-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
For how much longer will "X will have the biggest open world ever" be a selling point to you?
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
I used to marvel at "huge" open worlds but at some point hearing the description just made me feel tired. I could barely finish open world games as it was and now seeing them "bigger and better" just makes me think "I'll play it eventually"
I also think I'm just suffering from open world burnout. It'll be a while before I play another one.
I also think I'm just suffering from open world burnout. It'll be a while before I play another one.
Not most that I've played tbh. Content and meaningful content are not the same.
I like big worlds, but it was never about size alone, specially after Twilight Princess.
What I want is scale, which is not the same as having a big area, it is about having the right atmosphere. No point in having a huge map with 12 towns if each is just a kilometer apart if every town is 6 buildings you can interact with. Have instead two towns 9 kilometers apart and each with 20 buildings.
What I want is scale, which is not the same as having a big area, it is about having the right atmosphere. No point in having a huge map with 12 towns if each is just a kilometer apart if every town is 6 buildings you can interact with. Have instead two towns 9 kilometers apart and each with 20 buildings.
Last edited:
I mean in this day and age you really can't separate "systems driven" from "open world" because an increasing amount of open world titles are systems driven to the point that it's becoming synonymous with the term open world. And no, that statement doesn't imply that you have to have an open world game for it to be systems driven with an aim at player driven storytelling, just that that's a huge trend atm. We shouldn't talk about world size in isolation as world size is only one selling point of a title.
Most have both. Going by how Era talks about open world games outside of OTs you'd think the majority of open world titles had procedurally generated quests as the vast majority of the content in the title.
I can't remember the last specific time map size has meant anything to me. RDRII, the Witcher III, Horizon: Zero Dawn, and GoW are recent examples of phenomenal map design that gives you plenty to do and look at while traveling from one area to the next. Size alone hasn't meant much to me since the PS2/Xbox/GCN generation.
Sure, but that still has nothing to do with map size, a game can be systems driven and have a small map, a large map, or an average sized map
I know you raised system driven games because of BG&E2, but I'm talking about games using or even just making a massive map as being a priority. If the map size is required to take advantage of all the systems, then that's one thing, but often games have a bigger map than the last game because they just always have
I don't think that's a negative at all, I just wonder how much bigger maps will get, or for how much longer developers will use "the map is huge" as a selling point
When I hear open world now I hear "We've made a massive world, dotted with the same banal shit repeated a 100 times".
Don't get me wrong, open world games are some of my favorite in the past years but lately it's just a turn off.
Ubisoft just can't stop doing it.
I understand newer games are trying to be creative about it, but I'll end up mainlining the story.
It's when they make "Collect these 20 things dotted around the world" that has a story hook that actually ends up going nowhere and was just a massive con that annoys the fuck out of me. (Spiderman).
But completionists love it, doesn't matter if it's 5, 10 or 100 they just need to 100% it and for someone who doesn't give a single shit about it; it's annoying how pervasive it is in games now, to pad them out.
Don't get me wrong, open world games are some of my favorite in the past years but lately it's just a turn off.
Ubisoft just can't stop doing it.
I understand newer games are trying to be creative about it, but I'll end up mainlining the story.
It's when they make "Collect these 20 things dotted around the world" that has a story hook that actually ends up going nowhere and was just a massive con that annoys the fuck out of me. (Spiderman).
But completionists love it, doesn't matter if it's 5, 10 or 100 they just need to 100% it and for someone who doesn't give a single shit about it; it's annoying how pervasive it is in games now, to pad them out.
It was never a selling point to me. Not since like 2006 when Nintendo said it would take 45 minutes to gallop on Epona from one side of the map to the other in Twilight Princess. Too much emptiness.
It's only a cool feature if there is meaningful stuff within the world.
ehh, I'd say in the case of God of War, a lot of those places were absolutely huge disappointments once you get there because they were so tiny. You think you're going to go see some amazing shit with Hel visualized in a game or Niflheim and holy shit was that a massive letdown once you actually do. I was literally punching through the game as fast as I could in anticipation to see how amazing Niflheim/Hel would be... oof.
ehh, I'd say in the case of God of War, a lot of those places were absolutely huge disappointments once you get there because they were so tiny. You think you're going to go see some amazing shit with Hel visualized in a game or Niflheim and holy shit was that a massive letdown once you actually do. I was literally punching through the game as fast as I could in anticipation to see how amazing Niflheim/Hel would be... oof.
Systemic interactions are always important to dissect and that goes hand in hand with critically assessing games, regardless of the scope of the game's world.
I find myself generally fatiguing of the systemic interactions in my favorite larger-scale world games faster than I do in my favorite smaller-scale world games.
