So this has been bugging me for a while now. Open world games are a big deal right now and have been for ages. They've been a staple of the AAA space since the 6th generation, with even the likes of Nintendo and From Software going all-in on creating them now. They're a trend that has seen many iterations, improvements, experiments, etc over the years.
Yet... it seems that the style of open world games popularised by Bethesda's 7th generation titles is almost non-existent in gaming today.
What do I mean by this? Well, first I'll explain what I mean by Bethesda's 'style' compared to other styles of open world. I've spoilered this because it's not truly essential to my point here, but please do read it if you want full context :)
Now, with that cleared up
I, personally, feel that the Bethesda-style of open world design is woefully underused in gaming, and I honestly don't know why. I feel that, when it comes to raw exploration, the emphasis on place and context over activity-types that Bethesda's open worlds show is something almost unparalleled within the gaming industry. Personally, I feel that it's the thing that makes their games so popular despite their generally lacklustre core gameplay. Fallout 4 with a Ubisoft-styled open world, for instance, would be an almost totally different game, and not a better one.
Even Breath of the Wild, which is heralded as one of the best examples of open-world design in recent years, tends to de-emphasize place in favour of hunting down context-less activities to do within the open world. The Shrines in BotW are memorable for their unique gameplay scenarios, not because they're any more different than the last one. Meanwhile Bleak Falls Barrow, or Vault 22, or the Dunwich Building are all memorable to me despite essentially just being 'dungeons' to fight and loot through.
And that above point is disappointing to me because Breath of the Wild is perhaps the closest a game has really come to aping Bethesda's style of open world well. It's emphasis on finding stuff for yourself is brilliant, and there are some outdoor locations that are incredibly memorable, but even then most of your playtime is spent finding context-less chunks of gameplay instead of actual places to explore. It gets close, but no way does it scratch the itch I have for Bethesda-style open worlds unfortunately.
The primary reason I really love these kinds of open worlds is because, unlike the other two types, exploration is your primary method of interaction. You're not 'ticking off boxes' and you're not creating your own fun. You can play these games in both of those ways, for sure, but because emphasis is put onto contextualising place instead of showing you 'chunks of gameplay' you aren't driven to do so nearly as much. You can actually wander because you know that, eventually, you'll reach something fun; whereas in the other games wandering done without purpose is wasted time. Similarly, the fact that things are not defined by their gameplay purpose means that you have less desire to do 'as much as you can'. If Skyrim gave you a big checklist of "x/100 dungeons," to complete then you'd feel more inclined to visit as many as possible even if you wouldn't go there naturally.
Similarly, the contextualising of these spaces means I care more about individual ones than I would for any 'Fox's Nest' in Ghost of Tshushima or 'Gang Hideout' in RDR2. This is because your interactions with these places are not solely via the gameplay that they offer you. The aforementioned locations are just a few of the many that I can remember from modern-era Bethesda titles; I could not tell you a single Bandit Camp that I truly cared about in my 60+ hours of playing AC: Odyssey.
Finally, the significant reductions in NPC counts actually makes these worlds feel more 'human' to me than others. Even RDR2, which painstakingly created routines for its NPCs, feels different to Skyrim where you can actually go see where that random guy you ran into sleeps at night. Though, again, this does vary, but it's still something I do love about these open worlds when done right.
Essentially, I feel that Bethesda Open Worlds are the most natural type of open-world design and I wish that we'd see them in gaming beyond Bethesda's own titles.
So, do you agree with me? Think my rambling is silly and that I should just shut up? Please comment below :)
Yet... it seems that the style of open world games popularised by Bethesda's 7th generation titles is almost non-existent in gaming today.
What do I mean by this? Well, first I'll explain what I mean by Bethesda's 'style' compared to other styles of open world. I've spoilered this because it's not truly essential to my point here, but please do read it if you want full context :)
To me there are three primary types of open-world games when you refer to games with significant open worlds. So stuff like Deus Ex: Mankind Divided or the Yakuza games, which have small open worlds, aren't being counted here for simplicity's sake. Also note that games can be multiple types at once; Breath of the Wild, for instance, can be all three of these depending on how you look at it. It's got Ubisoft towers, Bethesda-styled
Ubisoft-Style
These are by-far the most common. The open worlds in these types of games are ones where you, essentially, choose from a list of activities to do at any one time. Even if you may discover them via different methods, the primary interaction one has with these open worlds is not through its 'places' (i.e. dungeons, towns, etc), but through small, bite-sized chunks of gameplay scattered about it all. Your enjoyment comes specifically from clearing out as these chunks of gameplay, not from exploring or interacting with said places in any meaningful way. Your exploration is done to find these chunks of gameplay; the chunks of gameplay themselves are generally not major sources of 'exploration'.
