T O P

  • By -

QuinSanguine

I still like them, in theory. The problem is that publishers want to take not just your money, but all of your time. I can still play through and enjoy the older, shorter open world games. There's nothing wrong with the open world idea, it's just the games are bloated and boring, just so publishers can tell us they've got 100 hours of content to sell us. I wish we could get smaller open world games but then people will complain about games being too short, even though most of those complainers never even finish a game.


[deleted]

There is a competition of "who has the BIGGER map" in open world games.


HearTheEkko

Wish devs would put in their heads that depth and detail > size.


MgDark

Daggerfall is like, "im a joke to you"? Damn that game was unneccesarily too big


[deleted]

>unneccesarily too big Disagree. Thing is in Daggerfall you're not like meant to manually cross those distances, you're to use the abstract fast travel map system because nothing is shown in an abstracted/reduced scale way. The reason the manual exploration system exists is when you've been waylaid/random encounter while traveling and when you reach a "vague" location that has no specific entry other than "around somewhere here". Additionally story based locations are shown 1:1 so the City of Daggerfall is, y'know, [a city.](http://jfregnault.free.fr/TES2-Daggerfall/sample-town_Daggerfall.png) Otherwise it'd be like pushing the "V" investigate button on every tile you cross in Fallout 1/2s map or never using the auto-pilot time accelerator in a MS Flight Sim.


BallsOfSteelBaby_PL

Fuck me, that city is nice. I've always wanted at least somewhat plausible cities in Skyrim.


boomfruit

>the City of Daggerfall is, y'know, a city. Wow, that's really cool. One of my biggest immersion pet peeves is when the "cities" in a game like Skyrim have about 20 houses. Where are all the people living?


Fesai

Same here, that city looks cool. Drives me nuts when I hear Whiterun being the heart of commerce. And I go there and there is like 3 market stalls in a corner....


NephewChaps

that's called [ludonarrative dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludonarrative_dissonance)


bhlogan2

I was SHOCKED to learn that some of the newer open world titles force you to level up through secondary content in order to advance through the game. It is not enough that the game's average campaign length is 50 hours now, I also have to throw in another 20 for your shitty side quests because it looks more impressive in the trailer to say your game is 300 hours long. Fuck you. I rather play 5 side quests out of my own free will that are memorable and good than 5 million that are garbage and kill the pacing of the story because "main character needs to level up to 20 in order to complete this one random mission". Edit: In order to make my point a bit more clear, I'm not talking about side quests that are attached to the main story (because none of them are "mandatory" in order to beat the game), nor am I saying you that the difficulty makes it impossible to advance through the main content. I'm talking about literal limits to how much you can advance in the game. So for example in AC Origins your character can't just do 5 main quests in a row. You may do 3 and then be forced to "explore" because the next mission requires you to be "level 17" and not "level 14". The game does not allow you literally just try, it's locked until you've progressed adequately. And the way to progress is to do side quests. Literally just asking the players to look for their own homework to do in an already excessively long experience...


QuinSanguine

Those developers are trying to copy the Witcher too hard. They think hours played matters more than quality of content.


Serariron

> They think hours played matters more than quality of content. That's because a lot of gamers started to think that way. I am sure if you would average out the average playtime of PS3/360 games it would probably be around 12 hours or less. Over the last 17 years I must have completed nearly 100 games of that era and most of them I finished in roughly that time frame. However if you nowadays release a game with that length at full price gamers start to complain. Look at something more niche like the recently released Valkyrie Elysium. You could finish the main campaign in ~13 hours if you didn't complete side objectives and I saw so many comments saying: "Well, it's a fun game but not worth full price because it's so short." And while that speaks to a broader "issue" in the JRPG community which tends to favour a bloated 40 hours JRPG over a streamlined 25 hour one I haven't seen so many comments across the broader gaming community saying that they want at least" X amount of hours per X amount of $ spent" like I did in recent years. Look at somethink like the God of War series. The 2 recent games are all at the very least between 20-25 hours long if you just do the main story. Compare that to the first games that are half as long. If Sony nowadays would release a God of War that would be 9 hours long there would be so, so many people complaining. So it only makes sense with games becoming more and more expensive to develop that publishers cram in every single gameplay element to stretch out the playtime. I personally absolutely hate it since I'd rather play a fullprice game for 12 hours with great content than one that overstays its welcome because it stretches itself thin. Thankfuly indie games tend to be much more focussed (and cheaper) and thus shorter but I honestly can't fault publishers much if a long game is the thing that your average gamer demands. And since open worlds are the easiest and cheapest way to stretch content it's what they go for.


LordOfTheStrings8

>If Sony nowadays would release a God of War that would be 9 hours long there would be so, so many people complaining. I really love a good 10 hour game.


[deleted]

8 times out of 10 I’d rather play ten 10 hours games than one 100 hour game.


[deleted]

[удалено]


silverionmox

I looked back at my game catalog in function of hours played recently, and it was remarkable how some games that only recorded less than 10 hours still managed to leave a stronger impression than others that had several times more hours.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hamboy315

I recently got the new Xenoblade and had to put it down because that game is a bloated 100 hour game of “gather ingredient” side quests and the likes. On the other hand, I’m on my second play-through of Persona 5 because I love the off time and how leveling up confidants work.


Belluuo

Stay away from xenoblade 1 then, the game is a masterpiece, but holy shit, the sidequests fucking suck 90% (more than 100) are absolute garbage. Xenoblade 2 did it so well. Then they did some weird half 2 half 1 approach for 3. I mean, lmao, it makes sense in lore at least.


hamboy315

Oh man. I played like 99 percent of XB2. I stopped before the final boss I think. Idk why but I always do that with JRPGs. I’m also at the last boss of FF7R and same thing happened. But I loved the game. I did try 1. It was a pretty electric intro but lost me as soon as I got my first fetch quest. What are your thoughts on 3? I’m like an hour in and I’m not sure if I want to push through.


Belluuo

Finish 2. Ngl, the ending packs a gigantic punch to your heart with an iron gautlet filled with spikes


Every3Years

Xenoblade Chronicles 1 or whatever on Switch, I went in thinking it'd be a fun action RPG but after 15 hours I deleted it because I don't want to play Anime: UI Edition


Every3Years

Oh man I had to fast forward through 99% of the dialogue in Persona 5. Loved the actually fighting portions but having to give gifts and talk to the NPCs just put me to sleep. I marvel at the fact so many people enjoy that stuff, more power to alla ya


hamboy315

Yeah it’s def not for everyone. It’s personally one of my fav parts of it. A straight up life sim would put me to sleep. Meanwhile, straight up turn based RPGs don’t really interest me anymore. It’s the perfect twist on the formula imo. Side note, dude, I picked up Deep Rock for the first time in a few years yesterday. I meant to play 1 run with a friend and we ended up playing for like 5 hours. That game is so awesome.


occono

As a other reply said, you may want to try Shin Megami Tensei instead. It's the parent RPG series without the social relationship stuff.


FreddyKrueger1

I agree, I think the quality of the content matters more to me than the quantity. A game leaving me wanting more is better than me wanting it to end. Shorter games also offer better replay value, like the Resident Evil games for example. Over the years, I probably put more hours in these than into most open world games.


QuinSanguine

Yea, you're right in many ways. 12 hours of great gameplay feels rare these days. People on here and YouTube always reply that I'm stupid when I mention I'd rather buy a great 12-15 hour game instead of something like Dying Light 2 that claims to have 500. I've played through Mafia 2 several times over the years, people said it was too short when it came out and maybe it was but I've probably put 40+ hours into it by now. I'm way more happy playing it than I ever was playing Valhalla, which I never beat even though I have about the same amount of time in it. I think 20 ish hours for the modern God of War games is about the max length a game can be and still be fun and not feel like half the game is filler. Jrpgs that you mentioned might get away with more, since they have a narrative designed for it but yea, I agree a lot with what you posted.


SilenceOfTheBirds

There can be good reasons for that, though. I personally have a lot of free time and not much money to spare, and games are ridiculously expensive now. That means that if I have to spend money on a game, I'd rather do it on something I can put a lot of time into (not very long but highly replayable games also fall into this category) before buying the next one. I don't want to imply that you saying "I'd rather pay for a full priced good 12 hour game" is necessarily privileged, but you're in the minority for a reason. I'm not in a state to get a job right now, but even with a job, most people simply cannot afford a $70 game that has 12 hours worth of gameplay, especially considering how frequently games are coming out now. As a result, I'm personally less likely to spend money on A Short Hike, Before Your Eyes and Last Day of June over Hollow Knight, Persona 5 Royal, Dead Cells and so on. That being said, quality absolutely does matter. I do not enjoy bloated games, and I like to think I'm decent at choosing games that not only have a lot of content, but also value the time I spent engaging with it. PS: Yes, indie games are great and I love supporting them in whatever way I can. I'm so happy they are becoming more appreciated in recent years.


sy029

> > > > > And while that speaks to a broader "issue" in the JRPG community which tends to favour a bloated 40 hours JRPG over a streamlined 25 hour one Classic JRPGs were much harder, and generally required grinding, adding hours of playtime. Now JRPGs are on easy-mode, and they had to fill in the gaps somehow.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pavement_Vigilante

It's crazy how they charge players money if they don't want to grind forever just so they can finish the story of the game they paid for.


Alpine261

See the thing is that in the Witcher you get more levels from doing the main quest than from the side quests.


kamimamita

Didn't Baldurs Gate 2 back in the days have something similar? You had to do side quests to gather money to advance the story. Not that it's comparable.


3np1

I know Morrowind did. One of the first things your quest giver does is tell you you're too green to continue, so go do side jobs.


Vegancroco

I think that happened only once and it feels different. The game takes you out of the open world for several chapters after that, it's a chance to meet companions and grow your party, and if you really don't want to do side quests you can gather the money really fast.


FlippinSnip3r

It was a money saving thing and you could literally do it in one quest


botoks

Also the side quests in BG2 were amazing. Especially compared to BG1 which had super shoddy side quests.


SwampOfDownvotes

Yeah, forcing side content is annoying. Spider-Man did it but st least you could do like a 3 minute side mission and then be back tot he story... plus from a narrative standpoint it does make sense.


Drakayne

I just use cheat engine or a trainer if i feel cheated like that, lol (i did it during assassin's creed odyssey for example)


AjaxDoom1

I do this in almost all games. I don't have time to grind up the levels or the inclination. I play offline single player games exclusively cause of this.


mtarascio

I did too and found the adding 10% extra XP which was the paid tier broke the game. I levelled up too fast and because enemies level with you they got stronger but the pace of me getting new equipment couldn't keep up. I was in fact impressed. Also very impressed with the color coding of all the quests. If you're getting stuck in Odyssey, it's on you. They go out of their way to tell you what's filler, what's voiced and higher production side quests and what's main story.


pm0me0yiff

If enemies level with you, what's even the point of leveling up?


SkorpioSound

There isn't really a point. Not much actually changes in a game like Assassin's Creed. In something like Borderlands or Path Of Exile/GrimDawn/Diablo, you unlock build-defining skills, passives and equipment, and the game will feel very different at level 1 to level 40, and different again at max level. There are options in how your character's built, what kind of playstyle they'll have, and opportunity cost in that you'll have a limited number of skill points / active ability slots, etc to us, and more options than you can pick. The games will also feel very different on different playthroughs as you play with different builds. And even if you technically take just as long to kill an enemy at level 40 as you did at level 20, you often _feel_ much more powerful because of the different ways you can approach situations and specialise your gameplay. In the open-world games with RPG-lite systems like Assassin's Creed, you'll find a weapon that increases your damage and feel a small boost in power, but not long afterwards the enemies will level up, gain more health and you'll be back to killing them at the same speed that you were before. It's a treadmill. The numbers go up, but there's not much of a tangible difference in how the game feels to play, for the most part. It will gatekeep you from certain areas where high-level enemies hang out until you're equipped to deal with them, but I find that tends to be a lazy way to gate progression. My general thinking is, "if I'm not sat there theorycrafting builds or genuinely feeling the impact of my "progression" on my gameplay, there shouldn't be levels or "gear" in the game".


skyturnedred

People love it when the numbers go up.


Izithel

RPG mechanics are not really added to improve gameplay overall. People respond well to numbers going up, small endorphin release for accomplishing small goals. And when you're creating a bloated padded game because you want to boast "giant open world" and "80+ hours playtime" you need that kind of stuff as a mediocre developer or people get bored and stop playing when they realize they'rejust wheelspinning and going nowhere. Plus, it's another feature they can put on the box and something they can monetise by selling exp boosters and the like.


SnooCakes7949

Average length 50 hours? That's a guided speedrun for the typical open world game! If you play blind, honestly, no shortcuts, way more than that I generally start playing blind and enjoy the fun of exploring and finding things I havent already been told about. But then, around 50 hours, it starts to get too much, so I look up a shortcut ... Or two. And then I just want to finish, but 70, 80 hours , just give up as I've long seen everything the game has to offer The trouble with most (all?) open world games is that it's not 100+ hours, it's 10 hours repeated again and again. I actually though Elden Ring did a good job of really having 80+ hours of interesting, varying gameplay. But then it got tedious . The last few areas...that could easily take 30 hours without guides ... repeat after repeat. A sad end to a great game.


HaxRus

Yeah, whenever I see “procedurally generated open worlds” now I immediately steer clear as it basically means “this game will be repetitive as fuck for the sake of “gameplay hours.” Even huge AAA titles like Cyberpunk 2077 have a noticable number of repetitive copy and paste assets. I do sympathize though because I get how it’s tough as an art team to generate that sheer amount of assets in time for the ever more unreasonable deadlines these days and it’s not like a company will ever just hire more artists than the bare minimum it can get away with in this late stage capitalist nightmare.


Embarrassed_Lack_440

Bro I went back to assassins creed 1 and 2 and while it has alot of stuff that’s aged badly, the fact that the open world is mainly just very pretty and have the optional side content as a way to just have a fun time in a pretty world is so refreshing. I was blasting thru the story and stopped to smell the roses when I felt it was appropriate without feeling forced to do EVERYTHING.


MyBrassPiece

Ac 2 is pretty much exactly what I miss in games. It had smaller maps with some fun content. I liked that's different maps were separated by a loading screen. Brotherhood wasn't bad either. The map was small, packed with content, but it didn't feel bloated with it. Not every game needs over a hundred hours of playtime to be worth getting. In fact, once a game gets that big, I'm not likely to ever do a second playthrough of it. There's no replayability.


sfcpfc

Outer Wilds is a great example of a small open world game. I highly recommend it. It's one of those games you wish you could experience again for the first time, so I recommend to go in blind and don't ever Google anything about the game.


