I added a threadmark which runs counter to my OP and discusses the framing, if you want to write a post that frames the question in a way you think is better, then I'd be happy to add that too
-
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.
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 added a threadmark which runs counter to my OP and discusses the framing, if you want to write a post that frames the question in a way you think is better, then I'd be happy to add that too
If anything, it's becoming more of a deterrent nowadays. Too many games have had touted massive worlds and either had very little to do or were packed with busywork meant to pad your time.
Between BotW and RDR2 it seems like the focus is less on just being big and more about being dynamic and immersive.
Between BotW and RDR2 it seems like the focus is less on just being big and more about being dynamic and immersive.
It's never really mattered to me, and it's also kind of misleading because the size of a world should really be dependent on the method of travel. For instance, the world in Red Dead Redemption 1 feels much larger to me than the world in GTAV even though GTAV is a larger world, because in one, you can cross from one corner to the map in seconds in an airplane, and in the other, it takes ~10minutes (or more) at full gallop to cross. Also the layout of the map makes a major difference. RDR so cleverly used the "path" mechanic and the map design made it so that you'd have ot realistically ride out long distances just to go to a place that was relatively near by. Think about riding from the top of that cliff in Hennigan's Stead down to Armadillo, which is a short ride, but because of the design of cliffs and a winding path to get down, it takes much longer to go a much shorter distance. In GTAV, you could take a mountain dirt bike off the edge and be at the bottom riding along in mere seconds.
I agree with you in Ubi open world games because I don't think they utilize their open worlds well. Their maps are so cookie-cutter to me where being in one town in Origins feels almost no different than being in another town in Origins to me. The people are doing the same thing, they're working the same way, are probably the same character models, and aside from noteworthy structures like, say, one might have some unique temple or something, the areas around them are nearly all the same.
I don't agree with Rockstar open worlds, though, which is also why GTA SA really excited me and it's one of my favorite open worlds. In GTA SA, there's a couple small towns outside of Los Santos or San Fierro that are very similar, but for the most part, Rockstar puts insane amounts of care into their open worlds... even 15 years ago when San Andreas was coming out. In the case of GTA SA, I don't think they could have packed that whole story into just Los Angeles, and so expanding into San Fracisco and Las Vegas (plus all of the rural places in between) really made the game feel like an epic urban journey to me. GTASA also did a great job of making every area feel so distinct, it's a hallmark of Rockstar's world design.
So, I think Rockstar is a little immune to this criticism, at least, more so than other developers are... Because while their worlds are also huge, they put so much care into them and usually make the places matter. As a marketing ploy, I do think that we've already stepped back from "The biggest world ever!!!" type stuff, specifically because of developers like Ubisoft who were rightfully criticized as having more or less "paint by numbers open worlds," where they'd sort of paint the environment on without a lot of care about how it's made.
For instance, in Far Cry, you can drop me into any place in those open worlds and most of them have no unique feel to them at all. They reuse a ton of assets around the world and a lot of areas will even use similar patterns for creating buildings and structures, layouts and more. This is in contrast to Rockstar which... like Red DEad Redemption 2 has so much care put into its open world it's insane. I don't think any two buildings are the same model, and this is even like... horse stables.
The sheer size of an open world really doesn't matter to me anymore, but with developers who I know put a lot of care into their open worlds, like Rockstar, I know that I'm going to find a ton fo things I love in that world, so that excites me to explore it. So, if the Just Cause developer says "Just Cause 6 is the largest open world we've ever made!!" then that doesn't do anything for me, but when Rockstar says that their open world is the largest they've made, that carries more weight for me because I know that world will be so unique.
I agree with you in Ubi open world games because I don't think they utilize their open worlds well. Their maps are so cookie-cutter to me where being in one town in Origins feels almost no different than being in another town in Origins to me. The people are doing the same thing, they're working the same way, are probably the same character models, and aside from noteworthy structures like, say, one might have some unique temple or something, the areas around them are nearly all the same.
I don't agree with Rockstar open worlds, though, which is also why GTA SA really excited me and it's one of my favorite open worlds. In GTA SA, there's a couple small towns outside of Los Santos or San Fierro that are very similar, but for the most part, Rockstar puts insane amounts of care into their open worlds... even 15 years ago when San Andreas was coming out. In the case of GTA SA, I don't think they could have packed that whole story into just Los Angeles, and so expanding into San Fracisco and Las Vegas (plus all of the rural places in between) really made the game feel like an epic urban journey to me. GTASA also did a great job of making every area feel so distinct, it's a hallmark of Rockstar's world design.
So, I think Rockstar is a little immune to this criticism, at least, more so than other developers are... Because while their worlds are also huge, they put so much care into them and usually make the places matter. As a marketing ploy, I do think that we've already stepped back from "The biggest world ever!!!" type stuff, specifically because of developers like Ubisoft who were rightfully criticized as having more or less "paint by numbers open worlds," where they'd sort of paint the environment on without a lot of care about how it's made.
