Is there such a thing as "too open world"?

[Typhon]

For a brief time I owned a Switch. I returned it not only because there were not enough games to justify it but because the one game worth playing at the time, Breath of the Wild, didn't hold my attention. I felt the game gave me too much freedom and not enough direction. I like open world games, but I want to feel like I'm on a journey and BOTW didn't give me that. That doesn't even get into the gameplay issues (breakable weapons etc).

Obviously your YMMV but has anyone else played a game where you felt you had too much freedom?

 

[SatoAilDarko]

Never played it but for people who did how was Fuel?

The world of the game is over 5,560 square miles (14,400 km²) in size, which is roughly the size of the U.S. state of Connecticut, and completely free to roam.

Click to shrink...

 

[Duxxy3]

Yep.

Every Bioware game. Every Elder Scrolls game. Every Fallout game. They're just too open and undirected for me.

Even Horizon was too open for me.

 

[TylersProphecy]

I remember breaking axels in far cry 2 and either having to reload saves or walk for a literal hour or more to find...anything. That's my personal limit i guess. Gimme ubi-towers, gather quests, whatev, just dont leave the whole place unpopulated. Far cry 2 made me feel like i imagine being stranded on the plains of Africa in RL would feel like. Not preferable. Maybe in VR lol.

 

[Nights]

Considering I played Minecraft when there was literally no point, I can't say I've ever felt like I've been hindered by "too much freedom".

I've certainly not been in the mood for it at many points, but that's when I just play something else. Sometimes I want a game I can play my own way, and sometimes I want a linear, clear objective. I just change which games I'm playing when it matches the mood I feel in.

So, no. I guess would be the answer.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I feel like a lot of open world games only have open worlds because it's the in thing rather than to make a large, expansive, lived in world. Freedom is good, but a game should still, through the narrative, funnel you in a certain direction or along a certain path.

 

[TylersProphecy]

I feel like a lot of open world games only have open worlds because it's the in thing rather than to make a large, expansive, lived in world. Freedom is good, but a game should still, through the narrative, funnel you in a certain direction or along a certain path.

Click to shrink...

I feel like the best open world games do that. Your description, at least for me, defines the Witcher 3.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Sure, go into a JRPG thread and ask if they prefer a huge open world with unlimited freedom or a more guided experience with a little bit of freedom here and there.

 

[LevityNYC]

I'm 35 with a 3 and a 5 year old.

My gaming time is pretty limited to 1-2 hour sessions.

Open world is pretty much a deal breaker for me.

I simply don't have the time to wander around. Give me a pointed single player game like Wolf 2 and I'm golden.

Giving me 100 objectives and quests isn't my idea of fun any longer.

I started playing a little Infamous Second Son and MGS5 because they were free on PS+

After about 90 minutes on each I deleted them both and I'll likely never return.

 

[Goskarrr]

The only times I felt I had too much freedom in an open world games are when the world isn't enticing enough for me to explore. All those choices then aren't interesting enough to make me curious enough to pursue any of them.
Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim to a certain degree come to mind for me.

 

[whiteninja]

Dragon Age Inquisition. It seemed like they took the criticisms of the second game's setting a bit too hard. Origin's smaller areas were great in that they gave a sense of exploration but didn't burden the player with pointless fetching mmo stuff.
I must of skipped so much of that stuff while playing it.

 

[Chocobo115]

Yeah, if they make an open-world game that you don't care for exploring due to uninteresting locations, uninspired collectables or a story that doesn't grabs you

 

[Typhon]

Yep.

Every Bioware game. Every Elder Scrolls game. Every Fallout game. They're just too open and undirected for me.

Even Horizon was too open for me.

Click to shrink...

Never had a problem with either Fallout (3 and 4) or Horizon. At least there was a journey to get there, things to do, places to see. Open world should compliment a game not define it IMO. Instead of "this is your goal, figure it out on your own" I prefer have to a narrative to follow that I can deviate from at anytime to explore other things.

 

[schatuk]

Never played it but for people who did how was Fuel?

Click to shrink...

I loved Fuel and yes it was huge, but because it was a driving game it never felt overwhelming or empty. There was a well implemented fast travel as well, so if all you wanted to do was race you just skipped straight to the start. There was no need to go open world unless you were after collectibles or travelling to an entirely new hub area, which only took a few minutes.

Jim Rossignol did an interesting article about it on RPS. 8 years ago!

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/06/22/fuel-around-the-world-in-eight-hours/

 

[Slime]

If your game world is populated primarily by a checklist of repetitive crap to do, it is probably too big.

 

[ascii42]

I loved Fuel and yes it was huge, but because it was a driving game it never felt overwhelming or empty. There was a well implemented fast travel as well, so if all you wanted to do was race you just skipped straight to the start. There was no need to go open world unless you were after collectibles or travelling to an entirely new hub area, which only took a few minutes.

Click to shrink...

That reminds me of something. Originally in Burnout Paradise, you couldn't restart an event. You had to drive back to the starting point. Since every intersection had an event, I would usually just move on and try a new one, but it was still annoying. I guess enough people complained and they patched it in at some point.

 

[Patitoloco]

Even if its world is not as big as some examples here, I would say that MGSV would qualify here.
Its open world is quite useless, specially as most of the missions are around a couple of the more detailed spots in there (big enemy bases)

 

[jblanco]

IMO yes, like Final Fantasy XV. The world was too big for the game.

Even though it was pretty, a lot of it was too real (like actually going on a highway, there's a whole lot of nothing).

It makes it pretty, but again, I don't think it did any favors in the gameplay department. The game could have benefited a lot more from a smaller (but more varied) open world.

 

[Hollywood Hitman]

For a brief time I owned a Switch. I returned it not only because there were not enough games to justify it but because the one game worth playing at the time, Breath of the Wild, didn't hold my attention. I felt the game gave me too much freedom and not enough direction. I like open world games, but I want to feel like I'm on a journey and BOTW didn't give me that. That doesn't even get into the gameplay issues (breakable weapons etc).

Obviously your YMMV but has anyone else played a game where you felt you had too much freedom?

Click to shrink...

Hmm, not sure I would've returned it as the switch is just getting started man... But I agree to open with all this real estate with such little reason for exploration is not that great.

However if devs give me legit reasons to explore a massive world, I'll take it

 

[TC McQueen]

Yup. Mass Effect: Andromeda is a pretty good example of this. You've got these big open maps where there's not a lot of interesting stuff, but tons of pointless side jobs with minimal rewards and not very engaging combat encounters, because there's no linear level to guide the player into areas that change the feel of an engagement or focus their attention.

The previous Mass Effect games were ironically better psuedo-open worlds, in that the galaxy was the open world where you could go anywhere, while you were put into more constrained environments once you got onto a planet (ME1's uncharted worlds aside). That allowed them to actually make engaging situations to play through and funneled off the terrible resource gathering into something that didn't intrude on the parts the player actually enjoyed (being on alien worlds).

 

[Typhon]

Hmm, not sure I would've returned it as the switch is just getting started man... But I agree to open with all this real estate with such little reason for exploration is not that great.

However if devs give me legit reasons to explore a massive world, I'll take it

Click to shrink...

I will definitely pick one up again the future, probably next year. At the time only other big title was Splatoon 2 and I'm not a fan of multiplayer focused titles.

 

[newmoneytrash]

Honestly I'd say at this point that's most open worlds. Even something like Watch Dogs 2, which isn't the largest open world, feels way too big because there is barely anything to do in it outside of going objective to objective ignoring 90% of the world that they've built

Mafia III, even though I love it *a lot*, is similar in that they felt like the had to utilise the open world and made the game significantly worse because of it

 

[HammerFace]

Too much openness is kind of why I shy away from open world games. A lot of times too much openness just feels empty and like it's there to pad out game with exploration.

 

[TheIcedP]

Absolutely that's a thing. Especially when you have an open-world with nothing to do in it. Mirrors Edge Catalyst I felt had a huge overworld but you basically travel from point A to B with some non-story side missions to do. I did like BOTW's overworld because at least they would throw something in your way to do when you were traveling from point A to B like the Shrines, Towers, and Memories, fighting several monsters, and I wanted to explore and see what secrets I could find. In Catalyst, you have no motivation to explore the overworld for secrets because you just don't care as they add nothing to the overall gameplay other to just waste your time.

I would have suggested you wait about a year before buying a Switch as if your only reason for buying it was for BOTW then you could have bought a WiiU instead or just watched some gameplay of it online.

