Support NeoGAF

[I_D]

I went and checked this game out because of your post and wanted to say thanks, from what I've seen so far it looks like you are correct! I am blown away by the depth and variety of gameplay.

Prepare to die, quite a lot. I'll be happy to lose some roubles with you, should you ever need a partner.

I think the problem is the exact opposite. The worlds are usually way too big. The best open world in functionality that I've seen last gen was Dying Light. Specifically because it wasn't some gargantuan world that takes 10 minutes to traverse to each location. It's a map that you can actually learn in its entirety, instead of just passing by each POI one time, just to check it off your map.
There's way too many games that have big worlds that serve no purpose. Case in point, Halo Infinite. The open world is mostly barren, with a few uninteresting enemy encounters, and the typical "clear the map" Ubisoft feel to it. There's no good environmental storytelling going on. It's just an open world for the sake of itself. It serves no narrative or functional purpose.

Maps need to be smaller and more dense, not massive and empty.

And here I am, disappointed with how tiny Halo's map is.



I think we're essentially agreeing with each other, just for different purposes.

I agree that most open-world games are full of lame filler and fetch-quests and whatnot. That's why I tend to avoid open-world games, in general.

My solution is to create larger, more realistic worlds, which would allow for genuine points of interest to be earned after less in-your-face gameplay.
Your solution seems to be to create more genuine points of interest, regardless of the map's size.


We seem to agree that the primary problem is a lack of interesting things to do.

My hope is that we will, one day, have an open world game with an actual working Radiant-AI system from ES:Oblivion. I want to travel from town to town, and each town features a Majora's Mask-esque system in which each NPC actually goes and lives his/her actual life.

A few games have done this in the past, but it's exceptionally rare.
I suggested a larger map, because this would, theoretically, allow developers to create isolated pockets of genuinely interesting encounters. The same thing could be done with a smaller map, and might even be easier with a smaller map; but I don't know if the payoff would be quite as rewarding for the player.

 

[SumJester]

Wait, what? DQXI is not an open world game.

I guess by modern Jrpg standards any game that isn't set on a corridors is open world.

 

[Bluecondor]

52 card pick up is not actually a game though. It has nothing to do with strategy or a lack of strategy. It's literally a joke you play on someone who has never heard of 52 card pickup. You make some unsuspecting person have to pick everything up once you throw the cards on the ground. Then you laugh. That's it.

What the op considers a lack of strategy in AC is just one way a dev can give a player freedom to choose what they want to do in their game. It's neither good nor bad. At least I don't see how the open approach equates to something negative. I guess the op likes gated linear experiences, which is fine.

I actually consider myself a fan of the AC franchise, and have been playing it all the way back to the original game.

There are elements though that feel like the video game equivalent of what you described - "You make some unsuspecting person have to pick everything up once you throw the cards on the ground."

One of my favorite things in the entire AC series was the complete opposite of 52 card pickup. In AC II, you had to go to great lengths to rebuild the Villa Auditore. You had to grind a fair amount, but it was highly relevant to the game's storyline, and then each upgraded area gave you access to something related to gameplay (a healer, a banker, a blacksmith for weapons, etc.) and/or rebuilding the Villa (different art dealers had actual Renaissance Era paintings that you then hung in the Villa).

In contrast, in AC Odyssey, taking over the few dozen Greek islands on the map was about as fun and immersive as picking up 52 cards off the ground (because Ubisoft "threw" them there).

I thoroughly enjoyed rebuilding the Villa Auditore and even felt a sense of accomplishment after it was fully rebuilt (and it is something I still remember/admire today about that game). In AC: Odyssey, I gave up with about 10 of the islands still not fully conquered. It just wasn't engaging or meaningful in any way. I've never once thought to myself "I really want to go and grind those last 10 islands to completion." There's nothing to it.

I bought AC: Valhalla about a month ago, and I don't know that I will ever play the actual game. I played the Discovery Tour though and played through the 8 missions and tracked down and read all of the nearly 200 historical/game development entries that were scattered on the map. I actually made it a point last night to go back and finish the 8th and final mission, because the storyline was well done and integrated into the Discovery Tour.

 

[ahtlas7]

Open world game = chase the icons

I love the idea of being chased around the map!

 

[RafterXL]

A Starcraft map is fucking tiny. Like insignificantly so compared to the average open world game. People already complain about the size and length of most modern day open world games, image how much bitching and moaning we'd hear if half an Assassins Creed map were taken back by enemies.

Play The Division 2 WT1 if you want dynamic, open world back and forth. But even that game is static up until that tier because most people would be annoyed with having to constantly fight over areas they've already defeated.

 

[Bluecondor]

Play The Division 2 WT1 if you want dynamic, open world back and forth. But even that game is static up until that tier because most people would be annoyed with having to constantly fight over areas they've already defeated.

I wish that the Division 2 was a dynamic open world filled with back and forth combat between you/The Division and the various factions.

In reality, the end game in the open world is a mindless set of daily/weekly/season events in which random enemies take over Control Points and then are easily-defeated. In the Seasons, the new characters and storylines mask groupings of the same missions and other activities that we have seen since the game's release.

The real missed opportunity in The Division 2 is that there are really interesting sets of end game enemies who could be a real threat to players - the Hunters and the Highest Value bounty targets. The highest value bounty targets are tied to static locations in the game, while the elite hunters can only be accessed by secret puzzles that players figure out and share (e.g., shoot out 4 windows on a certain building at a certain time and a hunter will spawn).

It would be so much more interesting and engaging if we were regularly presented with a new hunter or new high value bounty target that was actively working to take over our territory and would even get stronger as they fought back against us. Having to fight against a hunter on their own turf with reinforcements, etc. versus fighting a hunter in our territory should be a different experience, with it being incredibly difficult to take down a hunter when he is in a piece of the map that he controls.

This is all wishful thinking though, as the endgame in The Division 2 is simplistic and repetitive (based heavily around going back and replaying story missions - sometimes several times over).

 

[rofif]

Death stranding did open world well and different. No thousand icons

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

A Starcraft map is fucking tiny. Like insignificantly so compared to the average open world game. People already complain about the size and length of most modern day open world games, image how much bitching and moaning we'd hear if half an Assassins Creed map were taken back by enemies.

1. StarCraft was playable on the N64, which I assume had weak CPU by todays standards. I think world size and AI advancements have come a long way since the N64.

2. We'd only hear "bitching and moaning" today if the concept was implemented poorly. Many game designers probably would not want the AI to take back half the map forcing the player to constantly be tending to every little fire.

This is the Halo Infinite map. The player is constantly pulling it up.

It's used to figure out what road to take at certain intersections and what task they want to do next. It's static, lifeless. Would turning the map into this be so bad?

 

[anthraticus]

Don't play the formulatic modern AAA shit and play decent ones like Gothic 1/2, Morrowind/Daggerfall, New Vegas, Saints Row 2, Dark Arisen, Kingdom Come, old Might & Magic games, Kenshi, STALKER modded...

 

[ProgenitorCastle]

I want an open world game that makes me feel like I'm on an adventure. So far I haven't quite found the one that could tick that...perhaps BoTW could be it