For instance, in Far Cry, you can drop me into any place in those open worlds and most of them have no unique feel to them at all. They reuse a ton of assets around the world and a lot of areas will even use similar patterns for creating buildings and structures, layouts and more. This is in contrast to Rockstar which... like Red DEad Redemption 2 has so much care put into its open world it's insane. I don't think any two buildings are the same model, and this is even like... horse stables.
The sheer size of an open world really doesn't matter to me anymore, but with developers who I know put a lot of care into their open worlds, like Rockstar, I know that I'm going to find a ton fo things I love in that world, so that excites me to explore it. So, if the Just Cause developer says "Just Cause 6 is the largest open world we've ever made!!" then that doesn't do anything for me, but when Rockstar says that their open world is the largest they've made, that carries more weight for me because I know that world will be so unique.
I was burned out a while ago, and this latest glut of open world games was basically game devs just pissing on my ashes. Quality over quantity for me, kthx.
It never was a selling point for me. In my opinion it's actually a shame that I haven't seen a 3D game having an overworld as dense and full of secrets as for example Zelda ALTTP or Link's Awakening.
3rd person Action-Adventures/RPGs ala Horizon, RDR2 or Assassin's Creed Odyssey are probably my favorite genre these days and for me it's always: The bigger the better. Obviously the content in those worlds needs to be good but hearing about a huge open world puts a game immediately on my radar.
To me it's never really been about the size of an open world that's impressive to me. I find that the best open worlds are the kind that utilize their space as best they can.
That being said, when an open world is both large and utilizes it's space incredibly well *coughXenobladeChroniclesXcough* , it's really something.
That being said, when an open world is both large and utilizes it's space incredibly well *coughXenobladeChroniclesXcough* , it's really something.
I reached that point about 7 years ago. Or maybe even earlier... since I liked the Gothic games (1+2) more than any Bethesda open-world game and the like back then.
I'm also normally a completionist but with RDR2, for example, I'm jumping off the "do everything"-train (while I was still firmly on it with RDR1). It just has become too time-consuming, too work-like and too unsatisfying. Game is on Ebay as we speak.
I'm also normally a completionist but with RDR2, for example, I'm jumping off the "do everything"-train (while I was still firmly on it with RDR1). It just has become too time-consuming, too work-like and too unsatisfying. Game is on Ebay as we speak.
That hasnt been a selling point to gamers I know for about 4 to 5 years. We all learned that big worlds tend to be empty and full of bs filler. That's why Horizon was such a welcome, it was a big world but wasn't empty and had enough npc's and enemies everywhere imo. GTA V also did it great but overall that isnt a selling point if anything it's a negative hearing devs spew that.
How about reframing it in a way that doesn't treat the size of the world in isolation?
Never been a selling point to me, more so it's a turn off.
When that Ubisoft developer said in an interview that next gen would allow them to put multiple massive open worlds in their games, all I could think was "who ever asked for that?"
If you wanna do multiple settings then make the maps smaller, if the first next gen Creed has three maps the size of Odyssey's then I'm out.
When that Ubisoft developer said in an interview that next gen would allow them to put multiple massive open worlds in their games, all I could think was "who ever asked for that?"
If you wanna do multiple settings then make the maps smaller, if the first next gen Creed has three maps the size of Odyssey's then I'm out.
https://gamerant.com/red-dead-redemption-2-map-size-largest-rockstar/
Here is an article I found in 5 seconds by googling, discussing an (at the time) upcoming game's map size, in isolation (well, at the end they talk about how size means they have more ways to sell MXT, so maybe not entirely in isolation)
Maybe that's the only article of it's type ever publshed in the history of gaming, maybe it's an anomaly, or maybe map size has been used in isolation as a selling point, just as game length has, just as graphics have, etc etc
I'd honestly prefer if certain games went back to linear, but super detailed levels. A lot of open world games are just... 'big', but they don't really have much substance to them aside from collectathons and endless pointless sidequests.
About -4 years. I like big maps up to a point, but I'm completely over the "bigger, moar!" thing. Most of the time they just fill the space with filler or busywork. If the "biggest open world ever" had amazing level design for every square meter then that'd be amazing. By "amazing level design" I mean interesting landmarks, actual places to explore that reward you for exploring them (story, lore, rare piece of gear (not gear materials), new ability (where applicable)), and in general terrain is arranged so that traversal in and of itself is fun rather than feeling like a waste of time. I want to feel like I don't want to use fast travel.
