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

[zerocool84]

Am I the Only One Getting Sick of Open World Games? Almost everything has to be open world now. Games that were previous linear have gone open world too. I don't mind open world but they make things open world with huge amounts of mindless quests as filler so they can boast how many hour of game play it gives you. Look at Uncharted 4, it's linear but it's a great game. It's partly the gaming community too, they seem to get mad if the single player doesn't have over 50hrs of play time. I didn't think Metal Gear 5 was as good because it didn't need to be so open as it was. There are some games that do open world really well like Witcher 3 where most side quests are actually good and add to the world but I could have done without so much of it. I think if you focus too much on how much you can add to the game, the base game suffers. Sorry but majority of Fallout 4 side quests just downright suck. Hmm maybe it's because I'm getting older and don't have time to sink 100+hrs in a game anymore.

 

[rh71]

FO4 lost me for this reason. Entirely too much to do, too many options, too far to travel, without much actual progression. As a noob to the franchise, I was utterly lost soon after and sold the damn game for $40, which actually made me happy (to get rid of it).

Open world driving games however I love. You want gameplay hours and replayability for that reason. Not so much for goal-oriented games.

 

[purbeast0]

i can't even remember the last time i played an open world game. probably one of the gta games on ps2. they are typically very repetitive with dumb stories.

actually i take that back, forza horizon 2 is the most recent open world game. but i'd call it a bit different than your typical open world action games.

 

[xantub]

Problem is that for some reason game reviewers think that not being open world is a negative point and not a design choice. Every time I read a review where the reviewer complains about a game not being open world, I automatically add 20% to the score to counteract their penalty.

 

[smackababy]

Problem is that for some reason game reviewers think that not being open world is a negative point and not a design choice. Every time I read a review where the reviewer complains about a game not being open world, I automatically add 20% to the score to counteract their penalty.

Pretty much this. A large, bland open world is nothing compared to a tight, cohesive structured hallway. Everyone thinks non open world automatically means on rails COD style, where you can put the controller down and win.

 

[sze5003]

I agree most of the times. I can play Witcher 3 for hours though. Still have fallout 4 for ps4. I should have traded it in at best buy a while ago. It was fun for a bit but I just wasn't good at it.

Not like I get lost or frustrated but progression was slow and it felt like to play it I needed to know stuff before hand.

Dead red redemption was a good open world game.

 

[Lil Frier]

I'm tired of it too. Games take too long because they want to add a bunch of dead walking space and redundant side quests tied to Achievements/Trophies, and possibly level requirements to progress in an RPG. It's led to a lot of lazy content and boring environments, I think. It's also why I liked Forza Motorsport 6 over Forza Horizon 2--the latter felt very bland and lifeless.

 

[Chapbass]

Yup, I agree. The catch is that open world is not the same as game complexity. Look at a game like X-COM (I haven't played the newest, so I'm talking about enemy unknown). Its obviously linear, but you still have enough customization in squads, tech, playstyles, etc, that the replayability is still there (in fact, i feel like playing it again right now). The upside with open world is the world itself, which *can* (but not always) be diverse and cool, but the downside is that getting from place to place can feel like a grind by itself, which i never liked.

Now that I'm typing this, I can't say I've ever played an open world game for very long that wasn't an MMO. Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout, GTA....can't say I've really played more than a handful of hours on each of them. I guess maybe some older games like Neverwinter Nights.

 

[gorcorps]

Kind of, but that's mainly because they've become the same with very little to differentiate them anymore. And as said before, the extra stuff to do is usually pretty boring. There seemed to be a goal of making the largest open world when they could be spending that time on better gameplay or more important story instead of side missions.

 

[Subyman]

I'm not against open world in general. I don't like how devs like to stitch together a linear story on a large map and then scattershot it with a bunch of stupid challenges and half baked side missions. Ubisoft is the worst at this. You can play through most of their main story in about 10 hours and then they expect parkor or race events to entertain you for another 100 hours. The Witcher and GTA do a good job of using the open world, but some developers do a terrible job with it.

 

[NTMBK]

Broad as an ocean, deep as a puddle.

 

[cthulhuiscool]

Most games don't do it right. It's A. tower to unlock specks on map B. racing side quests that are all the same C. Useless collectibles. For every one great open world game like witcer 3, theres a dozen mad max's and assassin creeds

 

[cmdrdredd]

Most games don't do it right. It's A. tower to unlock specks on map B. racing side quests that are all the same C. Useless collectibles. For every one great open world game like witcer 3, theres a dozen mad max's and assassin creeds

This is true and why I got somewhat bored with the new Far Cry games. Run to a tower and unlock the map 30 times got old. Just as you said most of the sidequests were the same. EVen GTA has some worthless collectables that only unlock a trophy or achievement. Uncharted 4 and Last of Us are two of the best games I've ever played and neither is open world. Though what they offer you to explore can be considered pretty large at times. They are just more coherent experiences than many open world games and everything in the environment is pretty amazing looking and detailed.

I know many hated Watch Dogs but I thought it was one of the better open world games I've played. Sure the "hacking" got repetitive but I found it rewarding. Especially hacking the security cameras in people's houses. I also really liked Sleeping Dogs even though it is many years old at this point. Neither of these is as large as GTA but they felt tighter. I thought that GTA was too open, to the point where I got bored of driving from point A to point B with no direction so I would go off and do something random for a bit and then turn it off.

 

[sze5003]

This is true and why I got somewhat bored with the new Far Cry games. Run to a tower and unlock the map 30 times got old. Just as you said most of the sidequests were the same. EVen GTA has some worthless collectables that only unlock a trophy or achievement. Uncharted 4 and Last of Us are two of the best games I've ever played and neither is open world. Though what they offer you to explore can be considered pretty large at times. They are just more coherent experiences than many open world games and everything in the environment is pretty amazing looking and detailed.

I know many hated Watch Dogs but I thought it was one of the better open world games I've played. Sure the "hacking" got repetitive but I found it rewarding. Especially hacking the security cameras in people's houses. I also really liked Sleeping Dogs even though it is many years old at this point. Neither of these is as large as GTA but they felt tighter. I thought that GTA was too open, to the point where I got bored of driving from point A to point B with no direction so I would go off and do something random for a bit and then turn it off.

Reminds me of why I stopped buying far cry games. Same with assassins Creed too. I know people still play GTA v online though. I found a good group months ago and racked up tons of money just running heists back to back.

Not all open world games are done right. I hope they come out with red dead redemption 2 soon. I enjoyed that game quite a bit. I never finished it because I let my cousin borrow it and never got it back.

 

[KentState]

After watching some of the videos of the new Zelda game, I think they may have cracked the formula for a good open world game.

 

[shortylickens]

If they are well made, I like an open world game. Too many are crap these days.

Saints Row 3 and 4 are perfect for me. Exactly the right amount of freedom and activities.
I get bored with Minecraft. Working my butt off to make a simple house just seems like a waste of time.

 

[desura]

The thing you have to realize about games are that they're basically fireworks and piñata displays. Open world is a distraction from the fireworks and piñata aspects.

The first God of War did a pretty good job at providing a sense of epic scale while keeping the player on rails moving forward. Like, all that open world needs to be is background in the far horizon while the player is battling it out on the same 8x8 board.

But yeah, otherwise you just end up being lost. Open world sounds nice but unless it has some like really good algorithms and secrets, it just results in sprawling design.

 

[Stg-Flame]

I was going to say they were starting to blend together until I played Witcher 3. Then it dawned on me that some companies just don't know how to make a decent open-world game or they make their world too large. FO4 had plenty to do so the world never really felt that big. GTA V, on the other hand, had this little problem of 90% of the game taking place in 10% of the city. The remaining 90% of the entire map was largely unused for most of the game which was extremely disappointing.