I find myself generally fatiguing of the systemic interactions in my favorite larger-scale world games faster than I do in my favorite smaller-scale world games.
I always thought that size didn't matter as much as density in open worlds. I remember the days where MMOs where still battling on that ground, and we quickly learned that transit systems where obligatory as people would not put up with an empty world where the relevant points where so far in between.
Yes, on paper, the quote "you see a mountain, you can go climb it" is a genius marketing sentence. In reality though, Unless your game is very specifically about exploration, and that the journey to the mountain is also great, it really doesn't do much for gameplay purposes.
Yes, on paper, the quote "you see a mountain, you can go climb it" is a genius marketing sentence. In reality though, Unless your game is very specifically about exploration, and that the journey to the mountain is also great, it really doesn't do much for gameplay purposes.
Game design covers a wide swatch of different system interacting with each other. a cover shooter isn't just the cover system, it also includes the shooting part. A battle royal isn't just about having 100 players on a map, it's about several aspects like traversal, shooting mechanics, visibility, points of interest, etc. as such an open world isn't just about map size nor do devs just treat the advertising of a title as just about map size but also what you do.
Heh. That's generated though. If we're going by that standard, No Man's Sky is definitely the biggest world ever.
I much prefer a dense and detailed "closed" world then an open world. Open worlds are actually a turn off for me.
Take Remember Me for example. Say what you will about the game, but the world was rich and interesting and I much prefer it to most open worlds.
To me I see open world and I just figure that there's open space void of character, or Ubisoft bullshit like collectibles that I will never understand why someone would enjoy.
Take Remember Me for example. Say what you will about the game, but the world was rich and interesting and I much prefer it to most open worlds.
To me I see open world and I just figure that there's open space void of character, or Ubisoft bullshit like collectibles that I will never understand why someone would enjoy.
It all depends on the game to be honest. I can't make a blanket statement one way or the other. If it is just for the sake of making it the biggest, then it's not a selling point. If it was made bigger to accommodate gameplay decisions or story decisions than it is a selling point to me
Like a game where I can fly airplanes/mechs/dragons or whatever around has to be bigger than one where I travel on foot most of the time
Like a game where I can fly airplanes/mechs/dragons or whatever around has to be bigger than one where I travel on foot most of the time
I find it to be a turn off to me. RDR2 has a great big world but that didn't sell it to me. It was the experience of the story that hooked me. It see Assassin's Creed Odyssey and I groan because of how much a checklist UBISOFT games have become, very formulaic.
I'd say it was around 2015 or so when I started to furrow my brow anytime a dev boasted about how big their open world was.
Fast forward to 2018 and it's about as far removed from a selling point as you can get.
Fast forward to 2018 and it's about as far removed from a selling point as you can get.
It stopped being a selling point after Elite for me.
Bragging how you can have millions of stars and how you can land on planets similarly causes eye rolls from me since Elite did it 3 decades before it became trendy.
Bragging how you can have millions of stars and how you can land on planets similarly causes eye rolls from me since Elite did it 3 decades before it became trendy.
Different people like different things.
My major concern is how much money is being sunk into making these "largest ever" games and the microtransaction systems that are incorporated as a measure to recoup the cost of development. Consequently, it begs the question of how it affects leverages the psyche of the players and how they interact with these systems.
Furthermore, budgetary requirements for these games (depending on the ambition) can not understated and as such how close to the precipice do the devs want to get to bet on the size factor for commercial success is another question.
Of course games have been, are and can have thoroughly exploitative mtx systems and large budgets even when they are not aiming to be the largest. It is simply a matter of odds.
My major concern is how much money is being sunk into making these "largest ever" games and the microtransaction systems that are incorporated as a measure to recoup the cost of development. Consequently, it begs the question of how it affects leverages the psyche of the players and how they interact with these systems.
Furthermore, budgetary requirements for these games (depending on the ambition) can not understated and as such how close to the precipice do the devs want to get to bet on the size factor for commercial success is another question.
Of course games have been, are and can have thoroughly exploitative mtx systems and large budgets even when they are not aiming to be the largest. It is simply a matter of odds.
I've began regarding the size of a world the same way I think of graphics. To me, good graphics are no longer a "feature." It's the art, design, and creativity that matters. Whether it's Mario Odyssey or God of War, as long as it meets a level of quality coupled with the aforementioned traits I'm in. Graphics for graphics sake is pointless, just like a huge world for it's own sake.
I will say, however, that a lot of games that brag about their huge open world do actually deliver on making them interesting as well, so I don't want it to look like I'm throwing shade at those claims.
I will say, however, that a lot of games that brag about their huge open world do actually deliver on making them interesting as well, so I don't want it to look like I'm throwing shade at those claims.