Most omghueg open world games don't do this. They instead have a few cool landmarks with a bunch of "filler" space around them, and the things they hide are the little "go around collect all 200 of these trinkets" or some plants or rocks. I don't enjoy the "gather resources -> craft gear" gameplay loop, so a giant space full of resources doesn't feel like "rewarding exploration" to me. If I have to say to myself, "Let me stop the interesting story beat I'm following and go 'farm materials'" then ...bleh. I just want to buy my gear from a vendor, possibly with the occasional one-off rare extra material from bosses or something.
Most omghueg open world games don't do this. They instead have a few cool landmarks with a bunch of "filler" space around them, and the things they hide are the little "go around collect all 200 of these trinkets" or some plants or rocks. I don't enjoy the "gather resources -> craft gear" gameplay loop, so a giant space full of resources doesn't feel like "rewarding exploration" to me. If I have to say to myself, "Let me stop the interesting story beat I'm following and go 'farm materials'" then ...bleh. I just want to buy my gear from a vendor, possibly with the occasional one-off rare extra material from bosses or something.
My thoughts exactly. Hitman has some of the best level design in the business and leads to insane replay value. Most of these open world games are all one and done type affairs that may take 80 hrs for full completion but you've seen all there is to offer after 10.
I've actually come around full circle or nearly full circle on open world games lately. I really disliked them last gen especially, with formerly tight games like Arkham Asylum being followed by 2 sequels that just seemed to be checking a box to meet market demands. I frequently argued that games with more focus would always be more meaningful.
But lately some of the tech in current gen and upcoming open world games is fascinating me with potential like it once did back in the day. We are seeing much higher quality simulations of reality, and there's something about it that's really been grabbing my imagination again.
But lately some of the tech in current gen and upcoming open world games is fascinating me with potential like it once did back in the day. We are seeing much higher quality simulations of reality, and there's something about it that's really been grabbing my imagination again.
You realize that's an article that the writer decided to write on their own after watching a video that literally talks in detail about multiple aspects of red dead redemption 2 and how they work together:
In fact, the article itself links to another article with that very video not even five words into the first sentence......
An article from a completely random person who noticed and wanted to talk about a specific aspect of a 101 trailers is now map size being used in isolation as a selling point.
And it ignored everything to specifically talk about the map size, which was my point. Why do you think that was?
A selling point is a point, it's not the sole reason you buy something, it's a point of interest that you consider worth highlighting as a reason to get the game
You don't seem to understand or accept that map size has ever been used as a selling point for...reasons
I accept and respect that is your view, so let's just agree to disagree
That's not marketing. it's a 3rd party article from a completely random dude who wanted to talk about a specific aspect of a trailer and even then, it talks about other things and literally concludes by saying the following:
I feel like I got over this as a selling point after the second Just Cause, it was certainly impressive then but for gameplay variety and overall enjoyment it just doesn't mean shit most of the time. I still appreciate a well crafted large world like RDR2's (which is fairly lean for open world sizes these days anyhow), but nah it doesn't sway me to get a game anymore. I've played far too many Ubi open worlds with copy paste structures dotted along the landscape for it to have much meaning wrt enjoyment anymore. Ironically, one of the more copy paste open world titles (though to be fair its procedural gen) that I've enjoyed the most this gen is No Man's Sky. Then again that has the whole seamless space to planet surface thing going for it that hardly any other titles sans Star Citizen have.
Point being I'll take a well curated smaller world with obvious hand crafted touches to it in each area over "GINORMOUS OPEN WORLD!" any day. The former tends to be far more memorable if the game mechanics are well implemented. There are exceptions like BOTW that have very well executed unique points of interest everywhere but that isn't the norm for open world, but hopefully it will be!
Point being I'll take a well curated smaller world with obvious hand crafted touches to it in each area over "GINORMOUS OPEN WORLD!" any day. The former tends to be far more memorable if the game mechanics are well implemented. There are exceptions like BOTW that have very well executed unique points of interest everywhere but that isn't the norm for open world, but hopefully it will be!
I chose big turnoff. I want to say it doesn't matter, because it doesn't. I think any good expansive open world game should be finishable in roughly 25 hours. Within that space, make it as big as you can. The bigger the better even, because that means cool traversal and lots of variation in scenery. But the sad truth is that open world size is almost always used as a crux to semi- artificially elongate playtime. Either by requiring you to do more inane sidequests than you can handle (usually in the form of levelgating), or by having all the quest markers appear annoyingly on the other side of the map, leading to lots of busywork traversal.
https://www.gamesradar.com/uk/spider-man-ps4-map-size/
No one is arguing that map size is used 100% by itself to sell a game, and your being disingenuous for pretending that is what I'm arguing
If you don't think map sized is used as a selling point, cool, you are entitled to believe that
Edit: https://gamerant.com/anthem-map-size/
Again, literally another article made by a person who decided to create an article about a specific aspect of another full interview that mentions multiple aspects to be excited for. This is not me saying that map size isn't used as a selling point, only that devs don't heavily advertise that aspect in isolation which is why it makes little if ANY sense to try discussing such a thing in isolation unless you, like this thread proves, only wanna make hot takes and sweeping statements about how you feel about map size in general minus *insert game era poster likes here* thank you for providing not one but two different instances that prove my point.