In these open worlds there is a very clear designation to be found between enemies, gameplay/story-related NPCs, and 'filler' NPCs. There are the enemies you fight, NPCs which are designated as quest-givers, or shop-keepers, or whoever, and then the NPCs that offer no purpose than to be 'set dressing'. Very often you literally can't interact with the latter two groups in any meaningful way. The middle group are rarely given proper names or contexts for what their situation is in that world.
Examples include:
- Practically every Ubisoft open world game since Assassin's Creed 1
- Ghost of Tshushima
- The Witcher 3
- Marvel's Spider-Man
Rockstar-Style
These kinds of open-world games have definitely died off in recent years but they're still very much in use by Rockstar themselves. They're the kind where the world is there for self-contained story missions and side quests, miscellanous activities, and any general chaos that the player wishes to create. They are definitely more dynamic than the former style, but even to this day there's a clear distinction between. Exploration in these kinds of open worlds isn't really encouraged too much as your primary fun comes down from the kinds of scenarios the game can create, or the chaos you yourself can create, in the world. You're either going between story missions, or using the world as a sandbox; the exploration is not the focus, essentially.
A similar dichotomy between the three types of NPC can be found here as well.
Examples include:
- Grand Theft Auto 3 onwards
- RDR1 and 2
- Mafia 1 and 2
Bethesda-Style
Now, this is where things get interesting. Bethesda-style open worlds are ones that I personally feel are defined by exploration of unique space. The 'chunks of gameplay' in Bethesda's open worlds are not referred to and contextualised as "Bandit Camps," or "Jumping challenges," but as actual places within the world. Similarly, exploration is the primary way in which one discovers these chunks of gameplay, but most importantly you are not told what a given location is there for when you first discover it. Unlike, say, a Shrine in Breath of the WIld you don't know whether a dungeon in Skyrim is a small place filled with a few enemies or the entrance to a brand new area. Similarly, unlike the towns in an Assassin's Creed game, the quests you can find in New Vegas' Freeside or Fallout 4's Diamond City are not signposted to you upon entry.
Another difference comes in how this type of open world treats NPCs. In these games shop-keepers, blacksmiths, etc are actual named people within these places instead of being defined solely by their profession. Whilst contextualisation can be lacking in some games, Bethesda-styled open worlds also at least try to contextualise the lives of most of their important NPCs. This means a lot of 'useless space', or places that have little significant loot or any real gameplay purpose, but are purely there to show you that "X character actually has a place to sleep."
In terms of overall design the open worlds of Bethesda games are likely the smallest of these three types. Their towns and cities are rarely more than small settlements and there are generally no 'fast' modes of transport due to you not really needing them. This is a downside to some, but this also means that there is rarely any 'wasted space'. No buildings you can't enter, or areas that offer nothing all that unique to see, etc.
To further help exemplify these three types, take a look at these maps:
Marvel's Spider-Man - Ubisoft Style
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12543533/spider_man__0002_Layer_4.jpg)
- A bunch of icons showing you what 'chunks of gameplay' there are and where.
- Story missions and side-missions are presented to you as separate from everything else
Red Dead Redemption 2 - Rockstar Style
- Few icons, with most only pointing to
- Story missions and 'Stranger Missions' are the only defined chunks of gameplay on the map
Fallout 4 - Bethesda Style
Ubisoft-Style
These are by-far the most common. The open worlds in these types of games are ones where you, essentially, choose from a list of activities to do at any one time. Even if you may discover them via different methods, the primary interaction one has with these open worlds is not through its 'places' (i.e. dungeons, towns, etc), but through small, bite-sized chunks of gameplay scattered about it all. Your enjoyment comes specifically from clearing out as these chunks of gameplay, not from exploring or interacting with said places in any meaningful way. Your exploration is done to find these chunks of gameplay; the chunks of gameplay themselves are generally not major sources of 'exploration'.
In these open worlds there is a very clear designation to be found between enemies, gameplay/story-related NPCs, and 'filler' NPCs. There are the enemies you fight, NPCs which are designated as quest-givers, or shop-keepers, or whoever, and then the NPCs that offer no purpose than to be 'set dressing'. Very often you literally can't interact with the latter two groups in any meaningful way. The middle group are rarely given proper names or contexts for what their situation is in that world.
Examples include:
- Practically every Ubisoft open world game since Assassin's Creed 1
- Ghost of Tshushima
- The Witcher 3
- Marvel's Spider-Man
Rockstar-Style
These kinds of open-world games have definitely died off in recent years but they're still very much in use by Rockstar themselves. They're the kind where the world is there for self-contained story missions and side quests, miscellanous activities, and any general chaos that the player wishes to create. They are definitely more dynamic than the former style, but even to this day there's a clear distinction between. Exploration in these kinds of open worlds isn't really encouraged too much as your primary fun comes down from the kinds of scenarios the game can create, or the chaos you yourself can create, in the world. You're either going between story missions, or using the world as a sandbox; the exploration is not the focus, essentially.
A similar dichotomy between the three types of NPC can be found here as well.
Examples include:
- Grand Theft Auto 3 onwards
- RDR1 and 2
- Mafia 1 and 2
Bethesda-Style
Now, this is where things get interesting. Bethesda-style open worlds are ones that I personally feel are defined by exploration of unique space. The 'chunks of gameplay' in Bethesda's open worlds are not referred to and contextualised as "Bandit Camps," or "Jumping challenges," but as actual places within the world. Similarly, exploration is the primary way in which one discovers these chunks of gameplay, but most importantly you are not told what a given location is there for when you first discover it. Unlike, say, a Shrine in Breath of the WIld you don't know whether a dungeon in Skyrim is a small place filled with a few enemies or the entrance to a brand new area. Similarly, unlike the towns in an Assassin's Creed game, the quests you can find in New Vegas' Freeside or Fallout 4's Diamond City are not signposted to you upon entry.
Another difference comes in how this type of open world treats NPCs. In these games shop-keepers, blacksmiths, etc are actual named people within these places instead of being defined solely by their profession. Whilst contextualisation can be lacking in some games, Bethesda-styled open worlds also at least try to contextualise the lives of most of their important NPCs. This means a lot of 'useless space', or places that have little significant loot or any real gameplay purpose, but are purely there to show you that "X character actually has a place to sleep."
In terms of overall design the open worlds of Bethesda games are likely the smallest of these three types. Their towns and cities are rarely more than small settlements and there are generally no 'fast' modes of transport due to you not really needing them. This is a downside to some, but this also means that there is rarely any 'wasted space'. No buildings you can't enter, or areas that offer nothing all that unique to see, etc.
To further help exemplify these three types, take a look at these maps:
Marvel's Spider-Man - Ubisoft Style
- A bunch of icons showing you what 'chunks of gameplay' there are and where.
- Story missions and side-missions are presented to you as separate from everything else
Red Dead Redemption 2 - Rockstar Style
- Few icons, with most only pointing to
- Story missions and 'Stranger Missions' are the only defined chunks of gameplay on the map
Fallout 4 - Bethesda Style
Now, with that cleared up
I, personally, feel that the Bethesda-style of open world design is woefully underused in gaming, and I honestly don't know why. I feel that, when it comes to raw exploration, the emphasis on place and context over activity-types that Bethesda's open worlds show is something almost unparalleled within the gaming industry. Personally, I feel that it's the thing that makes their games so popular despite their generally lacklustre core gameplay. Fallout 4 with a Ubisoft-styled open world, for instance, would be an almost totally different game, and not a better one.
Even Breath of the Wild, which is heralded as one of the best examples of open-world design in recent years, tends to de-emphasize place in favour of hunting down context-less activities to do within the open world. The Shrines in BotW are memorable for their unique gameplay scenarios, not because they're any more different than the last one. Meanwhile Bleak Falls Barrow, or Vault 22, or the Dunwich Building are all memorable to me despite essentially just being 'dungeons' to fight and loot through.
And that above point is disappointing to me because Breath of the Wild is perhaps the closest a game has really come to aping Bethesda's style of open world well. It's emphasis on finding stuff for yourself is brilliant, and there are some outdoor locations that are incredibly memorable, but even then most of your playtime is spent finding context-less chunks of gameplay instead of actual places to explore. It gets close, but no way does it scratch the itch I have for Bethesda-style open worlds unfortunately.
The primary reason I really love these kinds of open worlds is because, unlike the other two types, exploration is your primary method of interaction. You're not 'ticking off boxes' and you're not creating your own fun. You can play these games in both of those ways, for sure, but because emphasis is put onto contextualising place instead of showing you 'chunks of gameplay' you aren't driven to do so nearly as much. You can actually wander because you know that, eventually, you'll reach something fun; whereas in the other games wandering done without purpose is wasted time. Similarly, the fact that things are not defined by their gameplay purpose means that you have less desire to do 'as much as you can'. If Skyrim gave you a big checklist of "x/100 dungeons," to complete then you'd feel more inclined to visit as many as possible even if you wouldn't go there naturally.
Similarly, the contextualising of these spaces means I care more about individual ones than I would for any 'Fox's Nest' in Ghost of Tshushima or 'Gang Hideout' in RDR2. This is because your interactions with these places are not solely via the gameplay that they offer you. The aforementioned locations are just a few of the many that I can remember from modern-era Bethesda titles; I could not tell you a single Bandit Camp that I truly cared about in my 60+ hours of playing AC: Odyssey.
Finally, the significant reductions in NPC counts actually makes these worlds feel more 'human' to me than others. Even RDR2, which painstakingly created routines for its NPCs, feels different to Skyrim where you can actually go see where that random guy you ran into sleeps at night. Though, again, this does vary, but it's still something I do love about these open worlds when done right.
Essentially, I feel that Bethesda Open Worlds are the most natural type of open-world design and I wish that we'd see them in gaming beyond Bethesda's own titles.
So, do you agree with me? Think my rambling is silly and that I should just shut up? Please comment below :)
Last edited:
