[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKxC0RgyV4[/media]
Jim's back in the groove with some thoughts on the current AAA obsession with open worlds
I'd rather have hybrid where it's not open world, but it is not an extreme disguised corridor, almost kinda like Super Mario 64/Sunshine.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51613984]I'd rather have hybrid where it's not open world, but it is not an extreme disguised corridor, almost kinda like Super Mario 64/Sunshine.[/QUOTE]
Or Dark Souls.
Dark Souls still feels huge and expansive without just being a big square and while being quite linear in honesty.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51613984]I'd rather have hybrid where it's not open world, but it is not an extreme disguised corridor, almost kinda like Super Mario 64/Sunshine.[/QUOTE]
In a way, MGS V tried to do that, and it worked semi-decently.
Just give me plenty of levels with plenty to explore. That already satisfies my exploring needs, i mean open world games got cool because the consoles and systems could handle them with more detail that made them more interesting but now that we all want highly detailed worlds it is kind of a tough nut to crack since that would mean you need to invest loads of hours into it.
Doom was a good example, albeit not massive i still took all the time in the world to explore for secrets.
I don't really mind open world but they should really stop focusing on the size of the map but the content instead.
[QUOTE=Novangel;51614061]I don't really mind open world but they should really stop focusing on the size of the map but the content instead.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps the trick is to first think of what kind of gameplay you wish to include before making the map. I had the feeling lately that it is the other way around where the gameplay seemed stitched in
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51613984]I'd rather have hybrid where it's not open world, but it is not an extreme disguised corridor, almost kinda like Super Mario 64/Sunshine.[/QUOTE]
Cool ass over worlds are the shit!
[QUOTE=Erfly;51614047]In a way, MGS V tried to do that, and it worked semi-decently.[/QUOTE]
imo the spaces were still very empty in mgsv, and what was there didn't quite change with the story. outside of missions (which don't allow free roam and keep you enclosed in a certain space), the world was always stuck in time. i thought the open world was quite poor because of it.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;51614046]Or Dark Souls.
Dark Souls still feels huge and expansive without just being a big square and while being quite linear in honesty.[/QUOTE]
Dark Souls' level design is some of the best that there is, though. (At least 1 and 3 I think) It's linear but it disguises it really well and the entire time you don't once feel like you're going down a series of hallways. It's kind of like some of the original Doom maps. They have a clear direction but they sprawl and don't feel linear at all
As for collectibles in open world, The Division did it right. Every 'collectible' has voice acting and story and adds lore to the world, which is one of the Division's greatest strengths. It isn't just hidden packages from GTA, or Flags from Assassin's Creed that do nothing but add 1 to a number, they're something that ADD to the world. If you're going to do collectibles in your open world game, do it like that
[QUOTE=Novangel;51614061]I don't really mind open world but they should really stop focusing on the size of the map but the content instead.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of the old Facepunch thread about brainstorming the near perfect sandbox game called: "Fuck Shit Up."
I feel this so much, I genuinely love Watch Dogs 2, but fact is that it just does not need to be an open world game.• Honestly, the worst parts of Watch Dogs 2 were the open world parts, and the best parts were the bits where it dumped you in a small but well designed area and said "here's tiny little well designed compound to infiltrate, do with it what you will".
It needed design more similar to Deus Ex than GTA. Also I have no idea why he's praising GTA, GTAV was the most boring and empty but large and visually impressive open world I've ever seen.
[QUOTE=Erfly;51614047]In a way, MGS V tried to do that, and it worked semi-decently.[/QUOTE]
Open world in MGSV was awful. Not only did you have the 'capture outposts' syndrome, you can't even capture them. And outside outposts the world is really bare and boring. It feels like a 3D menu for outpost selection more than an actual world.
[QUOTE=usaokay;51614107]MGS V felt like it was copying Ubisoft's formula a fair bit.
Just big and open, collect random shit like animals and cassette tapes; and just a really dead world with enemies mostly relegated to outposts.
Granted, it did suffer from being out too early according to Kojima's intended vision, but it doesn't excuse the sheer fact that the whole side-ops crap and other small things to collect is boring.[/QUOTE]
I don't see what they could have added to make MGS V's open world not shit, just clutter the whole area with enemy bases you have to constantly re-infiltrate during missions ? MGS V is a stealth game, you are not going to get meaningful side content out of a genre like that. All the memorable side quests / activities that RPGs such as Witcher 3 or other open world games like GTA V or Watch_Dogs 2 have, impossible to do here.
MGS V would have been so much better if instead of the open world they did bunch of areas about the size (some smaller, some bigger) of ground zeroes. Ground Zeroes legit felt good to play because you still got the freedom of infiltrating in various different ways, the difference is that there wasn't miles of empty barren terrain padding out the game, so marketing folks and fans could jizz over how big the map is.
[t]http://throwingdigitalsheep.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/20140606-091720-33440940.jpg[/t]
A moment a game is marketed like this, warning lights go off in my head. It's not hard to make a game map that is large nowadays, it's hard to make a game map that is worth exploring and what has meaningful content which actually feels compelling and not just bunch of checklist chores for the player to do.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51613984]I'd rather have hybrid where it's not open world, but it is not an extreme disguised corridor, almost kinda like Super Mario 64/Sunshine.[/QUOTE]
Yep, the the hub world system. The N64 era had tons of those game's.
Subnautica is one of the best examples of how to do open world games nowadays I feel. It's tons of fun to explore and play, and the progression and variation is all done in a satisfactory fashion
hub world best world
Games like Deus Ex are great since you get huge hub worlds (or, world) to explore and varying and interesting locations to explore in-between.
I do love open world games, but I agree, with not much to do in them, it can really be a grind (Mafia 3)
Comparing MGSV: Ground Zeroes to Phantom Pain is good enough to show how open level can be way better instead of open world.
Ground Zeroes had missions that played completely different, and even some had gameplay that wasn't even done in Phantom Pain because of how Snake had to enter a mission in Phantom Pain (The Intel mission where you rode into the map by a truck, a shooting gallery type mission from the helicopter). Ground Zeroes had some of the best gameplay of the MGSV experience and it was a paid demo.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;51614046]Or Dark Souls.
Dark Souls still feels huge and expansive without just being a big square and while being quite linear in honesty.[/QUOTE]
tbh Dark souls is exactly the way to do open world
[QUOTE=mastermaul;51614046]Or Dark Souls.
Dark Souls still feels huge and expansive without just being a big square and while being quite linear in honesty.[/QUOTE]
Unless you're me [sp]a fucking idiot[/sp] and get completely lost after beating the Capra Demon.
Jim and many others shit on Ubisoft, but they accomplished something most would call impossible. They standardized the production of "next gen" console games during a time when nobody knew what to do with them. Granted, this led to the infamous Ubisoft formula we see today, but they were able to churn out big budget triple-a experiences like cars on an assembly line. This solidified their position as one of the top software publishers during the current-gen cycle. This has allowed them to take more risks with recent games like Steep and For Honor.
I'm slightly biased though. I'll sing Ubisoft's praises because to my knowledge, they are the largest triple-a indie. Ubisoft is family owned, and no conglomerate company owns them. It's a fun novelty that churns out interesting results. With the potential takeover from Vivendi imminent, it's likely we will see even safer and less interesting games come out. At least for every Assassins Creed, I know we'll get another Rainbow Six: Siege, or Steep.
I see no problem with large empty open worlds as long the pacing and gameplay are good. The Mount & Blade world is barren as a whole but it's done alright since you can skip most of the boring traveling by speeding up time.
In fact, it tends to be more immersive if you are traveling long distances to hubs.
[QUOTE=AkujiTheSniper;51614349]Comparing MGSV: Ground Zeroes to Phantom Pain is good enough to show how open level can be way better instead of open world.
[/QUOTE]
Should be mentioned that Crysis 1 and Crysis: Warhead did this really well.
I hate how people got so hyped about NMS. It was so obvious it wouldn't live up to it. You could see from a mile away, all those promises being either lies, or half lies, as in "Yes it IS big, but its empty".
TPP suffers from the same problem aswell, but I guess the side missions help it being a wee bit filled, despite then suffering from too much repetition and grinding of materials/missions/colectables.
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51614087]imo the spaces were still very empty in mgsv, and what was there didn't quite change with the story. outside of missions (which don't allow free roam and keep you enclosed in a certain space), the world was always stuck in time. i thought the open world was quite poor because of it.[/QUOTE]
That was more of what I was thinking. The open world itself was pretty bad but in missions it sorta had a free roam thing going.
As said by other posters Ground Zeroes did it a whole lot better, which perhaps would've been a better example.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;51614046]Or Dark Souls.
Dark Souls still feels huge and expansive without just being a big square and while being quite linear in honesty.[/QUOTE]
Dark souls is pretty fucking great. I've only played ds3 but the level design is amazing. Plus you have hub world too.
It never feels too narrow or too big (though I might have got myself lost in Farron Keep couple of times) and the shortcuts tie the area together well so that it kinda of feels like open world
Dark souls is probably a great example of a Metroidvania in 3D done right, better than the actual thing.
I remember people posting all the time on other forums about Final Fantasy XV and a picture of the main continent. It was technically a leak in a sense, but the big claim was that it was bigger than most other open world games hands-down. Then the game came out and overall the world map wasn't anywhere near as big, and infact very constrained all things considered. It's [i]big[/i] but the general scale of it is nowhere near what was touted, and yet it's still just a bunch of fetch and kill sidequests, some monster hunts and a few dungeons and items scattered around the world. There's invisible walls everywhere, especially over water (which you can swim in perfectly fine if you get around those walls), and once you get the ability to fly around the map the game even forces you to the general play area by making the vehicle auto-steer out of mountainous edges of the continent so you don't get to see what lies beyond them.
It doesn't help that they mapped out an entire second continent but time constraints forced them to turn it into a series of train rides for the second half of the game despite laying out roads and backdrops; I can't even imagine the game trying to put more inane crap into a second overworld with how dull the main was as is.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;51614904]I hate how people got so hyped about NMS. It was so obvious it wouldn't live up to it. You could see from a mile away, all those promises being either lies, or half lies, as in "Yes it IS big, but its empty".
TPP suffers from the same problem aswell, but I guess the side missions help it being a wee bit filled, despite then suffering from too much repetition and grinding of materials/missions/colectables.[/QUOTE]
Hindsight is 20/20
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