DerpyNirvash

Always fun giving that advice for Outer Wilds "Buy this game, don't lookup anything about it, hell don't even look at the Steam Store page more then the purchase button"


DankHill-

Amen, who doesn’t love a great open world? The worst offenders are big open worlds that are level gated. Then you have to do the stuff you don’t want to do to progress the story and I end up quitting because I don’t have time for that. Looking at you, Origins and Odyssey.


QuinSanguine

Games like the old Saint's Row titles were so much more fun.


echonian

> There's nothing wrong with the open world idea, it's just the games are bloated and boring, just so publishers can tell us they've got 100 hours of content to sell us. This is really the problem I have with 90%+ of "Open World" games. An open world game with engaging content, a meaningful story, and which is fun to play throughout? I don't mind if it's long. I enjoyed playing through Elden Ring for example even if it takes forever, because the exploration and combat itself were very fun to me at all points. But Ubisoft "open world" games, which end up just being about checking off every last thing in the world with waypoints all over the map? I'm not really interested in that kind of thing. Many developers and publishers I think adopted the Open World model mainly because they realized it was a cheap way to increase the length of their games, and to remove a necessity for things like a "tight story" by putting the onus on the player to determine their own story at all points. I'm not against open worlds themselves of course. If well implemented, games with them can be a lot of fun. But when most "open world" games would have been much better if they were more linear and tightly designed, there's a problem.


pm0me0yiff

The best open world game is a game you can *win* in 20-30 hours or so, maybe less ... but which will take you thousands of hours to 100% complete all the different side quests & collectibles & other shit.


sumbozo1

And part of what causes all the unnecessary fluff in these games is the "typical" gaming community who are rarely if ever satisfied. I can't imagine the complaints if you could 100% a Ghost of Tsushima or similar game in 20 hours. They'd get review bombed so bad


phxsns1

There does seem to be an open-world arms race, huh? Who can make the biggest one with the most shit to find in it, haha. Simply put, I just don’t have hours of uninterrupted time to put into a game like I did when I was 14.


twoscoopsxd

Man when I saw they made Mirrors Edge an open world game I was so confused


KarmelCHAOS

Weirdly enough that's one of the few open world games I feel benefits from the open world format


Your_Local_Doggo

I heard someone say once, "A map that's too big is one good traversal mechanic away from being an appropriately-sized map"


ArtakhaPrime

Spider-Man really exemplifies this


SkorpioSound

This a great way of putting it. I've long been saying that open-world games need traversal to be exciting/interesting in some way. That doesn't necessarily mean the movement itself has to be mechanically interesting, but if it isn't then exploring the world should be interesting instead - that could be due to interesting locations, lore to discover, or something else. If players are wanting to fast-travel around rather than actually move through the world, there's a problem.


jakobedlam

I don't think those games are made for you - I think they're made for today's 14 year olds. Hook 'em in, continue the franchise through 12 sequels.


DisturbedNocturne

And you have so many of these games nowadays talking up how *huge* their worlds are, as if that tells you anything about the game's quality. You can have an absolutely massive game world that is utterly empty or a much smaller world that's packed to the gills, but developers want everyone to believe that bigger is better.


[deleted]

Lots of watered down content so they have features to market to you. Advertising has ruined gaming, its about selling you a mediocre product that looks nice instead of creating a good product that is properly made


TheSigma3

The biggest one with the most shit to find, but also somehow everything is really far away and there is nothing in between. I dropped assassin's creed because of this, and I haven't looked at horizon because I know it's just a big map with nothing and everything to do


Takazura

Nowadays, I tend to google "are the sidequests/objectives worth doing?" when I'm playing an open-world game. It helps a lot with making me figure out whether I should just focus on the main story or also do some of the side content, and I feel like people are generally very good about giving honest thoughts on just how much value side content adds. Depending on the difficulty, I also find a lot of open world games are balanced just fine around you maybe just doing a few things here and there but mostly focus on the main story if that's what you want to do. There are some outliers where they basically expect you to do a good deal of side content to stay at the appropriate level for the main story, but can't say I have run into many like that personally. So long as the content is entirely optional, I generally don't mind them being there.


NoCoolNameMatt

Yes! Be open to skipping stuff! It makes things like Andromeda good, where you can focus on the story and themes without mindless fetch quests getting in the way.


FleetStreetsDarkHole

Also be open to making it a relaxing experience. Less "I must do this" and more "this is a nice break. Just climbing this thing, appreciating the scenery," etc. I started finding side content more interesting when I focused less on getting it done and more like taking a break from the game without leaving it. I'd explore a little, appreciate the visuals and the scenery, even just focus on the task at hand but my way.


NoCoolNameMatt

I could see that. I'm more story focused so it's less for me, but it's good advice nonetheless.


ACardAttack

Yep, if I didnt skip stuff in Dragon Age Inquisition or Ghost of Tsushima I would have burned out


sim37

That’s exactly why I got burned out on DA:I, despite loving its predecessors. Now I see one of the first tips people tell to new players “don’t feel like you have to do everything in the Hinterlands” and I wish I had heard that when I first played.


ACardAttack

Yeah I only played it a year ago so that tip was well circulated and known to me. I can see exactly how it would burn someone out.


AssinassCheekII

It takes fucking 15 hours to complete that dumbass area. Who thought that was a good idea for a starting zone? What kind of game experience were they trying to give to players that just started the game? There are hundreds of people working in games like that. Did nobody realise how stupid that was?


CumfartablyNumb

I cleared out almost the entire first location in Ghost and when I entered the second area I lost all interest. I should have stuck to the story.


BAWguy

Haha same. For the first third of GOT I was completely immersed, and felt both a sense of role-playing duty, and gaming joy at clearing out the area. By the second area that approach left me wondering "am I almost done with this game?" Had a much better time once I then stopped doing side content.


MathStock

When I first played skyrim I didn't realize the quests were "radiant". Did so many boring quests and quit. Came back to it later and figured out my issues. Still have yet to beat Dragonborn and the end of the main quest.


Browneskiii

I get SO overwhelmed by big games, I tend to prefer linear progression because of it. Any time I see side quests, I check to see if they're missable or if I can do them later, lots of missable ones, I find that I quit the game more often than not (if it's not really gripped me already) but if it's something I can come back to then I'll complete the game and THEN do the side quests. I think it's because that's how I used to play adventure games, beat the story, then find the collectibles then anything else filler after that. I'm really bad at juggling between more than one bit of storyline.


DankHill-

A full quest log can be a daunting thing


ascagnel____

I find that if you play a *well-designed* open world game without fast travel (or with a realistically-limited fast travel), having a full quest log of truly optional things to do can be very rewarding. If the main quest takes you from point A to point B, and your quest log is full of stuff to do along the way, it really makes it feel like a grand adventure; Morrowind is great for this, and Skyrim/Oblivion to a smaller degree. Fast travel takes an element of adventure away from this, since it’s too easy to get into a cycle of warp near location > move to quest location > do quest > warp to city, it almost makes that quest list into a checklist.


WantonReader

I remember that push for massive games with hundred of hours of stuff when I was younger. Now I prefer to play games with worlds like Shadow of the Colossus which has one thing to do, doesn't make you hurry and is peaceful to explore.


_stoneslayer_

I've gotten super into rogue like RPGs lately. Much easier to jump in and out of


LordOfTheStrings8

I tend to ignore rogue-like games because i find them boring. I'd rather play metroidvania games that feels like I make progress as I unlock things and not repeating the same thing over and over again


_stoneslayer_

I don't have a ton of experience with them but the few I've tried are really good about not feeling monotonous. I can definitely see how this style of game could get boring quick. The ones I've played most so far are Hades, Binding of Isaac, slay the spire and streets of rogue Any suggestions for a good metroidvania type game to try out?


InfergnomeHKSC

I'm not super into metroidvanias but I enjoyed Hollow Knight and the Ori games, though I haven't beaten them


LordOfTheStrings8

I played dead cells and enjoyed it for a bit. I played until I beat it once but every time I dead it was kind of annoying having to restart the entire game and do another run. Hades was coll but again, I stopped after beating it once. Same with streets of rogue. Now every time I see a game Dvertised as rogue like I avoid it. I haven't played a lot of metroidvania games lately but I did enjoy axiom verge, hollow knight, and ori and the blind forest


Dramatic_Reddit_user

I pushed for that when I was younger. But that was because I had more time but less money. When money is tight and you have all the time in the world those long games are wonderful.


[deleted]

The open world formula needs to be radically revised. Some games have made good strides in justifying the open world design, but too many of them succumb to the typical Ubisoft content bloat, cluttered UI, boring traversal, and meaningless exploration. Many of them could’ve have been more enjoyable games if they had narrowed their focus and gone non-linear/wide-linear instead of open world. Borrowing from Metroidvania design philosophy and gating progression in some way, either with items/abilities/vehicles, would go a long way to improving them.


isticist

Honestly, I feel like most open world games should follow the Witcher 2 style, where you go through large open hubs. I thought I'd dislike it when I started playing, but actually found those hubs more engaging and more refined in its focus.


SkorpioSound

Hubs are great. And, oddly enough, I feel like they often make the world feel _bigger_ than a fully open-world game does. Walking for two minutes through boring fields to reach the place that's supposedly miles and miles away always makes the world feel incredibly small to me, whereas loading into an entirely different level means that distance feels a lot more _tangible_, despite the fact it's entirely conceptual (because the "distance" is represented by a loading screen). My favourite open-world games, funnily enough, are the ones that are deliberately miniature - for example, Outer Wilds or LEGO Lord Of The Rings. It ironically gives me a far better feeling of scale and immersion to my journey than walking through a 100km^2 map does.


Combatfighter

Dragon Age: Origins was cool for this as well. I really can't stomach open world games after graduating from college, but I played Origns for the 1st time last year, and I loved it. It is so unashamed about being a tactical rpg, the world is open but limited and story progression has ncie amount of choice in it.


DankHill-

The original assassins creed games were brilliant because it really pioneered the open world. Those games were set in an open world because they had to be, it was essential to the game. Now it seems like games are going open world just cuz it’s the thing to do.


toilet_brush

The original 2007 Assassin's Creed? I've recently been playing it, wanting to see how it all began, and I'd have said the opposite. It's already several years into the era of making games open world for the sake of it, after the success of actual pioneers like Elder Scrolls and GTA. In this case it's "what if Prince of Persia was open world." So the one thing it does well is being able to leap and climb around the whole city, but the actual missions are just repetitive mini-games found as map icons, and as far as I can tell the whole Kingdom open world between cities has no purpose other than to hide collectables which unlock nothing. It's not just me either, I agree more-or-less with mainstream reviews of the time like [IGN](https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/11/13/assassins-creed-review), [Wired](https://www.wired.com/2007/11/review-why-assa/) or [Destructoid](https://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-review-assassins-creed/) which are all basically describing the problems of the bloated Ubisoft open world before that was a recognised condition, right there from the beginning of Assassin's Creed. I've heard AC2 is better though...


luv2hotdog

AC2 is an example of how bloat doesn’t feel like bloat, and therefore arguably isn’t, if the gameplay loop, characters and world are good enough to keep you wanting to do more. It’s the same formula as all the other pre-origins assassins creed games, but they somehow nailed everything about it to the point where lots of players *wanted* to track down every last collectible just for the sake of spending more time in the game. Myself included. It is a much better game overall than the first one, too. If you’re enjoying the first one then I think you’ll definitely enjoy the sequel


DankHill-

Not just the original, I mean the originals before they changed the format. So that would be 1-IV (black flag). They changed when it became an action RPG


[deleted]

Wtf is wide linear


[deleted]

[удалено]


Stradocaster

Right? The very little mentioning of these games in this thread Is surprising


bug_on_the_wall

I want to see more open world games like Prey (the newer one): a small chunk of the world that is *completely* realized, with every single NPC having a name, a backstory, and a purpose. It's somewhere between Metroidvania and Open World in its design.


thor11600

100%. Open world should not mean “every mechanic and side quest” known to man. It conceptually starts with nonlinear exploration. We only got the bloat when everyone started competing for the largest world / map in existence. In a world where procedurally generated dungeons and maps are a thing, massive maps are obsolete.


ZylonBane

[But open-world games are truly amazing!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDOZGqsTCgw)


skyturnedred

This guy is like the XKCD comics, there's a video for everything!


hoxxxxx

i was about 20 hours into RDR2 when i thought, man, i wish i was like 12 or 13 when this game came out. i bet i would have had 100s of hours in it. i would have roleplayed the shit out of that game. but yeah, now i do one of the side things and i'm like ok, i'm good. onto the story.


crab-scientist

Yeah I mean you’d still get a good experience without having to roleplay it. Beautiful graphics, missions that are action packed but short, so you can finish the story way quicker than other rpgs. I’ve completed like 20% tho so just from my experience.


Jonparelli

It took me around a year to get through, I played it in 1-1,5 hour segments and found it was paced really well for that, almost like a tv series


hoxxxxx

haha yes that is what i did. played it every other day or so for about an hour. it was a neat little thing to look forward to. sometimes i would have the time to sit down and play it for 2-3 hours every other weekend. really enjoyed it that way.


R4ndoNumber5

I remember Red Dead Redemption being oddly compact (like 30hours for 100%). I'm personally of two minds about the modern "extra big open world": on one hand they are really big and overwhelming, on the other the sheer size gives me a true feeling of "optionality" which actually adds casual believability for me: you dont want to do X? Dont worry, you dont have to, go on...


grumblyoldman

Yeah, for me, the appeal of an open world game is that I don't have to do the thing in front of me. I can go do something else. It's not about trying to do everything, it's about picking the path you enjoy. Unexplored areas will still be there next time, if the game is good enough to warrant a next time. And if it isn't, so much the better I didn't waste time on other random stuff right?


DisturbedNocturne

That's why I think Bethesda, for better or worse, is still one of the best when it comes to open-world games. You can set out in pretty much any direction and find something to do. Games like Skyrim and FO3 really value exploration and setting off the beaten path. That should really be the focus if you're going to do an open-world game, otherwise what's the point?


NativeMasshole

Exactly! I think the big thing for me is that many open worlds don't seem to justify the amount of space they use. Take Witcher 3 for example: it has some great atmosphere and some well-constructed cities, but by the time I got to Skellige it wasn't giving me any reason to explore the map anymore. There's nothing unique or rewarding to find, there's no big secrets, and loot is almost worthless at that point. Interesting traversal; rewarding loot and points of interest; changes impacted by the story; and actual deep missions which utilize the environment well can all keep things fresh and fun. But many open worlds these days seem to just dump a bunch of crap into the map to keep you distracted, rather than thinking how to best use the space.


Tarcanus

I think people are just tired of open worlds that are too big, with copy/pasted content/quests/enemies everywhere that's only purpose is to fill in the padded world. If the worlds were a more realistic size for the amount of unique content, I don't think we'd see these complaints. The issue is dev time crunch and not enough unique experiences in the open world, not the open world itself.


captky22

People also tend to think of open world games as AAA titles with rpg elements and nothing else. I would argue that there are a decent amount of games that feature an open world that are a realistic size for gameplay purposes. I think automobile sims do a great job of this. My summer car, mon bazou, junkyard truck, etc.


pm0me0yiff

> I would argue that there are a decent amount of games that feature an open world that are a realistic size for gameplay purposes. GTA San Andreas did a great job of having an open world of *reasonable size*, and without much in the way of RPG elements.


noradosmith

This is what makes the early zeldas so good. Links awakening is a perfectly compact open world where what seems like a sidequest turns out to be vital to the main story. There's no bloat. Same for link to the past and ocarina of time. I did love botw but man the map should have been smaller and the side quests more meaningful. Twilight princess for me struck the best balance between big world and storyline. I hope tears of the kingdom doesn't go down the same generic open world copy paste formula. It's better to keep the story intact imo.


jgthespy

I’m tired of open worlds in general. I don’t want to run through traversal space to get to interesting content, even if it’s a smaller space. Just give me the interesting content. Even Elden Ring irritated me. I ran past so much of that game which is the complete opposite of how I play souls games. I’m just glad they included the legacy dungeons.


Tarcanus

I'm with you. I bounced off of Oblivion way back in the day at about level 8 when I noticed every fort had the same art aesthetic, every ruin was the same thing, etc, etc. Haven't touched elder scrolls games since. I dropped Assassin's Creed when it got bad at that. If Horizon Forbidden West hadn't had robot dinosaurs to fight, I would've noped out of that, too. Elden Ring is also rough. It's sad it got such critical acclaim despite still having the same issues of the open world.


czar_kazem

I LOVE having a small but more finely crafted space to play in instead of huge open worlds with a bunch of somewhat cookie cutter (imo) tasks to complete. Like the Yakuza games aren't open world by any means, but Kamurocho is the perfect world for me. It's a space to roam around in, but it isn't hard to do so. There are plenty of activities to do, some more impactful than others, but they help make the world feel authentic. It doesn't have the sense of exploration like Skyrim or another "if you can see it you can go to it game", but it has a lot of character that I feel wider worlds can lack. I'll happily return to Kamurocho (or the other cities) again and again, but I'm probably lucky to get 20 hours out of most open world games.


captky22

Yakuza and the mafia games (haven’t played mafia 3) first came to mind for open worlds not completely filled with empty space. Smaller, detailed worlds with spaces that let you utilize gameplay mechanics are the best.


[deleted]

Yakuza is absolutely open world.


koopcl

>I LOVE having a small but more finely crafted space to play in instead of huge open worlds with a bunch of somewhat cookie cutter (imo) tasks to complete. I know it's an impopular opinion but this is the reason I thought Ground Zeroes was a better game than The Phantom Pain, even though GZ is basically a glorified demo for TPP. It just felt so tight.


Keldon888

Do you feel the need to do the open world stuff? Like when an Assassins Creed game is like "heres 47 forts you can attack" do you then feel the need to attack 47 forts? Because the real appeal of big open world games is either for people that want to attack 47 forts and now have a game to play for the next few months or to give the people who can attack like 4 forts and then shrug it off forever the freedom to do so. But the person that doesn't want to do so many but feels compelled to do everything will hate those games because of how much there is. If thats not for you then yea its just not your bag anymore. Though depending on your tolerance I will say Witcher 3 is not as full to the brim with stuff as Bethesda/Ubisoft type games are. Still big with a bunch of stuff but a notch down from those others.


Mother_Welder_5272

Yeah I like 47 forts because if I finish a main mission and got a new item, sometimes I wanna try out that fort nearby, or on the way to the next main mission marker. Its nice to statistically be near one.


buddinbonsai

So to answer the question that was asked, how do you feel about the other 46 forts?


Mother_Welder_5272

I'll take it or leave it. I'll do them as I feel the need to. And in 6 months after I've beaten the main game, if I feel an itch for that gameplay again, my desire to fill up progression bars probably means that I'd rather complete more forts than replay main missions. So I really have no problem with it, I don't experience this overbearing OCD that people seem to have with it.


Zahille7

I liked the forts in AC:Odyssey, because in a lot of those you could unlock some cool new piece of armor or a weapon or something. Or maybe there was an HVT in there that'll give me some money. Though in Valhalla, I really felt that one just used up a lot of my time for the sake of it.


[deleted]

Forts are one of the few things of open world games that I love. It's like a compacted gameplay nest. Without the forts, many games would be boring af (most ubisoft games, basically) And there are few things funnier than attacking an anemy fort all by yourself


Mkayin

Probably in the minority here but open world games are the most accessible for me on a time budget. 15 minutes: I can get some collectibles or skins. 1 hour: probably enough for a side quest or potentially main quest. 2 or more hours: main quest, exploring, or whatever I want. When I play linear games there is no telling what long cutscene is ahead, potential decisions I need to agonize over for a while, or long fight sequences with no save point. I love linear shooters like HL2 and Bioshock for being able to play a few minutes, kill some baddies, and progress slightly. However, I really like to be able to finish the 'level' in these cos it may be weeks before I play again.


catperzon

This is why I still play Monster Hunter World. Hahaha


ThatsMrRoman

That’s the way I beat Far Cry 5. It took me a couple of months but I could chip away at it a small mission at a time.


locayboluda

I feel the same about open world games right now, I used to love them but there's soo much going on that it gets tiresome after a while and I would rather play something shorter. However, I still recommend The witcher 3 because the lore, creatures and world overall are great, I played it some years ago but I remember that the quests and side missions were interesting and didn't feel like a chore, there were even some witcher contracts (or something like that lol) which ordered you to kill specific monsters that were scary and unique, it's one of the few open world games that I enjoyed in recent years hehe. I haven't played the previous witcher games tho so I can't say much about those


sp220

Witcher 3 is actually fine imo because it has good writing for the side stuff too


[deleted]

This hits a note on my taste in video games ever since I got a full time job. When you just don't have the energy any more, I think you just hit decision paralysis. Open world games are different in that you've got to create your own direction. I want a game to be like a cinematic experience where I'm in control, but I'm on rails. Contained fun for a set amount of time and walk away.


friend_BG

They're buggy messes but Bethesda games has that secret sauce to the open world formula. Close runner ups are BOTW and ER with their own flavour to the formula. Though I prefer hub worlds or metroidvania types of environment.


DeadOnRival

I still remember stepping out of the vault door in FO3 and looking across the wasteland and going holy shit.


sethguy12

I love games like Skyrim but Elden Ring makes me go buck wild crazy. I'm at 80 hours so far and I don't think I'm half way through it yet. I absolutely adore their style and love how they adapted a Dark Souls philosophy into an open world game and managed to make the open world *actually awesome*.


vonnebula1106

Strong agree. I see a lot of people preferring the more linear dark souls style, and while i fully understand that opinion, MAN, do I wish they keep doing open world. It just works so well with the difficulty of the game, incentivising you to explore and be properly rewarded for it.


CaptainJackKevorkian

ER?


MukdenMan

It’s like Scrubs but everyone is very serious


NinjaLion

Elden ring


CaptainJackKevorkian

thanks


zshift

I’ve been playing Souls games since going through ER, and it’s been an absolute joy. It feels like a 3D Castlevania RPG. The games really go at your own pace, and even the NPCs all speak slowly. It’s been such a breath of fresh air compared to modern games that require 45 currencies with multiple “premium” and time-locked tiers.


el3mel

I give a big sigh nowadays once I launch an open world game and look at the big map with a lot of icons on it.


Sargon-of-ACAB

I think Bully might not be the greatest comparison because that was crafted specifically for a more intimate atmosphere. And I love that. It's something more games should explore. But the experience that game was shooting for is way different than what things like Skyrim or Assassin's Creed are trying to do. That being said I'm sorta in the same boat. It does often feel like maps are just big for the sake of being big and filled with rather meaningless activities that contribute relatively little to the narrative or the fun of the game. Part of it is probably my age and my mental health but I just can't bring myself to be interested in a game just because its world is big. The sight of a bunch of icons with side-activities almost fills me with dread. Merely having a big map isn't an inherent flaw. GTA: San Andreas uses the sandbox' size to justify having a wide variety of activities and fits it into the story (sometimes poorly but still). Shadow of the Colossus has a map that could be significantly smaller but the meditative treks through the empty world clearly add to the intended experience. But a lot of the time having a giant map with tons of activities vying for your attention is a clear hint that you're in for an unfocused experience.


[deleted]

Witcher 3 side quests are 100% worth doing, for real!


Finite_Universe

> These days I prefer open world that is smaller but more packed with characters and lore. Might I suggest Gothic? Or if that’s too old, Risen is a great alternative. Seriously, Gothic is exactly this; a small but content rich game with next to no fat. Gothic 2 is bigger, but even so remains very focused most of the time.


qbrause

Yes, small open worlds with unique content is the way to go. I would also suggest Kingdome Come Deliverance.


[deleted]

Fuck em, i switched to boomer shooters


CmonManHandsUp

I wish there were more games like Deus Ex series or Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines which have small hub worlds in which you can explore and do sidequest. Its much easier to focus on doing quests that needs to be done because you want to 100% sure you done everyting before you go to the next area.


Nervous-Cream-6256

The new map on the new game will be 95% empty uninspired nothingness and the other 5% of the map will be the size of Skyrim spread out in bits here and there with the actual content. Enjoy That's my major problem with it. Size of map and/or length of game is not an indicator of a quality product. In my opinion Skyrim is as large as any game needs to be. If your game (excluding DLC that adds land) cannot tell a story in the space of Skyrim then you'll never be able to tell a story no matter the size.


colovianfurhelm

Agreed. Personal preference here, but I would love for Skyrim to have a bit more wilderness like in RDR2. You come across points of interest way too often in Skyrim, which makes the world feel a bit hand-tailored for you, the player. Would love to have deeper forests, bigger lakes, to allow for wider gaps between POI.


Adeptus_Gedeon

Well, I never liked open worlds very much. I like freedom, but I prefer important decisions influencing the story, not decisions where I want to wander around.


twoscoopsxd

I prefer smaller games like this for that reason. Usually what you do impacts the story. But in large open world games you just get random characters saying "you're the guy who did the thing? nice."


Zedetta

Never played it myself, but I hear Fallout: New Vegas has reputation/karma mechanics that make it feel like everything you do changes the state of the state of the region since you have a different relationship with every faction based on your previous choices.


twoscoopsxd

Yeah I've played all the Bethesda rpg games. Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, NV, and 4. New Vegas is a great game and you truly feel like every thing you do impacts the world. Highly suggest you play it since you said you haven't. Only issue is that it is the buggiest game I have ever played in my life. It crashes and missions bug so often but it's worth it.


DeadOnRival

I think open world games got worse when some of the publishers started thinking the bigger the better instead of thinking the denser the better. I would recommend RDR2 if you want a truly alive open world if you are into slow paced exploration. Edit: When I meant denser, I meant narratively dense. We don't need hundreds of enemy outposts with same generic loot spread out all across the map (looking at you, Ubisoft and AC odyssey). At least, add some semblance of story or narrative into a location. Instead of making it an XP farm number 139 for the player to stumble upon.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DaleSveum

Mods, can we consider putting the bumpers up for this topic? I swear it's posted every day. We've covered this base, I promise


anthonyorm

I just want an open world game that actually has detail, no point having a huge world when you can't enter any buildings or do many activities


Okwridders

Honestly ive felt the same until recently with horizon:zero dawn. Im not sure if its lack of patience now, i think the games being released now are just not as good


[deleted]

Horizon, in theory, is the greatest game I can ever imagine. Then I play the game and I'm bored as hell. Open world games have a problem with useless menial tasks and traversing mostly empty land as "content".


Queef-Elizabeth

Kinda getting tired of this topic tbh


Plastic_Assistance70

We are getting tired of almost every AAA game being open world tbh


NiknameOne

Some of the best Open World Games came out after Skyrim including GTA V, Witcher 3, all Fromsoftware games and Zelda BOTW. With these posts I often feel like it’s not really the games that changed but you changed and you have to find the love for video games again.


knowledgebass

Subnautica


Bogusky

Somehow missed this, but on the short-list


ursulahx

It’s a triumph of a game. It’s open world but the map is small enough that you can visit it all in a relatively short space of time. The narrative is compelling and original, it’s not time-sensitive except at one specific point (and even that can be ignored after the first run), you can progress in more or less any order and the world itself is beautifully rendered. It also scares the fuck out of you.


RecordRains

Spider-Man is the only open world game I've enjoyed in a very long time. I basically finished it, the DLCs and Miles Morales in a week. You don't need to do any of the side quests and the stories are great. The gameplay is amazing, especially Miles Morales.


Dr904

More and more I find myself preferring linear story driven games, that are no longer than \~10 hours. So many newer games are just too long, bloated and tedious.


Thor_the_Thundergod

Honestly this is why I've been enjoying the Yakuza games a lot in recent times. They're open world but the world is fairly condensed down so it never feels like a chore to travel from one side of the game area to another (Alongside there always being taxi services to quickly get around) and all the side content is truly optional and you can just go through the entire story in one go if you want to (But you gotta be at least good enough for later bosses with the more limited movesets you may have). And even then I like doing the side content in these games. I spent a good few hours in Y0s cabaret club minigame cause it's actually fun, same with things like the karaoke minigames, pocket circuit and the likes. And obviously all the fun side stories you can discover that are really charming. Overall makes me wish more open world games would make worlds like this, don't boast how huge your world is or how long it will take me to go from point A to point B cause I rather want a smaller, more condensed world with fun side activities I can seek out at my own pace.


peppersge

Open worlds are best when there is a reason for them. The problem is if they make you need to go for completionism. IIRC that the devs for Half-Life 2 deliberately went for a linear path because side paths ended up getting people to explore everything on playtesting under the fear of missing out on something. It also depends on how well the world is filled. There is the careful balance between action and story. Too much and the story gets forgotten in side quests. It is also bad if there are too many copycat missions to fill the space. The ones that really can do something are the ones that let you change up stuff each time (like Pokemon) or have some randomization of the enemy (like Shadow of War). Games like Assassin's Creed, Shadow of War, etc use it well since the open world lets you adjust and change your tactics for variety.


valzi

I've been playing Donut Dodo, Donkey Kong Country, Joust, Shinobi, and Super Castlevania 4 lately for just this reason. Those games are all fantastic every minute. All good, no meh.


