...

 

[Dalisclock]

I think he meant more along the lines getting a bunch of same-y guns like say 10 assault rifles for your 2-gun system is different than carrying 8 vastly different guns. Games should only have what they need basically.

You can't be precise on that though. Not even Ico has all it needs - no more no less. We don't know if a better alternate Ico with more mechanics could have existed, because it never got made.

Modern RPGs have become the worst genre in gaming by far. They are so concerned with wasting the player's time vs giving them engaging content. RPGs are the longest games with the lowest percentage of quality content, that's a pretty horrible combination. Every quest should be of quality and be there for a specific purpose, not just be a copy-pasted thing to do on a list of chores. You can make an RPG that is less than 50 hours and be "more" RPG than just any other RPG, for example the Mass Effect series. More is not necessarily better, that's why editors exist to remove anything that doesn't add anything to the work (whether its a game, movie, TV show episode, book, etc.).

How is modern RPGs' "wasting time" different from how RPGs used to be? RPGs have always been huge time sinks where the individual parts are kinda dodgy. The whole appeal of an RPG is putting a lot of time into it, carving out your own story with your own character. The trade off for that amount of freedom and content being that not everything is as polished as it would be in a non-RPG. And heck, it's not like these games force you to do every side-mission, you CAN just skip content if it doesn't interest you or you find it lacking in quality. And Mass Effect might be considered an RPG, but it is the least role-play friendly of any RPG I've ever played, apart from maybe ME1.

Content in games can't and shouldn't be some mathmatical equation, where everything has an exact purpose. Some things are going to work better than others, and something might lack a real purpose in the game. You can't tell me every single aspect of Ico, every shadow creature, every puzzle, served a specific purpose. It didn't. There's things that don't work in that game, and there's things that do work.

I think the issue being pressed here is that it feels like a lot of 60+ hour RPGs tend to feel a bit bloated nowadays. I'm playing through Assassins Creed Odyssey right now and while I'm enjoying the hell out of it, there's a lot of it, to the point it feels like too much at times. There's the main family plot, the cult plot, the Atlantis plot, the side missions that are somewhat important, the legendary beasts, the bulletin boards with a bunch of random missions and contracts, the conquest battles(and related activities to trigger such) the various tombs you can explore, the animal dens, all manner of bandit camps and forts and outposts that you pretty much stumble across willy nilly all the time, the shipwrecks and underwater temples, etc, etc. Which is all connected to the mountains of gear you can't help but trip over with slightly different stats and rarity levels and such and resources to upgrade your boat/weapons because of the obscene number of resources you need after a while.

I can see why this stuff exists and I appreciate you're given options of doing stuff you are interested in and bypassing the stuff you aren't, but god it does feel like there's some fat to be cut away here. I had the same feeling about the earlier games were you were tasked with liberating areas so you could buy up and upgrade all the shops so you could afford better weapons to repeat the process.

It feels like there some be some effort at scaling back just a bit and increasing the quality to quantity ratio in games such as these. Sure the game might be 30 hours long, but it's a really good and compelling 30 hours and not 100+ hours of Some awesome stuff and a ton of bandit camps.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I think the issue being pressed here is that it feels like a lot of 60+ hour RPGs tend to feel a bit bloated nowadays. I'm playing through Assassins Creed Odyssey right now and while I'm enjoying the hell out of it, there's a lot of it, to the point it feels like too much at times. There's the main family plot, the cult plot, the Atlantis plot, the side missions that are somewhat important, the legendary beasts, the bulletin boards with a bunch of random missions and contracts, the conquest battles(and related activities to trigger such) the various tombs you can explore, the animal dens, all manner of bandit camps and forts and outposts that you pretty much stumble across willy nilly all the time, the shipwrecks and underwater temples, etc, etc. Which is all connected to the mountains of gear you can't help but trip over with slightly different stats and rarity levels and such and resources to upgrade your boat/weapons because of the obscene number of resources you need after a while.

I can see why this stuff exists and I appreciate you're given options of doing stuff you are interested in and bypassing the stuff you aren't, but god it does feel like there's some fat to be cut away here. I had the same feeling about the earlier games were you were tasked with liberating areas so you could buy up and upgrade all the shops so you could afford better weapons to repeat the process.

It feels like there some be some effort at scaling back just a bit and increasing the quality to quantity ratio in games such as these. Sure the game might be 30 hours long, but it's a really good and compelling 30 hours and not 100+ hours of Some awesome stuff and a ton of bandit camps.

This seems to be more of a problem with Ubisoft rather than RPGs. In games like Skyrim and The Witcher 3 you have 100+ hours of content, but it's relatively spaced out and not vying for your attention. Ubisoft games feel designed to constantly throw something in your way to do, rather than letting you set your own pace in consuming its content. Horizon: Zero Dawn and Breath of the Wild are two other examples of open-world games that don't try to completely flood you with stuff, eventhough those games have a lot of stuff.

 

[Yoshi178]

just because you hate spending time doing side quests doesn't mean everyone else. some of us actually like playing our games and having them filled with content.

ME has good side quests...

in YOUR opinion it does.

other people prefer other games

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

It depends on the type of game.

What makes STALKER great is not what makes Civilization great.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

in YOUR opinion it does.

other people prefer other games

Do you not read the whole post or what? There were only like 20 words total to read.

Also...

It's full of subjectivity obviously...

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

This seems to be more of a problem with Ubisoft rather than RPGs. In games like Skyrim and The Witcher 3 you have 100+ hours of content, but it's relatively spaced out and not vying for your attention. Ubisoft games feel designed to constantly thow something in your way to do, rather than letting you set your own pace in consuming its content. Horizon: Zero Dawn and Breath of the Wild are two other examples of open-world games that don't try to completely flood you with stuff, eventhough those games have a lot of stuff.

The Witcher 3 has a bunch of stuff that's fluff really. The whole level and loot systems aren't needed. The game literally gives up on the loot system halfway through with the introduction of Witcher gear. Not only does the loot system not make any sense thematically, all it does is cause you to waste your time in needless inventory management. And there's really no reason to buy much of anything either because you find/upgrade anything that's good anyway, there's nothing to buy so why even having a full-on loot system for selling purposes, why have a haggle system, why have 2 or 3 different currencies? And, Witcher 3 has just about as many "points of interest" as a Ubisoft game and some are even far worse like instead of finding random chests on land, you find them in the sea with horrid swimming controls to boot. The core of Witcher 3 didn't really require it's open world either.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It's really not a stable thing. Each game has something unique to itself that makes it great.


I don't think any two games can be great in the same way unless they're very similar sequels like the dark souls games or something.

 

[Casual Shinji]

This seems to be more of a problem with Ubisoft rather than RPGs. In games like Skyrim and The Witcher 3 you have 100+ hours of content, but it's relatively spaced out and not vying for your attention. Ubisoft games feel designed to constantly thow something in your way to do, rather than letting you set your own pace in consuming its content. Horizon: Zero Dawn and Breath of the Wild are two other examples of open-world games that don't try to completely flood you with stuff, eventhough those games have a lot of stuff.

The Witcher 3 has a bunch of stuff that's fluff really. The whole level and loot systems aren't needed. The game literally gives up on the loot system halfway through with the introduction of Witcher gear. Not only does the loot system not make any sense thematically, all it does is cause you to waste your time in needless inventory management. And there's really no reason to buy much of anything either because you find/upgrade anything that's good anyway, there's nothing to buy so why even having a full-on loot system for selling purposes, why have a haggle system, why have 2 or 3 different currencies? And, Witcher 3 has just about as many "points of interest" as a Ubisoft game and some are even far worse like instead of finding random chests on land, you find them in the sea with horrid swimming controls to boot. The core of Witcher 3 didn't really require it's open world either.

What is the core of The Witcher 3 then? How does the loot system not make sense thematically? I know this is probably pretty pointless to ask you, because no matter what The Witcher 3 is going to be even worse than the worst thing to have ever existed.

I remember you coming down pretty hard on the game for having zero choice, less so then even Telltale or a David Cage game in your words, eventhough that's blatantly wrong, but I guess you still have some sort of bone to pick with this game for not not-being an open-world RPG.

Go ahead, I guess. I'll be here observing your peculiar loathing of this game with a raised eyebrow.

 

[PapaGreg096]

just because you hate spending time doing side quests doesn't mean everyone else. some of us actually like playing our games and having them filled with content.

ME has good side quests...

I like when my entertainment respects my time.

Also...

It's full of subjectivity obviously...

You realize this (?good?) is very subjective, yet you?re presenting your opinion as an absolute value according to your own personal tastes.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What is the core of The Witcher 3 then? How does the loot system not make sense thematically? I know this is probably pretty pointless to ask you, because no matter what The Witcher 3 is going to be even worse than the worst thing to have ever existed.

I remember you coming down pretty hard on the game for having zero choice, less so then even Telltale or a David Cage game in your words, eventhough that's blatantly wrong, but I guess you still have some sort of bone to pick with this game for not not-being an open-world RPG.

