Maybe, but it was nowhere near as popular as plain Minecraft. The sales numbers alone can attest to that, plus the fact there hasn't been a sequel should be all the proof you need to say that a linear minecraft wouldn't do too well.
I like a game world that's just fun to be in even when I'm not advancing the story. Taking a break to explore is awesome, and much easier in an open world.
It's open world, and it feels large... But it's not actually that large when you think about it.
And the side areas are so rich and dense that you can do quests from a random hub, some that chain on for quite a while... And then realise this whole time that you haven't actually done any of the main story.
I was excited to learn more about certain monsters in the bestiary, what oils and elements they were weak to etc.
I'm not sure that it's *better*, but it's hilarious when you go off and do all the side quests and end up completely over powered by the time you get round to the main quest and just beat the shit out of the main bad guy without realizing that they're important.
Honestly I really don't like that in most open world games, mostly cause enemy levels tend to make it feel like I'm just as powerful at lvl 1 as at lvl 40. Bethesda games post Morrowind are particularly bad about this IMO, not to say you can't have leveled shit just don't do it to all the enemies, do it like NV where some enemies are leveled but most are flat preset levels.
Nah it was also pretty miserable in Fallout 4, though in that particular case it was moreso due to issues of bullet sponges rather than damage dealt. But Fallout 4 is also probably the worst of the 3D games IMO, especially when it comes to enemy health.
Fair, the settlement system is annoying. I also hate everything about MMOs, though, and IMO it's diametrically opposed to everything that made Bethesda games good. And that's before we get into how much of a mess the release was ...
I disagree. I hate when games do this, particularly open world ones. The point of going to find loot and stuff is that it benefits you. If there is no benefit then the game shouldn't give you the option. Those games should be linear, because they're trying to make a linear experience out of something non-linear.
If I'm struggling, I want to be able to leave and come back stronger. Even if I wasn't, I want to come back and feel that I've gained power with the time I spent. If I don't, I know I'm wasting my time.
That’s what Elden Ring really did well imo. The game sort of guides you towards Margit at the start, but he completely destroys newcomers, which causes them to explore the map more and discover more content in the intro areas. By the time they’ve done most of the interesting stuff in the first couple areas and go back to Margit, he’s far more balanced to fight. Still not a pushover but far more reasonable to fight and no longer frustrating.
Yep, and, if you're paying attention and thoroughly exploring, you can actually go around the castle and totally avoid him. You can get incredibly strong before fighting him. It makes you feel like you're actually progressing.
Yes! It helps if it is clear the bad guy has been doing things as well. (Aren't there a few games where the bad guy moves locations with this, so if one is really fast, they can catch them rather weak.)
BotW is one of the most boring games ever. Zelda games were fun because of the linearity thanks to finding items that let you progress... And FUCK weapon degradation. What a terrible mechanic.
I think this is a difference between us as players. I'm not a competitionist at all, and I don't even remember what economy the Korok seeds were for. I probably finished the game with a ton of them collected and unspent.
But in my mind they weren't meant to be collected as a goal on their own. I'd be exploring up a mountain or whatever, just because I wanted to know what was on the other side, and when I got up to the peak I'd look out over the landscape and enjoy it for what it is. And then while I was up there I'd see a weird rock and go "ah, the developers wanted me to be up here looking at this view" and I'd move the rock, get some little fireworks, and then I'd have a buddy to enjoy the scenery with.
And then hours later, maybe months in real time, I'd be climbing around and see a Korok and go "Oh! I must have been up here before! Hey little guy" and then keep going.
So I liked them because it was something put there by the devs to show that they intended this place to be visited; that they put some attention here, and I had come to a place that wasn't just endless grass or empty procedural trees or something. It was full of stuff, even if it was silly little guys.
Oh, and you can drop rocks on their heads and they go "oof". That's a good one.
Yeah, I think that's why open world games are so divisive. Some people want the game to reward them for doing the things they're supposed to do, while some people just view playing the game itself as the reward, and just do what they want within it. The prior hates how difficult it is to find and get to the next objective in an open world, while the latter doesn't need or sometimes even want objectives, preferring to just be in the world.
Definitely a difference, because I am a completionist. Especially when it comes to Zelda games.
just because I wanted to know what was on the other side
The problem is that the answer is "nothing". There's nothing on the other side. Just more scenery, maybe a shrine or another Korok. The core gameplay loop is still just Zelda, so there's nothing they can do to populate the world with meaningful things to find.
Not really. The 2D ones at least. You literally can't access areas until you've progressed by finding an item, usually by killing a boss in a dungeon. Its a fairly linear design actually.
There is some non-linearity in the 2D games. In the first game, you can do some of the dungeons out of order. For example, some people like to save dungeon 6 for last because it's difficult. Some dungeons do require items from previous dungeons, but not every one.
A Link to The Past also has some nonlinearity in the same way. The dungeons in the dark world are numbered, but you can still do some of them out of order for the same reason as the first game.
Hmmm... I see what you to mean... but it's in my top 5 games of all time, and none of the other Zelda games are. So I think it just shimmied into a different genre, which I get could be a problem for an existing fanbase that liked the old genre.
I loved BotW as it was... but to be honest if they offered more dungeons without changing the exploring part, I would have taken that on top, for sure.
I did hate Tears of the Kingdom, though, so I guess it's a delicate balance that just happened to land in my hitbox on BotW.
The problem is not "open world" but "the ubisoft game". New region, find watchtower, reveal map, do 1 quest, attack enemy camp, liberate area, new area, find watchtower, ...
Most open worlds are also just way to big. GTA San Andreas felt huge but is tiny compared to V. And it was better for it.
Modern open worlds never have a hub. A place that you actually build a relationship with and see change over the course of the game. Its always: area completed, next!
Yeah San Andreas was the open world game I was thinking of too, with the expanding of your crime syndicate. It's pretty much the only game I've played that implements an open world properly and I've been chasing that since then. Fallout 4 maybe, but building settlements or forts didn't have real impact. Diablo IV is way too driven to rush through and get to the endgame.
I think you really need to design it to be more of a simulation game that reacts to player actions and with a story inserted, not as a "feature" to check off. And a distinct goal or win condition for playing the open world.
If every place/area only serves one purpose then the game should be linear. Some of my favourite games are the old Gothic and Gothic 2 RPGs. They are open world, but tiny compared to modern RPGs. They dont have "areas" with a set difficulty that you can complete and then move on, instead the map is like a skeleton of fairly save roads and settlements and the further you go away from the roads the harder it gets. So you see the whole map in the first chapter but have explored very little of it. You always return to the same areas and they feel like home. And every chapter of the story adds new enemies, quests and events to all areas of the game. All of it is hand picked. No "radient quests" to trick you into going to an completed dungeon again, no random encounters on the roads to make travel through the world feel less empty...
IMO, they have the best open worlds I have ever seen. The studios follow up open world games (Gothic 3, elex 1&2) fell flat because they tried to be huge as well and felt empty as a result.
Working with constraints does actually produce gems. Fallout, farcry, GTA, skyrim just throw billions of dollars at a project to make it huge. But everything there is is just a set piece to be looked at once and be discarded ...
I think sequence breaking is fun, and it works better in open world games. IME many modern open world games avoid this by tightly tying loot to levels or stats that you increase by leveling or even advancing the main story, which kinda defeats the point of open world games IMO.
Though honestly, I do enjoy having at least an illusion of choice, very linear games that don't even maintain an illusion of openness feel really restricting to me. Modern open world RPGs just took it way too far while getting some of the important details wrong.
My favorite open world game that ISN'T a fantasy rpg also happens to be the easiest "finish the game early" I've ever experienced.
Ghost Recon Breakpoint.
Basically you start the game in "realism" mode which turns loot levels off,. Then in the intro mission, when you see the bad guy kill a team member, you gain control of your character before he gets in a helicopter and leaves. Run forward with a scoped gun to shoot him in the head, or have something explosive ready to blow up the helicopter.
Congrats, you've killed the main bad guy of the game and the last level no longer has you fight him in some building.
You still have to do everything else in the game, but I managed to do that by accident my first play through. Put probably 150 hours in that game over the years and multiple playthroughs and still have yet to play with loot leveling on. I do sometimes let him live though just for funsies.
Generally, good open world games have a lot more emergent content - situations that emerge from the interaction of agents and simple mechanics (in the style of how simple rules create complex outcomes in the "Game of Life") - whilst good linear games have highly curated set-pieces scenarios which were created by level designers directly.
For an example of the former, imagine you're running around the Game World looking for a special kind of plant to create a potion that you need. You come across a battle between bears and a bandit group. When they die their drops are free for the taking and both groups are too high level for you to take on your own. None of this was setup to happen when you crossed some trigger line, it literally just happened because those the entities in those groups are part of enemy "factions" and the patrol route of one group (a route which might itself be procedural rather than fixed) passed near enough the position of the encampment of the other.
This kind of thing randomly happen is just not something you get in linear games which are generally just set-pieces and even the ability to pull on group of high level enemies to another group has to be designed in (mainly by making the restricted game area big enough for it in that section and placing the groups in the right places).
This is also why in a linear game if you die and restart you get the same fights in the same places you had before up to the place were you died unless that section of the game was designed with enough alternate paths of mechanics (say, hide mechanics) that you can go around and avoid certain fights.
Emergent content is also why Multiplayer can be a lot of fun, though in this case the "agent" whose interactions can give rise to all sorts of situations are other players.
I'm playing Horizon Zero Dawn Complete (it includes the DLC) and as soon as I got to Daytower, I ran into a guy named Ohtur who mentioned The Cut.. I pivoted and headed up there and by sneaking around everything with higher stats than I had, (which was almost everything) I managed to find resources that got me a wickedly powerful weapon. Game changer. Literally.
Getting to any part of the map and find it's hidden goodies is amazing.
I wouldn't put Metroidvanias (with large maps, back tracking, ability gating and flexibility in which area to go to next) alongside other open world adventure games (like GTA, Witcher, Breath of the Wild, etc). I love Metroidvanias and linear games, but I wouldn't touch open world adventure RPGs with a 10 foot pole.
I like the linear missions, but just exploring the open world and discovering things naturally is fun too. I think they could have done more with that, and it definitely feels like the game was way more linear in early development, but with all the updates CDPR managed to make something pretty cool IMO.
On the other hand later GTAs didn't embrace the open worlds for which the series is known. Once you start a mission the games turn extremely linear without giving the player options.
The benefit is the experience. The difference in experiences comes down to the level design. Are you in a maze or in a field?
The best game designs masks this in both scenarios.
The well designed linear game doesn't always feel like a maze, and has sections that feel like fields between mazes.
The well designed open world game contains mazes that you discover in a field that feels roped off into clearly defined sections that differ from each other and contain large landmarks to orient and draw you in.
Both feel bad if they don't include (at least the illusion of) the other. A linear game is boring without any choice. An open world game is boring without linear moments.
I mean like, compare a ... hub and spokes style immersive sim game, to any given open world game.
With an ImSim, you often get planted into an area, with a single or multiple main quests, and a whole bunch of essentially discoverable sidequests... and, when done well, those optional sidequests significantly affect how the main quests play out, and may give you different options for how to approach or conclude those main quests.
Then, onto the next hub/spoke section.
ImSims are not typically associated with literal huge open spaces... but the spaces they do have tend to be well interwoven.
There are often entirely optional, missable 'sidequests and submazes', basically, even in a typically smaller amount of literal space.
But also, they're not strictly linear in the way of like ... an FPS campaign/single player mode usually is. Sure you can have the literal levels be maze like, but typically/traditionally, theres usually only one entrance and exit, and the specifics of what you did in any given maze don't really impact the next maze beyond your weapon and ammo count and health maybe carrying over.
ImSims open up the conceptual field of a given linear sequence of levels, by allowing totally different play styles to yield signifcantly different experiences, and often the additional mechanics they do this with are more than just combat... social and exploratory play can be rewarded or punished by altering the narrative itself.
Last night I had a realization that the whole reason fallout 3 was given a radio is to fill the hours and hours of nothing in between locations. And also for the dungeon crawling.
I dunno. I find them on average a bit ham fisted. I love those elements in their games for sure, but it never moved me like certain environments in the last of us, for example.
There's definitely something to that. I liked that detective kind of work too. Games don't need dialogue to tell good stories. There's even good ways to just wander a large empty world and see sights.
I think Elden Ring is excellent for being open world. People often criticize the open world aspect because the crafting system is kinda dumb, the caves are samey and don't offer much in terms of benefits or exciting stuff. It's also hard to find quests and easy to miss them (on top of the bullshit story telling of Souls). And experienced people often just basically do a boss rush where they run from boss to boss. But I actually think it's excellent and brilliant game design.
I absolutely loved the feeling of having an entire world to explore. The world did actually feel alive for me, with people and stuff everywhere. Different biomes and decent enemy variety (even though there are plenty of repeats). Looking for quests, exploring caves and doing it all felt like fun. Even though I didn't engage with the crafting much (I did do a bow and consumables challenge run once, but I stuck to just a few kinds of pots and arrows throughout). I felt for me personally it added to the experience.
But in terms of game design it's a huge step forward. With the older games if you got hard stuck on a boss, that was it. You could go grind the previous level if you were really desperate, but that was about it. Especially for new people, this often meant they didn't finish the game. A lot of them didn't even make it past the tutorial boss. With a community telling them to Git Gud, people would assume the games weren't for them and quit. Which is a shame, because the games are good and worth playing imho. With the open world aspect, there's no rush to beat a boss. You can go explore, level up, find better weapons and better armor. And with the way the world is laid out, you can go pretty far without ever beating a single boss. Then come back later and beat the boss, maybe a bit over leveled, but that's fine. If you want the challenge, it's there, but if you are just a casual gamer looking for a fun time, it's there as well.
It's not all upsides tho, as people can also easily get lost and feel like they don't know where to go. Or miss entire areas because they were following the main quest. So not all rainbow and sunshine, but overall a positive aspect.
The open world also makes for an excellent randomizer, I've been absolutely addicted to Elden Ring Rando. So much fun!
I found that the rewards were almost always meaningful. Even if it wasn't a weapon or a spell I could use, it was always something unique that I totally could build around.
Elden Ring's open world was so good that it retroactively made BotW look like shit to me.
Yeah agreed. Even if it wasn't anything useful, it would be interesting and something to inspire future builds.
Agreed on BotW, although I didn't like it to start with. It being open world felt actually like a step down, as I liked the exploration in the earlier games where you'd be locked out somewhere and had to find an item to get further. It made me wonder what there was to find and I was excited whenever I got the item so I could go find out. With the world in BotW just being open and mostly empty on top of that, it just felt boring. And I didn't like the shrines, I felt they were too easy, too short and too gimmicky. The only fun I had with them was trying to do thing in an unintended way.
My only issue with Elden Rings world is a lot of it is just Hyrule Field from Ocarina of Time. That is to say, bland empty areas with little bits at the edges.
As a completionist open-world games give me progressively more anxiety. Worried I might miss something or mess up a quest line I like.
I am perfectly fine with a clean story or just don't bog me down with a growing list of uninteresting side quests. No I don't want to harvest 500 goblin dicks for a helmet that completes my set.
::: spoiler Tap for spoiler
Yes the helmet is a big floppy dick for my Phallus gear set. I get all the pieces, it unlocks a projectile attack that sticks enemies in place.
:::
the helmet is a big floppy dick for my Phallus gear set. I get all the pieces, it unlocks a projectile attack that sticks enemies in place.
Well now I want the helmet, but if I complete this other minor side quest it's going to become uncompletable, but it doesn't mention that anywhere I have to read a strategy guide to know that.
You were supposed to run up in time to kill the first hard-dicked goblin you see first, before it dies in its scripted sequence.
Then you can loot the sticky gobnut item, and if you interpret its lore correctly, you'd know that finishing the side quest where you find the lost canoe tribe would quell the hunger of the hard-dicked goblins, changing their world models and drops so you can't craft the helmet recipe after that.
Everyone has different tastes. My tend to get narrowed the older I get.
Now I pretty much stick to co-op games with drop-in and out via a matchmaking. Usually with a mechanic for tweaking things, like DRG or Darktide.
If I play anything solo, I'm a big mech fan (MW5) or I lean towards city builders.
But overall I need more than survival games or open world blank slates. I know people love those, but I'm from an era without that as the norm. I don't mind some rails if it's good content.
Take resident evil games, Control, Batman. Some larger maps than others, but the key is open. Most of the map or level is available to you to explore how you like, with a linear story guiding you through as well, and then progression opens smaller locked areas and new levels.
Outer wilds is the only true open world game since you are exploring a whole (kind of miniature) solar system and you can just fly in one direction forever (kind of). And it's open worldness is integral part of the gameplay. There is literally no story arch (except the ending), you are just exploring.
Yes, but the open world has to exist in the game as a meaningful set of gameplay systems/potentialities.
There have to actually be things that could challenge you, cost you, reward you, capture your attention, present you with a secret if investigated, set off an actually meaningful chain of events, etc.
If 'open world' is implemented as simply 'big space with occasional trash mobs wholly disconnected from the rest of the game'... you have a very shitty implementation of an open world.
Open world doesn't, or I guess shouldn't simply mean 'big empty space'.
If your game has a fast travel option that you regularly or often use to skip the open world, your open world sucks.
This was me with Breath of the Wild. Every mountain is a stamina puzzle in the early game. And nothing (except rain) can stop you if you're determined enough. And while the Korok isn't a satisfying reward on its own, it's nice to see them as achievements. Like the creators saying "Yes, we put this mountain here for you to climb, and you did it!"
Not much. Open-world is often a design for a looooot of space without intention. It used to be a technical prowess, but now it's mostly for bland chores simulators. Generic open-worlds and mobile games have hurt game design a lot, especially in the 2010's, but IMHO, Fromsoft has saved us from that by creating a semi-open, interconnected world design that felt vast and intentional. Elden Ring was their first modern open-world and they nailed it with all that Souls experience.
The story is secondary. You can just run around and get to know the world, go to what's interesting to you. But if the game didn't click for you, don't force it. There are so many other great games.
I think elden ring probably couldn't be told in a smaller scale level design.
You hear about massive spanning battlefields, wars with gods, etc. Could not be correctly portrayed with a more compact level design. And the vistas are gorgeous.
Open worlds benefit the game when exploration is the point.
Elden ring is really more linear than it is open world, so much content being locked behind certain progress milestones (and difficulty curve unless you're very good). You have no lasting impact on the game world, and the gameplay loop is heavily centered around dying and respawning at checkpoints. It has more in common with a Mario game than with, say, skyrim. Linking the "levels" together I guess has some aesthetic benefits, but honestly if you entered each area directly from the roundtable hold would the experience have been materially different?
so much content being locked behind certain progress milestones
Ehh, sort of? The main story is pretty linear but progress is very open ended, which you can say for almost every open world game, even minecraft.
You have no lasting impact on the game world.
Events you put into motion literally change geography(IE, killing radahn turns an entire area into a smoking crater.)
Individual quest lines have varying levels of effect on the world ranging from affecting enemy spawns to changing the leadership of an entire region.
but honestly if you entered each area directly from the roundtable hold would the experience have been materially different?
Yes, because something that happens in elden ring is that you start with the world map being really small, and then you keep uncovering new areas, making the map bigger, but you have no idea until you actually explore and are hit with how expansive an area that's just hiding behind a bridge is.
In the DLC that feeling is compounded with the pure verticality of the world, a small non-descript cave that you can easily miss without a guide leads you about a quarter of the DLC areas.
The exploration, and the feeling when you uncover a new area, wouldn't exist if you could just warp there from a hub.
Killing redahn unlocks a new level and his entire army continues to stand in the same places and respond to you exactly as they did before. That’s exactly what I'm talking about with linearity. "can be easily missed without a guide" also exactly what I'm talking about, there's generally one way of getting everywhere and when it's hard to find that it's very tempting to look it up or ask a friend, exploring is mostly frustrating.
To be clear I'm a fan of the game, but I have spent probably <10% of my playtime on unstructured exploration or side quests (if you can call 5 bits of loosely related dialog in fixed locations a side quest). Not everything has to be open world, and I probably would have had as much fun with ER if wasn't. The most sandboxy bit I would say is the multiplayer, which I wish they had made a bit more flexible, but I do find very funny.
The exploration of xenoblade chronicles x is what seperates it as a gaming experience compared to the numbered xenoblade games. While it is the weakest narratively, it holds the largest sense of exploration
There can be benefits of open world. When traversal is a primary mechanic and is half the fun of the game like in a lot of Spider-man and Crackdown games. When the vaste distances with little to no civilization, just natural terrains, forrests, and the occasional temple ruin and giant beast fill you with a sense of wonder and unease to set the tone of the game narrative like in Shadows of Collosus. When the world itself is a living puzzle to be unraveled like in LoZ: Majora's Mask.
The problem is when games have big maps just by expanding terrain, filling it with tedium and unthoughtful design, make traversal a slog, and make everything feel unintentionally void of life and interesting things to do/see. And narrative driven games almost always benefit from at least some linearity.
I disagree. Especially because you have to put in context: BotW came out five years before Elden Ring, as an exlcusive bridge title between consoles, and still rocked a degree of interaction with the world (its physics/elemental system and the use of stamina as an advancement barrier) that ER still dreams of. IIRC Miyazaki himself said that the team was heavily inspired by LoZ's work with the formula.
The physics thing is a good point. But my experience with BotW is that I would see something in the distance, I'd go to it, and then there'd be a shrine with no meaningful reward or a Korok seed, and that's it. The reward is that a number ticks up.
Elden Ring, I'd see something in the distance, I'd go to it, and then there'd be a whole, actual dungeon to complete. And the reward would be unique every time. Even if I didn't end up using it, it'd be a weapon or a spell that would give me ideas for a different build.
Breath of the Wild is empty. The weapons are destructible, which makes them meaningless.
that was only fun for me the first time I played the game. I really enjoyed seeing some mountain in the distance and making my way there and climbing it.
Second time around it felt pretty empty and lifeless for me.
ToTK is more of the same but with janky powers and a juge overreliance on them
I pretty much always prefer open world, or at least something interconnected like a Metroidvania. Linear makes me feel like my back is against the wall.
Game design is important and most open world games to me fail in their design. No point in just spreading things out. If a game does something worth while or value adding I’m all over it. Just played through Gears 5 it’s open world parts added nothing
Alpine Skyline and Nyakuza Metro were my favorite levels in A Hat in Time. The movement mechanics of the game are well-suited for exploring larger levels like them, and they made the journey to each objective fun
136 Comments
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus · 138 pts · 1d
I dont think Minecraft would do too well being linear.
cobysev@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 1d
Minecraft: Story Mode was actually pretty popular. It was basically a story-rich RPG set in a Minecraft world.
MrNobody@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 30 pts · 1d
Maybe, but it was nowhere near as popular as plain Minecraft. The sales numbers alone can attest to that, plus the fact there hasn't been a sequel should be all the proof you need to say that a linear minecraft wouldn't do too well.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 13 pts · 1d
Most people who played both probably have an order of magnitude more playtime in Minecraft, though.
certified_expert@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 19h
You could say a whole new dimension?
bstix@feddit.dk · 1 pts · 13h
It would be nice with some kind of linear quest in minecraft.
However if they were procedurally generated, I'd lose interest. That's just another layer of grinding.
radix@lemmy.world · 91 pts · 1d
I like a game world that's just fun to be in even when I'm not advancing the story. Taking a break to explore is awesome, and much easier in an open world.
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 14h
Spider-Man for the PS4 had fast travel via subway, by why would you miss out on web-slinging your way from one end of Manhattan to the other?
Karjalan@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 28m
This is what witcher 3 did best imo.
It's open world, and it feels large... But it's not actually that large when you think about it.
And the side areas are so rich and dense that you can do quests from a random hub, some that chain on for quite a while... And then realise this whole time that you haven't actually done any of the main story.
I was excited to learn more about certain monsters in the bestiary, what oils and elements they were weak to etc.
OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml · 65 pts · 1d
I'm not sure that it's *better*, but it's hilarious when you go off and do all the side quests and end up completely over powered by the time you get round to the main quest and just beat the shit out of the main bad guy without realizing that they're important.
CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works · 29 pts · 1d
Big bad: "so you have finally come to meet your doo-"
Competitionist: *drops bag of loot on boss, crushing all his bones*
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 1d
That’s why you scale the enemies to the players armour and level!
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 37 pts · 1d
Honestly I really don't like that in most open world games, mostly cause enemy levels tend to make it feel like I'm just as powerful at lvl 1 as at lvl 40. Bethesda games post Morrowind are particularly bad about this IMO, not to say you can't have leveled shit just don't do it to all the enemies, do it like NV where some enemies are leveled but most are flat preset levels.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 20 pts · 1d
Sorry, was being sarcastic.
It sucks when you get an item and do 10,000 damage, but now your enemies all have 50,000 HP, especially when it's the same old enemies just stronger.
At least in Skyrim you start seeing new enemies later on, but sometimes it's just fun to wreck some bandits as the Dragonborn.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 3 pts · 1d
I hate it too, but I don't think it was that bad in Skyrim or Fallout 4. Mostly just Oblivion that dropped the ball on this.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 1d
Nah it was also pretty miserable in Fallout 4, though in that particular case it was moreso due to issues of bullet sponges rather than damage dealt. But Fallout 4 is also probably the worst of the 3D games IMO, especially when it comes to enemy health.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 1 pts · 1d
Worse than Fallout 76?
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1d
Unironically yes, the leveled areas in 76 are quite a bit easier to deal with. Also I really fucken hate the settlement system.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 2 pts · 1d
Fair, the settlement system is annoying. I also hate everything about MMOs, though, and IMO it's diametrically opposed to everything that made Bethesda games good. And that's before we get into how much of a mess the release was ...
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 19h
I disagree. I hate when games do this, particularly open world ones. The point of going to find loot and stuff is that it benefits you. If there is no benefit then the game shouldn't give you the option. Those games should be linear, because they're trying to make a linear experience out of something non-linear.
If I'm struggling, I want to be able to leave and come back stronger. Even if I wasn't, I want to come back and feel that I've gained power with the time I spent. If I don't, I know I'm wasting my time.
BurntWits@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 18h
That’s what Elden Ring really did well imo. The game sort of guides you towards Margit at the start, but he completely destroys newcomers, which causes them to explore the map more and discover more content in the intro areas. By the time they’ve done most of the interesting stuff in the first couple areas and go back to Margit, he’s far more balanced to fight. Still not a pushover but far more reasonable to fight and no longer frustrating.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 18h
Yep, and, if you're paying attention and thoroughly exploring, you can actually go around the castle and totally avoid him. You can get incredibly strong before fighting him. It makes you feel like you're actually progressing.
BurntWits@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 17h
I’ve only skipped him once because Stormveil Castle is an excellent dungeon but it’s cool I have the option if I want to.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 14h
Yeah, it shouldn't be skipped, but it's cool that it can be. It's good for challenge runs, or bjngo.
BurntWits@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 14h
I’d love to do ER bingo sometime. Looks like a lot of fun.
