Open World Gameplay... is it worth it?

So I was playing *something* for my *thing* and noticed that instead of offering *things* it simply replaced what the *stuff* I would have expected from this kind of *item* with an open world.

Now, I love open world gameplay in other *things* such as in *that thing* or *that other thing* or even *the third thing* but in this *thing* it just felt tacked on and stupid. Any action that could have been scripted in this *thing* was replaced with sheer chaos since you could do anything at anytime with any weapon, unlike in other *things* where their lineal style gives the creators more control over story and setting.

So what are your thoughts on these *things*? Do we need more open world gameplay in our *stuff* or should *people who make things* stick mainly to the traditional *item* design?

Open world gameplay has it's pros and cons. Over all, unless it is a specific game, I really do not care for it. In RPGs, I loved the over world maps and you pretty much do not see them very often anymore.

I think they're fine as long as they don't lead to queues or queue-jumping.
A co-op event where people need to work together is great - but one that involves just one player having to activate or take something will always cause problems.

I don't care for open world gameplay. I much prefer instanced missions, where I don't have to worry about interference from other players. It annoys me when I have to wait my turn to go after a certain objective, or see the objective that I'm about to complete rudely grabbed by another player.

And there are the times when many players decide to clump together in large numbers for whatever reason, and horrendous lag develops. A lot of people seem to like being cattle in a glaring multicolored slideshow, but I don't.

I'm assuming we're talking about single player open worlds rather than MMOs, if i'm mistaken i'll write another post because that's a different beast entirely. The problem with open world games is it requires development time to be spread more thinly. You can't expect the same level of polish from an open world game where you can go anywhere and do anything as a triple A high profile FPS.

There's two main categories when people talk about "open worlds". The first is the type that people associate with car jacking and prostitutes. In these game's there's an overworld that the player can mess about in with no real objective, and access to missions that will advance the linear plot. In effect you're playing two different games, and while they can be fun i don't think it really counts as an open world because you're still railroaded into a linear path with the overworld acting as more of a "free roam" with no real purpose. The other problem with these games is that they have a strong disconnect between the gameplay in the overworld and the gameplay in the "story". I might have just massacred half the population of the city in a tank but then when i go to the next mission beacon i can choose the "nice guy" option to go down the nice guy path. My genocidal rampage doesn't factor in to it.
The other variant is the type people associate with medieval RPGs, where you sort of wander around doing your own thing but the overall experience isn't as memorable as in a finely tuned scripted sequence in a linear game. I don't particularly like what's out there now for this type of game because to be honest it rather bores me.

The problem is that consumer expectations don't really allow for a proper open world game. If all your development time goes into allowing lots of possibilities with a non-linear story (and i mean non-linear, not just "morality choices" in scripted dialogue sequences) you aren't going to put enough resources into making it look like the games that spend millions in making a really polished 8 hour corridor shooter. Publishers are also rightfully weary of people missing their million dollar set pieces that are a result of the blight of "cinematic" gameplay so if things continue the way they are going you're only going to see less player agency, not more. Until consumers are willing to accept something that's a bit rougher than that you can't expect a developer to make a truly open world game.


Another thing that's sort of tangentially related to the subject, games that offer "moral choices" are universally ********. For one thing, a lot of them don't really have any morality to them and are just "do you want to help/kill this innocent baby", and i think they all have the problem of not taking into account your actions as a player as a whole, instead opting to rely solely on the aforementioned critical dialogue options. I think The Witcher came the closest to offering a good choice in this regard. Eastern Europe has a lot of promise when it comes to creative, original games because labour is a lot cheaper so they don't have to rely on churning out generic crap for mega publishers.

Coincidentally, how does Going Rogue handle these so called "moral choices" you have to make? Do you have to think about them or do they all boil down to "Are you for/against obvious dystopian regime?"

EDIT: Are we allowed to discuss game design if we don't name examples?

Definitely talking single player without any morality choice gameplay.

Obviously there's been an arms race of sorts in these kinds of games in terms of giving the player more tools of destruction from square one. But does that make for a better game or even a better gameplay experience?

Let's say a game starts you off with a parachute, grappling hook, and the standard grenades and guns. You are given a mission to take out X enemy combatant. Instead of it being some big conflict that the game can hinge on, it turns into the simple reflex of throwing your grappling hook at your opponent and then filling his skull with lead as you fling him back.

With great power comes great responsibility, but it seems like open worlds negate that responsibility quite easily. Compared to a solely single player, linear narrative where everything down to ammo, weapon type, and player health can be regulated to make for a more challenging and lasting encounter, does the ability to do street races or blow up random things really make for a better game?

I think obviously any game developer has a monumental design decision to make at the beginning of the development process: do they want to build a playground or a roller coaster.

I think that after a while, the open world playground, however, should only be attempted by those with some playground knowledge in the past. Playing a bad open world game is akin to playing on one of those metal steel trap playgrounds kids of the 80s used to cut their teeth on. But get someone who does have a fundamental knowledge of the playground and you get a wondrous plastic playland that's both safe and full of hours of entertainment.

I think the general design decision of "Build a huge map with a lot of static graphics, buildings that all look alike, and only a few landmarks of merit and overload the player with subquests and challenges and killing sprees and hidden collectibles" is the bad design choice especially when it's in a game that doesn't warrant its own self-importance.

An open world game should have a point to its own open world. If you are a gangster just getting off the plane for the first time in the biggest city of America, that sets the stage for a good open world. If you are a cop in a fake tropical Asian island? Probably less so. It's akin to the joke about Spiderman being stuck in Nebraska. How does he websling off stalks of corn?

I think any player in an open world game should have to earn the chaos they can eventually do. Giving the player the ability to topple buildings from the tutorial to me means there's no where to go but static. The build up to full blown chaos shouldn't be a grind, but as the open world map grows, so should your power.

In a single person rpg, I prefer the over world versus the maps that click you from one point to the other. I am like the anti-sandbox type. I want to explore and look around, but I do not mind things being closed due to story line.

In a MMO, I want the massive overworld with contested dungeons in some games, and what we have here in Co* for others. Being able to hop from city to city in Co* is nice the way they have it set up. Sure no warwalls would have been better, but zones make the world larger to me. If you really look at the zoneless worlds, most of them are quite small.

People shouldn't try to graft an open world onto a game that doesn't warrant it thinking it's needed or the thing to do.

Well yes, but thats true of any other number of game aspects. Things like stealth, stats and upgrades, puzzles, platforming, driving/races, on rails shooting, Quick time events, resource management etc... have all been needlessly grafted onto (linear and non-linear) games and made them worse.

I have found that games that offer a more linear story have a significantly more profound impact then stories are *open*.

For instance, lets compare an RTS that just came out, that is a sequel to an incredibly popular RTS made 12 years ago.

The first RTS game had a very linear storyline, you followed the missions, and it doled out the story in each one. The story was incredibly powerful. It created emotions because the crafters of the story could design the pacing, and how it was delivered.

The sequel, on the other hand, had a more non-linear story, because in the game, you chose which missions you wanted to take. Because of this, the story did not have nearly as much emotional impact, barring possibly the last few missions, because they were linear.

Without control of pacing, an author cannot really design a story that is that immersive.

It's like the differnence between a Choose Your Own Adventure book, and a Novel. 9/10,the novel is going to make a significantly more emotional impact then the choose your own adventure book.

Games that try to be novels or films invariably suck when they stray too far in that direction. For example, there's a FFamous console series that used to be great, but is now criticized as being nothing but cut scenes strung together with some button mashing.

On the other hand, when the environment and setting are essential to the story of the game...oh, say a post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland, for example...then having a large amount of "sandbox" type play takes the game from good to great. Ideally, there's still a core story, but in between doing the story missions you're free to roam the world doing whatever you want.

I just wish they'd execute all the idiots who somehow get to make movie games.
Those things are offensive to my brain! >_<

/tangent

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

Thank you Taser!!

But your princess is in another castle.

It depends on the game for me. Sometime doing the open world feel IMO just gets tiresome. For instance in probably the most famous of car theft games it works great. However there is another series of games that surprises me i didnt burn out my 360 playing, where they felt that the ultimate version of paradise they wanted in the series was to go open world, or sandbox style. However IMO i buy a racing game to race, i dont want to F around all day getting to a new race location just let me proceed through the game play. But for some time now its like every developer just trys to work Open World into their game in some way even if it doesnt work for the project well.