Opinion - Open World Games Are Smaller than Linear Games

[JDR13]

Why do you say BG1 is not an open world? To me, that's exactly what it is, you can move freely, explore and discover new areas while keeping access to the previous ones.

Yeah, I raised an eyebrow when I read his comment. BG1 is definitely open-world.

(perhaps there were quest pointers in Oblivion, not sure anymore).

Oblivion was the birthplace of quest pointers.

 

[Redglyph]

Oblivion was the birthplace of quest pointers.

Right. IIRC you could select categories of pointers to show on the map, but maybe not on the compass, so it wasn't so easy to ignore. And some quests were relying on this too, probably, being a bit vague about the directions. Still, I was trying, even if that wasn't always successful

Perhaps they had too many complains in Morrowind.

 

[Silver]

Right. IIRC you could select categories of pointers to show on the map, but maybe not on the compass, so it wasn't so easy to ignore. And some quests were relying on this too, probably, being a bit vague about the directions. Still, I was trying, even if that wasn't always successful

Perhaps they had too many complains in Morrowind.

I think that was the result of Morrowind coming to consoles and the players not being familiar with how to play it. Those types of games were PC only back in the day.

 

[Redglyph]

I think that was the result of Morrowind coming to consoles and the players not being familiar with how to play it. Those types of games were PC only back in the day.

I didn't know it was ported to consoles, that must have been something. Yes, that would explain it.

 

[lackblogger]

Yes, I agree with many others here, I liked the title and was interested to read the content, found a lot of interesting thoughts but in the end was disappointed with the author's presentation. As soon as I saw the screenshot of the speedruns I just thought, oh well, you've just torpedoed your entire narrative here, it doesn't matter what you've written here now, people will just laugh at you.

 

[JFarrell71]

Why do you say BG1 is not an open world? To me, that's exactly what it is, you can move freely, explore and discover new areas while keeping access to the previous ones.

How would you define 'open-world', so I'm sure to understand the other points?

I don't think BG 1 and 2 are open world games either. You can move freely around regions you've unlocked, but that's not the same thing. You don't even know of the existence of places like De'Arnise Hold or the Windspear Hills until quests put them on your map. That kind of zone by zone gameplay isn't open. Everything in Morrowind, for example, is there and accessible from the start. Whether you're strong enough to survive going there is a question, but nothing else stops you. If BG1 was a true open world, I would have actually gotten to Baldur's Gate in my many hours of playing the game, but I never have because it's gated behind plot progression.

 

[Redglyph]

I don't think BG 1 and 2 are open world games either. You can move freely around regions you've unlocked, but that's not the same thing. You don't even know of the existence of places like De'Arnise Hold or the Windspear Hills until quests put them on your map. That kind of zone by zone gameplay isn't open. Everything in Morrowind, for example, is there and accessible from the start. Whether you're strong enough to survive going there is a question, but nothing else stops you. If BG1 was a true open world, I would have actually gotten to Baldur's Gate in my many hours of playing the game, but I never have because it's gated behind plot progression.

If the condition to have an open-world was to have all parts always accessible, that would dramatically reduce the number of open-world games A world can be open and yet have restricted access to some parts of it.

Wouldn't you describe the world we're living as an open world?

I wouldn't consider as condition the knowledge of all the places from the start either. At the beginning in Morrowind, you don't know any of the places around, you have to discover them by yourself. That's actually a characteristic feature and also a benefit of open-world games. Most places you unlock in BG are by exploring.

In the end, you can decide to categorize Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, Divinity: Original Sin 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Oblivion, Skyrim, The Witcher 3, Pathfinder: Kingmaker and other games as non-open world games, because not all locations are always available. But to me they qualify as open-world games, because of their strong non-linearity in how the players complete the quests, and the freedom they have, not only in their movement, but also in the order they pick those quests, contact the NPCs, and manage their resources.

And I think there's no problem with seeing it differently, I haven't found a precise, official definition of the term

 

[JDR13]

If the condition to have an open-world was to have all parts always accessible, that would dramatically reduce the number of open-world games A world can be open and yet have restricted access to some parts of it.

Absolutely agree. If having specific locations gated for any period of time means something isn't open-world, then games like Gothic, Risen, Might & Magic, and a whole lot of other games aren't actually open-world despite most people agreeing that they are.

 

[JFarrell71]

If the condition to have an open-world was to have all parts always accessible, that would dramatically reduce the number of open-world games A world can be open and yet have restricted access to some parts of it.

All locations don't have to be accessible, but they have to physically exist. If they only exist contextually, to me that's not an open world. If access to them is contextual, they still can be. I also define them as games in which you can travel continously throughout the world. You see every part of that traversal. If you are in a desert region, go to a map and click on an adjacent region, and then suddenly you're in a jungle or at the gates of a city, that's not open world.

"At the beginning in Morrowind, you don't know any of the places around, you have to discover them by yourself."

But they're there. They're on the map. When I first played Morrowind, I didn't travel to the eastern side of the island for many hours. I barely visited Telvanni towns at all, except when the main quest forced me to. But had I desired, I could have left Seyda Neen and been in Tel whatever within minutes of starting.

Cyberpunk 2077 is a good example of what I consider an open world to be. The city exists in its entirety and the game doesn't skip rendering any pieces of it as you go from place to place. But there are many places to which you don't have actual access until there's a story driven reason to have it.

All my own definitions, of course. I'm not trying to convince you or argue, just clarifying my own perspective.

 

[Redglyph]

All my own definitions, of course. I'm not trying to convince you or argue, just clarifying my own perspective.

Of course, that's how I see it, and why I said I hadn't found an official definition of it (dictionaries don't agree on every word anyway). It's interesting to see we understand it so differently.

I misunderstood what you meant with De'Arnise Hold and Windspear Hills. But I'm pretty sure there are mentions of the world outside VVardenfell in Morrowind too, that you can't access - I'm not going back to the Vivec library to get quotes though! It's nice to have a setting that is larger than the world you get to explore.

So in this thread, I'm addressing the arguments in the article, so I'm using the features mentioned (and criticized) by Angelo M. D'Argenio.

In his "open-world games", there are empty ("uninteresting") areas the players must travel through, between a few areas of interest in which they do the quests they want and skip others, whereas in his "linear games", they are transported from interesting place to interesting place, no waste in-between, "linear" progression of quests (*).

And so, in my perspective, Baldur's Gate falls into the author's open-world category, because there are uninteresting (**) parts of the world you have to travel through, and a significant degree of freedom in how you tackle the quests.

(*) actually, I think "linear" is not the correct word. I prefer the notion of quest "gates" whose lifetime are much narrower in those games in comparison to open-world games, in which quest gates which remain open as long as they make sense.

(**) "uninteresting" means "empty" in this context, IMHO it's nice to explore, that's also what is expressed in the link I gave earlier (https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/cin8m6/bg1_is_a_lesson_in_designing_open_world/).

 

[Dasale]

I'm not sure, but I don't think BG1 is open world RPG, if it is then Fallout 1&2, Wasteland 2 are open world RPG,

Open World RPG isn't very open RPG. Where are the articles about open world RPG listing BG1, FO1&2? I'm not sure, but I don't think very open RPG = Open World RPG. But ok I can see how chocking it can look.

In past I don't remind open world RPG was a tag ever been used, even less ever used for BG1. That's also why some players argue DAI isn't open world RPG, myself I discard it because each area is big to very big, but for BG1 it's far from this level.

For the counter arguments on size problems with open world RPG (not BG1 like), they didn't counter the vision and range problems. For sure potentially all this space can be filled well, the problem is the constraint is generating too much space and filling it well is a serious budget impact. Moreover put in the game horses or vehicles, and you can say bye to a good filling effort that worth the effort because not ignored by a lot of players. Remove the horses and vehicles and you have a problem with backtracking, excess of teleport nodes, extra long distances management. This is specific to open world RPG (not BG1 like).

Morrowind case is unique as far I know, and if it is there's reasons. Some comments on its open aspects:
- Morrowind had a global map on paper/cloth, and no way some gameplay aspect can work well without them or you use some guides.
- For sure despite the paper map I got lost sometimes and it made me discovered stuff, and it's great, how many times, 3 max, it's not that much significant, curiosity, exploration appeal and rewards to have done it are much more important. Some DAI areas blow out from far exploration quality of Morrowind, for sure not all DAI areas. If for you Morrowind is still the pinacle of exploration, I don't agree with that. It isn't, it is only the only one wide enough, not too old, and skipping entirely the quest markers.
- The problem of filling the intermediate spaces is also to constantly move the player focus on new tracks. More modern RPG a lot less open but still fairly open show clearly the problem, I'll quote DOS2. What seems simple isn't and and argue Morrowind did a great job on that is an exaggeration, it did a better job on that in a time that is no more the current context.

EDIT
For Gothic 2 size feeling open world, I doubt it in modern context. The context is important and Skyrim dragged open world RPG into bigger sizes, too short will look weird now, because of the current context. It's like Morrowind 2D, many players found it gorgeous (myself never ever, more on of the few ugly RPG I played), they did because they look at it inside a current context. In a modern context it's hard argue Morrowind looks great, in modern context Gothic 2 won't feel like an open world RPG.

 

[Dasale]

And so, in my perspective, Baldur's Gate falls into the author's open-world category, because there are uninteresting (**) parts of the world you have to travel through, and a significant degree of freedom in how you tackle the quests.

You are only making a world play, for you BG1&2 are boring in many parts, firstly, BG2 never ever been open world, secondly, this article is clearly on open world RPG that aren't using blueprints as BG1, FO1&2.

BG1 quality won't change the problem of world filling that have open world RPG (I don't mean very open RPG).

The linearity isn't even the real problem, the problem is filling required spaces that need open world RPG. I don't think there's any solution, it's a choice between tourism travel fun, and area digging. If any single part is to dig, the travel pleasure is lost and constantly broken. if the travel pleasure is respected, there's a lot of empty space.

EDIT:
ELEX is showing an attempt to respect both, or fills betterr both aspects, travel and tourism versus exploration digging. A lot of ELEX filling is through notes, you pick them and read them when you want, it's trying fill more and still respect the travel. At end, it's a huge play trap with many players rushing in, reading a bunch of notes totally disconnected because not put inside their area context. A try to mix but a fail, for most players.

EDIT:
Despite ELEX is very indie, and in many ways no way at range of some Skyrim/TW3/DAI, on many aspects it is a lot more advanced for managing open world.

For sure a merge of best of four would be a dreamy open world RPG, but the budget. . .

 

[Redglyph]

for you BG1&2 are boring in many parts

That's not what I wrote, you haven't read correctly.

firstly, BG2 never ever been open world, secondly, this article is clearly on open world RPG that aren't using blueprints as BG1, FO1&2.
[. . .]the problem is filling required spaces that need open world RPG[. . .]

You're hammering the same assertions, hoping that will make them true and ignoring previous remarks or questions on them. Perhaps it's a language barrier issue, I don't know, but I don't see that as leading us anywhere.

Better leave it at that.

 

[Dasale]

I think that was the result of Morrowind coming to consoles and the players not being familiar with how to play it. Those types of games were PC only back in the day.

Hardly the point. I think it's Dungeon Siege the real initiator, and it's no open world RPG. If I can agree that a blueprint as Oblivion isn't like any Final Fantasy or Ultima, I don't remind console players was needing quest markers and quest givers markers when a RPG was very open.

For open world RPG there's a specific problem coming from one scale, realistic speed, very open. In a game like MM3-5 a backtracking can be done at speed of light, that's impossible for an open world RPG or it involves horses/vehicles that bring with them a lot of problems. For games as Ultima and some FF, there's a multi scales approach that changes all and dodge problems of open world RPG.

It's good to quote Oblivion as an example of Open World without quest markers, but this case is very isolated and isn't significant of what can be done inside an open world context. Common Morrowind had many screw up, the biggest one was fly and climb allowing travel in a straight line and suddenly making look the game as a small island with bad proportions for any mountain and relief.

 

[Dasale]

And so, in my perspective, Baldur's Gate falls into the author's open-world category, because there are uninteresting (**) parts of the world you have to travel through, and a significant degree of freedom in how you tackle the quests.

This sentence is clear:
Open World => uninteresting parts.
Open World => very open.
So:
BG (1 or 2 or both) have uninteresting parts and is very open => BG is open world.

Sorry but nope, and I read fine.

(*) actually, I think "linear" is not the correct word. I prefer the notion of quest "gates"

One more arguing on very open RPG. But, at least for the author of the article, and in my opinion he is right on this tag meaning, very open RPG isn't open world RPG.

Destroy some arguing by changing his defintion of open world RPG leads nowhere.

Start argue on the tag is just tag arguing, not arguing on the article.

 

[Redglyph]

Sorry but nope, and I read fine.

Angelo M. D'Argenio find it boring, not me, you have isolated a few words and misinterpreted them.

As I said, I don't wish to discuss that further with you.

 

[Dasale]

Angelo M. D'Argenio find it boring, not me, you have isolated a few words and misinterpreted them.

As I said, I don't wish to discuss that further with you.

Fine, but you won't stop me comment you.

You are just throwing affirmation I understand nothing, and you don't explain anything?

Lol, what's weird is you find this is making any sense.

 

[JDR13]

Lol, what's weird is you find this is making any sense.

If he can actually make sense of what you're saying, then yeah, I agree that's weird.

 

[Dasale]

On start don't use the languages problems for some aggression, in that case ban my posts even if I don't care some nobody read them or not.

Language problem, quote it you can't answer something you can't undersand.

I tried ignore the aggression and explain differently how I understood his post. And only got a repeated aggression, refuse of any arguing, and just repeat argue I understand nothing.

No matter how, people should stop consider such attitude is normal. This could be a forum with posts in English, but like any single forum like that, there's people not writing well English, and eventually with possible misunderstanding when reading.

Learn live with that and stop use it for some stinky comment.

 

[Redglyph]

On start don't use the languages problems for some aggression, in that case ban my posts even if I don't care some nobody read them or not.

Language problem, quote it you can't answer something you can't undersand.

I promise that is the last time I'm answering you, I don't know about other people, but unfortunately you have become a problem for me in those forums. Am I the only one having this sentiment? Is it possible that I'm biased for some reason?

I'm sorry if you felt offended, that wasn't my intention.

You are litterally flooding the forums with your comments, but you are rarely reading the answers or the questions related to your affirmations. Or when you read them, you only read a few words and jump on that to further comment, and often aggressively. What you write is not clear, not to me anyway. That's what I mean by language barrier issue (nothing aggressive about that, I was just trying to understand).

Example 1:

Why do you say BG1 is not an open world? To me, that's exactly what it is, you can move freely, explore and discover new areas while keeping access to the previous ones.

How would you define 'open-world', so I'm sure to understand the other points?

=> no answer, but you repeated your statement later, without any explanation. Just repeating a statement doesn't make it true.

Example 2:

And so, in my perspective, Baldur's Gate falls into the author's open-world category, because there are uninteresting (**) parts of the world you have to travel through, and a significant degree of freedom in how you tackle the quests.

(**) "uninteresting" means "empty" in this context, IMHO it's nice to explore, that's also what is expressed in the link I gave earlier (https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/cin8m6/bg1_is_a_lesson_in_designing_open_world/).

for you BG1&2 are boring in many parts, firstly, BG2 never ever been open world

And that's only in this thread…