MNByChoice@midwest.social · 4 pts · 1d
Yes! It helps if it is clear the bad guy has been doing things as well. (Aren't there a few games where the bad guy moves locations with this, so if one is really fast, they can catch them rather weak.)
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
That's so fucking lazy by the gamedesigner, and takes away all the fun too IMO.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 21h
Imagine scaling enemies by actual player skill needed to defeat them, instead of just 'my number more big than your number'.
JoShmoe@ani.social · 49 pts · 1d
RDR2, GTA, Elder Scrolls, is this a shitpost?
psycotica0@lemmy.ca · 29 pts · 1d
Breath of the Wild.
Arguably Outer Wilds.
Ibuthyr@feddit.org · 10 pts · 1d
BotW is one of the most boring games ever. Zelda games were fun because of the linearity thanks to finding items that let you progress... And FUCK weapon degradation. What a terrible mechanic.
moakley@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
Oh look, another Korok Seed. How meaningful and rewarding and not complete bullshit or anything.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 20h
I think this is a difference between us as players. I'm not a competitionist at all, and I don't even remember what economy the Korok seeds were for. I probably finished the game with a ton of them collected and unspent.
But in my mind they weren't meant to be collected as a goal on their own. I'd be exploring up a mountain or whatever, just because I wanted to know what was on the other side, and when I got up to the peak I'd look out over the landscape and enjoy it for what it is. And then while I was up there I'd see a weird rock and go "ah, the developers wanted me to be up here looking at this view" and I'd move the rock, get some little fireworks, and then I'd have a buddy to enjoy the scenery with.
And then hours later, maybe months in real time, I'd be climbing around and see a Korok and go "Oh! I must have been up here before! Hey little guy" and then keep going.
So I liked them because it was something put there by the devs to show that they intended this place to be visited; that they put some attention here, and I had come to a place that wasn't just endless grass or empty procedural trees or something. It was full of stuff, even if it was silly little guys.
Oh, and you can drop rocks on their heads and they go "oof". That's a good one.
Signtist@bookwyr.me · 3 pts · 18h
Yeah, I think that's why open world games are so divisive. Some people want the game to reward them for doing the things they're supposed to do, while some people just view playing the game itself as the reward, and just do what they want within it. The prior hates how difficult it is to find and get to the next objective in an open world, while the latter doesn't need or sometimes even want objectives, preferring to just be in the world.
moakley@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16h
Definitely a difference, because I am a completionist. Especially when it comes to Zelda games.
The problem is that the answer is "nothing". There's nothing on the other side. Just more scenery, maybe a shrine or another Korok. The core gameplay loop is still just Zelda, so there's nothing they can do to populate the world with meaningful things to find.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 12h
Right, I get that. But I wouldn't consider the scenery nothing! I liked the scenery!
starik@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 23h
The old Zelda games were also open world.
Ibuthyr@feddit.org · 2 pts · 21h
Not really. The 2D ones at least. You literally can't access areas until you've progressed by finding an item, usually by killing a boss in a dungeon. Its a fairly linear design actually.
Edge004@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 20h
There is some non-linearity in the 2D games. In the first game, you can do some of the dungeons out of order. For example, some people like to save dungeon 6 for last because it's difficult. Some dungeons do require items from previous dungeons, but not every one.
A Link to The Past also has some nonlinearity in the same way. The dungeons in the dark world are numbered, but you can still do some of them out of order for the same reason as the first game.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 20h
Hmmm... I see what you to mean... but it's in my top 5 games of all time, and none of the other Zelda games are. So I think it just shimmied into a different genre, which I get could be a problem for an existing fanbase that liked the old genre.
Ibuthyr@feddit.org · 1 pts · 6h
You're spot on!
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 1 pts · 1d
Breath of the Wild has to be the single worst example of an open world game. I am still mad it did not even have any cool dungeons whatsoever.
MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Breath of the wild. No dungeons.
GG on your base health/stamina finish I guess
psycotica0@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 20h
I loved BotW as it was... but to be honest if they offered more dungeons without changing the exploring part, I would have taken that on top, for sure.
I did hate Tears of the Kingdom, though, so I guess it's a delicate balance that just happened to land in my hitbox on BotW.
IronBird@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
...this is greentext so...yes, obviously
Tattorack@lemmy.world · 48 pts · 18h
Yes. Many. Stop playing Ubisoft checklist simulators.
Smaile@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 18h
AAA needs a bit of a reset and it looks like that's what's happening now.
groet@feddit.org · 34 pts · 1d
The problem is not "open world" but "the ubisoft game". New region, find watchtower, reveal map, do 1 quest, attack enemy camp, liberate area, new area, find watchtower, ...
Most open worlds are also just way to big. GTA San Andreas felt huge but is tiny compared to V. And it was better for it. Modern open worlds never have a hub. A place that you actually build a relationship with and see change over the course of the game. Its always: area completed, next!
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
Yeah San Andreas was the open world game I was thinking of too, with the expanding of your crime syndicate. It's pretty much the only game I've played that implements an open world properly and I've been chasing that since then. Fallout 4 maybe, but building settlements or forts didn't have real impact. Diablo IV is way too driven to rush through and get to the endgame.
I think you really need to design it to be more of a simulation game that reacts to player actions and with a story inserted, not as a "feature" to check off. And a distinct goal or win condition for playing the open world.
groet@feddit.org · 5 pts · 23h
If every place/area only serves one purpose then the game should be linear. Some of my favourite games are the old Gothic and Gothic 2 RPGs. They are open world, but tiny compared to modern RPGs. They dont have "areas" with a set difficulty that you can complete and then move on, instead the map is like a skeleton of fairly save roads and settlements and the further you go away from the roads the harder it gets. So you see the whole map in the first chapter but have explored very little of it. You always return to the same areas and they feel like home. And every chapter of the story adds new enemies, quests and events to all areas of the game. All of it is hand picked. No "radient quests" to trick you into going to an completed dungeon again, no random encounters on the roads to make travel through the world feel less empty...
IMO, they have the best open worlds I have ever seen. The studios follow up open world games (Gothic 3, elex 1&2) fell flat because they tried to be huge as well and felt empty as a result.
Working with constraints does actually produce gems. Fallout, farcry, GTA, skyrim just throw billions of dollars at a project to make it huge. But everything there is is just a set piece to be looked at once and be discarded ...
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 23h
Gothic does sound awesome especially with the Gothic 1 Remake.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 19h
I love a good hub, especially when it actually changes and grows
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 31 pts · 1d
I think sequence breaking is fun, and it works better in open world games. IME many modern open world games avoid this by tightly tying loot to levels or stats that you increase by leveling or even advancing the main story, which kinda defeats the point of open world games IMO.
Though honestly, I do enjoy having at least an illusion of choice, very linear games that don't even maintain an illusion of openness feel really restricting to me. Modern open world RPGs just took it way too far while getting some of the important details wrong.
EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 1d
My favorite open world game that ISN'T a fantasy rpg also happens to be the easiest "finish the game early" I've ever experienced.
