This sounds like analysis paralysis. If you have 5 games, it’s easy to select one. If you have 416, it’s difficult to select one.
I’ve often found that the more options I have, the more difficult it is to come to a decision. And when you think about “what game should I play,” it sounds like a silly problem to have. But when you extend it to other problems in life, like “what should I have for dinner,” then you see it start to cause some pretty serious problems.
Lately I think I spend more time trying to decide what to play than I do playing games. Then I’m not always successful in making a decision, or might run out of time, and then I don’t play any games. Following the same reasoning, sometimes I don’t eat dinner.
If you start to notice this is becoming an actual problem, the good news is there are tools and techniques that can help you make a decision. About a thousand of them. Good luck picking one.
This is definitely part of it. When we had Game Pass, which would add 3 or 4 new games a week, the kids would spend their time trying them out to see if they liked them. Games that had been on the service for a while got ignored, as they weren’t presented as “new”.
That was one of the beauties of Game Pass to be honest, in that the kids would try out whatever was released that week, whether it was AAA or a small indie, and generally they preferred the novelties of the indies.
Now, with just one huge list of older games, they’ve got that paralysis.
You could download three random games from your list and present them the same way as though they were new? Think that would be enough? I mean idk how Xbox is laid out, but I assume new games show up on the Home Screen which is how they access the new games of the month or whatever, right?
Nothing much new to say, just reiteration. A big or huge or gigantic map is fine, so long as it’s populated by meaningful content.
Really wish Forspoken had been more populated. It’s a huge world, and combat/abilty wise it’s a great pure-mage action game, which I really really loved about it, that’s not a very common thing. But my god, the world is so empty despite being so big, and most side objectives are just collectothons. There’s some more difficult endgame content, but no real reason to grind up for it.
It is too big when the density of reasons to go there and explore becomes to little.
Personally, I don’t really care for games that have huge maps just to pass through while traveling around. There needs to be a reason in the story for every place to be there.
Every village, town or city needs to be filled with quests and stories, and the space between them as well to a lesser extend. They serve as immersive distractions. They need to be alive.
The map is too big if it cannot be filled with enough stuff to explore and experience. And I don’t mean climbing yet another tower, or doing yet another variation of the same puzzle.
TBH, I am not much of a sandbox game player and the JC 2 and 3 maps looked nice, but didn’t really invite me to stay and explore a single area for a while, because the areas didn’t have much depth. I prefer a much higher density of things to do. Each village should have a couple of hours of content, exploring it and the neighboring area. And larger towns or cities even more.
I want to minimize the ‘just cruising through’ parts of maps.
Cyberpunk as well had too much dead space when it comes to stuff to do in many parts of the city. Some parts of course act as just the background for other parts, which is fine. But other parts where beautifully handcrafted and interesting, but there is not much to interact with or people to talk to there.
To me it is important to have enough content and depth that the player learns to get to know their way around a place, and gets to know characters and develop relationship with each place.
There is no open world that is too big. They can only be too small.
However, the quality of an open world is not predicated on the size of the open world, but rather what is actually in it.
And this doesn’t mean that open worlds must be drowning in content, as the quality of the content itself also matters, and certain worlds that are large and empty can still be interesting due to its traversal being good, or the sandbox nature of a large empty world.
Some of the worst examples of open worlds are the kind that are just filled with isolated little fetch quests; busywork that’s all marked on the map with no element of organic exploration. Or the kinds of open worlds where nothing actually happens “organically” without the player starting it.
The best kinds of open worlds are the ones that emphasise exploration and/or have background systems governing the world in some way (i.e. factions that interact with each other without the explicit involvement of the player).
Big enough that I lose interest or notice the padding.
A lot of it boils down to execution. The more urban areas of a Sleeping Dogs or the TW3 map with the Bloody Baron (not the viking map) feel geuinely massive enough though both are on the smaller end. Whereas something like GTA5’s San Andreas actively pissed me off because so much of the game was just driving to and from set pieces on the interstate.
That said: I actively don’t care about completion unless I really love the game. So if something was 40000km^2… I might never leave the two square kilomters the actual game takes place in and not care about the rest.
As for Just Cause 2 and 3? Neither felt overly large but both were broken down into regions and I mostly just played those whenever I felt like over the course of a month or two. So it really was closer to “levels” than anything else.
Contrast that with a Far Cry 2 which is downright tiny and… I’ll never have the patience to drive past even one outpost ever again.
I don’t think it can be too large, but like others have said, there has to be enough quality content in each location you can visit to compensate for the vastness of the open world.
It be amazing if you could go inside every single building/dungeon/etc. and have every one of them chockablock full of things to experience, like they did with Elder Scrolls 6, but look how long it took for that game to come out…
I did hear about Light No Fire from the No Man Sky devs. Looks impressive from what I’ve seen so far on it with it’s supposedly literal Earth sized world.
hypnospace outlaw !! it’s more subtle things, of course, since it’s just a sort of parallel reality to our own 1999, but i think that’s what makes it feel SO real. i’m a really big fan of the news page and advice pages you can find in the game because they show you the mundanities of the everyday lives of these people
bin.pol.social
Aktywne