-
Eternally Lost
If they're done right, open world games are fun. I'm a huge fan of Fallout: New Vegas, for example. But most of the time, they get the most value in the MMO realm. There's nothing wrong with traditional RPG's, and I really wish the dev's would remember that more often.
-
Open World games done right can be immense, immersive, fantastic experiences that suck you in and keep you there for a long long time. San Andreas, Red Dead Redemption, Saints Row 2, Far Cry 2, etc. On the other hand, they have been so refined and honed that they've gotten very samey and the effort put in to making them doesn't seem to be worth the output anymore. I mean, every Ubisoft game is identical now; you're a Tough Guy (tm) and you run around climbing towers, collecting collectables, and killing dudes, for 30 hours.
So basically what Spuuky said, is the best way to describe it.
-
I do think they are getting played out, but I also think developers feel pressured to make them. I can't remember specific examples, but I think Jimquisition covered it a while back, where critics were docking points on even amazing games being linear. And I get the impression that there's this push from fraternity dude-bros who will refuse to play anything that isn't open-world. So unlike the fiasco where developers suddenly decided nobody wanted survival horror games anymore, even though everyone still wanted survival horror. Developers have this pressure that everyone wants open world, and actually a lot of silly people do think they want nothing but open world. This push is ridiculous, and if pressured to do so I think it would destroy games like Uncharted/The Last of Us and Bloodborne/Dark Souls. The Last Guardian was a breath of fresh air in so many ways. A linear minimalist story driven puzzle game set in a beautiful world. No towns to fast travel to, no side quests to slow you down, no overload of one-dimensional NPCs to talk to, no overload of weapons and armor
Resident Evil 7 pulled a Bravely Default for tirple-A survival horror. Bravely Default did a Bravely Default for turn-based JRPGs. Here in a year or so adventure/action games will have to do a Bravely Default to prove linear still isn't bad when done properly
-
-
Banned
I am fine with it as long as each game actually brings something interesting, rather than just being "another open world game".
Also, is it just me or do video games tend to take themselves too seriously nowadays?
I really kinda miss the random lighthearted humour in games like "GoldenEye 007", "Star Ocean: The Second Story" and "Final Fantasy 9".
-
If it isn't filled with interesting stuff that has impact then I'd rather not have it. I love the Elder Scrolls but there's just way too much filler that they really can't help but have and it really isn't the fault of the dev. Open World games seem to be more about scale and scope than focus a lot of the time. Options and freedom are only gifts when they prove rewarding, interesting, or both.
-
Open worlds can be great, but they can also be a bit bland: there's no point having a massive open world if there's nothing interesting going on in it. I agree that there seems to be pressure for games to be open world, which can result in games which really would have been better being more focussed just having an open world slapped onto them for no good reason.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules