Now, this is an article that perfectly articulates exactly why I am so sick of open world games. I've hated on them a lot over the last couple of years and, a few times, people here have asked me why. This is why. And yes, I have got bored of Metal Gear Solid V and yes, one of the main reasons is because they jumped on the open world bandwagon.
I don't think I'm obnoxious in my disdain for Open World games and I understand some people love them, but I just can't tolerate them any more. I can't even remember the last open world game I really enjoyed. Probably GTAV when it was first released. Although, I got bored of it...
So does anyone else feel they have grown to dislike or have mere apathy to open world games now? Anyone else growing tired of them? Or is open world merely evolution and now the present and future of gaming?
...it shows a growing apathy, weariness, and in some cases, disdain for how it has infected practically every genre. What was once jammed with detail, and rewarded players for experimentation and exploration is now seen as a genre full of plodding travel filler that bogs down the games pace. Bland maps at the expense of interesting art design. Endless quest markers and hand-holding. Ludonarrative dissonance. And a term that I’m going to coin checklist gaming, a gameplay style where the main goal is to check off quests completed for 100% more than delivering a cohesive game experience where everything matters. With more size than sense, the Sandbox Arms Race has been raging for some time, and what was once a genre that captivated is now mired in pointless routine. A former lover of the genre and large game worlds, I now recoil when I’m now forced to trek through today’s plodding tedium with only a few exceptions. An observation I find peace in knowing I’m not alone on.
Own: Mega Drive, Saturn, Dreamcast, Playstation 1, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, Playstation 4, Playstation 5, PS Vita, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gamecube, Wii U, Game Boy Advance, DS, 3DS, Switch, Switch 2, Xbox, Xbox 360
Very well written. Regarding his initial point about the "Sandbox arms race", I could not agree more. Open-world games, as well as (in my opinion) JRPGs have really grown to a point where more is automatically better. They want you to have 100's and 100's of hours to sink into a game and never see the same thing twice, which is okay for certain games but isn't a necessity for all of them.
I don't think it's a matter of just me growing up, either. If anything, I currently have more time to devote to gaming were I so inclined than when I was in college -- I work 40 hours, have no kids or anything, no real obligations other than the ones I choose, no homework, just go. It's that games have consistently gotten bigger and longer.
On the topic of closed open world and gameplay fitting the story vs the reverse well, that's a completely different topic. My preferred style of games include puzzle (hah, what story?), fighters (there might be a story... somewhere), and beat-em-ups (thin veneer of a story) because I am firmly rooted in the 90's. So I don't really feel qualified to talk about that, but from the points that the author was raising, I do agree with them.
So I guess the short answer to your question is "Yes, at least one other person is apathetic on open world games"
Although the article is about Shenmue (and goes on further to discuss the dissonance between the character and the player), I wanted to focus mainly on the points regarding open world games. That said, I completely agree with the writer (I'm a big Shenmue fan, so no surprises) that the way Shenmue was built, made things feel far more important and made events far more impactful. It definitely felt that fights were a big event.
So I guess what I'm saying is, by placing restrictions on the player, it improves the narrative and actually makes the gameplay more interesting, at least for me. Whilst giving the player the freedom to go wherever they wish, do whatever they want, leads to 'normalizing' and 'homogenizing' the gameplay. Nothing seems like a big deal.
Own: Mega Drive, Saturn, Dreamcast, Playstation 1, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, Playstation 4, Playstation 5, PS Vita, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gamecube, Wii U, Game Boy Advance, DS, 3DS, Switch, Switch 2, Xbox, Xbox 360
BoneSnapDeez wrote:One of the best ways to avoid this problem is to play retro games.
Yeah! Like Ultima, Wasteland, Legend of Zelda...
That's the thing... I liked open world retro games...
This one was awesome:
Own: Mega Drive, Saturn, Dreamcast, Playstation 1, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, Playstation 4, Playstation 5, PS Vita, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gamecube, Wii U, Game Boy Advance, DS, 3DS, Switch, Switch 2, Xbox, Xbox 360
I feel the same way. I love the first Batman Arkham game more than the more praised Arkham City because it's not open world.
I think if you love a good story an open world game weakens the flow and pace of a well written pot. Too many side quests and distractions, too many plots overlapping in a non cohesive manner.
I'm ok with open world games with quests, goals, and other non story related goals.
BLOG | BST Systems Owned: Atari 2600 & 5200, NES, Game Boy (OG, Pocket, Color, GBA & GBA SP), DSi, 3DS, SMS, Genesis, Sega CD,
Nomad, SNES, Saturn, PS1, Dreamcast, XBox, PS2, Gamecube, Nintendo DS, Wii, PSP, PS3, WiiU, XBOX, 360 XBONE & Switch.
SpaceBooger wrote:I feel the same way. I love the first Batman Arkham game more than the more praised Arkham City because it's not open world.
Yup, same here.
Own: Mega Drive, Saturn, Dreamcast, Playstation 1, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, Playstation 4, Playstation 5, PS Vita, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gamecube, Wii U, Game Boy Advance, DS, 3DS, Switch, Switch 2, Xbox, Xbox 360
I definitely appreciate this article. I hadn't considered the idea of open-world fatigue in current-gen gaming. In the past ten years, we've seen some improvements and possibilities with new technology as the genre has grown in popularity. Yet, having played a fair number of open-world games from different publishers, I have seen them becoming quite formulaic.
Grand Theft Auto often overwhelms me on the largeness of the world, and the choices that are offered feel nothing beyond simple customization choices. I don't really feel much connection or empathy for the characters beyond a mild curiosity. Don't get me wrong, I find the intertwining narrative between Michael, Trevor, and Franklin, because they are all flawed protagonists with interesting quirks. But the game play doesn't enhance this, completing action-loaded missions that seem disconnected from reality and wild for the sake of shock value. At this point, I'm splitting hairs, as you could argue that's the point of video games, to disconnect with reality and do things that you otherwise wouldn't do in society. However, for a game that takes place in a believable setting, some of the actions and scenes that take place break my immersion and connection to the game. I appreciate her points about Shenmue being an antithesis to sandbox games in this regard, by limiting choices that fall within the limits of the character.
The other main point that resonated with me is the 100% completion nature of sandbox games. The original 100 packages in Grand Theft Auto 3 was fine. You could ignore them as they provided nothing other than money. But the issue I have now exists in games like the Assassin's Creed series. I appreciate the alternative history and tin-foil had conspiracies that show up in Assassin's Creed. But often these are stories hidden below the surface, requiring you to collect fragments within the Animus by exploring the open world. Only after collecting all the fragments, does some sort of scene play out. I really appreciated the version where you were following a character who was in the Animus around the same time as Desmond, and you looked at famous Assassin's and Templars throughout history. This was done through puzzles and I found those so interesting. I felt they wove these scenes to the broader, current narrative. However now, I find the collection-fest of Assassin's Creed IV to be distracting, often with many of these collectibles just cluttering the map and providing minimal function. I will admit, I do enjoy the variety of sea shanties and yes, you still have the choice of what you do or don't collect. At least for Shenmue, you had the choice to track down a few gashapon machines and then rely on some RNG to get a complete set.
I still do appreciate the Fallout series in its current form, and played Fallout 3 to death. It was unique, offered some cool exploration, but didn't seem overwhelming with choices. I'm still sure to get Fallout 4, but I'm cautious that the game could have too many choices. Perhaps as I have less time to play games than in times past, I'm beginning to appreciate that less is more. Or that I need to limit the number of open-world games I'm willing to play.
I think we have to keep in mind that some games are open world because they are designed to work best and tell stories in that way. Other games are "open world" because marketing says those are good so take your game idea and make it "open world".