 

[Y2Kev]

I think the answer is pretty complicated. To be "too open world" implies the game is too open and has no structure. I think most people would tell you BoTW was the most open game they ever played, but it was still very structured and not overwhelming at all.

The problem is not the nature of the world or the time it takes to do X or Y: it's the quest design! If the world leverages the strengths of the format to do something you can't do in an open world, you get a good product that isn't too open. When it's Bethesda-style "THIS IS SO HUGE~!!! now fast travel back and forth for this awful quest," then it's too open. BoTW, Horizon, and a few other games this year struck me as finally "getting" open world.

I still would prefer linear just because I find they still have not figured out how to blend narrative into the pot and do that successfully, but that's just me. We're lightyears ahead of FFXV and that came out LAST YEAR.

 

[Ra]

I really tend to struggle with games that just drop me in a sandbox, and tell me "have at it". For a while I'm so fascinated with the freedom and exploration, but I end up listless. I really need to work on getting back to advancing the story, before I get to that point of apathy. This is a huge issue I have with Bethesda game. The world is so big, but it's filled to the brim with fetch quests.

Divinity OS 2 handles it perfectly, as the areas are so dense that I can never get too far away from doing something that keeps me connected to the main story. The world is consistent and interconnected, in a way that every quest seems to reinforce the overarching themes,

 

[schatuk]

Too much openness is kind of why I shy away from open world games. A lot of times too much openness just feels empty and like it's there to pad out game with exploration.

Click to shrink...

I know I'm in a minority but I love poking around in the nooks and crannies of the environment, both to look at what they built and to hoover up the collectibles.

 

[Kaeden]

Sadly I was in the same boat OP with BOTW. As much as I enjoyed it for the first 10-15 hours, something about the huge open world aspect lost me. I think I simply got too distracted with things to do and just stopped. I've tried to go back a couple times and couldn't.

XCX is another game that comes to mind and funny enough, on the Wii U as well. But games like Witcher 3 kept me very involved and the quest design I think was the big part there.

 

[Neo-Rudo]

probably not, my two fav games this gen are, Witcher 3 and FFXV, both of which ive beaten twice.

hell in FFXV i refused to use any fast transport.

the bigger the better as long as its beautiful and looks alive.

Currently playing Revelation online which is a Open world MMO and im finding myself flying and running around more than teleportation cause of all the views and stuff.

 

[fantasyGG]

Breath of the Wild, didn't hold my attention. I felt the game gave me too much freedom and not enough direction. I like open world games, but I want to feel like I'm on a journey and BOTW didn't give me that.

Click to shrink...

I think the main selling point of most Zelda games are about exploration and puzzle, most Zelda games don't give a lot of direction tbh. If you have played any other Zelda games in the past, you will notice that they don't tell you what to do. They will give you a main objective, but won't tell you how to proceed. What you gotta do is to walk around exploring the area, talk to NPC, try to figure out how to complete your objective. But of course, if you don't like exploration games, BotW is not your type of games.

 

[julia crawford]

You gotta have that wanderlust in you

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Fallout 4 was "too open" for me, so was Far Cry Primal. At some point I just lost interest to follow all those side quests and the main story was uninspiring as well. I mean, in Zelda it was clear from the get go what the purpose of my journey was, in FCP, not so much.

I just started the Witcher 3 - played it an our or so - and if that story doesn't speed up in the next 2-3 hours I'm out as well...

So, I'm fine with huge maps, as long as there is actually a reason to travel around.

 

[Jibby]

I hate how popular the whole 'open world' trend has become.
In some instances like The Elder Scrolls or The Witcher etc. yeah fair enough an open world definitely benefits, but it just seems to me like they're trying to find a way to shoehorn them into every game regardless of whether or not it needs one.

Not every game needs to have an open world.

 

[HammerFace]

I know I'm in a minority but I love poking around in the nooks and crannies of the environment, both to look at what they built and to hoover up the collectibles.

Click to shrink...

See I'm like that too, I played fallout 3 and I'm literally walking around with 10,000+ bullets because I collect everything. But I get so into looking everywhere and at everything I burned out fast and stopped playing. So I'd much rather play a game that directs me so I can have a satisfying conclusion than wander around for hours having fun but ultimately get tired of that.

 

[Darth Finky Spunky]

Hell no, need to go bigger.

 

[VallenValiant]

The most obvious example of a world that is too open is Daggerfall. But that's because open world was a new idea at the time. You basically have a game area the size of the entire British Isles that you can walk across in real time. But most of it is just empty space.

In the end as long as you always know what the objective is, it can't be too open. The important thing is to realise that interactivity and density of such interactivity is more important than volume of land.

For example, I always felt that FFXII was better off if the entire story stayed within the main city of the game. The city is large enough for it, and once I left the city the rest of the game felt empty. I never played Assasin's Creed, but it seems those games did fine just modelling a city.

 

[Darth Finky Spunky]

I hate how popular the whole 'open world' trend has become.
In some instances like The Elder Scrolls or The Witcher etc. yeah fair enough an open world definitely benefits, but it just seems to me like they're trying to find a way to shoehorn them into every game regardless of whether or not it needs one.

Not every game needs to have an open world.

Click to shrink...

That's true

 

[ghostemoji]

I think these things are only "too" anything when the wrapper game is poorly designed. A game can be 100% open with no guidance or directive and be really good if the mechanics themselves are good. I feel like Minecraft was that, especially in the beginning.

Every (with exceptions and IMO) Assassin's Creed game has seemed "open" only for the sake of padding it out with non-consequential side content that isn't fun or engaging.

I don't think the degree of open-ness determines the quality of the product.

 

[Vadara]

Never played it but for people who did how was Fuel?

Click to shrink...

Fun, with mods. But Fuel isn't actually that open--most of it is races where you have a strict line to follow, and you can warp to them so you don't really have to worry about ever actually driving across the world.

 

[shadowhaxor]

Hell yes. The Witcher 3 and Skyrim are great examples. So much to do outside of the main quest, it's daunting. At times, it can cause a person to lose track of what they're supposed to be doing and could cause them to stop playing the game. I know that happened to me for both of those games.

 

[Daitokuji]

It's a neat concept but 99% of the towns, dungeons, people, lands, etc. are all procedurally generated and filled with random blandness.

 

[Vadara]

I feel like a lot of open world games only have open worlds because it's the in thing rather than to make a large, expansive, lived in world. Freedom is good, but a game should still, through the narrative, funnel you in a certain direction or along a certain path.

Click to shrink...

Hell no, games like that are the exact kind of game that shouldn't be open-world. I'll concede that I have very strange and uncommon ideas on what open-world games should strive to be though (procedural systems sandboxes a la Dwarf Fortress) that basically no open-world game stands up to.

 

[Deleted member 437]

For a brief time I owned a Switch. I returned it not only because there were not enough games to justify it but because the one game worth playing at the time, Breath of the Wild, didn't hold my attention. I felt the game gave me too much freedom and not enough direction. I like open world games, but I want to feel like I'm on a journey and BOTW didn't give me that. That doesn't even get into the gameplay issues (breakable weapons etc).

Obviously your YMMV but has anyone else played a game where you felt you had too much freedom?

Click to shrink...

Heh, I felt the EXACT same OP. Holy shit.

BOTW felt like a large physics playground to play in, but I never felt any sort of drive to defeat the evil enemy.

 

[Hollywood Duo]

When there is nothing to do it's too open. When there is too much menial stuff to do it's too open.

 

[JMY86]

The OP pretty much sums up my feelings on BOTW. I don't have my Switch anymore but I played for roughly 40 hours and probably 30 of those hours were spent just aimlessly wandering around. I felt like the world was just too big and had very few interesting things in it. I do not dislike the game by any means but I just would have liked some more direction and some purpose. I love open world games and BOTW is a gorgeous towering achievement in the genre and I may come back at some point but I feel like I've seen and played enough of it for a for a while.

 

[ItsProbablyAndy]

Horizon Zero Dawn felt overwhelmingly bloated and after trying to ignore anything that didn't interest me, I just gave up altogether with it.

 

[Gizmo]

Hitman 2016 was like that for me. They start you in the world and it was very overwhelming to me.

 

[frankabus]

I think there's a sweet spot. There's clearly games that go too far (though I disagree with OP's feeling that BotW did it wrong), and that's probably an easier mistake to make compared to a linear, more focused game that doesn't work out.

 

[Distantmantra]

Burnout Paradise was too open world for it's own good. If you didn't know the exact route of each race you could accidentally fall out and not even realize it.

 

[Wesley-Σ]

Most open-world games are too open-world.