Never been a selling point for me to begin with. If anything a developer bragging about the size of their world only makes me more skeptical as it makes me worry about the amount of content and how that content is spread around the world.
Minecraft and its infinite sized but samey world ended the arms race for me. Then No Man's Sky proved to me that big-but-shallow world design had jumped the shark. It's now about density more than size in my mind. Make the world as big as your content demands. No bigger. No smaller.
This stopped being a selling point around 2012/2013. Fill your world with interesting things to do and I don't care how "big" it is.
Horizon, for example, did not benefit at all from the size of its world, especially when the story missions were extremely linear. In fact it seemed antithetical to the rest of the game design. It should have been more corridored with open spaces, like God of War, and I bet it would have benefitted.
Horizon, for example, did not benefit at all from the size of its world, especially when the story missions were extremely linear. In fact it seemed antithetical to the rest of the game design. It should have been more corridored with open spaces, like God of War, and I bet it would have benefitted.
Never been a selling point. As soon as I hear the words "big world", I start assuming this game has a design intention that is likely not for me. Usually that means busy work, lots of filler, and the usual weaknesses that come along with open world games like poor storytelling, poor pacing, and a generally unengaging adventure.
I mean I am not coming at you OP. But you are asking this forum about open world games and we know how majority of people feel about them.
As for me Size does matter, its not the main thing, but you need to have negative space and actual flora and fauna /environment transitions between places like RDR 2 , Witcher 3 and do an extent AC Origins does. When you cram everything in smaller map, it does not feel like an actual world anymore it starts to feel like a video game that faking open world . I said this in the other thread but something like Horizon zero dawn does not feel like actual living breathing place for me due to how everything is so freaking close and combat encounters are on every god damn corner. Same for something like Mordor games . They feel like playgrounds but thats about it
As for me Size does matter, its not the main thing, but you need to have negative space and actual flora and fauna /environment transitions between places like RDR 2 , Witcher 3 and do an extent AC Origins does. When you cram everything in smaller map, it does not feel like an actual world anymore it starts to feel like a video game that faking open world . I said this in the other thread but something like Horizon zero dawn does not feel like actual living breathing place for me due to how everything is so freaking close and combat encounters are on every god damn corner. Same for something like Mordor games . They feel like playgrounds but thats about it
It is not that important tbh. BoTW has a huge world, that most of the times is empty, but somehow interesting to explore. Having thousands of things to do per square meter is not also a good metric, but if you are going to make a big world, make interesting looking places to go an explore.
Yeah, same here. I loved both those games in part because the worlds were so big. I think seeing something far in the distance and the adventure you get into on the long way there is one of the most fun things to do in a game. Xenoblade X and BotW were both so good about this and it works so well. I think both games would be weaker if their worlds weren't as big as they were.
Playing Divinity: OS II right now and it manages to feel vast and tightly packed despite being a fraction of the size of other games. It's not an open world, in the modern sense, but is seamless enough to feel like one and comparable to something like Morrowind in terms of its layout. I've already put over forty hours in and it still feels like there's masses to explore.
No after No Man's Sky, which I loved and am waiting for the VR patch, It doesn't matter how big a universe is. Sometimes too big and too detailed is overwhelming. Like The Witcher 3 I can only play in spurts because its too detailed and too much to do. MGSV has the best approach to open world so far IMO. A huge world designed around fun gameplay systems. Not tourist checklists like most open world games.
A big reason I like open worlds is exploration. In alot of my favourite open world titles the world is the primary draw.
The bigger the world the more nooks to explore. For example was still finding interesting places in GTA V dozens of hours into the game. But that kind of open world relies on designers to put the nooks and crannys in.
lot of games fail at the small details that keep large worlds interesting.
Then you have games like Just Cause 4 where the environment is just a pretty thing to look at and a traversal obstical for the player. It needs to be big because you can move huge distances in that game very quickly.
The bigger the world the more nooks to explore. For example was still finding interesting places in GTA V dozens of hours into the game. But that kind of open world relies on designers to put the nooks and crannys in.
lot of games fail at the small details that keep large worlds interesting.
Then you have games like Just Cause 4 where the environment is just a pretty thing to look at and a traversal obstical for the player. It needs to be big because you can move huge distances in that game very quickly.
The size of the game world really isn't particularly important to me. What matters is filling it with meaningful content.
Kamurocho from Yakuza works particularly well for me because despite being relatively small, they manage to make it feel dense, and new optional events triggering as you wander around help bring it to life. It's not massive, but it feels alive, and that's much more important.
Kamurocho from Yakuza works particularly well for me because despite being relatively small, they manage to make it feel dense, and new optional events triggering as you wander around help bring it to life. It's not massive, but it feels alive, and that's much more important.