Go ahead, I guess. I'll be here observing your peculiar loathing of this game with a raised eyebrow.

The core of Witcher 3 is the narrative and the narrative itself is extremely railroad-y (where you're trying to find Ciri). It doesn't make sense for Geralt to be doing random quests and hunts. Geralt is a master witcher, he already has access and ability to use master witcher gear and all that but he can't use a piece of shit level 2 sword at the start.

I don't get why you think that I feel every game sucks or is great and there's no middle ground. The writing and narrative of Witcher 3 is really solid in the 7-8/10 area (rare for video games) though I didn't enjoy the gameplay at all, the combat was really poor and just the movement alone was really poor as well (CDPR did literally patch in better controls so it's not like I'm the only one complaining). So I'd rate the game in the 4/10 area because the gameplay is bad and you spend more time in gameplay than you do in the narrative so most of my time playing wasn't enjoyable so I can't rate it 5 or higher because it was below average experience for me. Below average doesn't mean it sucks, it means it's below average.

Again, I never said you have zero choice, I said there's more choice in a Telltale/David Cage game. I said Witcher 3 has some great instances of choice after you find Ciri and how organically its integrated into the game. I said I probably gave the amount of choice more flak than I should've because of a friend telling me about the choices in the previous games that I haven't played, so my expectations were higher.

ME has good side quests...

I like when my entertainment respects my time.

Also...

It's full of subjectivity obviously...

You realize this (?good?) is very subjective, yet you?re presenting your opinion as an absolute value according to your own personal tastes.

Did you not read my entire post? I'm not going to put IMO after everything I say that's obviously an opinion because everyone should know it's an opinion. Do you think when a friend says XYZ movie sucks they think its an objective fact if they didn't say IMO? Games have very little objectivity to them outside of technical aspects. It's other gamers that think games are objectively good/bad as that's why people get so mad at say Jim Sterling for giving Zelda a 7/10.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The core of Witcher 3 is the narrative and the narrative itself is extremely railroad-y (where you're trying to find Ciri). It doesn't make sense for Geralt to be doing random quests and hunts. Geralt is a master witcher, he already has access and ability to use master witcher gear and all that but he can't use a piece of shit level 2 sword at the start.

Yeah, and part of that narrative is the open-world and all the tiny little stories it tells through side quests, giving texture to the world, allowing you to take it in at you own pace. It makes as much sense for Geralt to do quests and hunts as it does for him to need money to finance his journey, i.e. if he needs money he does quests or hunts because he's a mercenary And the game doesn't MAKE you do it, you have the choice to pursue this content or not.

It makes equally little sense for Aloy to faf around in the open-world when the fate of the world is at stake, should you choose to faf around. It also makes little sense for Ico and Yorda to fall asleep on a random couch when shadow creatures can just spring up out of nowhere.

I don't get why you think that I feel every game sucks or is great and there's no middle ground. The writing and narrative of Witcher 3 is really solid in the 7-8/10 area (rare for video games) though I didn't enjoy the gameplay at all, the combat was really poor and just the movement alone was really poor as well (CDPR did literally patch in better controls so it's not like I'm the only one complaining). So I'd rate the game in the 4/10 area because the gameplay is bad and you spend more time in gameplay than you do in the narrative so most of my time playing wasn't enjoyable so I can't rate it 5 or higher because it was below average experience for me. Below average doesn't mean it sucks, it means it's below average.

That's because you bring the game up all the time claiming how terrible it is.

Again, I never said you have zero choice, I said there's more choice in a Telltale/David Cage game.

Which is not true.

 

[SweetShark]

When I go complete "Blind" in a videogame and it worth it.
I am the kind of person I don't care if I get to see inappropriate moments.

I realised this for the first time when I bought Undertale cause I thought it was a Pokemon clone game.
Worth the time I played the game.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Yeah, and part of that narrative is the open-world and all the tiny little stories it tells through side quests, giving texture to the world, allowing you to take it in at you own pace. It makes as much sense for Geralt to do quests and hunts as it does for him to need money to finance his journey, i.e. if he needs money he does quests or hunts because he's a mercenary And the game doesn't MAKE you do it, you have the choice to pursue this content or not.

It makes equally little sense for Aloy to faf around in the open-world when the fate of the world is at stake, should you choose to faf around. It also makes little sense for Ico and Yorda to fall asleep on a random couch when shadow creatures can just spring up out of nowhere.