Ghost Recon Breakpoint.
Basically you start the game in "realism" mode which turns loot levels off,. Then in the intro mission, when you see the bad guy kill a team member, you gain control of your character before he gets in a helicopter and leaves. Run forward with a scoped gun to shoot him in the head, or have something explosive ready to blow up the helicopter.
Congrats, you've killed the main bad guy of the game and the last level no longer has you fight him in some building.
You still have to do everything else in the game, but I managed to do that by accident my first play through. Put probably 150 hours in that game over the years and multiple playthroughs and still have yet to play with loot leveling on. I do sometimes let him live though just for funsies.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 11 pts · 1d
That's amazing, and surprising that the boss actually stayed dead!
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 30 pts · 20h
Generally, good open world games have a lot more emergent content - situations that emerge from the interaction of agents and simple mechanics (in the style of how simple rules create complex outcomes in the "Game of Life") - whilst good linear games have highly curated set-pieces scenarios which were created by level designers directly.
For an example of the former, imagine you're running around the Game World looking for a special kind of plant to create a potion that you need. You come across a battle between bears and a bandit group. When they die their drops are free for the taking and both groups are too high level for you to take on your own. None of this was setup to happen when you crossed some trigger line, it literally just happened because those the entities in those groups are part of enemy "factions" and the patrol route of one group (a route which might itself be procedural rather than fixed) passed near enough the position of the encampment of the other.
This kind of thing randomly happen is just not something you get in linear games which are generally just set-pieces and even the ability to pull on group of high level enemies to another group has to be designed in (mainly by making the restricted game area big enough for it in that section and placing the groups in the right places).
This is also why in a linear game if you die and restart you get the same fights in the same places you had before up to the place were you died unless that section of the game was designed with enough alternate paths of mechanics (say, hide mechanics) that you can go around and avoid certain fights.
Emergent content is also why Multiplayer can be a lot of fun, though in this case the "agent" whose interactions can give rise to all sorts of situations are other players.
foodandart@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 14h
Oh hell yes.
I'm playing Horizon Zero Dawn Complete (it includes the DLC) and as soon as I got to Daytower, I ran into a guy named Ohtur who mentioned The Cut.. I pivoted and headed up there and by sneaking around everything with higher stats than I had, (which was almost everything) I managed to find resources that got me a wickedly powerful weapon. Game changer. Literally.
Getting to any part of the map and find it's hidden goodies is amazing.
HollowNaught@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 1d
When progression is properly controlled such as in fallout: new vegas or hollow knight, then a larger map can do wonders
cRazi_man@europe.pub · 4 pts · 1d
I wouldn't put Metroidvanias (with large maps, back tracking, ability gating and flexibility in which area to go to next) alongside other open world adventure games (like GTA, Witcher, Breath of the Wild, etc). I love Metroidvanias and linear games, but I wouldn't touch open world adventure RPGs with a 10 foot pole.
HollowNaught@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22h
That's what I'm saying. The only open world games that truly utilise their worlds are ones that first close it off
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 1d
Cyberpunk 2077.
I like the linear missions, but just exploring the open world and discovering things naturally is fun too. I think they could have done more with that, and it definitely feels like the game was way more linear in early development, but with all the updates CDPR managed to make something pretty cool IMO.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 21h
You might like the Dark Future mod, its roughly the equivalent of New Vegas' hardcore/jsawyer mode.
ICastFist@programming.dev · 22 pts · 21h
Being able to fuck around can be fun. A linear Elder Scrolls (morrowind, oblivion, skyrim) would be boring
mirshafie@europe.pub · 11 pts · 20h
GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas. Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 (yes), New Vegas. Elden Ring. Subnautica.
Try making San Andreas linear and you would instantly destroy one of the best games ever made.
zaphod@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 19h
On the other hand later GTAs didn't embrace the open worlds for which the series is known. Once you start a mission the games turn extremely linear without giving the player options.
P1nkman@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 16h
Very true! I remember in GTA3, some missions could be done in different ways, if you already knew what would happen.
jaaake@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 23h
The benefit is the experience. The difference in experiences comes down to the level design. Are you in a maze or in a field?
The best game designs masks this in both scenarios.
The well designed linear game doesn't always feel like a maze, and has sections that feel like fields between mazes.
The well designed open world game contains mazes that you discover in a field that feels roped off into clearly defined sections that differ from each other and contain large landmarks to orient and draw you in.
Both feel bad if they don't include (at least the illusion of) the other. A linear game is boring without any choice. An open world game is boring without linear moments.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 20h
I mean like, compare a ... hub and spokes style immersive sim game, to any given open world game.
With an ImSim, you often get planted into an area, with a single or multiple main quests, and a whole bunch of essentially discoverable sidequests... and, when done well, those optional sidequests significantly affect how the main quests play out, and may give you different options for how to approach or conclude those main quests.
Then, onto the next hub/spoke section.
ImSims are not typically associated with literal huge open spaces... but the spaces they do have tend to be well interwoven.
There are often entirely optional, missable 'sidequests and submazes', basically, even in a typically smaller amount of literal space.
But also, they're not strictly linear in the way of like ... an FPS campaign/single player mode usually is. Sure you can have the literal levels be maze like, but typically/traditionally, theres usually only one entrance and exit, and the specifics of what you did in any given maze don't really impact the next maze beyond your weapon and ammo count and health maybe carrying over.
ImSims open up the conceptual field of a given linear sequence of levels, by allowing totally different play styles to yield signifcantly different experiences, and often the additional mechanics they do this with are more than just combat... social and exploratory play can be rewarded or punished by altering the narrative itself.
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · 16 pts · 1d
Last night I had a realization that the whole reason fallout 3 was given a radio is to fill the hours and hours of nothing in between locations. And also for the dungeon crawling.
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 1d
Too bad that the music selection is so tiny that you basically need mods with more (lore-friendly) music.
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 1d
Agreed.
moakley@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
For me, half the fun in Fallout is discovering some old building and piecing together what fucked up thing happened there.
Satranath@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
Bethsoft often pisses me off or lets me down but they are absolutely good at environmental storytelling, no doubt
julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 14h
I dunno. I find them on average a bit ham fisted. I love those elements in their games for sure, but it never moved me like certain environments in the last of us, for example.
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 1d
There's definitely something to that. I liked that detective kind of work too. Games don't need dialogue to tell good stories. There's even good ways to just wander a large empty world and see sights.
Thorry@feddit.org · 16 pts · 1d
I think Elden Ring is excellent for being open world. People often criticize the open world aspect because the crafting system is kinda dumb, the caves are samey and don't offer much in terms of benefits or exciting stuff. It's also hard to find quests and easy to miss them (on top of the bullshit story telling of Souls). And experienced people often just basically do a boss rush where they run from boss to boss. But I actually think it's excellent and brilliant game design.
I absolutely loved the feeling of having an entire world to explore. The world did actually feel alive for me, with people and stuff everywhere. Different biomes and decent enemy variety (even though there are plenty of repeats). Looking for quests, exploring caves and doing it all felt like fun. Even though I didn't engage with the crafting much (I did do a bow and consumables challenge run once, but I stuck to just a few kinds of pots and arrows throughout). I felt for me personally it added to the experience.
But in terms of game design it's a huge step forward. With the older games if you got hard stuck on a boss, that was it. You could go grind the previous level if you were really desperate, but that was about it. Especially for new people, this often meant they didn't finish the game. A lot of them didn't even make it past the tutorial boss. With a community telling them to Git Gud, people would assume the games weren't for them and quit. Which is a shame, because the games are good and worth playing imho. With the open world aspect, there's no rush to beat a boss. You can go explore, level up, find better weapons and better armor. And with the way the world is laid out, you can go pretty far without ever beating a single boss. Then come back later and beat the boss, maybe a bit over leveled, but that's fine. If you want the challenge, it's there, but if you are just a casual gamer looking for a fun time, it's there as well.
It's not all upsides tho, as people can also easily get lost and feel like they don't know where to go. Or miss entire areas because they were following the main quest. So not all rainbow and sunshine, but overall a positive aspect.
The open world also makes for an excellent randomizer, I've been absolutely addicted to Elden Ring Rando. So much fun!
SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
FTFY
moakley@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
I found that the rewards were almost always meaningful. Even if it wasn't a weapon or a spell I could use, it was always something unique that I totally could build around.
Elden Ring's open world was so good that it retroactively made BotW look like shit to me.
Thorry@feddit.org · 2 pts · 1d
Yeah agreed. Even if it wasn't anything useful, it would be interesting and something to inspire future builds.
Agreed on BotW, although I didn't like it to start with. It being open world felt actually like a step down, as I liked the exploration in the earlier games where you'd be locked out somewhere and had to find an item to get further. It made me wonder what there was to find and I was excited whenever I got the item so I could go find out. With the world in BotW just being open and mostly empty on top of that, it just felt boring. And I didn't like the shrines, I felt they were too easy, too short and too gimmicky. The only fun I had with them was trying to do thing in an unintended way.
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1d
My only issue with Elden Rings world is a lot of it is just Hyrule Field from Ocarina of Time. That is to say, bland empty areas with little bits at the edges.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 1d
Midnight club 2 was pretty dang cool.
The open world nature made the races very fun and was a big (arguably genre defining) departure from other racing games with invisible walls.
It’s had a rare combination of skill, map utilization, and novelty that made it a fun game to play
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 20h
Honestly a very good example here of 'open world' done in a genre that usually doesn't see it so much.
MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 1d
As a completionist open-world games give me progressively more anxiety. Worried I might miss something or mess up a quest line I like.
I am perfectly fine with a clean story or just don't bog me down with a growing list of uninteresting side quests. No I don't want to harvest 500 goblin dicks for a helmet that completes my set.
::: spoiler Tap for spoiler Yes the helmet is a big floppy dick for my Phallus gear set. I get all the pieces, it unlocks a projectile attack that sticks enemies in place. :::
nomy@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1d
Well now I want the helmet, but if I complete this other minor side quest it's going to become uncompletable, but it doesn't mention that anywhere I have to read a strategy guide to know that.
Aqivex@fedinsfw.app · 5 pts · 1d
You were supposed to run up in time to kill the first hard-dicked goblin you see first, before it dies in its scripted sequence.
Then you can loot the sticky gobnut item, and if you interpret its lore correctly, you'd know that finishing the side quest where you find the lost canoe tribe would quell the hunger of the hard-dicked goblins, changing their world models and drops so you can't craft the helmet recipe after that.
Duh. Git gud.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 20h
Try Kenshi.
There's no main quest at all, beyond try not to die.
MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 17h
Everyone has different tastes. My tend to get narrowed the older I get.
Now I pretty much stick to co-op games with drop-in and out via a matchmaking. Usually with a mechanic for tweaking things, like DRG or Darktide.
If I play anything solo, I'm a big mech fan (MW5) or I lean towards city builders.
But overall I need more than survival games or open world blank slates. I know people love those, but I'm from an era without that as the norm. I don't mind some rails if it's good content.
BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 13h
Open world =/= giant map
Take resident evil games, Control, Batman. Some larger maps than others, but the key is open. Most of the map or level is available to you to explore how you like, with a linear story guiding you through as well, and then progression opens smaller locked areas and new levels.
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 11h
Had to explain this to a friend when I called the original Deus Ex titles "open world" games. (It's technically semi-open world but, meh, nuances)
saimen@feddit.org · 15 pts · 1d
Outer wilds is the only true open world game since you are exploring a whole (kind of miniature) solar system and you can just fly in one direction forever (kind of). And it's open worldness is integral part of the gameplay. There is literally no story arch (except the ending), you are just exploring.
webp@mander.xyz · 13 pts · 1d
Anon desires the string.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 1d
Yes, but the open world has to exist in the game as a meaningful set of gameplay systems/potentialities.
There have to actually be things that could challenge you, cost you, reward you, capture your attention, present you with a secret if investigated, set off an actually meaningful chain of events, etc.
If 'open world' is implemented as simply 'big space with occasional trash mobs wholly disconnected from the rest of the game'... you have a very shitty implementation of an open world.
Open world doesn't, or I guess shouldn't simply mean 'big empty space'.
If your game has a fast travel option that you regularly or often use to skip the open world, your open world sucks.
greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo · 5 pts · 23h
I think OP needs to stop playing ubisoft sandboxes
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 18h
Yeah AC just doesn't make sense as an open world RPG.
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 13h
your last sentence is a big reason i think fallout new vegas has a terrible open world. it is painful playing that game without fast travel
Kellenved@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 1d
I’m certain nearly 25% of my crimson desert playtime is climbing mountains for fun then flying back down
5765313496@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 22h
This was me with Breath of the Wild. Every mountain is a stamina puzzle in the early game. And nothing (except rain) can stop you if you're determined enough. And while the Korok isn't a satisfying reward on its own, it's nice to see them as achievements. Like the creators saying "Yes, we put this mountain here for you to climb, and you did it!"
BaraCoded@literature.cafe · 10 pts · 14h
Not much. Open-world is often a design for a looooot of space without intention. It used to be a technical prowess, but now it's mostly for bland chores simulators. Generic open-worlds and mobile games have hurt game design a lot, especially in the 2010's, but IMHO, Fromsoft has saved us from that by creating a semi-open, interconnected world design that felt vast and intentional. Elden Ring was their first modern open-world and they nailed it with all that Souls experience.
Bademantel@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild & Tears of the Kingdom.
It's all about exploring. It would be impossible with a linear structure.
SillyDude@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 1d
I still haven't finished botw despite starting it over like 30 times. I just end up exploring and losing track of the story.
