• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Elden Ring May Just Reinvent The Open-World Genre

S0ULZB0URNE

Member

"Unless the Elden Ring demo condensed everything cool about the game into 1/12 the square mileage to fool us, I’m frankly worried about the developers. The attention to detail that must be going into making this ambitious project a reality is nothing short of herculean."


"In any case, my brief time with Elden Ring showed me that From Software is entirely capable of owning the open-world video game genre. I don’t know how I’ll go back to massive plots of land with nothing to see between points of interest apart from environmental details that feel copy-pasted to simply fill space. Even as a diehard Dark Souls fan, I’m blown away by what the developers were able to accomplish with this small slice of the full game and worried about my free time come next February."
 

Perrott

Member
No.

Red Dead Redemption 2 had an open-world filled with meaningful events, places to discover, side characters to meet and interesting activities to engage in - and had all of this come out to the player in a natural exploration-based way, instead of doing it the Ubisoft way with +100 different markers on the map.

Hell, even Days Gone did the "have enemies roam the map and show up at different spots depending on the time of day" thing more than two years ago with it's horde system.
 
Last edited:
No.

Red Dead Redemption 2 had an open-world filled with meaningful events, places to discover, side characters to meet and interesting activities to engage in - and had all of this come out to the player in a natural exploration-based way, instead of doing it the Ubisoft way with +100 different markers on the map.
But, it sacrificed gameplay and fun for the sake of realism.
 

bitbydeath

Member
No.

Red Dead Redemption 2 had an open-world filled with meaningful events, places to discover, side characters to meet and interesting activities to engage in - and had all of this come out to the player in a natural exploration-based way, instead of doing it the Ubisoft way with +100 different markers on the map.
It was pretty shit to wander compared to Days Gone though. Too much open space of nothing but trees and grass.
 

Perrott

Member
But, it sacrificed gameplay and fun for the sake of realism.
That's entirely subjective, but even then it has nothing to do with it's open-world design, which is what's being discussed here.
It was pretty shit to wander compared to Days Gone though. Too much open space of nothing but trees and grass.
That's not true, RDR2's woods were populated with random events, curious stuff to discover and most importantly animals to hunt, which was an activity with much more depth, systems and mechanics in Red Dead than in other open-world games (Far Cry, Days Gone, The Elder Scrolls), hence a more engaging activity. Hell, my dad only booted up the game in order to go hunting, then carry the dead animals to the camp and then go to the nearest town in order to play some poker or domino.

Other open-world games barely allow for such a gameplay loop, as all their activities are always action-oriented missions or tasks.
 
Last edited:
No.

Red Dead Redemption 2 had an open-world filled with meaningful events, places to discover, side characters to meet and interesting activities to engage in - and had all of this come out to the player in a natural exploration-based way, instead of doing it the Ubisoft way with +100 different markers on the map.

Hell, even Days Gone did the "have enemies roam the map and show up at different spots depending on the time of day" thing more than two years ago with it's horde system.
I would consider RDR2 a masterpiece. But it falls short in open world aspects. There is not enough rewards for open world activities, only rewards is playing through main storyline. There are also not enough things to spend the money on.

I would say Vice City and San Andreas was better in ‘open world’ aspect. In Vice City you could earn money from doing stunts, arena events, Taxi/Vigilante/Firefighters missions, Races, and many other mini games, then you had to buy businesses to complete the main story. You could do it in any order and money meant something because these businesses were expensive. These businesses were not marked on the map but you had to discover them yourselves and they would have engaging missions. If you couldn’t generate enough money you couldn’t progress in Vice City.
 

Perrott

Member
I would consider RDR2 a masterpiece. But it falls short in open world aspects. There is not enough rewards for open world activities, only rewards is playing through main storyline. There are also not enough things to spend the money on.

I would say Vice City and San Andreas was better in ‘open world’ aspect. In Vice City you could earn money from doing stunts, arena events, Taxi/Vigilante/Firefighters missions, Races, and many other mini games, then you had to buy businesses to complete the main story. You could do it in any order and money meant something because these businesses were expensive. These businesses were not marked on the map but you had to discover them yourselves and they would have engaging missions. If you couldn’t generate enough money you couldn’t progress in Vice City.
You don't need to be "rewarded" in order to have experienced an interesting gameplay moment/activity. You don't do things in RDR2 looking for a reward, but because you're immersed into the game world and just happened to feel like going to the town in order to get Arthur a bath.
 

bitbydeath

Member
That's entirely subjective, but even then it has nothing to do with it's open-world design, which is what's being discussed here.

That's not true, RDR2's woods were populated with random events, curious stuff to discover and most importantly animals to hunt, which was an activity with much more depth, systems and mechanics in Red Dead than in other open-world games (Far Cry, Days Gone, The Elder Scrolls), hence a more engaging activity. Hell, my dad only booted up the game in order to go hunting, then carry the dead animals to the camp and then go to the nearest town in order to play some poker or domino.

Other open-world games barely allow for such a gameplay loop, as all their activities are always action-oriented missions or tasks.
Check the video below out to get a good idea of just how barren the map is when you’re not doing a mission.

It’s quite literally a snore fest with barely any life on the map at all.
 
It will not...it will be a superb game...but lets stop being hyperbolic about games reinventing a genre...the last transformative open world game was RDR2 and that didnt reinvent anything. I doubt elden ring will push the genre as far as RDR2 did.
 
Negative space is not a bad thing and helps create a proper scale of the world around. How much of that to find and when is certainly up for discussion, and honestly is going to be very much game dependant since they're all with different goals.

Riding through both RDR and RDR2 was a joy and honestly a tranquil moment between missions that you could get lost in. Same goes with riding on the bike in Days Gone and swinging around in Spider-man. There's fun in that motion that gets lost having to stop every few feet to check something out.

People were kidding themselves thinking BotW was going to lead to a massive overhaul in open world games. Same goes for Elden Ring if they're thinking the same thing.
 
I highly doubt it, and I say that as someone who likes From Software games so much that they're pretty much the only games I'd ever consider paying more than 20 bucks for. It's just a Souls game with a bigger map, and it doesn't really have to be more than that.
 
For my gaming tastes, FROM (Soulsborne FROM) is just on another level that can't be reached by any other developer. From art direction, to subtlety of narrative, to atmosphere, creature design, depth. Everything they do just resonates with me. I have no problem believing Elden Ring will be a high water mark in gaming for me personally.
 
Negative space is not a bad thing and helps create a proper scale of the world around. How much of that to find and when is certainly up for discussion, and honestly is going to be very much game dependant since they're all with different goals.

Riding through both RDR and RDR2 was a joy and honestly a tranquil moment between missions that you could get lost in. Same goes with riding on the bike in Days Gone and swinging around in Spider-man. There's fun in that motion that gets lost having to stop every few feet to check something out.

People were kidding themselves thinking BotW was going to lead to a massive overhaul in open world games. Same goes for Elden Ring if they're thinking the same thing.
Yes, Ueda is *the* master at this imho.
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
No.

Red Dead Redemption 2 had an open-world filled with meaningful events, places to discover, side characters to meet and interesting activities to engage in - and had all of this come out to the player in a natural exploration-based way, instead of doing it the Ubisoft way with +100 different markers on the map.

Hell, even Days Gone did the "have enemies roam the map and show up at different spots depending on the time of day" thing more than two years ago with it's horde system.
I played RDR and RDR2, huge GTA fan as well.

What I want to say is, the world design is amazing, no doubt.

But my issue with the game is that it tries too hard on the high quality and realistic animations.

Feels very slow doing almost everything especially walking, turning around AND PICKING UP ITEMS.
 

Northeastmonk

Gold Member
Elden Ring is in my most wanted games list this gen. Idk how I feel about evangelists. Preaching what fans already believe always leads to someone pissing on it all.
For my gaming tastes, FROM (Soulsborne FROM) is just on another level that can't be reached by any other developer. From art direction, to subtlety of narrative, to atmosphere, creature design, depth. Everything they do just resonates with me. I have no problem believing Elden Ring will be a high water mark in gaming for me personally.
I agree.
 

OsirisBlack

Member
I'm hyped over Elden Ring, but no.



The same was said about BOTW by pretty much everyone that never played any open world, but here we are.
To be fair I cant think of ANY other open world game that allows you to do the things you can do in BOTW. Its not the most populate and it doesn't have the best visuals but I cannot think of one that is half as interactive. From cutting down trees to setting grass on fire or even using the heat from that same fire you started to propel yourself into the sky.
 

MiguelItUp

Member
That's entirely subjective, but even then it has nothing to do with it's open-world design, which is what's being discussed here.

That's not true, RDR2's woods were populated with random events, curious stuff to discover and most importantly animals to hunt, which was an activity with much more depth, systems and mechanics in Red Dead than in other open-world games (Far Cry, Days Gone, The Elder Scrolls), hence a more engaging activity. Hell, my dad only booted up the game in order to go hunting, then carry the dead animals to the camp and then go to the nearest town in order to play some poker or domino.

Other open-world games barely allow for such a gameplay loop, as all their activities are always action-oriented missions or tasks.
Well, but the opinion on "open-world design" is also, well, subjective, lmao.

I absolutely adored RDR2, but it was clear that it wasn't for everyone. I, too, also feel like it was one of, if not THE, most beautiful open-world games on the market. Not to mention the amount of things you could do was almost daunting at times. But some folks just couldn't do it, and that's completely fair.

But, I wouldn't dismiss Elden Ring of what it does. Especially since it's not even out yet, we have no idea what's really ahead aside from what was in the test, and even then a lot of the previews gave From praise for doing open-world so well on their first go. Some even said they did a great deal of things even better than the pros, which is pretty interesting.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
I honestly don't understand the amount of hype this is getting
What not to understand exactly? Most of us enjoyed FROM's pervious games so we are obviously going to be excited for their next game.

Most people going excited about the games that made by their favourite developers, thats pretty common sense.
 
Last edited:

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
I feel there has been no game that has “reinvented” the Open World Genre. There are a few who have reinvigorated it. BotW and RDR2 Are great examples, but nothing has been reinvented with this genre and I certainly don’t see an Open World Souls game doing so (Even if It is my most wanted game this generation)
 

Ezquimacore

Member
Damn that's a fanboy's article. The game is literally Demon Souls with an open world. Not that I'm not excited but let's calm down. You can't even swim, you can't even climb...you can't even glide.
 
Last edited:

Boss Mog

Member
No.

Red Dead Redemption 2 had an open-world filled with meaningful events, places to discover, side characters to meet and interesting activities to engage in - and had all of this come out to the player in a natural exploration-based way, instead of doing it the Ubisoft way with +100 different markers on the map.

Hell, even Days Gone did the "have enemies roam the map and show up at different spots depending on the time of day" thing more than two years ago with it's horde system.
RDR2 was one of the most boring and empty open worlds I've ever played along with the first one. A few pre-scripted events here and there aren't going to change that. Shame on me for being fooled by R* twice though I guess.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
I'm pretty excited for the game, but it doesn't seem to be "reinventing" anything at all. This game has areas with nothing really going on except for a few trees and some enemies, just like all other open world games. I guess the actual "stuff" seems more packed together here than in something like Skyrim or TW3 or BotW or Ghost or what have you, and that I believe is because this game's open world will simply not be quite as massive as in those games (I might be wrong about that, but it's definitely the impression I get). Which has its pros and cons. The world will feel more packed with stuff to do with less "dead" space, but it will also feel less expansive and less like a real place (real places don't really have stuff happening every five meters), and there will be less sense of traveling great distances. And that's probably the right decision for a Souls-like open world game, but it wouldn't have been the right decision for those other games I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
I would consider RDR2 a masterpiece. But it falls short in open world aspects. There is not enough rewards for open world activities, only rewards is playing through main storyline. There are also not enough things to spend the money on.

Milwaukee Bucks What GIF by NBA


Either I just got lucky and experienced so many open world aspects in my 180 hour playthrough, or you just never took the time to properly explore the game in a slow paced manner.

Idk how tf you can bring up SA and VC into the conversation if were talking about emergent gameplay, but okay 🤷🏽‍♂️
 
Top Bottom