 

[Lil Frier]

I agree. One thing that I liked with Shadow of Mordor is that it wasn't absurdly dense like some games, but it wasn't barren for long stretches. The map wasn't too big, and if you got bored of running, you could stop off and execute a few enemies, just for the heck of it. To compare, even though I liked Skyrim a lot, you could have long stretches of just running in a straight line through areas too easy for you, and that was tedious.

That is why I hate Fast Travel as well. If your game uses Fast Travel, I see it as acknowledgement that your game's world is full of redundant filler or patches of emptiness. I should want to run around and do stuff, Sunset Overdrive is another where the open world was worth just messing around in. Dying Light was like this, though not in an amazing sense. Watch Dogs had it, but got a bit redundant and boring near the end of the game. The Borderlands games struggled on this, I think. You had to have too many back-and-forth treks through low-level enemies (think the first game's opening area, Fyrestone), and it was sparsely populated.

 

[Sulaco]

I agree. One thing that I liked with Shadow of Mordor is that it wasn't absurdly dense like some games, but it wasn't barren for long stretches. The map wasn't too big, and if you got bored of running, you could stop off and execute a few enemies, just for the heck of it. To compare, even though I liked Skyrim a lot, you could have long stretches of just running in a straight line through areas too easy for you, and that was tedious.

That is why I hate Fast Travel as well. If your game uses Fast Travel, I see it as acknowledgement that your game's world is full of redundant filler or patches of emptiness. I should want to run around and do stuff, Sunset Overdrive is another where the open world was worth just messing around in. Dying Light was like this, though not in an amazing sense. Watch Dogs had it, but got a bit redundant and boring near the end of the game. The Borderlands games struggled on this, I think. You had to have too many back-and-forth treks through low-level enemies (think the first game's opening area, Fyrestone), and it was sparsely populated.

I both agree and disagree.

With Skyrim, on the one hand, you're creating a world that needs to feel organic and believable as a true, fantasy realm. Massive forests, multiple settlements, open plains. To really immerse the player that needs to be fleshed out in more ways then simply making the map "look" large with impassable cliffs or unfordable rivers.
One of the biggest complaints leveled against Oblivion, and many MMOs with smaller maps, is the "theme park" feeling, where everything feels artificial and placed and perfect intervals, like attractions in a theme park, to make sure the player never has to feel like they're not being engaged at all times. While that has its place, the strength of The Elder Scrolls games has always been exploration and atmospheric immersion, and big open worlds are an integral part of that.

On the other hand, I agree with you about fast travel. I've always hated it, and kind of "house rule" out of my games (yes, I know there are mods to completely remove it). I always thought the best solution was the "wagon rides" outside of settlements; reach some kind of town, find the wagon, and pay the requisite fee to get to wherever you're going. In the vanilla game, it's only available outside the major holds, but I downloaded a nice little mod that puts a wagon in or near most settlements. To me, I feel that's the best, most satisfying compromise between fast travelling everywhere, and having to slog across the map for some trinket.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think fast travel has become a staple of open world games just for convenience. Even GTA has it when you call a cab and then skip to your destination. I think most open world games are simply too large in terms of map size to expect the player to happily travel across the map every time.

 

[Sulaco]

I think fast travel has become a staple of open world games just for convenience. Even GTA has it when you call a cab and then skip to your destination. I think most open world games are simply too large in terms of map size to expect the player to happily travel across the map every time.

Oh exactly. And I agree. It should always be an option.

But I think more games should attempt some kind of realistic (for the game world, of course) alternative that either costs something in-game or someway is more organic feeling then simply clicking a point on a map and instantly appearing there as often as you'd like.

 

[desura]

The best open worlds allow for unexpected chaining of events. Like, my favorite way to play GTA is to steal a cop car, do the mission where you chase after suspects, invariably break the law along the way getting other cop cars to chase you, when your cop car gets too beat up, steal the cop car of the guy chasing you and continue after the next suspect.

But playing dragon age inquisition the open world is basically unconnected monsters sitting around waiting for you to stumble upon them.

 

[xantub]

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.

 

[cmdrdredd]

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.

Also one thing that I have seen games do is change the time of day when you use fast travel. You can leave at noon and when you get there the sun is going down.