Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action > #46518 > unrolled thread

The downfall of the open world

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Contents

  The downfall of the open world Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 20:16 -0400
    Re: The downfall of the open world JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-06 09:27 +0100
      Re: The downfall of the open world candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-06 13:50 +0000
        Re: The downfall of the open world Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 21:20 -0400
        Re: The downfall of the open world JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-07 08:23 +0100
          Re: The downfall of the open world candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-07 14:00 +0000

#46518 — The downfall of the open world

So here's an article I found interesting:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-the-checklist-conquered-the-open-world-from-morrowind-to-skyrim

The gist of the article (for the lazy who don't want to read anything
long, although if that is who you are then what the hell are you doing
reading one of MY posts? ;-) is that open worlds have become too large
and too cluttered with repetitive tasks to be enjoyable anymore.
Which, you know, is something I've been bitching about for years, so
it's nice to see somebody else say it too. ;-)

The article in question singles out Bethesda games (and not
undeservedly so) but I think the real torchbearer for the problem is
Ubisoft. So much so that they were roundly castigated for it after
"FarCry 3" released, and promised to change things up with "FarCry 4".
'No more tower climbing,' they promised, as if that was the entirety
of the problem.

(Ubisoft didn't really live up to the promise either. Their games
still are full of repetitive claptrap, and many of them still insist
on you clambering up to some look-out point to unveil hotspots on the
map. But it's Ubisoft; what do you expect? Originality and compelling
gameplay?)

But it's not limited to only Ubisoft, or Bethesda, or even the
triple-A developers. Huge open worlds are being shoved into almost
every game these days, whether needed or not, and almost universally
they're dull and repetitive.

I can't entirely blame developers, though. We as gamers have for
decades demanded every larger worlds in which to play out our
adventurous fantasies.  The dream was we'd have the same sort of
compelling quests and memorable stories in these massive virtual
universes as we had in the tiny, catered levels in which the older
games once confined us. And for a while, it seemed as if that might be
true. We got stuff like "Grand Theft Auto 3" and "Morrowind" and
"Gothic" and the pacing of the quests was sublime. And if those games
were great, imagine (we thought) what games would be if we doubled or
tripled the map-size?

The article puts a lot of the blame on the difference between how
hardcore and casual gamers experience a game, but I think it's much
simpler than that. Bigger doesn't automatically mean better and -in
fact- it often means worse. Because all that space needs to be filled
with stuff to do, and that can be expensive to create. It can be done,
but it takes a lot of time, manpower, and skill. So instead, more
often, developers just cut-n-paste quests and scatter them across the
map. 

It's less that casuals demand easy-to-find instant gratification and
hardcores are will happily grind a map; I think, given significant
inspiration so-called casuals will just as happily scour that same
map. But too often the rewards for that effort is a pointless
'achievement' or a sword that does 5% more damage than the one already
owned, and most people just don't have time for that crap.

And then publishers tie their various monetization schemes into their
overly large worlds, and things become even /less/ rewarding. Quest:
fine 50 randomly placed knickknacks and get a fancy hat! Or, pay $5 to
get a map of where all those knickknacks are located. With that sort
of incentive, why SHOULDN'T developers scatter 1000 useless
collect-a-thon quests across the virtual world? And why shouldn't
players grow increasingly bored with those same worlds?

These days, I see the 'open world' tag associated with a game, and
it's become more of a warning than an exciting feature. There are so
many games I'm sure I would enjoy, but the sheer SIZE of them just
scares me away because I know so much of my time will be spent
wandering across samey-looking terrain performing samey-type actions.
I'll be kill near-identical monsters in Desertopia as I am in
Winterwunderland, using the same dialogue options in BanditKamp as I
am in KingsCastle; buying the same gear in DeepOcean as I am on
MountainTop, performing the same actions in SpaceTown as in
MedievalLand. 

There may be differences in the superficial gloss, but underneath the
mechanics are identical no matter where I go... so why bother with
such huge territories? I'd much rather a more compact experience which
gets rid of all the grindy nonsense that does nothing but waste my
time.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#46520

On 06/07/2024 01:16, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> So here's an article I found interesting:
> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-the-checklist-conquered-the-open-world-from-morrowind-to-skyrim
> 
> The gist of the article (for the lazy who don't want to read anything
> long, although if that is who you are then what the hell are you doing
> reading one of MY posts? 😉 is that open worlds have become too large
> and too cluttered with repetitive tasks to be enjoyable anymore.
> Which, you know, is something I've been bitching about for years, so
> it's nice to see somebody else say it too. 😉
> 
> The article in question singles out Bethesda games (and not
> undeservedly so) but I think the real torchbearer for the problem is
> Ubisoft. So much so that they were roundly castigated for it after
> "FarCry 3" released, and promised to change things up with "FarCry 4".
> 'No more tower climbing,' they promised, as if that was the entirety
> of the problem.

<snip>

Oh I agree, it's not that open worlds are intrinsically a problem but 
instead devs jut can't afford to fill them with interesting content so 
you get lots of cookie cutter locations/quests. I still remember playing 
Oblivion and enjoying the dungeon locations until I realised there there 
is literally no story but instead it's kill everything and grab the 
loot. FO:4 seemed to make a habit of that also.

Open worlds I have enjoyed are FO:3/NV and Skyrim. They had a large 
enough map that exploration was enjoyable and enough hand craft content 
that you didn't think, oh it's this again.

Where I think it's gone really wrong is with FPSes that have been turned 
into open worlds. I play a shooter to shoot things not wander about 
aimlessly collecting baubles to make a set.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46525

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 08:27 this Saturday (GMT):
> On 06/07/2024 01:16, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> So here's an article I found interesting:
>> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-the-checklist-conquered-the-open-world-from-morrowind-to-skyrim
>> 
>> The gist of the article (for the lazy who don't want to read anything
>> long, although if that is who you are then what the hell are you doing
>> reading one of MY posts? 😉 is that open worlds have become too large
>> and too cluttered with repetitive tasks to be enjoyable anymore.
>> Which, you know, is something I've been bitching about for years, so
>> it's nice to see somebody else say it too. 😉
>> 
>> The article in question singles out Bethesda games (and not
>> undeservedly so) but I think the real torchbearer for the problem is
>> Ubisoft. So much so that they were roundly castigated for it after
>> "FarCry 3" released, and promised to change things up with "FarCry 4".
>> 'No more tower climbing,' they promised, as if that was the entirety
>> of the problem.
>
><snip>
>
> Oh I agree, it's not that open worlds are intrinsically a problem but 
> instead devs jut can't afford to fill them with interesting content so 
> you get lots of cookie cutter locations/quests. I still remember playing 
> Oblivion and enjoying the dungeon locations until I realised there there 
> is literally no story but instead it's kill everything and grab the 
> loot. FO:4 seemed to make a habit of that also.

But don't you like being a murder hobo? smh lol

> Open worlds I have enjoyed are FO:3/NV and Skyrim. They had a large 
> enough map that exploration was enjoyable and enough hand craft content 
> that you didn't think, oh it's this again.
>
> Where I think it's gone really wrong is with FPSes that have been turned 
> into open worlds. I play a shooter to shoot things not wander about 
> aimlessly collecting baubles to make a set.


Well, I think Firewatch is a openworld and I've heard a ton of good
things about its story (and its on sale rn!)
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46535

