I have no complaints provided it's fun. It just means more re-playable fun.
I'm all for open world games, just don't make the world boring
Emergent game play is easier to achieve in open world settings, and is what can increase replayability way beyond the limits of just a whole bunch of content.
Hopefully not all companies start following this trend. Linear titles are still enjoyable in their own right.
[QUOTE=Liem;41512962]I'm all for open world games, just don't make the world boring[/QUOTE]
So far, Ubisoft open worlds weren't very interesting.
[QUOTE=Liem;41512962]I'm all for open world games, just don't make the world boring[/QUOTE]
A lot of the time open worlds seem to be seen as an "instant dynamic gameplay" treatment, but very few open world games actually manage to feel truly alive. It doesn't matter how open it is, if it's the same all the time or not interesting to start with then it still becomes stale the same way playing the same level of a linear game over and over would.
It's just as bad when you have open worlds that become devoid of challenge by the end, such as games that remove all the enemies when you complete the campaign. Why do developers do that? I never understand it. I mean, no one wants to play in an open world where there's nothing left to fight.
[QUOTE=Cl0cK;41513115]So far, Ubisoft open worlds weren't very interesting.[/QUOTE]
AC3 proved to me that somehow, the Assassin's Creed cities could get even more bland. God, the frontier was the most boring place to traverse ever.
[QUOTE=Jackald;41514273]Yeah, AC3 has to be one of the dullest open worlds in recent memory.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, maybe I'm just that much of a history junkie because I enjoyed exploring what that little piece of America during the Colonial era. I will agree, however, that AC3 was one of the more boring AC games in recent memory.
[QUOTE=Aesir;41515565]I don't know, maybe I'm just that much of a history junkie because I enjoyed exploring what that little piece of America during the Colonial era. I will agree, however, that AC3 was one of the more boring AC games in recent memory.[/QUOTE]
They've always been pretty fucking boring.
Brotherhood was pretty cool though.
I don't mind open world games but it's always been glorified as having true freedom in a sandbox style of game which I really dislike.
Very often these open worlds are really boring and don't react dynamically. Although I really liked Assassins Creed 2, they really did a great job with the cities.
An even balance is best, really. We don't need 1 million linear games, we don't need 1 million open world games. What we need is 500,000 of each.
Say what you will about Ubisoft, but their games are consistently somewhere between "pretty good" and "exceptional". And since they have a shitload of teams they can afford things like 1 assassin's creed per year or so.
Open world is the way to go, anyway. Games with the 'Do What When Where How you want' elements always offer up more hours of fun to me than a linear one. I'm not saying linear games are bad, I just find non linear ones packed with way more replayability. If only Ubisoft was as supportive of modding as Bethesda was
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
