Depends on the game, but overall yay. Some of my favorite games are Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom, and Red Dead 2. Open worlds really let you immerse yourself and get lost in the game, especially if you limit fast travel.
I recently played Jedi Fallen Order for the first time, and I was a bit shook at how “level-y” the worlds felt. I wouldn’t say open worlds have ruined traditional games for me, but it sure is jarring going back to them.
I suppose I’ve plugged it recently, but Another Crab’s Treasure.
It opens pretty plainly as an ocean-based Soulslike parody with a simple story premise and some self-subverting humor in the dialog with other crabs. As you go on though, every 20th conversation becomes really pointed and real-world-connecting, going beyond just “pollution bad”. It’s not quite Spec Ops: The Line, but it at least has something to say about society.
The combat is frustrating but addictive, much like Souls games - and it’s okay with handing off a number of allowances like accessibility modes and tip systems. It’s even helpful that, if I die to a glitch or something bogus, I can actually just choose to re-obtain my microplastics (souls) through a menu.
Forgive any formatting or typos, this one ended up quite lengthy (and reading over it…length for what reason?!), but as ever - thanks to all for letting me share these kinds of posts with you!
I only like open world games when I can really immerse myself into roleplaying. Oblivion and FFXI (if that counts) were perfect for this style of playing. Most open world games just don’t hit the mark, unfortunately, and I’d rather play a linear game that feels like reading a good book.
I’m a huge open world and/or sandbox nut. Non-linearity is my jam. Kenshi, Rimworld, AssOdyssey/Shadows, Project Zomboid, Witcher 3, X4…
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good story, but story takes many shapes, and not all stories are pre-written; plenty are emergent. I grew up playing with Legos (and still do), and me making whatever story I wanted (or that emerged along the way) was part of the appeal.
Honestly, apart from FF8 and TW3, and now Expedition 33, I haven’t found many games with written stories that grabbed me. I read books when I want that fulfillingly-crafted linearity.
Most dragon killing in Skyrim wasn’t fun, though, it was annoying and you did it because dragon attacks depopulated villages (i.e. remove interactable NPCs).
Every single time I go to Solitude the first time, that scene where the dude is getting beheaded always gets fucked up because a dragon is always attacking the city and then I spend the rest of the game carrying around every single Talos amulet I accidentally picked up because I can’t finish the quest to release them from Quest Item purgatory since Greta almost always dies. 😬
From my experience the villager will just run indoor, guards will help with the fighting, and sometimes some chad will draw their 2 handed axe and chasing the flying dragon, and eventually slaying the dragon like it’s tuesday.
I tend to agree, open world is becoming just a box to tick off for AAA developers, which means it just gets put in as filler basically. Halo Infinite is the worst example I can think of. However I do think there are 2 ways open world can be justified: if the world is just packed so full of interesting stuff that the game just gets huge, or if the way of traversing that world is fun.
Category 1 would be games like Morrowind, Skyrim , Fallout 4, or even Mass Effect on a smaller scale. There’s just so much to do that it becomes an open world on its own. Category 2 would be games like the Arkham series , Assassins Creed, or Forza Horizon, where getting from point A to point B is fun on its own.
Open world is great when it’s done right, but since when has Ubisoft or EA made a good game in the past 10 years?
I think the term “open world” is mostly meaningless these days. Skyrim, for example, is called an open world game. But… It’s not? At least not by the definition that “open world” originally meant, which literally was just a continuous game world with no loading screens between areas.
Now it just kinda means “game with big outside map.” Unless I can walk into a building without seeing a load screen, I don’t consider it to be truly open world.
Dark Souls is a true open world game, even though it’s not big or has vast open fields, while, again, Skyrim is not because going into a cave, or a house, or even a major city, requires loading a new level, breaking up the world.
I can’t say I’ve ever heard your use of the term open world before. As I’ve known it, it’s always meant a game world where you can practically go anywhere with minimal to no barriers. Such as GTA3 and that bloody bridge.
I’d argue Skyrim etc have an “open world” above ground in addition to many “linear worlds” , i.e. the caves and houses behind loading screens. Open world games let you choose where to go and how to get there, as opposed to linear “corridor” games like Half Life or Halo where you literally follow a single path from A to B as you progress from one level to the next.
Then there’s games like original Fable which blurs the line, because technically you choose where to go and how to get there, but each loading area is so small, it doesn’t feel like an open world at all. And also you can’t go off the path.
Btw if you don’t like loading screens, have you tried Space Engineers? You can literally travel from one full sized planet (~40km diameter) to another full sized without a single loading screen. While flying you can walk around the inside or outside of your spaceship, no loading screens.
Yup. Fan projects and indie games can fill this niche. Pokemon is the most profitable media franchise EVER. They should be innovating and improving, not chasing nostalgia.
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze