40 second rule of open-world games.

Djost1kk · Sep 20, 2019

Hi, everyone, I recently wrote a piece (for a Russian website) about 40 second rule of open world games, which I think was designed by CD Projekt RED while developing Witcher 3.

We did some tests and we found the player is focused on the stuff which we produce. Every forty seconds they should see something and focus on it, like a pack of deer or some opponents, some NPCs wondering about. So we have our rule of 40 seconds

Content Creator Luke Stephens expanded that idea and experimented with other games. New Vegas, Breath of the Wild, Red Dead 2, Batman Arkham Series. And RDR2 goes all the way to 87 seconds, crazy.

I also tried some games:

Red Dead Redemption — 53,1 seconds
Morrowind — 63,3 seconds
Oblivion — 42,6 seconds
Skyrim — 35,7 seconds

So what do you guys think? Do you like this type of approach? Or you prefer more traditional, like Morrowind and games like Red Dead 2?

Dan Thunder · Sep 20, 2019

In real terms there's not much difference between them. I think the key thing is not to leave it too long without something for the player to focus on whether characters, creatures or even just the view. Let's face it, because of the density of the world it's hard to walk more than 20 seconds in RDR2 without being greated by another amazing vista whereas the likes of Skyrim/Fallout aren't as dense do they're usually designed so that there's a place of interest you can see to visit from pretty much any location.

Djost1kk · Sep 20, 2019

Dan Thunder said:
In real terms there's not much difference between them. I think the key thing is not to leave it too long without something for the player to focus on whether characters, creatures or even just the view. Let's face it, because of the density of the world it's hard to walk more than 20 seconds in RDR2 without being greated by another amazing vista whereas the likes of Skyrim/Fallout aren't as dense they're usually designed so that there's a place of interest you can see to visit from pretty much any location.

Yep, vistas in RDR2 hit the right spot, and they work way better than any POI in other open-world games.

modiz · Sep 20, 2019

i actually like that death stranding seems to go against this rule and instead creates the content organically via the traversal mechanics rather than a random event or new location every 40 seconds of walking.

Patitoloco · Sep 20, 2019

I don't think this is real at all.

A game like RDR1 or 2, which is literally set in a desert, and has by nature a slow slow pace, not finding stuff for a while (we're talking about barely 1 min and a half, which is nothing by itself) is not a problem. I think it helps to the style and intention of the game in fact. It makes you feel alone, as it should.

But, for example, a game like MGSV, which is pretty fast paced even for a stealth game, has nothing in its open world. And even if you find enemies each 30 seconds, it's emptyness is detrimental to the game.

EDIT: Also I think the difference between 40 seconds and maybe 80 is basically nothing playing a game.

Djost1kk · Sep 20, 2019

modiz said:
i actually like that death stranding seems to go against this rule and instead creates the content organically via the traversal mechanics rather than a random event or new location every 40 seconds of walking.

With unique mechanics for traversal and climbing they can go all the way to 2-3 minutes, I think, if not more. It could be a problem for other OW games, where traversal doesn't have any challenge or hard input to it.

Dan Thunder · Sep 20, 2019

Patitoloco said:
I don't think this is real at all.

A game like RDR1 or 2, which is literally set in a desert, and has by nature a slow slow pace, not finding stuff for a while (we're talking about barely 1 min and a half, which is nothing by itself) is not a problem. I think it helps to the style and intention of the game in fact. It makes you feel alone, as it should.

But, for example, a game like MGSV, which is pretty fast paced even for a stealth game, has nothing in its open world. And even if you find enemies each 30 seconds, it's emptyness is detrimental to the game.

EDIT: Also I think the difference between 40 seconds and maybe 80 is basically nothing playing a game.

This was my biggest issue with MGS5. For me the actual open-world was pretty much just a traversal system to get you from location to the next i.e. there wasn't much to do/explore. Obviously the open-world nature greatly benefitted the actual gameplay when you got to a location but I don't recall anything of interest popping up on the journey besides the odd enemy patrol popping up.

ODD · Sep 20, 2019

Funny, cuz the only thing I disliked on that Mad Max game was how densely populated the world is. Hell, I know that it is a game about madness, the end of the world, etc. But it's a damn desert, what's the problem of leaving at least some open spaces without nothing happening, where you can just rest and wander and wonder? It's a gorgeous world! So can I sit and take a look without worrying for my live every 30 seconds? Can I just hit the gas and not be bothered by some crazy ass bastard on another car wanting to kill me? Sometimes less is more, you know...

Sailent · Sep 20, 2019

Day Z devs HATE HIM!

Just using this SIMPLE trick he can measure the quality of an open world game in under just ONE MINUTE!

Learn the TRUTH NOW!

ethranes · Sep 20, 2019

I like RDR2 because of this, not in spite of

Jamaro · Sep 20, 2019

If that much time goes by on average in RDR2 between points of interest then I don't even notice. Whereas I agree with those who mention the nothingness of MGSVs world as a bore.

Chojin · Sep 20, 2019

My fear is Death Stranding will have a 635 second rule.

I do find that constantly barraging you with shit can get tiresome though (looking at you Ubisoft). Probably why I like Breath of the Wild so much. With that game I just looked out. Found a point of interest and headed out there. I didn't get lost in all sorts of distractions on the way but was able to mark interesting things I came across for later. There was no sense of "Oh! Must detour now!".

Deleted member 33533 · Sep 20, 2019

I love how the Luke Stephens video has a bunch of comments saying how it takes him far too long to get to the point, ironically needing a 40 second rule himself.

I think I like when there is a period of "nothing" in an open world. Empty space is needed to properly scale and pace the world. I don't necessarily want something to pop up every 40 seconds, like I'm in an amusement park, needing to be entertained or distracted at every turn.

More_Badass · Sep 20, 2019

Depends on the game, setting, and tone. Something like GTA, Watch Dogs, etc, I want the world dense with activity

Other games, I want expansive contrast between population and nature/expanse

Kamaros · Sep 20, 2019

people nowadays have such short attention spam that developers and moviemakers have to put a rule on the pacing like this. it's very bad.

being a fan of Shadow of the Colossus, i LOVED the quietness of BoTW and RDR2 sometimes.

drewfonse · Sep 20, 2019

More_Badass said:
Depends on the game, setting, and tone. Something like GTA, Watch Dogs, etc, I want the world dense with activity

Other games, I want expansive contrast between population and nature/expanse

And there we have it

ClickyCal' · Sep 20, 2019

Days gone has a good balance of this.

Jasper · Sep 20, 2019

DD Power said:
Funny, cuz the only thing I disliked on that Mad Max game was how densely populated the world is. Hell, I know that it is a game about madness, the end of the world, etc. But it's a damn desert, what's the problem of leaving at least some open spaces without nothing happening, where you can just rest and wander and wonder? It's a gorgeous world! So can I sit and take a look without worrying for my live every 30 seconds? Can I just hit the gas and not be bothered by some crazy ass bastard on another car wanting to kill me? Sometimes less is more, you know...

Although I didn't find it as bad in Mad Max as in Far Cry or other Ubisoft games, I'd also prefer games to be more okay with vast empty spaces when it fits. Attracting some kind of enemy every few steps does not equal fun, and it breaks immersion.

ODD · Sep 20, 2019

Jasper said:
Although I didn't find it as bad in Mad Max as in Far Cry or other Ubisoft games, I'd also prefer games to be more okay with vast empty spaces when it fits. Attracting some kind of enemy every few steps does not equal fun, and it breaks immersion.

Does Far Cry 5 have this problem? I've never played it, but I'm mildly interested in this game for its open world. I guess I should cut it from my wishlist then. :P

Ryo · Sep 20, 2019

This is why I love Bethesda open-worlds the most, not too big and everything is densely packed so you constantly have something catching your eye. TW3 and RDR2 feel pretty dead by comparison despite looking much more beautiful.

DD Power said:
Does Far Cry 5 have this problem? I've never played it, but I'm mildly interested in this game for its open world. I guess I should cut it from my wishlist then. :P

Far Cry 5 is pretty decent, definitely better than 3 and 4 in terms of exploration IMO but yeah random attacks spoil a lot of the fun.

Deleted member 37928 · Sep 20, 2019

I think it's a bit too exaggerated. But I'm also a natural explorer so I'm more exposed to this than most people.

I really liked the hunting part in RDR2 but it was really undermined by the immense number of animals everywhere. At points it even became comical. You would just put your foot in a small forest and suddenly there's like 10 different animals running all over the place. Birds were handled a lot better with lots of species that were very hard to find.

Falchion · Sep 20, 2019

I don't like the rule being applied blindly across all games because sometimes you just need a vast space for the players to feel small and the world to breath a little bit.

Jasper · Sep 20, 2019

DD Power said:
Does Far Cry 5 have this problem? I've never played it, but I'm mildly interested in this game for its open world. I guess I should cut it from my wishlist then. :P

I've only played Primal, but I heard the others were the same. Definitely stay away from Primal. :p

7thFloor · Sep 20, 2019

Between TES III, IV, and V, I think Skyrim's map has the best pacing, Morrowind is better for other reasons.

MechaMarmaset · Sep 20, 2019

People actually think RDR2 is slow paced? Sure the controls are molasses, but I feel like they have an animal run in front of your horse every 10 seconds.

lazygecko · Sep 20, 2019

Overly dense design from analytics resulting in developer fear of the player losing interest is one of the main reasons I get turned off from sheer sensory overload in open world games. It's like they've become phobic over the notion that someone somewhere might miss this piece of content they worked on.

Especially when they do shit like have an NPC run up and try to guilt trip you into doing their stupid side quest, I get that same stressful feeling as when I see a panhandler approaching me IRL.

SweetBellic · Sep 20, 2019

More_Badass said:
Depends on the game, setting, and tone. Something like GTA, Watch Dogs, etc, I want the world dense with activity

Other games, I want expansive contrast between population and nature/expanse

I think games like GTA V and RDR2 that feature both densely populated cities and sparsely populated countryside offer a nice range of experience. There's always something interesting going on Los Santos, but there are plenty of beaches and mountains on the north part of GTA V's map where you feel pretty isolated walking or biking around. Same with Saint Denis in RDR2 in contrast to high up in the Grizzles.

Ryo said:
This is why I love Bethesda open-worlds the most, not too big and everything is densely packed so you constantly have something catching your eye. TW3 and RDR2 feel pretty dead by comparison despite looking much more beautiful.

Pretty sure this is the first time I've ever read the worlds of RDR2 or TW3 describes as feeling dead! I also love the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games, but I'm not seeing how their worlds feel any more or less alive than those best-in-class games.

hydruxo · Sep 20, 2019

RDR2 has dynamic events that are far more interesting than most open world games. Plus there's loads of diverse wildlife. I was never bored exploring in that game while playing through it.

monmagman · Sep 20, 2019

Doesn't look like Kojima got the memo.(That's a good thing,I don't need shit going on every 40 secs,let me soak up the enviroments for once).

Vincent Grayson · Sep 20, 2019

I think it makes a certain amount of sense if your game is trying to offer lots of variety. Not every player is going to see a camp of enemies and think "Oh boy, time to fight and get loot", so you've got to take into account that depending, you get some people seeing stuff they find interesting much less often.

I suspect that in many ways, this is why you see some people totally disinterested in open world games. There's plenty of stuff, but it's not the stuff that happens to engage them, whether that's because of tone or genre or basic design. I'm more on the opposite end of the spectrum where I play Skryim and end up with 10,000 quests because I want to look at everything and mark everything and so on.

ODD · Sep 20, 2019

Ryo said:
This is why I love Bethesda open-worlds the most, not too big and everything is densely packed so you constantly have something catching your eye. TW3 and RDR2 feel pretty dead by comparison despite looking much more beautiful.

Far Cry 5 is pretty decent, definitely better than 3 and 4 in terms of exploration IMO but yeah random attacks spoil a lot of the fun.

Jasper said:
I've only played Primal, but I heard the others were the same. Definitely stay away from Primal. :p

Good to know. Thanks, guys!

Linus815 · Sep 20, 2019

depends on what the game is aiming for really, rdr 2 aims for a more immersive, slow burn experience so not spamming you with stuff constantly makes sense, plus, its such a spectacular and beautiful looking game, that even riding through certain places are often enough to grab your attention.

whereas something like far cry 5, well, it's like an 80's action movie. Literally every 10 seconds you come across something to shoot at, or someone that wants to shoot at you. Even getting from a to b in that game can be an adventure on its own. It's crazy.

Stiler · Sep 20, 2019

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one that enjoys just traveling in a virtual world. I got so bloody annoyed in RDR at the "random" events because they happened too often, and in RDR2 I haaated how quick the time/weather changed, they have such awesome weather in the game and yet it's over and done with in such a short time you don't get to enjoy experiencing it fully.

I like the downtime and feeling like it's a journey, the adhd style of "need constant things happening now now now" is annoying, just like youtube videos that have to edit in quick jumps every fucking 2 seconds.

Deleted member 679 · Sep 20, 2019

Stiler said:
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one that enjoys just traveling in a virtual world. I got so bloody annoyed in RDR at the "random" events because they happened too often, and in RDR2 I haaated how quick the time/weather changed, they have such awesome weather in the game and yet it's over and done with in such a short time you don't get to enjoy experiencing it fully.

I like the downtime and feeling like it's a journey, the adhd style of "need constant things happening now now now" is annoying, just like youtube videos that have to edit in quick jumps every fucking 2 seconds.

Agreed, I'm not a huge fan of the amusement park open world design. When I play a game with vast environments to traverse, I'd like to do that for a while without the game trying to distract me with some shiny thing every 5 steps.

TheZynster · Sep 20, 2019

see in witcher 3 it works well

in the case of every far cry game.....that 40 seconds is down to like 20 and its not even relaxing. It's like you run into something hostile every 20 seconds with no breathing room. It's why i hate the modern far cry games.

I LOVE just wandering the open world without be pandered to do something or an event happening.

Probably why i am super looking forward to death stranding.

Z-Beat · Sep 20, 2019

Someone else has this rule but with setpieces. Either Naughty Dog or Platinum

HK-47 · Sep 20, 2019

Ryo said:
This is why I love Bethesda open-worlds the most, not too big and everything is densely packed so you constantly have something catching your eye. TW3 and RDR2 feel pretty dead by comparison despite looking much more beautiful.

Far Cry 5 is pretty decent, definitely better than 3 and 4 in terms of exploration IMO but yeah random attacks spoil a lot of the fun.

Bethesda worlds feel like theme parks because of that.

Crayon · Sep 20, 2019

One can only hold up for so long. Try making it interesting to move around so you don't have to worry about us getting bored every 40 seconds.

Gpur · Sep 20, 2019

Well, Assassin's creed odissey has 2 second's rule? Damn

almutama · Sep 20, 2019

To be honest, the Witcher 3 would've benefitted from having the world more spread out. It's big, yeah, but I feel like it's a bit too dense. I think AC origins struck a nice balance of size/density.

Nitpicker_Red · Sep 20, 2019

As for every "rule of thumb", must stay reasonable when aplying it.

If you space your elements to get something every 40 seconds on your open-world map, you'd preferably do that in a part of the map that's kind of linear/has a relatively clear path. If you want free flow exploration in your map, you shouldn't space everything evenly, you want to create hotspots to still guide the player towards a general direction, and let them get lost if they go towards nothing, without forcing them towards content. Evenly space everything like a honeycomb pattern and you push the player to comb the map and make algorithmic passes to get all the content.

Also if you design with a strict 40 seconds distance between interactions, wouldn't you end up with no sense of rythm in space? Clusters of activities are fun, as is downtime to contrast with it.

Ryo · Sep 20, 2019

SweetBellic said:
I think games like GTA V and RDR2 that feature both densely populated cities and sparsely populated countryside offer a nice range of experience. There's always something interesting going on Los Santos, but there are plenty of beaches and mountains on the north part of GTA V's map where you feel pretty isolated walking or biking around. Same with Saint Denis in RDR2 in contrast to high up in the Grizzles.

Pretty sure this is the first time I've ever read the worlds of RDR2 or TW3 describes as feeling dead! I also love the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games, but I'm not seeing how their worlds feel any more or less alive than those best-in-class games.

Because you see a quest marker on the horizon with the intention of going straight there, on the way you see a building so you go in thinking I'll get some loot and be out, 4 hours later you get to the place you originally intended to go to. This happened so many times to me in FO4, there's always a cool weapon, an NPC that leads to a series of sidequests or something that might be useful just around the corner.

In RDR2 or TW3 it seems like you can ride for miles without seeing anything meaningful, just the wildlife and a few NPCs that don't have much to them in terms interactability.

N.47H.4N · Sep 20, 2019

This is a stupid rule,you can't apply that for all open worlds.

