Opinion - Players Are Weary of Open Worlds

Silver

Spaceman
Staff Member
Joined
February 13, 2014
Messages
9,312
Location
New Zealand
Cogconnected writes that players are weary of open world games and outlines some reasons why.

How Much is Too Much?

One issue might be that open worlds in games have gotten to be bigger and bigger in recent years. The size of the map has come to be almost equated with depth of content, and new games often seek to make their maps as large as possible to impress players. But does there come a point at which there is too much land to explore, leaving a lot of it untouched? Certainly, we saw with the recent Red Dead Redemption 2 that the sheer size and level of (sometimes mundane) detail could wear players down and kill the fun.

[...]
Thanks Farflame!

More information.
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
9,312
Location
New Zealand
Personally for me the bigger the map the better. With majority of games incorporating a fast travel system I don't really see this as an issue, you can take it or leave it.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
437
Location
UK
The article above is about console mediocrity. Half of games it lists I've never heard of.

Still, I tried to decode what the author is trying to say and if I'm correct it's not openworld as such that should be talked about but releasing a game with lousy filler.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Players are tired or pseudo-openworld looter shooters that are badly done. There I said it. You better listen Bethesda! Don't fuck up ES as you did FO!
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
2,164
Location
BW, Germany
big / unstimulating openworlds.
the smaller the safer the bet that the attention to detail will pass the mark
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
1,168
Location
Ro
I'm not weary of huge open worlds (and sandbox, undirected play) but I am weary of the focus on them as always better or an improvement. Sometimes I want an open world to play in, sometimes I want a smaller, more linear and directed experience
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
34
I didn't read the article but just reading the snippet quoted above it seems ridiculous to refer to Red Dead Redemption 2 as an example of player negativity when that game is one of the most popular open world games of all time.

I am not weary of open world games at all. In my view both quantity and quality are important.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
840
Hmm not wary of open worlds myself just hate how most look to be designed off a checklist. So get rid of the pointless filler and add better content is what I'm saying.

Having said that I like linear story games also, not every game needs an open world.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,178
Location
Spudlandia
It is something I think about, because I like the immersion factor of being able to go to wherever you can see. The trouble is, how to make use of the vast open spaces without filling them with repetitive mediocrity. Large spaces aren't necessarily meaningful to RPG gameplay in the way they are to military sims, and things like that. We sort of need to come up with a better idea for fitting them to the nature of an RPG.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Poorly done anything is a turn-off, including open world games. I prefer them to a linear approach in game design and play. I don't like to feel I'm being led by the nose down some hallway to the end of a game.
For me, I like an interesting game world where I can drop in, put on my avatar, and be someone else for an evening. That's why I liked the Gothic series. I could pop in to visit Khorinis and visit places and NPCs I like, explore places I could climb up to, and possibly discover some new treasure or forgotten bit of lore. Same with FO3 and the later FO games. Poking around corners and stuff is part of what I seek in gameplay.
Frenetic twitch-fest combat and boss fights are a bore. Not combat per se, just the obligatory mobs and bosses to get from check-point to check-point. I liked the dungeon crawling in Skyrim where I could sneak and snipe with no real goal other than the fun of it and the atmosphere. I wasn't interested in 'beating' the game as quickly as possible. I just wanted get lost in another world and have fun with no real goal.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
601
Location
Minnesota
It's not that the worlds are getting too large, it's that there's too much content, and most of it is just filler.

I suspect one problem is that developers are worried about players feeling like their game is empty if there isn't a new dungeon or some type of encounter every 30 seconds. Since the masses have been trained to feel like there should be that much content, it's going to be difficult to get away from that trend.

I'd prefer worlds with less content that's more meaningful and not constantly thrown in our faces.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,130
Location
Florida, US
I'll never tire of well done open world environments, myself. The mediocre ones are quickly forgotten, while the well orchestrated games find themselves replayed often and likely forever.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,788
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
This isn't a new thing, equating "big" with "good". Decades ago, BGS had that issue with Arena and Daggerfall. When they narrowed the focus to merely huge and gave you distinct things to do within that geographic space (and made that space memorably unique), we got Morrowind, still their best game, and by FAR their best game setting. No Man's Sky promised "infinite" worlds and people salivated…. ignoring the fact that procedurely generated content is, by nature, repetitive and dull. "So much to explore!" they cried, and then most people didn't enjoy exploring any of it.

I haven't gotten tired of open worlds, but I've been tired, so to speak, of empty, boring empty worlds since the day they were conceived. Bigger isn't better. Scope and scale can be part of what the setting evokes, but you also have to populate that world with interesting, specific things to see and do. Red Dead Redemption 2, incidentially, is IMO an example of an open world done right.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
4,881
Location
Portland, OR
I far prefer "big and good" to "medium-sized and good" or "small and good." I prefer "medium-sized and good" to "big and mediocre," though. However, I am finding that games are getting better nowadays than they used to be, on average.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
840
Only a certain percentage of players make it to the end of any video RPG, regardless of whether it is an open world or not. Economically it doesn't matter; the game has already been purchased.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
5,521
Location
Seattle
Only a certain percentage of players make it to the end of any video RPG, regardless of whether it is an open world or not. Economically it doesn't matter; the game has already been purchased.

What an insightful comment! :rolleyes: Before I read this I was under the mistaken impression every single player finished every game they played. I was also mistaken that the quality of the game doesn't actually matter! I still buy the sequel if the first one was crap! Doh, silly me! :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,086
Location
Sigil
What an insightful comment! :rolleyes: Before I read this I was under the mistaken impression every single player finished every game they played. I was also mistaken that the quality of the game doesn't actually matter! I still buy the sequel if the first one was crap! Doh, silly me! :rolleyes:

Silly boy. Did you even read the review? Why don't you offer you own perspective on what was actually written?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
5,521
Location
Seattle
Back
Top Bottom