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 13:50:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 08:27 this Saturday (GMT):
>> On 06/07/2024 01:16, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> So here's an article I found interesting:
>>> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-the-checklist-conquered-the-open-world-from-morrowind-to-skyrim
>>> 
>>> The gist of the article (for the lazy who don't want to read anything
>>> long, although if that is who you are then what the hell are you doing
>>> reading one of MY posts? ? is that open worlds have become too large
>>> and too cluttered with repetitive tasks to be enjoyable anymore.
>>> Which, you know, is something I've been bitching about for years, so
>>> it's nice to see somebody else say it too. ?
>>> 
>>> The article in question singles out Bethesda games (and not
>>> undeservedly so) but I think the real torchbearer for the problem is
>>> Ubisoft. So much so that they were roundly castigated for it after
>>> "FarCry 3" released, and promised to change things up with "FarCry 4".
>>> 'No more tower climbing,' they promised, as if that was the entirety
>>> of the problem.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>> Oh I agree, it's not that open worlds are intrinsically a problem but 
>> instead devs jut can't afford to fill them with interesting content so 
>> you get lots of cookie cutter locations/quests. I still remember playing 
>> Oblivion and enjoying the dungeon locations until I realised there there 
>> is literally no story but instead it's kill everything and grab the 
>> loot. FO:4 seemed to make a habit of that also.
>
>But don't you like being a murder hobo? smh lol
>
>> Open worlds I have enjoyed are FO:3/NV and Skyrim. They had a large 
>> enough map that exploration was enjoyable and enough hand craft content 
>> that you didn't think, oh it's this again.
>>
>> Where I think it's gone really wrong is with FPSes that have been turned 
>> into open worlds. I play a shooter to shoot things not wander about 
>> aimlessly collecting baubles to make a set.
>
>
>Well, I think Firewatch is a openworld and I've heard a ton of good
>things about its story (and its on sale rn!)

It's a fairly small open-world in comparison to others, and it
generally doesn't encourage exploration. There's a very strong
narrative component to the game, and different parts of the map open
up as the story evolves. Although you can go back to previously
explored regions, there isn't really any incentive to do so. In many
ways, the open world is wasted in the game, and had the developers
locked you into fixed maps it probably would have played out exactly
the same for most players.

(That said, the supposed freedom offered by the open world plays into
the narrative, since your character is nominally fleeing to the woods
in response to his 'real life' calamity, and being able to hike
wherever through the woods can be soothing. But there's little reason
for the PLAYER to do so, even if that nominal freedom does help the
world feel a lot more open and wild).

All that said, "Firewatch" always gets a definite recommend from me,
although with the caveat that it /is/ a 'narrative game' (a.k.a.
'walking simulator') and players shouldn't really expect much in the
way of challenges or puzzles. And while it does have a good story
(albeit lacking in any real bombast or revelations; it's a low-key
tale about ordinary people in a fairly ordinary situation) I found its
biggest strength to be its dynamic converation system, because the
dialogue between the two characters flowed so naturally.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46537

On 06/07/2024 14:50, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Well, I think Firewatch is a openworld and I've heard a ton of good
> things about its story (and its on sale rn!)

As Spalls has already said yes it's technically an openworld but the 
story is very much driven by going from A to B means you can then go 
from B to C. So the openworld is really limited in navigating between 
different story points and to me it did the feeling of out hiking very 
well especially as you navigate using a map and compass that is 
displayed as though you're holding them.

The story is pretty good although there is one section that really feels 
out of place. The real draw for me is the conversations between the two 
characters. It manages to pull off that rare feat of you actually care 
about your dialogue options beyond which one advances the plot.

Overall I'd recommend it although there isn't much replay value in it 
because each play thorough is effectively the same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46545

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 07:23 this Sunday (GMT):
> On 06/07/2024 14:50, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Well, I think Firewatch is a openworld and I've heard a ton of good
>> things about its story (and its on sale rn!)
>
> As Spalls has already said yes it's technically an openworld but the 
> story is very much driven by going from A to B means you can then go 
> from B to C. So the openworld is really limited in navigating between 
> different story points and to me it did the feeling of out hiking very 
> well especially as you navigate using a map and compass that is 
> displayed as though you're holding them.
>
> The story is pretty good although there is one section that really feels 
> out of place. The real draw for me is the conversations between the two 
> characters. It manages to pull off that rare feat of you actually care 
> about your dialogue options beyond which one advances the plot.
>
> Overall I'd recommend it although there isn't much replay value in it 
> because each play thorough is effectively the same.


Alright, I'll pick it up if it's still on sale :P
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

csiph-web