Bademantel@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
The story is secondary. You can just run around and get to know the world, go to what's interesting to you. But if the game didn't click for you, don't force it. There are so many other great games.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 1d
Witcher 3 is so much better than 2 or even 1 (which was also confusing).
Also, imagine Gothic, Skyrim or Dragon Age in linear.
While Crysis would be worse with a fully open world. It plays as a narrative.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 13h
Dragon Age 2 almost is tbh. Very small areas you keep going back to.
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1d
Genshin does have a story somewhere, but exploring the world is the real fun.
wrinkledoo@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 20h
I think elden ring probably couldn't be told in a smaller scale level design.
You hear about massive spanning battlefields, wars with gods, etc. Could not be correctly portrayed with a more compact level design. And the vistas are gorgeous.
Open worlds benefit the game when exploration is the point.
julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 15h
Elden ring is really more linear than it is open world, so much content being locked behind certain progress milestones (and difficulty curve unless you're very good). You have no lasting impact on the game world, and the gameplay loop is heavily centered around dying and respawning at checkpoints. It has more in common with a Mario game than with, say, skyrim. Linking the "levels" together I guess has some aesthetic benefits, but honestly if you entered each area directly from the roundtable hold would the experience have been materially different?
wrinkledoo@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 15h
Ehh, sort of? The main story is pretty linear but progress is very open ended, which you can say for almost every open world game, even minecraft.
Events you put into motion literally change geography(IE, killing radahn turns an entire area into a smoking crater.) Individual quest lines have varying levels of effect on the world ranging from affecting enemy spawns to changing the leadership of an entire region.
Yes, because something that happens in elden ring is that you start with the world map being really small, and then you keep uncovering new areas, making the map bigger, but you have no idea until you actually explore and are hit with how expansive an area that's just hiding behind a bridge is.
In the DLC that feeling is compounded with the pure verticality of the world, a small non-descript cave that you can easily miss without a guide leads you about a quarter of the DLC areas.
The exploration, and the feeling when you uncover a new area, wouldn't exist if you could just warp there from a hub.
julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 3h
Killing redahn unlocks a new level and his entire army continues to stand in the same places and respond to you exactly as they did before. That’s exactly what I'm talking about with linearity. "can be easily missed without a guide" also exactly what I'm talking about, there's generally one way of getting everywhere and when it's hard to find that it's very tempting to look it up or ask a friend, exploring is mostly frustrating.
To be clear I'm a fan of the game, but I have spent probably <10% of my playtime on unstructured exploration or side quests (if you can call 5 bits of loosely related dialog in fixed locations a side quest). Not everything has to be open world, and I probably would have had as much fun with ER if wasn't. The most sandboxy bit I would say is the multiplayer, which I wish they had made a bit more flexible, but I do find very funny.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 1d
The exploration of xenoblade chronicles x is what seperates it as a gaming experience compared to the numbered xenoblade games. While it is the weakest narratively, it holds the largest sense of exploration
hakase@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
I unironically think that Xenoblade X has the best open world of any game to date.
Chee_Koala@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Project zomboid? Skyrim/Oblivion/Morrowind?
Game that didn't feel like it was really made for open world: the new mario kart. I don't hate it, it just feels.. forced somehow.
olafurp@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Why not both? -your average dark souls enjoyer
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 22h
There can be benefits of open world. When traversal is a primary mechanic and is half the fun of the game like in a lot of Spider-man and Crackdown games. When the vaste distances with little to no civilization, just natural terrains, forrests, and the occasional temple ruin and giant beast fill you with a sense of wonder and unease to set the tone of the game narrative like in Shadows of Collosus. When the world itself is a living puzzle to be unraveled like in LoZ: Majora's Mask.
The problem is when games have big maps just by expanding terrain, filling it with tedium and unthoughtful design, make traversal a slog, and make everything feel unintentionally void of life and interesting things to do/see. And narrative driven games almost always benefit from at least some linearity.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 10h
I play Fallout 4 like Sims with guns.
Also, mods.
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 1d
Breath Of The Wild did it well, but because they built the game around the concept from the ground up instead of doing an Assassins Creed.
WolfLink@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 1d
Eh breath of the wild was huge but empty
Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 23h
Is it weird I like empty?
Feels a lot more natural and makes discoveries more meaningful.
iagomago@feddit.it · -1 pts · 1d
BotW was empty only if you didn't know how to look at it.
moakley@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
If you look at it without having ever seen Elden Ring, it's pretty impressive.
If you look at it after having seen Elden Ring, BotW is dogshit.
iagomago@feddit.it · 3 pts · 1d
I disagree. Especially because you have to put in context: BotW came out five years before Elden Ring, as an exlcusive bridge title between consoles, and still rocked a degree of interaction with the world (its physics/elemental system and the use of stamina as an advancement barrier) that ER still dreams of. IIRC Miyazaki himself said that the team was heavily inspired by LoZ's work with the formula.
moakley@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21h
The physics thing is a good point. But my experience with BotW is that I would see something in the distance, I'd go to it, and then there'd be a shrine with no meaningful reward or a Korok seed, and that's it. The reward is that a number ticks up.
Elden Ring, I'd see something in the distance, I'd go to it, and then there'd be a whole, actual dungeon to complete. And the reward would be unique every time. Even if I didn't end up using it, it'd be a weapon or a spell that would give me ideas for a different build.
Breath of the Wild is empty. The weapons are destructible, which makes them meaningless.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 20h
that was only fun for me the first time I played the game. I really enjoyed seeing some mountain in the distance and making my way there and climbing it.
Second time around it felt pretty empty and lifeless for me.
ToTK is more of the same but with janky powers and a juge overreliance on them
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 4h
I pretty much always prefer open world, or at least something interconnected like a Metroidvania. Linear makes me feel like my back is against the wall.
uairhahs@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 4h
You missed a collectable 4 missions ago? I guess I'll see you in New Game+
dingleberrylover@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 5h
I would definitely say Gothic 1 and 2. Cannot imagine the games being better without it.
64bithero@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
Game design is important and most open world games to me fail in their design. No point in just spreading things out. If a game does something worth while or value adding I’m all over it. Just played through Gears 5 it’s open world parts added nothing
Almacca@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 1d
Test Drive Unlimited.
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 5h
Elden Ring did it very well.
MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
There's so many challenge runs I can think of trying in Elden Ring, but then I remember the 40 minute Run-Around-and-Collect-everything marathon.
Gonna try a deathless DS3 run instead
TIEPilot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6h
Star Wars Galaxy's was a great open world game.
Edge004@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 19h
Alpine Skyline and Nyakuza Metro were my favorite levels in A Hat in Time. The movement mechanics of the game are well-suited for exploring larger levels like them, and they made the journey to each objective fun
MLK20426@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4h
Thursday
FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 1d
Genuinely no, and many people keep on designing open world ones when what they really want is to make linear ones
snoons@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 1d
Satisfactory lol. Factorio lol. Stardew Valley too ig.
wtf even is a mario