The core narrative is not to take it your own pace though. It ain't "end of the world" (until it is) but Geralt himself has immediacy to find Ciri, not do mundane sidequests, play Gwent, get into bar fights, etc. Why would Geralt need money on his quest when he could literally just ask Ciri's dad for basically expenses to find his daughter? Plus, the game gives you nothing of value to even use money on either. How does Geralt not have money to live X amount of months to find Ciri when he has all these contacts (kings and all) that he's done favors/jobs for in the past where he should be well enough off to have money for stuff like food and board for his journey?

In Horizon, it isn't an "end of the world" scenario until late in the game. The vast majority of the game is just Aloy discovering the rest of the world trying to find out bits of information as she explores. Aloy is new to even the Nora lands let alone the rest of the cities and everything else whereas Geralt is a veteran of his world. The open world of Horizon is also there because the core game (machine fights) requires it too. Neither the narrative nor gameplay of Witcher 3 require an open world.

The ingenious thing about saving in Ico is that you need Yorda to save, which builds on the core game (via the freaking save mechanic). On the other hand, they are definitely "game-y", though you could say one of them keeps watch.

That's because you bring the game up all the time claiming how terrible it is.

Again, I never said you have zero choice, I said there's more choice in a Telltale/David Cage game.

Which is not true.

I only point out the same exact things that I just pointed that is poorly done in Witcher 3.

There's literal "Archer" playthroughs of Telltale's Batman. Geralt is Geralt in everyone's Witcher 3. Not to mention RPGs are supposed be THE genre where choice is the core experience. That's what you sacrifice lesser gameplay for.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The core narrative is not to take it your own pace though. It ain't "end of the world" (until it is) but Geralt himself has immediacy to find Ciri, not do mundane sidequests, play Gwent, get into bar fights, etc. Why would Geralt need money on his quest when he could literally just ask Ciri's dad for basically expenses to find his daughter? Plus, the game gives you nothing of value to even use money on either. How does Geralt not have money to live X amount of months to find Ciri when he has all these contacts (kings and all) that he's done favors/jobs for in the past where he should be well enough off to have money for stuff like food and board for his journey?

Again, you don't have to do any of this side content. I didn't even touch Gwent.

Secondly, it's a big world and Ciri needs to be found in it. You make that linear and the whole 'Geralt needs to track her down in these nations ravaged by conflict' loses its scope. Several characters you meet with for information on Ciri are people in positions of power, like barons and kings. Having their lands actually represented as an open world lends it more legitimacy. And these characters themselves have their own issues which span into quest lines, requiring a larger world to facilitate them.

Just as the machines in Horizon, the random characters you meet in The Witcher 3 can only really work in an open-world. This is one of the cores of the game; the variety of people you meet, what their place is in the (open ) world, how the war is effecting them, can/will you help them or will their lives remain shitty etc.

As for Geralt not getting money from Ciri's dad, you can make up any number of excuses for this. Though I think Geralt just flat out says he doesn't want his money, probably because he doesn't want to be in his pocket. And there's the issue of Ciri really not wanting her father after her. And Ciri isn't exactly helpless, so it becomes this balance of trying to find her without really leading her father to her.

In Horizon, it isn't an "end of the world" scenario until late in the game. The vast majority of the game is just Aloy discovering the rest of the world trying to find out bits of information as she explores. Aloy is new to even the Nora lands let alone the rest of the cities and everything else whereas Geralt is a veteran of his world. The open world of Horizon is also there because the core game (machine fights) requires it too. Neither the narrative nor gameplay of Witcher 3 require an open world.

Yet when it is the end of the world you can just put it on hold and roam around fighting machines till the cows come home. And even without a cataclysmic scenario there's a lot of side missions where it's either 'go get medicine for this dying man', or 'go find this kidnapped girl' and you can just ignore them while in progress, only to continue 20+ hours later.

There's literal "Archer" playthroughs of Telltale's Batman. Geralt is Geralt in everyone's Witcher 3. Not to mention RPGs are supposed be THE genre where choice is the core experience. That's what you sacrifice lesser gameplay for.

Yeah, and in The Witcher 3 you have tons of choices.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Again, you don't have to do any of this side content. I didn't even touch Gwent.

Secondly, it's a big world and Ciri needs to be found in it. You make that linear and the whole 'Geralt needs to track her down in these nations ravaged by conflict' loses its scope. Several characters you meet with for information on Ciri are people in positions of power, like barons and kings. Having their lands actually represented as an open world lends it more legitimacy. And these characters themselves have their own issues which span into quest lines, requiring a larger world to facilitate them.

Just as the machines in Horizon, the random characters you meet in The Witcher 3 can only really work in an open-world. This is one of the cores of the game; the variety of people you meet, what their place is in the (open ) world, how the war is effecting them, can/will you help them or will their lives remain shitty etc.

As for Geralt not getting money from Ciri's dad, you can make up any number of excuses for this. Though I think Geralt just flat out says he doesn't want his money, probably because he doesn't want to be in his pocket. And there's the issue of Ciri really not wanting her father after her. And Ciri isn't exactly helpless, so it becomes this balance of trying to find her without really leading her father to her.

Most of the side content is really standard Ubisoft type fair, whether it's finding chests or clearing endless nests. There's a few good sidequests but you need a wiki to look at to find out what's actually worth doing. All content in any game should be of quality and enjoyable. The game doesn't need the open world to find Ciri, you are never actually searching the world for Ciri. You just go to who saw her last, they say she went that way and that's pretty much it. I'm not saying Witcher 3 should be one long hallway of places along a line but it didn't at all need the massive world it got. You can do a bunch of hub-worlds. You can do NPCs in small worlds just fine too, Dishonoreds have NPCs to help as well. Witcher 3 did not need a map bigger than Horizon at all (which Guerrilla scaled down on purpose). Not wanting someone's money for personal gain and taking it just to pay for expenses are 2 different things, plus Geralt should be well-off and at least comfortable with regards to money at this point in his life anyway. And, again, the game provides no use at all for money, there's nothing you need to buy. I'd freaking love an RPG where you are getting by and just surviving one job at a time as my favorite show is Firefly. But every RPG has to have basically the same grand stakes to it vs being a much more intimate affair. Witcher 3's plot ends up being about saving literally ALL worlds, and it's basically the intimate side stories on the way to the main plot thread where the game shines.

Yet when it is the end of the world you can just put it on hold and roam around fighting machines till the cows come home. And even without a cataclysmic scenario there's a lot of side missions where it's either 'go get medicine for this dying man', or 'go find this kidnapped girl' and you can just ignore them while in progress, only to continue 20+ hours later.

But that doesn't negate that the 1st 80% or so of the game doesn't have some end of the world scenario, the open world thematically makes sense for Horizon. Horizon has 40-something total quests IIRC while Witcher 3 has hundreds and Aloy's main quest has far less immediacy than Geralt's quest.

Yeah, and in The Witcher 3 you have tons of choices.

Not really, definitely not more than Bioware or Obsidian games.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Most of the side content is really standard Ubisoft type fair, whether it's finding chests or clearing endless nests. There's a few good sidequests but you need a wiki to look at to find out what's actually worth doing.

Most of all content of any game is standard if you boil it down to just the basic mechanics. Horizon has the most typical Ubisoft content of all, with its climbig towers to reveal the map, not to mention crafting and stripping enemies and animals. But guess what, due to how it's framed it works. Just like how in W3 a hunt can be framed as a murder mystery, or a dispute between two sides in a village that's boiling over. Even finding random chests can tell their own little story through notes.

All content in any game should be of quality and enjoyable.

And again you're drawing this weird hard line to what games should be, and why this makes W3 a faulty game. This would make Ico fail as a game too since fighting the shadow creatures is bad and boring, even by the director's own admission. Or maybe it's just a part of the game that doesn't work as well, and the other parts that do shine make up for it.

Yet when it is the end of the world you can just put it on hold and roam around fighting machines till the cows come home. And even without a cataclysmic scenario there's a lot of side missions where it's either 'go get medicine for this dying man', or 'go find this kidnapped girl' and you can just ignore them while in progress, only to continue 20+ hours later.

But that doesn't negate that the 1st 80% or so of the game doesn't have some end of the world scenario, the open world thematically makes sense for Horizon. Horizon has 40-something total quests IIRC while Witcher 3 has hundreds and Aloy's main quest has far less immediacy than Geralt's quest.

Doesn't it though? With as hard a line as you're towing I'd say Horizon having this inconsistency puts it squarely in the 'this should not be, therefor game is inferior' department.

You keep saying the open-world for Horizon makes thematic sense, but just as you argued W3 could be set in a Dishonored sized world, so too could Horizon be set in a Monster Hunter sized one. Horizon doesn't need an open-world either. I'm mean, if you're going to be that strict about it.

Yeah, and in The Witcher 3 you have tons of choices.

Not really, definitely not more than Bioware or Obsidian games.

Sure..