TheCongressman · Sep 20, 2019

I think you can certainly over-do it with these 'attention grabbers'. Part of what makes open world games special is the quiet moments between discoveries. Games that constantly throw lesser mobs at me in an attempt to keep things exciting does a lot to take away from taking in the space and focusing on objectives I want to seek out.

There's a balance, and it can't be boiled down to a formula.

SweetBellic · Sep 20, 2019

Ryo said:
Because you see a quest marker on the horizon with the intention of going straight there, on the way you see a building so you go in thinking I'll get some loot and be out, 4 hours later you get to the place you originally intended to go to. This happened so many times to me in FO4, there's always a cool weapon, an NPC that leads to a series of sidequests or something that might be useful just around the corner.

In RDR2 or TW3 it seems like you can ride for miles without seeing anything meaningful, just the wildlife and a few NPCs that don't have much to them in terms interactability.

Fair enough. For me, the liveliness of RDR2's world comes from the dynamic events, NPC interaction system, and the ridiculous amount of detail. For instance, I killed a guy in a swamp on a mission. A few in-game days later, I randomly went fishing in that swamp and reeled up what appeared to be part of a human leg, prompting Arthur to speculate it had belonged to the NPC I'd killed earlier in the game. That easily missed detail blew my mind and made the game world feel far more alive to me than any I'd ever experienced before.

That said, I also love the Bethesda RPGs and recent Assassin's Creed games where you seem to stumble upon quest after quest in the game world too, so I can see where you're coming from.

Rosebud · Sep 20, 2019

I don't need to focus in something every 40 seconds, AC: Odyssey just couldn't leave me alone and it's tiresome.

I think that's one of the reasons I'm so interested in Death Stranding.

Ryo · Sep 20, 2019

SweetBellic said:
Fair enough. For me, the liveliness of RDR2's world comes from the dynamic events, NPC interaction system, and the ridiculous amount of detail. For instance, I killed a guy in a swamp on a mission. A few in-game days later, I randomly went fishing in that swamp and reeled up what appeared to be part of a human leg, prompting Arthur to speculate it had belonged to the NPC I'd killed earlier in the game. That easily missed detail blew my mind and made the game world feel far more alive to me than any I'd ever experienced before.

That said, I also love the Bethesda RPGs and recent Assassin's Creed games where you seem to stumble upon quest after quest in the game world too, so I can see where you're coming from.

The attention to detail in RDR2 is crazy.

I'm pretty sure there's a middle aged woman with red hair in Saint Denis and if you return to her after the main story her hair is grey.

Samaritan · Sep 20, 2019

This actually sounds like the opposite of fun to me. Games that are constantly trying to throw things in your face for you to focus on drive me crazy. I usually have my own goal in mind when I'm traversing an open world, and while I appreciate occasional interruptions, it really turns me off to the game if it's too frequent.

Maybe that explains why I inevitably bounce off the Witcher 3 every time I try to play it.

Edgar · Sep 20, 2019

Ryo said:
Because you see a quest marker on the horizon with the intention of going straight there, on the way you see a building so you go in thinking I'll get some loot and be out, 4 hours later you get to the place you originally intended to go to. This happened so many times to me in FO4, there's always a cool weapon, an NPC that leads to a series of sidequests or something that might be useful just around the corner.

In RDR2 or TW3 it seems like you can ride for miles without seeing anything meaningful, just the wildlife and a few NPCs that don't have much to them in terms interactability.

I mean, bethesda game worlds are created with exploration as the focus and having something to do and to see pretty often . It is a double edged sword, since while it always give you something to do and see, the map never feels like an actual place , but instead a theme park .
W3 and RDR 2 are trying to re create more believable worlds , how scale and topography would adhere to real life rules so theres gonna be a lot more down time , then again negative space is important . And its just different design philosophies how bethesda creates open world and how cdpr or rockstar does it

Silvergun-Blue · Sep 20, 2019

Far Cry 3 felt like it had a decent balance, but from 4 onward it was like the game had no faith in the player to amuse themselves and would insist on throwing something at the you.

Personally, I think good game pacing has peaks and troughs. Sometimes I just want a decent amount of tome for quiet exploration.

40 second rule of open-world games.

A King's Landing

▲ Legend ▲

One Winged Slayer

Two Pieces

User requested ban