Am I the Only One Getting Sick of Open World Games?

[Lil Frier]

About fast travel, one thing I learned long ago is to separate what I as a player see on the screen and what my character(s) see. What I mean is, to me clicking on a location and instantly moving there is not unimmersive (as long as I've been there once), it's basically a shortcut of nothing happening. Just like I don't see my character(s) going to the bathroom, I also don't need to see them running for in-game hours with nothing happening. It's what's called "suspension of disbelief". Same reason why I have no problem with quest markers and mini-maps, it's me, the player who's seeing those markers. My character(s) are not seeing that, instead it's a representation of them asking for directions, or asking the innkeeper if he knows of anybody hiring for work, etc.

The problem is that open world travel shouldn't degrade to a state where traversing the world can be described as "a shortcut of nothing happening." For example, in The Division, you have randomly generated events to engage in while walking around the city. Watch Dogs did that as well (I'm guessing Ubi stuff generally does that). That's better than fast traveling in Skyrim because you have to do 20 minutes of straight-line running where you might encounter one thing. World of Warcraft and other MMOs can struggle there, too. Random events make the trek worth it, in some cases. If the world warrants fast travel, it warrants being shrunk in development, IMO.

 

[desura]

I feel like world of Warcraft is still the best at creating a seamless world. I would easily give up gobs of detail if it meant no loading times at all.

 

[foghorn67]

I've only played FC4, thought it was a blast. I didn't care how much it seemed similar to other FarCrys or other Ubisoft games. I can't get into Assasin's Creed, the controls are weird to me.
So no, with only putting time into one open world game....not sick of it. I would have got the successor to FC4, but it's Primal. And that doesn't appeal to me.