I think a huge open world can be a negative if it's not tastefully filled with meaningful things to do. If the map is too densely packed with things to do, they start to get in each others' way (visually and literally), but if it's a huge world that's sparsely populated with quests and tasks, it's a waste. There's a balance that needs to be struck.
But in short, whether or not a game is a huge open world has no bearing on whether or not I'll play the game. It's the content and how it's executed that matters.
But in short, whether or not a game is a huge open world has no bearing on whether or not I'll play the game. It's the content and how it's executed that matters.
It never was. If anything its a detriment because touting "biggest open world ever!" to me just sounds like your game is gonna have a very weak map with copy pasted content.
Yes, you made two attempts at a gotcha. And both literally ended up proving my point about how the question itself is poorly framed. Congrats.
Yes, you made two attempts at a gotcha. And both literally ended up proving my point about how the question itself is poorly framed. Congrats. Looking forward to the next edition of you creating a reaction thread to another thread.
Your point was it's not used as a selling point, when it is, so sure
You're also the only one in the thread getting their knickers in a twist over this one really specific issue because you think I'm somehow attacking Ubisoft games
You really showed me
I literally said that it's not something used as a selling point in isolation and that it's odd to discuss it in that way.
As a working adult with children, the last thing I hear is that the next game will have a world x times bigger than the last. I hated BotW because of its sparse world, but loved HZD because how much it crammed into its world.
Don't give me bigger worlds, give me the best 10 hour experience that you can and I'm happy.
Don't give me bigger worlds, give me the best 10 hour experience that you can and I'm happy.
Anyway, it was never really a selling point for me from what I remember, at least not on its own.
I understand it's still a big selling point to many others of course.
I understand it's still a big selling point to many others of course.
And you're so far the only person who thinks that, or, more specifically, who doesn't seem to understand the concept of the unique selling proposition
If your game has a huge map, you can use that to differentiate your product from the competition, or even previous games in the series, to put it down as a selling point
At no point does that mean it's the only aspect of the product you talk about, or the only thing that matters
I think it's a good thing that some games are as big as they can be, especially if the map is made fun to explore. Sometimes people look down on games trying to go big, but it certainly isn't true that every open world game is just trying to be the largest open world game, so the complaints feel very shallow.
Lmao, so you're mad I was mean to Ubisoft, despite my posts in the other thread being positive about BG&E2 and the fact I didn't mention it at all in the OP or this thread until you brought it up, and I'm still yet to say anything negative about Ubisoft?
What upset you about my reaction? Was it just that I had the audacity to mention large open worlds in another thread and then make a thread on that subject?
No wonder you're not arguing in good faith
It was actually a huge turn off to me until I played Breath of the Wild, which is a much bigger game than I'd ever think I'd like.
But BOTW was an exception. I like smaller, more focused games. So you'll never win me over with "look at how big is our world!".
But BOTW was an exception. I like smaller, more focused games. So you'll never win me over with "look at how big is our world!".
Again, when did I say the following
"It's not a selling point."
note, the following is not me saying the above:
"Open world game size is typically not stated in isolation nor is it designed in isolation from the rest of the game as game design decisions all feed and support one another."
No. I'm annoyed by your reaction threads and tendency to create threads as a reaction to discussions in other threads typically asking a question with a poll. They tend not to lead to very good discussions and hell you would've likely had a better discussion just participating in the thread discussing things without a poll.
If you don't like a thread, ignore it, or don't participate in it
The mods here do a good job of locking threads that do not promote good discussion or that break the rules
You don't have to like my threads but this is petty thread whining, and I've seen enough posts from you that are informed, insightful and interesting to know you can do better than this, so if you don't think this is worth your time, stop dedicating time to it
I don't remember if it ever was for me. But the issue was drawn into stark relief by Just Cause 2. I remember reading that it was the biggest open world of any game so far, or that it was bigger than any of my favorite open world games, something like that... and I started playing it I was very excited about the size. After a few hours I realized it was just a big boring world. It was like they said to me as a player, "If you want this world to be at all interesting or engaging, it's all on you to figure out how to see it that way, if you can."
It initially was the biggest deal ever to me -- I fucking LOVED the fact that Xenoblade Chronicles was this huge fucking thing.
But now it's kind of overwhelming and incredibly boring.
A nice way to do it is include a percentage for world visited. Ys VIII did that and it made the world a lot easier to go through.
But now it's kind of overwhelming and incredibly boring.
A nice way to do it is include a percentage for world visited. Ys VIII did that and it made the world a lot easier to go through.