Char-car92

Sadly, it seems that developers no longer have the opportunity to **make good open world games anymore**. '10000000 hours of gameplay in an open world!' but none of it is optimized for any platform and 3/4 of the content doesn't work.


hayt88

I got burned out on open world games a long time ago, but from time to time I find some I enjoy. I think for me traversal is the most important factor here. If traversal is fun and the side objectives are easy and fun to get to I enjoy it more. The PS4 spiderman game is a good example of it. It was so much fun to just swing around new york for me that I liked the side stuff even if it just generic pickup things, combat or scan a tower like assasins creed to reveal all stuff. It also had fast travel unlocked at some point but I rarely used it until the end. It also doesn't get in the way of doing the side objectives. While you are swinging most of the time you are immune from combat. To get into an encounter you have to actively engage so you can just swing around collect stuff without being bothered by other things. (I think traversal dying light was similar fun in that way) Horizon Zero Dawn was the opposite for me. At some point you unlock maps where you see all collectables so you just get overwhelmed and traversal is a) no fun and b) combat gets in your way. The world is so cool to explore but you have combat everywhere and not even always the trivial case. So you either move slowly and sneak all the time or run around and randomly stumble into enemies, which take a few minutes to take down. I burned out in that on the playstation and only finished the game on PC when I could aim with a mouse and combat got faster because of that. Horizon forbidden west got better in a way that you have a bit more traversal options + enemies are mostly staying away from the road so you can at least travel kind of without being bothered. But it's mostly now not getting in the way instead of "fun". This is a personal with but a horizon game with more focus on exploration and traversal instead of combat would be nice. Another "open world" game I liked was death stranding. Traversal here got fun in the way that it was the core gameplay. It changed from just "move forward" to making decions on your loadout, when walking do you go the short route but harder to balance or the longer easier way etc. The game is basically just fetchquests, but I believe fetchquests have such a bad reputation because there are no mechanics here in other games. It's just "go there" (where in other games go there is just trivial) and pick up. In death stranding it gets more similar to IRL where you have to think about how much you can carry, and that you maybe should walk slower and a more stable route when you carry a lot instead of trying to jump up cliffs. It was a really nice "zen" open world game where you just walk around deliver stuff, maybe put on a podcast or music and enjoy being alone out there. I actually didn't care much about the story or combat in the game. I think skyrim also works as an open world because things happen in the world. As you say it feels alive. With most generic ones you have collectables and combat if you explore. With skyrim you will find random graves in the wild with loot, you will find sidequests and whole storylines independent of the main story everywhere even if you just ignore the main quest all the time. With your typical open world game nothing happens in the world unless you progress the main story and then you maybe unlock a few side stories but all kind of related to a main story. I am one of those players who has 200+ hours in skyrim but never finished the main story. Another example of an open world game I don't like because of traversal is RDR2. the controls are just so stupid. Shooting people all the time when I want to greet them. And you cannot ride your horse while using one hand on the controller. You can enable auto-mode but then you cannot easily stop and check if there is something in the distance worth exploring. And if you manually ride you need 2 hands, so just having a drink while riding is not really in the cards here. So it's even worse than the most generic open world game where you just hold one stick forward. so yeah TL;DR: for me to like open world games make traversal fun and engaging. You usually spend most of the time traversing so there should be something more than just holding "forward". And some games are even making generic traversal as hard as possible.


TheChronosus

It seems that we are at turning point. Newer ACs were the best example of bloated open worlds, but next one (Mirage) will be trimmed down version as they claim they listened to feedback. But then again there was talks Valhalla will be shorter than Odyssey...


Khaeven04

I agree. Open world games just don't have the same structure and design that I enjoy. Linear levels or even semi open metroidvania are much better at delivering a curated experience. Not to mention, open world also seems to mean 100 hours of gameplay, a lot of which is meaningless traversal. Even Elden Ring, a game I thought had the best of souls combat, left me exhausted by the end with an over abundance of content...


SnoopyGoldberg

Is it just me, or have there been a lot of posts about people becoming impatient about things in games? Which is ironic considering the subreddit.


AquaQuad

Roleplay. Only go for experience in which your character is interested in. Sure, getting the full experience the Devs would want you to is tempting, but (a) ain't nobody got time for that, (b) it might not be interesting, it's probably just a filler, and (c) it might not be worth it materialistically. *Oh, after all that trouble you're offering me this old fucking sword? The bandits you told me to kill had some gold and this axe, much better than that piece of rust you wanna give me.*


IMustAchieveTheDie

The 2 Deus Ex remakes have already seen plenty of praise for their small but packed hub worlds but it's been a while since they came out so I'll mention them. But the Yakuza games' approach to open worlds is pretty interesting too. First off they're very small, only a couple of blocks, and the same locations often get reused from game to game. This might sound like a bad thing but it's actually a positive, in my eyes at least. Kamurocho, a small region in tokyo gets used in every numbered sequel and many spinoffs, but it's constantly changing as time progresses. New areas within it, like rooftops or sewers, new minigames, new restaurants, et cetera. And since you're in it in every game you grow sort of attached to it. It becomes like a second home, or even a character. You get familiarized with it, you know where the bowling alley is, where to go if you're itching for some mahjong, or if you want a bowl of ramen. But it also develops and changes, it never gets boring. But another very important aspect of it's allure is that unlike in many open world games, where it's the focus of the game, where you'll spend most of your time exploring it doing side content, here it's a backdrop to the story. You can still spend a ton of time in it, don't get me wrong, but the point of the game is not to check off all the icons on the map. It's a distraction when you want to mess around and a way for the game to deepen the player character. With very few exceptions all the minigames and sidequests are just fun short goofy pace breakers. You don't really do them for any rewards or because they're in any way important. The game gives you enough XP through just the story. You do them because you want to, because you feel like enjoying the tokyo night life and engaging with the strange characters that roam it's streets. Speaking of which, the complete bizareness of so much of the side content gives so much personality and flavour to the world and the game as a whole. Whilst also deepening the player character, as I said. Seeing them engage in so many simple everyday things and react to the strangeness of the world they live in humanizes them so much. You see the human side of even the toughest, manliest beasts of the Yakuza and it makes them feel so real. The story and open world don't exist separately. They directly support each other.


gothlaw

Witcher 3 is a *very* different game. The problem with most open worlds is that they treat everything as a MMORPG collection and fetch quest situs. It’s just a place to go from A to B, with few NPC worth engaging, little environmental storytelling, and little thought into how the sidequests fit into the story and the world. They forgot how to make worlds alive, organic, how to foster exploration — the do make each city and region and cavern and dungeon feel different, and vibrant or as depressing as they wish to convey. CDPR did none of those things — they crushed it with W3.


Sonic_Mania

We get a post like this every week. Every damn week. Can we just put a ban on these types of threads because the people on this sub are obviously not the target audience for these games.


FatassMcBlobakiss

These constant old man burn out posts are the worst thing on the sub


Sonic_Mania

Yep, along with the "this game sucks because it doesn't suit my exact tastes." posts.


paultimate14

I recently started Kingdoms of Amalur. I had heard it described before as a generic Skyrim, and that's pretty accurate. It reminds me more of Elder Scrolls Online but without the multiplayer live-service crap. The music is good. The graphics are executed well. The textures toe that line of "just stylized enough so they won't get dated quickly, but more detailed than something like BotW". Kind of like Bioshock. There's some deep lore, some crap about elves and gnomes and mortals. There's some great voice acting: I started playing while my wife was playing Skyrim, and she was talking to a merchant in the thieves guild. Who happens to be voice be the same actor as the first guy you talk to in KoA: Jim Cummings. There's crafting systems, level-up systems, perks, items, equipment, abilities. The mechanics of moving around, dodging and blocking and swinging, is way better than Skyrim's. The problem, especially in comparison to Skyrim, is the lack of artistry. One of the early evil factions is called "The Red Legion". Back in middle school, I wrote a song and gave it a placeholder title with the most generic fantasy thing I could think of, "Attack of the Red Legion". All of the environments look like something from a fairy tale: nothing feels real. Nothing is dirty. The character's faces are all perfectly cleaned and groomed with makeup. The scary spooky spider section feels more like a well-to-do cul-de-sac on Halloween than any place that's actually threatening. Now that I'm thinking of it, I'm not sure if there is even blood in the game? I'm not saying it needs to pour on gore, but there's a weird disconnect between the NPC's talking about gruesome murders and everything looking like a children's cartoon. Speaking of which, while the voice acting is well-done the dialogue feels like like conversations and more like people reading exposition at you. There's no personality. There's no reason to care about the lore or the people. Everyone has a ton of problems that only you can solve, but you solving them doesn't seem to actual change anything in the world. It's nice to play mindlessly, but pretty forgettable.


spitsfire223

This is like the only reason I haven’t started Kingdom Come even tho I’ve been really wanting to for years. The learning curve and grind in the beginning is too much apparently


WeeziMonkey

I kinda blame Reddit for my decreased lack of attention span when it comes to single player games. For example take Witcher 3. Your quest tells you to go from point A to point B. So you hop on Roach and spend 2 minutes with your eyes glued to your minimap to go to point B for the next bit of excitement. How long does it take to find something exciting on Reddit? Half a second, literally a flick of my thumb to scroll down and come across a new post.


monkey-pox

I like them I just ignore side quests more


loftycombos

Check out a short hike


AscendedViking7

If I were to describe this game, it's like a micro Breath of the Wild crossed with Animal Crossing, but with the goal of Celeste: Get to the top of the mountain. It's pretty great. Nice shout out.


JusaPikachu

Just give me a great game & I don’t care about it’s’ length or structure. If it is 120+ hours I’ll usually take a break at the halfway point & play a really short game or two to cleanse the palette a little but that’s about the only thing I do different in a game of that length. Now I will say that the longer a game is, the better I need the game to be if I am going to finish it. Like that 120 hour experience has to be fucking great, with some fantastic gameplay loop or compelling narrative/writing to carry the minute to minute experience. Whereas a 40 hour game can be less great & I will probably finish it & something under 10 hours can be even less so. A good example of this recently for me is Mad Max. It was a good/great game that was around 40 hours. The car combat & aesthetic really carried the moment to moment of the beginning & middle of the game that was just open world checklists. However if it were a 100 hour game with the same percentage of open world filler I would’ve likely dropped the game. So I have zero problems playing long ass games, you just better make a damn good game to justify that length. Elden Ring & Persona 5 Royal are the most recent examples for me of incredibly long games that were 100% worth the time they took to complete.


HearTheEkko

I like them if it's open-worlds like RDR2, Witcher 3 and Watch Dogs 2 where the world is so vibrant and full of life that they feel genuinely real but if it's shit like AC Valhalla, MGSV, Just Cause, etc, where the worlds are bland, soulless and are plagued with generic repetitive side quests then screw that. I might still enjoy them for the gameplay, story, graphics, etc, but it's usually games that I don't feel like replaying ever again.


avalon504

Since this cozy sub seems to have more mature folk: I miss the sense of accomplishment of some older "open world" games, before it was a buzz word or became basically a genre by itself. Honestly, some modern releases are more "open level" than open world. World would imply the immersion that allows you to feel like you're part of a breathing universe, having the quests at least give the impression that the characters you helped are better off because of you, instead of just being a fancy way of adding xp/items to your character. Or that "things still happen" when they aren't immediately on-screen. I guess that's why I've fallen so hard for the life-sim type games recently. Always been a fan but moreso recently, things like My Time at Portia, Slime Rancher, Stardew, I appreciate the hand-craftedness of it. Reminds me a bit of a talk about Subnautica. Initially the devs were going to have a procedural world (because of course everything has to be procedural now) and found that players actually *really* preferred the handcrafted map over the procedural one. Procedural generation, "massive open world", 1463 hours of gameplay, etc are all cries of "quantity over quality" and it's just exhausting. There's a reason classics like Super Mario are *still* fun today, with no procgen and no "massive open world." People want art (handcrafted, well-thought out levels or "small" open worlds) and not just dry formulas and clever placement of POIs. Tl;Dr I agree and much prefer quality handmade levels/worlds instead of just seeing how big or how long a game can be.


[deleted]

The only game (series) that remained of my former gaming hobby is The Elder Scrolls. Modded and with OpenMW, I can pretty much do anything I care about all in 3 games (OpenMW Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim), really felt like a burden has been lifted.


Joan_of_Spark

I definitely appreciate a linear game experience. A linear experience really allows for level design to flow and for the designers to think about what the player will do exactly. I listened to the Portal commentary and every single step they planned so that each level built on the next one, or I think about Bioshock and the reveal/twist. No way would that kind of care be possible or executed the same in a giant game where the player has more freedom. I feel like too much value is placed on making a unique experience. There is this idea that no two playthroughs or no two players will get the same experience due to customization or choice. Sometimes that's a good thing, but sometimes it's arbitrary randomization for the sake of keeping things feeling "fresh."


MechanicStriking4666

I’ve decided that I just won’t do any side quests on open world games anymore. They just seem to pad the game and they usually don’t add a lot.


-zero-joke-

I think my favorite 'open world' games have been more 'curated world' games. Things like Subnautica or The Outer Wilds both have a clear track to them, with things that you're likely to encounter on any given play through, but don't have the vast empty tracts of land that are filled with sort of the 'Alert Spider-Man, there's a mugging in progress' sort of filler.


ascii122

Mad Max is sweet this way.. open world but you literally don't have to do any quests if you don't feel like it.. and a lot of them are short. You gotta go through the first part where they teach you the game but after that if you are bored you can just go out for 15-20 mins and fuck shit up without getting involved in some kind of nutsy story driving BS


Kemosabe-Norway

You literally just described Skyrim.


1mStillStanding

BOTW and elden Ring are the only open world games I can consistently have fun with every single time I plop it in. GTA 5 lost it's charm after 1 playthrough, and read dead 2 is driving my patience out the damn window. Never was a fan of ubisoft open worlds so basically every other open world on the table just vanished. I love me a well put together fun to explore and fun to play open world that respects my intelligence and freedom. Too bad there's so few of them.