So you would say world colossus Final Fantasy XII is not an open world Final Fantasy. Even though people complained about it because it was so open world and focused on that more than a story that was interesting in their eyes when it came out.Originally Posted by Fox
Now that I think about it, XV is like XII. With the difference that XII had a complete story on the DVD already.
God, I cannot wait for the XV updates.
Absolutely. It was expansive, but not open world (and thank goodness for that because although it felt epic it was definitely too expansive in places). I put it in the same category as XC.
It depends how detailed and rich that open world is. I don't care if it's a vast open landscape consisting of a hundred thousand square miles if it's just empty landscape. I'd much rather play in a smaller space which has been carefully designed and full of interesting detail. I also dislike the repetitive busywork tasks dotted around the map that seem to go hand in hand with this genre too, such as Ubisoft's apparent fixation with having you climb towers.
I agree with what Fox said about separate maps being the distinction in whether or not a game can be classed as open world. And you know what? I think the likes of FFX were better for it, as you had some really varied and interesting locations to explore.
I absolutely agree with this. And this is one of the main reasons why I still prefer FF XIII to FF XV.
I'll take the visually unique and impressive Gapra Whitewood or Sunleth Waterscape over the generic forests of XV any day.
Setting can absolutely be one of the most important elements that makes a JRPG or fantasy game truly feel like a fantasy.
Pull my Devil Trigger!
Indeed - I don't think that it's a coincidence that FFXV's most visually impressive, stimulating and interesting area, Altissia, is in an entirely separate map.
And why MGS3 >>>> MGS5
That's actually one of the games on my horizon next...currently working on MGS4. :P
Pull my Devil Trigger!
I can't see the argument behind X's environments being good because they were some of the most boring I've had to endure with literally one treasure off the beaten path per map. I much prefer XII's approach where you had many opportunities to go exploring and find tons of stuff that has nothing to do with the main story.
I can see why someone would be tired with open worlds, and I kind of agree, but for me personally still getting to actually find stuff and get lost in a world, even if it consists of more maps than just one open world, is still the best experience ever. Which is why I'll always take the likes of SMTIV, Xenoblade Chronicles, FFXII, Dragon Quest, and heck, Kingdom Hearts, over the blandness of FFX and XIII.
It really says a lot about FFX's world and dungeon design when the final dungeon is less complex, fun, and rewarding, than Final Fantasy III's first dungeon.
I agree with you on this Fynn, the expansive map design of XII, Xenoblade et al gives you most of the advantages of open worlds with very few of the drawbacks. It's the perfect balance and I prefer it also to the corridors of X and XIII.
I think MGS V is better than 4, for whatever it's worth, although 3 is of course the best of them all.That's actually one of the games on my horizon next...currently working on MGS4. :P
You've listed listed a lot of JRPGs there. Have you played any open world games in other genres? Maybe a better question is: Have you ever played a Ubisoft game? I can't speak for all of the others but I definitely would not call FFXII or Kingdom Hearts open world games either and I think your point about FFX is lost because that's not what I'm comparing it to.
I'm bouncing off Fox's points about how the best games have large maps that are nonetheless segmented - nowhere have I mentioned that any of them are open world. I dislike X's approach but like FFXII's, Xenoblade's and KH's approach since while they still utilize segmented areas, their approach is far more open and inviting of exploration than X's, which is why my point does, indeed, stand, Paul
The only fully open world game I've really played in recent years was Xenoblade Chronicles X, which I really enjoyed but sadly didn't have much time to indulge in it. Other than that, the Sims 3 handled the open world excellently, though you have to have a really strong computer if you want the game to actually fill that world with sims. Aside from that, I don't keep up with current games much aside from JRPGs, since I really have the time or a drive to. I've started the Witcher and plan to beat the whole trilogy - that reminds me, the first Witcher game is, again, semi-open as you don't have a single map, but a bunch of smaller maps that are nonetheless detailed and interesting to explore.
So in general, if you present me with a choice of FFX-style hallway and full open world, I'll go for full open world without question (unless the story's really good, like in Xenosaga), and if it's a choice between FFX-style hallways and an FFXII-style non-open world but still interesting to explore, I'll also go for the latter. FFX really fails to compel in the gameplay/coloration department, whe FFXII, Xenoblade, etc., are kind of a perfect compromise between both extremes.
The Sims 3 is not open bloody world GET OUT xD
How is it not?
From the wiki http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/World
Sure, there's some rabbit holes, but other than that your world - your town - is fully accessible to you with every house, building, landmark, etc., being accessible without any loading screens. Maybe they're not the biggest worlds, but how in the hell do you argue they're not open?The Sims 3 introduced the concept of an expanded "open world."
Heck, it's so obviously an open world that people went really angry when the game went back to not being an open world in 4 and coming back to loading screens.
You know the Sims 3 is a real open world game because it has a framerate of about 7fps.
Open world games have the most potential, and a pretty high chance to waste that potential.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
