Support NeoGAF

[Mr.Phoenix]

Their open world games are a cut above the normal the average aaa, but I don't think they have it in them to do a breath of the wild or tears of the Kingdom. In fact, no one does. It's been a long time since breath of the wild and the closest things have been death stranding and elden ring. Neither of which are all that close.

Jury's out on starfield, but if it's like Skyrim, I don't think anyone else can do that, either. Again, it's been a long time and no one has done a game quite like that.

Someone already made Starfeild though... its called No mans sky. procedural worlds and all. They built the blueprint for what this game is going to be.

 

[fallingdove]

They are limited. Not true open world.

Your opinions are clueless as always. Keep up the good work.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Isn't horizon sorto of open world and Ghost of tsushima?

not sort of... they are in every way.

 

[EDMIX]

Loves these games but I'm talking abouts DEEP emergence open worlds that feel lived in

Sure Giga, but that is deeply subjective too.....

I love Elder Scrolls and Fallout cause how the NPCs behave and how the world reacts to things you do, like GTA and Red Dead, but many people have cited how much they love Witcher 3 cause that world, yet it literally has less then those games in regards to NPC behaviors, yet many still say how it feels "lived in", thus, its a subjective thing

Which means what you and I feel might be "lived in" type games, others may not see it that way. I felt Ghost Of Tsushima felt very lived in, but others might disagree. Like when you go to a town and people are just walking around, buying things, fishing etc

Even when you go into Jackson in The Last Of Us 2 you see people doing ordinary life type things where someone might say "that feel lived in" lol

Who knows.

 

[feynoob]

Btw Hitman franchise are true open world in that sense, every level is like a mini world with heavily detailed environment. There is only one goal, everything else is totally up to the player, no sequence are required, there are almost endless different way to achieve that goal that is all up to players creativity. Especially when turning off guided mission (Which is a terrible addition to cater to new audience, it being off was how it was meant to be played like Blood money), when aiming for Silent Assassin rank, you will need to utilize every tool, every interactive environment, every AI behavior, its absolutely astonishing, I prefer that open experience more than BoTW.

That kind of immersion highlights the beauty of hitman.
You are the hitman. The world is there for you. Achieve you mission however you want to.

 

[EDMIX]

That kind of immersion highlights the beauty of hitman.
You are the hitman. The world is there for you. Achieve you mission however you want to.

Same.

I love Hitman series and how they did MGSV where you are free to be creative on how you complete a mission, but as amazing as that is, that doesn't mean, that is open world, but something else can't be if its not that or something.

Open world isn't even a genre, its merely scope of how that map or environment is. As in, Forza Horizon is open world, so is MGSV, so is Skyrim so is Horizon Zero Dawn etc.

Its not saying those games are the same genre, its saying they are open world and that idea is more "open" then people realize, its never been this exact, defined type of thing where it MUST be this or that, if its in a open map, large scale world, its open world.

Don't get too hung up on any of that lol As someone that loves open world games btw, I love the games you brought up for the same fucking reason I love Ghost Of Tsushima, God Of War 2018, Zelda, Horizon Zero Dawn, Spiderman etc

I'm in a big place, I can explore, I can ignore the main quest and do random side stuff freely lol I don't now how that can be a completely different thing, when I'm literally playing them all for similar reasons, they all support those ideas of exploring, doing side quest etc.

 

[Corndog]

They put too much focus on cinematics. It wont happen

It’s possible. Red dead 2 has a lot of cinematic elements and is open world. It takes a big development team though. I think it had 1600 developers.

 

[SlimySnake]

Sony studios aren’t talented enough to do systems like we see in totk and starfield. Their expertise are in graphics rendering and storytelling. Which is why they attract more devs who want to see those things in their games.

Mark my words, you will never see s systems driven game by Sony studios. Days gone has some of that and they treated that game like a bastard child. Spider-Man 2 doubled down on QTE and setpieces instead of using some of that amazing cpu. Its clear That these guys can’t even come up with anything imaginative.

At least they focus on good combat mechanics even if everything else is by the numbers and formulaic.

 

[Unknown?]

Sony is my favourite companies and they make the mosts games I like buuuuuuuttttt TOTK and Starfield are really ambition open worlds games with NPCs and deep emergence

I wants that from Sony these games are very lived in worlds are very exciting my friends

Legend of Dragoon remake by Bluepoint.

 

[feynoob]

Sony studios aren’t talented enough to do systems like we see in totk and starfield. Their expertise are in graphics rendering and storytelling. Which is why they attract more devs who want to see those things in their games.

Mark my words, you will never see s systems driven game by Sony studios. Days gone has some of that and they treated that game like a bastard child. Spider-Man 2 doubled down on QTE and setpieces instead of using some of that amazing cpu. Its clear That these guys can’t even come up with anything imaginative.

At least they focus on good combat mechanics even if everything else is by the numbers and formulaic.

I hope they can do an rpg style game for once.
You choose your charecter and you do your own thing.

 

[Spitfire098]

Sony studios aren’t talented enough to do systems like we see in totk and starfield. Their expertise are in graphics rendering and storytelling. Which is why they attract more devs who want to see those things in their games.

Mark my words, you will never see s systems driven game by Sony studios. Days gone has some of that and they treated that game like a bastard child. Spider-Man 2 doubled down on QTE and setpieces instead of using some of that amazing cpu. Its clear That these guys can’t even come up with anything imaginative.

At least they focus on good combat mechanics even if everything else is by the numbers and formulaic.

Take the easy way out and buy a publisher l like MS?

 

[Lokaum D+]

So, or u want an empty world with minecraft gameplay at 560p sub 30fps or an open world filled with bugs at 4k sub 30fps ?

 

[feynoob]

Take the easy way out and buy a publisher l like MS?

Larian under Sony isnt bad.

 

[EDMIX]

I hope they can do an rpg style game for once.
You choose your charecter and you do your own thing.

Same.

I wonder if thats what Sony Santa Monica is working on.

(semi OT), but I'd love an rpg by them that was create a character set in a universe like The Order 1886 where you can create a character and throughout the game you can be a werewolf or vampire based on what happens to you in the game, but new game plus you can start as one instead of a human lol

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Sony is my favourite companies and they make the mosts games I like buuuuuuuttttt TOTK and Starfield are really ambition open worlds games with NPCs and deep emergence

I wants that from Sony these games are very lived in worlds are very exciting my friends

Not happening anytime soon unless they got some big scale secret games under development. Right now, it's sequels of SP narratives and GAAS.

Sony tried their hand at tons of different genres and most either sold bad or had bad reviews so they bailed. But most of their SP narrative games score well and sell well, so they turned strategy and focused on those.

During the PS3 era (and a bit of the PS4 era), they used to make: tons of shooters (including those big PC MMO ones), arcadey racers, JRPGs, more sports games and even that PS All Stars fighting game. All gone. Even for community creation games, they got one Dreams game. They had 3 LBP games.

For whatever reason their game base like SP narratives games with lots of cinematics. So they stick to that. And third party handles the rest with partnership deals.

 

[ArtHands]

They put too much focus on cinematics. It wont happen

And GAAS

 

[feynoob]

Same.

I wonder if thats what Sony Santa Monica is working on.

(semi OT), but I'd love an rpg by them that was create a character set in a universe like The Order 1886 where you can create a character and throughout the game you can be a werewolf or vampire based on what happens to you in the game, but new game plus you can start as one instead of a human lol

They are doing space fantasy. Maybe we can hope for a mass effect like game.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

OP, did you write that thread topic in the voice of Gollum or something?

 

[Loxus]

They are limited. Not true open world.

What do you mean by not true open world?

An Introduction to Open World Games
An open-world game features a non-linear game world design where the player is able to freely traverse the environment, which consists of many different areas and structures that can be visited any time. Players are not restricted to a specific path that they have to follow to reach a location, though certain areas of the game can be accessed only after the player reaches a certain point in the game. The open world may be procedurally generated or pre-created.

Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, and Marvel's Spider-Man all fall under open world.

These games are more open world than GTA3, which is recognized as the first 3D open world game.

The history of the open-world game can be traced back as early as 1976, although the first game we would recognize as a 3D open world is GTA III (2001).

 

[GigaBowser]

Love this single player open worlds TOTK Starfield with hundreds of hours of contents

Sure Giga, but that is deeply subjective too.....

I love Elder Scrolls and Fallout cause how the NPCs behave and how the world reacts to things you do, like GTA and Red Dead, but many people have cited how much they love Witcher 3 cause that world, yet it literally has less then those games in regards to NPC behaviors, yet many still say how it feels "lived in", thus, its a subjective thing

Which means what you and I feel might be "lived in" type games, others may not see it that way. I felt Ghost Of Tsushima felt very lived in, but others might disagree. Like when you go to a town and people are just walking around, buying things, fishing etc

Even when you go into Jackson in The Last Of Us 2 you see people doing ordinary life type things where someone might say "that feel lived in" lol

Who knows.

Yes my friends MGSV sooooooo good

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Starfield just seems like an Open World game with procedural planets. I don't really think it's that different from any other open world tbh, other than the scale of the procedural stuff that we all know will largely not be compelling outside of a few pre-designed areas that the main missions take place in.

And that's fine, but it's definitely not anything more compelling structurally than something like Horizon, Days Gone, or Tsushima. They all follow the same open world type of format. Starfield may have a few more systems to tinker around with but for those that just want the core SP experience I don't really see anything so far that tells me it's some achievement other than looking like another great open world to play. It's really not much dissimilar to Fallout in space if we are being completely honest

In fact, part of the reason why I enjoyed GoT so much is because it's a highly focused SP linear game at heart that doesn't have all the baggage/bloat of countless worthless systems that hardly matter and just pad out the game for no reason other than to seem bigger than it actually is.

 

[rhodesianshepard]

Starfield has been in development for 8 years or so(since Fallout 4) and TOTK took 6 years to make. And TOTK is a sequel that used many assets of BOWT, including the same map. It is just unrealistic for most studios to be given that length of time on one game. And Sony is just not in the business of making games that have 150+hrs of content. They would rather their studios perfect a formula and release games every 3.5-5 years. Even if their games are more linear experiences that don't have much replayability

I will say that Sony does have great variety among their games tho. It drives me nuts when people say that all their games play the same. Yeah, they specialize heavily in 3rd person action adventure games. But you can't tell me TLOU2 plays similar to GOWR, or Horizon, or Spider-man. They all play very different

 

[feynoob]

Starfield just seems like an Open World game with procedural planets. I don't really think it's that different from any other open world tbh, other than the scale of the procedural stuff that we all know will largely not be compelling outside of a few pre-designed areas that the main missions take place in.

And that's fine, but it's definitely not anything more compelling structurally than something like Horizon, Days Gone, or Tsushima. They all follow the same open world type of format. Starfield may have a few more systems to tinker around with but for those that just want the core SP experience I don't really see anything so far that tells me it's some achievement other than looking like another great open world to play. It's really not much dissimilar to Fallout in space if we are being completely honest

In fact, part of the reason why I enjoyed GoT so much is because it's a highly focused SP linear game at heart that doesn't have all the baggage/bloat of countless worthless systems that hardly matter and just pad out the game for no reason other than to seem bigger than it actually is.

I think the appeal is the immersion.
I loved spiderman, because of the story and playing the game as spiderman.

I lover skyrim because I feel like I am part of that world. This unknown person who is making a name in this world.

With starfield, it seems that certain choices at the start of the game have some impact on how you approach the game. For example, following a certain religion allows you to avoid certain fights. That kind of immersion makes you feel as part of this world. Its why I like bethesda alot.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I think the appeal is the immersion.
I loved spiderman, because of the story and playing the game as spiderman.

I lover skyrim because I feel like I am part of that world. This unknown person who is making a name in this world.

With starfield, it seems that certain choices at the start of the game have some impact on how you approach the game. For example, following a certain religion allows you to avoid certain fights. That kind of immersion makes you feel as part of this world. Its why I like bethesda alot.

Yeah but you can say the same for any of those games I listed too. They’re all well done open world titles that use similar tropes

 

[feynoob]

I will say that Sony does have great variety among their games tho. It drives me nuts when people say that all their games play the same. Yeah, they specialize heavily in 3rd person action adventure games. But you can't tell me TLOU2 plays similar to GOWR, or Horizon, or Spider-man. They all play very different

Only trolls say that.
Each game has its own genre and approach.

 

[Balducci30]

I think you mean an open world sandbox with many systems.

Naughty dog of Santa Monica could pull that off pretty well I bet.

 

[GigaBowser]

I think you mean an open world sandbox with many systems.

Naughty dog of Santa Monica could pull that off pretty well I bet.

Yes this post is genius you reads my mind pleeeeeeese Naughty Dog make it

 

[EDMIX]

Yes my friends MGSV sooooooo good

I loved running thru MGSV and just playing each mission (the story, not so much)

but like BoTW, Hitman and many more, its a game where you are left to enjoy the meat of the game based on how you wish to play each mission, quest etc. One of my favorite MGS titles in regards of gameplay.

 

[ProtoByte]

No thanks. I like that their games are focused.

Hot take here, but the moment-moment gameplay in the last 2 Zeldas and the game design therein is fairly mediocre. It's carried by a physics system that allows people to be "creative" - i.e. cheese their way through puzzles (assuming those puzzles are not basically the same as what was had in Zelda before) and combat encounters, because the enemies, environments and general designs are not equipped to properly respond to what the player is doing. Other than that, what's so impressive about it? The quest design? You go somewhere, you fight the enemies, and you find some treasure, most of it consumable or breakable. Real innovative compared to other games, right?

A lot of you guys are being taken in by Starfield, and I really don't know why. To me, it looks like it's going to be a barren galaxy of planets with little of interest, with an extremely generic Bethesda styled storyline (that does not have to be committed to in any real way) replete with stock template factions and worldbuilding conceits, this time with a generic sci-fi coat of paint to go with it. The actual gameplay looks janky and bad, and the purposeful design appears to be nonexistent.

I do believe that PlayStation Studios should be focused on getting rid of some restrictions put on their projects by previous hardware, but I'm not interested in playing a "sandbox" of haphazardly stitched together systems and designs that don't work cohesively, with stories that have no point.

About as free as I think is appropriate and feasible (in relative terms) is the original Deus Ex. Anything beyond that, you're going to be making serious sacrifices in key areas.

 

[L*][*N*K]

Sorry the last decade for Sony was all about movies with boring gameplay and the next decade is all about GaaS games

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

No thanks. I like that their games are focused.

Hot take here, but the moment-moment gameplay in the last 2 Zeldas and the game design therein is fairly mediocre. It's carried by a physics system that allows people to be "creative" - i.e. cheese their way through puzzles (assuming those puzzles are not basically the same as what was had in Zelda before) and combat encounters, because the enemies, environments and general designs are not equipped to properly respond to what the player is doing. Other than that, what's so impressive about it? The quest design? You go somewhere, you fight the enemies, and you find some treasure, most of it consumable or breakable. Real innovative compared to other games, right?

A lot of you guys are being taken in by Starfield, and I really don't know why. To me, it looks like it's going to be a barren galaxy of planets with little of interest, with an extremely generic Bethesda styled storyline (that does not have to be committed to in any real way) replete with stock template factions and worldbuilding conceits, this time with a generic sci-fi coat of paint to go with it. The actual gameplay looks janky and bad, and the purposeful design appears to be nonexistent.

I do believe that PlayStation Studios should be focused on getting rid of some restrictions put on their projects by previous hardware, but I'm not interested in playing a "sandbox" of haphazardly stitched together systems and designs that don't work cohesively, with stories that have no point.

About as free as I think is appropriate and feasible (in relative terms) is the original Deus Ex. Anything beyond that, you're going to be making serious sacrifices in key areas.

I’m 100% with you on all these points.

I can still enjoy games like Zelda or Starfield but you dig beneath the surface and end up just wanting better core mechanics of the moment to moment gameplay rather than the less compelling systems that surround it and waste everyone’s time

 

[feynoob]

A lot of you guys are being taken in by Starfield, and I really don't know why. To me, it looks like it's going to be a barren galaxy of planets with little of interest, with an extremely generic Bethesda styled storyline (that does not have to be committed to in any real way) replete with stock template factions and worldbuilding conceits, this time with a generic sci-fi coat of paint to go with it. The actual gameplay looks janky and bad, and the purposeful design appears to be nonexistent.

 

[Tsaki]

That is the point.
Most games these days use the term open world.
None of them offer true open world like GTA and Skyrim.
Even the rpg elements have been dumbed down as time went on.

GTA is no more open world than Horizon is. GTA has more non-skippable missions than Horizon, which comes at odds with your previous assertion about not bothering with missions. But of course you can't say that GTA is not open world because then no one will take what you posted seriously.

 

[Nubulax]

No thanks. I like that their games are focused.

Hot take here, but the moment-moment gameplay in the last 2 Zeldas and the game design therein is fairly mediocre. It's carried by a physics system that allows people to be "creative" - i.e. cheese their way through puzzles (assuming those puzzles are not basically the same as what was had in Zelda before) and combat encounters, because the enemies, environments and general designs are not equipped to properly respond to what the player is doing. Other than that, what's so impressive about it? The quest design? You go somewhere, you fight the enemies, and you find some treasure, most of it consumable or breakable. Real innovative compared to other games, right?

A lot of you guys are being taken in by Starfield, and I really don't know why. To me, it looks like it's going to be a barren galaxy of planets with little of interest, with an extremely generic Bethesda styled storyline (that does not have to be committed to in any real way) replete with stock template factions and worldbuilding conceits, this time with a generic sci-fi coat of paint to go with it. The actual gameplay looks janky and bad, and the purposeful design appears to be nonexistent.

I do believe that PlayStation Studios should be focused on getting rid of some restrictions put on their projects by previous hardware, but I'm not interested in playing a "sandbox" of haphazardly stitched together systems and designs that don't work cohesively, with stories that have no point.

About as free as I think is appropriate and feasible (in relative terms) is the original Deus Ex. Anything beyond that, you're going to be making serious sacrifices in key areas.

Some people cant handle all this above truth because it breaks their narrative about how special these type of games are.

 

[GHG]

With the way that's Starfield has now been hyped up it better deliver.

I don't think it's very wise to put it on a pedestal next to TOTK, but each to their own.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Next Final Fantasy after Square Enix purchase.

Believe...

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Sony studios aren’t talented enough to do systems like we see in totk and starfield. Their expertise are in graphics rendering and storytelling. Which is why they attract more devs who want to see those things in their games.

Mark my words, you will never see s systems driven game by Sony studios. Days gone has some of that and they treated that game like a bastard child. Spider-Man 2 doubled down on QTE and setpieces instead of using some of that amazing cpu. Its clear That these guys can’t even come up with anything imaginative.

At least they focus on good combat mechanics even if everything else is by the numbers and formulaic.

Errrrrr....

little big planet and dreams?

And it's a really weird thing to say, saying they are talented enough. They focus on other things, that speaks more to an area of expertise than of talent.

 

[StueyDuck]

MS bought starfield so Sony doesn't have it..

And totk is just minecraft.

I agree they need a more ambitious open world but I'm thinking actual ambitious game like RDR2.

 

[L*][*N*K]

Errrrrr....

little big planet and dreams?

And it's a really weird thing to say, saying they are talented enough. They focus on other things, that speaks more to an area of expertise than of talent.

Sony games appeal to a bunch of people and apparently it is the majority of gamers and you can't argue with success, but you cannot say just because they tried something different with two of their smallest games they are the same caliber as Nintendo and Microsoft, you just can't.

 

[Gudji]

Sony hasnt made a fully sandbox open world yet. And they probably never will and that's fine.

 

[killatopak]

I thought we had open world fatigue?

Personally I don’t really need an open world from Sony. I need a game from Sony that really innovates stuff. it doesn’t necessarily have to be open world.

 

[RespawnX]

I thought we had open world fatigue?

Personally I don’t really need an open world from Sony. I need a game from Sony that really innovates stuff. it doesn’t necessarily have to be open world.

We are suffering a Ubi formula fatigue but sadly Sony makes nearly every open world game on that blueprint. People want Sandboxes like Skyrim, GTA, RDR2, Totk and Starfield. But there are only a few studios out there capable to scale games to this grade. Thats why MS bought Bethesda. Pretty sure this games also consume hell of development resources you can’t use to produce other system sellers.

 

[alucard0712_rus]

Allow me to introduce you to a pair of large, lived in, ambitious open world games made by Sony studios:

And those are both released alongside new mainline Zelda game. Guess the strategy

 

[GHound]

Sony titles don't move me to buy anymore and I don't think "more ambitious open worlds" would change that.

 

[Ribi]

What you'd didn't like days gone?

 

[In Cold Blood]

To make an open world like Starfield takes things not every developer has the skills for.
Just look at the game engines. Unreal for instance isn't suitable for true open worlds, and neither are 95% or engines.
A game engine needs to be built from the bottom up to be good for an open world. Everything from how the world is generated, to how the engine deals with RAM and texture management. An open world game tends to push a CPU harder than a linear world, so the engine needs to be optimised.
On top of that, in a true open world like Starfield, nearly every object can be interacted with, there are over a quarter of a million lines of dialogue and over 1000 different plants and moons that can be visited. Now while a number are procedurally generated, it's the engine that does that.
Why do you think the Starfield is called the "Creation" engine?
No game engine Sony has is capable of doing what the Creation engine is.
Sony could absolutely build an engine to do similar, but that takes time and expertise.
343 had the same idea, to build a new engine to make Halo an open world, and that set back the game development two years, and hampered the game in the long run.

So while people are complaining that Bethesda doesn't have the best looking graphics, they don't understand that to create a game on the scale of Starfield they have to cut back in other areas, and the engine they use to create the world, isn't optional for producing extraordinary looking graphics.
Alot of that goes down to RAM management. You would need that much RAM to hold all that open world data, and then a whole heap of 4k high resolution textures to put in that world.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

Pretty sure Horizon came out the same week as Breath of the wild.

 

[SlimySnake]

Errrrrr....

little big planet and dreams?

And it's a really weird thing to say, saying they are talented enough. They focus on other things, that speaks more to an area of expertise than of talent.

Exception doesnt make the rule, and I wouldnt really put Dreams on the same level as Zelda TOTK and Starfield.

And I said they arent talented enough to do those systems driven games. I specifically said their expertise/talents lie in combat mechanics, graphics rendering and storytelling. Last gen we kept saying that Sony devs dont do physics and destruction because of the jaguar CPUs. Well, three years in and around 10 first party games later, 5 of which are next gen only, we realize that they just cant do it.

Starfield and Zelda both began full development around 2017. Horizon, GOW, Spiderman 2, Ratchet, TLOU Part 1, Demon Souls all started development around that time or much later, no one from Sony studios went hey, wait a second, lets be a bit more ambitious in the gameplay department. Lets try to push physics and simulation systems. Nah, half of the devs tied themselves to last gen hardware while the other half simply didnt have the talent inhouse who would have the skill and the mind to come up with stuff like we see in zelda. TOTK despite being tied to PS3 era hardware puts to shame every third and first party game released in the last six years proving that the issue is talent, not the hardware.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

...maybe they will buy a studio or publisher to accomplish what you want.

 

[Days like these...]

Sony is my favourite companies and they make the mosts games I like buuuuuuuttttt TOTK and Starfield are really ambition open worlds games with NPCs and deep emergence

I wants that from Sony these games are very lived in worlds are very exciting my friends

I wants you to stop saying wants