Cronozilla wrote:I don't think there is any greater offender who abuses open world than UbiSoft, currently. They make their games open world, just so they take longer to play. They liter them with grating side missions that happen ad-nausea. Sometimes it might work out OK, like the newer Far Cry games, but most of the time it's more like The Crew or Assassin's Creed and it's just irritating and frustrating to be behind so many false walls to progression.
I'd have to admit though, that in contrast to my other post, there's tons of open world games I absolutely love. As I pointed out, being invested makes a difference, such as the case with say, Red Dead Redemption. I also enjoy something along the lines of Far Cry 3, ignoring collectibles that aren't overly obvious. (Radio Towers=Yes, Random art pieces in deep dark caves I would have had no other reason to enter=no). I haven't played them, but from what I've seen the maps of games such as the Yakuza series are decently sized, without being overly huge to pointlessness. More metroidvania style or just small while still "large" maps are preferable, IMO.
TBH, collectibles that aren't put on a map are like 90% of my problem with open world games.
This is one of those topics that I think really depends on player's preferences as much as on the game itself. Some open world games are certainly done better than others though.
Personally, I've always enjoyed the Elder Scrolls games, the Far Cry series, Red Dead Redemption and Arkham City.
I have never been able to stick with any GTA game, most Assassin's Creed titles, and a host of others.
Basically, I find open world games to be really hit or miss. I either get sucked in and spend 100s of hours and love every moment, or I quickly lose interest and never play the game again. There is no middle of the road for me when it comes to these games.
That said, linearity has gotten a bad rap that is undeserved. I recently picked up the Xbox One version of Diablo 3 with it's expansion and I am having a blast with that game. It's not the best Diablo game ever made and it's certainly not the best ARPG ever made, but it's a lot of fun nonetheless. It's linear as hell, but there is still plenty to explore and extras to find along the way.
I would also echo whomever said that a good Metroidvania design can scratch that exploration itch without losing focus on the core game play.
Have: Sega Genesis, SNES, Atari 2600, Atari 7800, Atari 800XL, PC, N3DS XL, Wii U, GBA, Xbox One, Switch
I highly recommend the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, you guys. It combines elements of open world gameplay through the areas of the zone as well as linear experiences through the laboratories. When I think of examples where open world gameplay was done correctly in an FPS, this is what I think of.
I have always been a proponent of a style of open world sandbox games that people here rarely get into.
I love the games where the narrative is created by you the player. There is a reason no mans sky excites me and it is dr that very reason. Games lime dayz and minecraft also help contribute to that style of gameplay.
Ack wrote:I don't know, chief, the haunting feeling of lust I feel whenever I look at your avatar makes me think it's real.
-I am the idiot that likes to have fun and be happy.
I'd compare STALKER a bit to Dragon Age Inquisition. Dragon Age's game was broken up into a dozen or so large maps. This gives them the chance to make them far more diverse and unique, making them a lot more memorable and just generally gives off that cool "levels" feeling. STALKER was similar and I can easily picture all the maps from the game in my head along with the more linear underground/building sections that were some of the best moments in the game.
This is definitely a far better approach in my opinion. I'm not a big fan of Dragon Age and didn't care for the first two, but I could probably put Inquisition above Skyrim, and its broken up map based level design is definitely one of the bigger reasons why.
This is basically how I saw The Phantom Pain as well. It felt like more of a hybrid to me. People and reviews complained about it taking awhile to get to places, but it really didn't seem that bad compared to other "open world" games to me. My favorite part of Far Cry 3-4 was capturing bases, and TPP is basically that on steroids. The helicopter always dropped you off close by and it was pretty easy to get around.
Last edited by Xeogred on Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ack wrote:I highly recommend the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, you guys. It combines elements of open world gameplay through the areas of the zone as well as linear experiences through the laboratories. When I think of examples where open world gameplay was done correctly in an FPS, this is what I think of.
I would love to try those games but lack of controller support has kept me away. Due to an old wrist injury it can be very painful for me to WASD around a game for any real length of time. So I try to avoid PC games where I can't use a controller unless they are mouse-driven (it's my left wrist that bothers me).
It sucks because those games look really interesting.
BogusMeatFactory wrote:I have always been a proponent of a style of open world sandbox games that people here rarely get into.
I love the games where the narrative is created by you the player. There is a reason no mans sky excites me and it is dr that very reason. Games lime dayz and minecraft also help contribute to that style of gameplay.
I agree completely, though I would call them more sandbox than open world. It sounds like splitting hairs but I think you will agree that Minecraft is not quite the same game as Skyrim even though they both involve a vast open area for the player to explore and play in.
Have: Sega Genesis, SNES, Atari 2600, Atari 7800, Atari 800XL, PC, N3DS XL, Wii U, GBA, Xbox One, Switch
I've only played through the first S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but I agree with Ack. It has hugely rewarding areas to explore that manages to be big but not overwhelming. Lots of interesting things to see, secrets to discover, and nice gear to find tucked in out of the way places. It says volumes about the game that I played it way back in 2007 but still remember tons of details about its world.
I would love to try those games but lack of controller support has kept me away. Due to an old wrist injury it can be very painful for me to WASD around a game for any real length of time. So I try to avoid PC games where I can't use a controller unless they are mouse-driven (it's my left wrist that bothers me).
I suggest getting a nice PC joystick and using JoyToKey to map WASD controls to the analog stick's cardinal directions. If you get a mouse with a lot of side buttons you can map those to the common key commands like jump, crouch, interact, etc. Just a thought!
Edit: Another vote for Xpadder too, I forgot about that. I've used it before for keyboard only games and it worked great.
Last edited by Exhuminator on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I believe there are Xpadder profiles out there for STALKER. I'm a far bigger controller guy myself, but I'm not sure how well it would work out with STALKER. It's definitely one of the best FPS's I've ever played and ruined the Metro series for me, lol.
