Are open worlds too big these days?

Depends because usually I feel like like every open world RPG I play will just drag on at one point. My problem is to many side quests, and activates end up distracting me.

Ubisoft is King of to much fluff content & activities in their open world games. Another is Witcher III as I had to turn off the question marks as I always needed to visit them.

TLDR: My obsessive compulsive urges make me finish every quest.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,315
Location
Spudlandia
Bigger areas mean more room for different landscapes without having to smush it all together in an unconvincing way. But then you've got to have some nice way to move faster. If that's handled well, you can make games as big as you like.

I must admit that Dishonered has shown me the power of the not-so-open world, though. The levels there are not big at all - not even a city block - and most of the buildings' rooms are blocked off. But every room takes at least a few minutes of study and I can poke around in the important ones for a good half hour. Exploration does not have to be large scale!
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,251
Location
Kansas City
Go back to old games (15+ years back) and check how the quests are written compared to "modern games". The reasons you get lost today is because all directions have been removed from the quest text to only keep stuff like "find the ring" and landmarks is basically nonexistent so you can't say "the pond beside the swamp" because all ponds looks the same beside all the swamps in the game.

So they just slap quest markers that tell you what to find and in what spot so you don't have to search all the similar looking ponds beside all the swamps in the game.

Biomes and city architectures are important too, just like unique landmarks, they help with orientations.

I agree quest text are very poor these days and they can be improved. However can you navigate a huge open world these days without minimaps etc?

Like you say biomes, city architectures and cleverly designed landmarks are important too in navigation and designed don't take this into account any more since they know we will all be using minimaps .
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
Bigger areas mean more room for different landscapes without having to smush it all together in an unconvincing way. But then you've got to have some nice way to move faster. If that's handled well, you can make games as big as you like.

I must admit that Dishonered has shown me the power of the not-so-open world, though. The levels there are not big at all - not even a city block - and most of the buildings' rooms are blocked off. But every room takes at least a few minutes of study and I can poke around in the important ones for a good half hour. Exploration does not have to be large scale!

I am playing Dragon Quest XI. Its not an open world but its interconnected zones but there are many of these zones, the world is huge. However due to the "small" nature of each of these zones, I find it very easy to navigate without the minimap. They don't even have quest markers and their quest text are no good as well but due to the "small" nature of the zones, its pretty easy to do the quest too. So in some sense I find playing the game without the aid of minimap and quest markers more immersive even though each zone is "small".

I say the zones are "small" but they are cleverly designed to feel "big". For example, you can see very far out in the world even though you can't go there due to natural obstructions like mountains, seas, cliff edges etc. I like this design as well and I don't think its inferior to huge open world.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
No, as long as there are different options for getting around the world (walking, fast travel, horses/cars, helicopters, etc.), it is a nice looking world, there are busy and slow spots, and a nice balance of content and quality to quantity.

This isn't exactly what I was getting at. Huge worlds *need* tools such as minimaps and quest markers and that takes away something from the game. If you are someone not bothered by these tools, then this is a none issue and bigger is better. So are you bothered by them?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
I plan to look into it. I was put off by the sort of boyband bros taking selfies in a convertible vibe. Also, someone said you need to watch some anime thing in order to understand the plot. Did you find it reasonably coherent?

I have not played the game yet but I have seen the anime. Its a decent watch but if you don't like animes then it might be problem! What people say is that it gives you much better context as to what happened before the events of the game.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
I agree quest text are very poor these days and they can be improved. However can you navigate a huge open world these days without minimaps etc?

Without a minimap? Depends on the game. I don't like minimaps and I tend to deactivate them when I can. Also, the problem isn't the map size, because I had to use the minimap in games that aren't open world.

In DX HR/MD, I have to look at the minimap, because that's where you get your information about enemies. Yet, the first DX had none of that and I had no issue sneaking around based on visual and auditive cues.

The Elders Scrolls games (Morrowind and later) never had minimaps and I'm not opening my map all the time because there is enough unique landmarks and different biomes to know where I'm at. The roads, city and village also have their own feels, so it's easy to oriented myself. The compass gives general directions but I don't really need it. You can even recognize a lot of the dungeons/ruins just by the entrance in Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim. I would preferred if they kept Morrowind/Oblivion quest description though, Skyrim was rather light in regard to that and basically requires the quest marker.

In TW3, I tried to play without the minimap and there is a lot more peeking at the normal map to see if I'm getting near where I want to go (forgot about quest markets, quest description are more light than Skyrim). Too much environmental copy-pasting, the map/mini-map has to tell you where are the POI because few of them are lead to via the environment and roads and villages all mostly looks the same (and some of them are just there to be there too). Even navigating Novrigrad is a nightmare, it has about 5 unique areas, but getting to them is done through same-looking corridors of city houses, you are never sure if you are in the right one to get where you want to go.

I had less issues in a game like Saint-Rows 3/4 than GTA at not looking at the map/mini-map too. Saint-Rows is more comicbooky, it always has some special looking tall building(s) you can see from everywhere. It also has different looking enemies by areas. But both games suffer of the same design decisions as TW3 (GTA was the first with that design I believe).

Freelancer is arguable bigger than all the other games I mentioned and while it has a "minimap", it's a radar that tells you what is around you and not really used to navigate. The game does a great job at putting the game content nears unique planets/phenomenon so you are never "lost" and it even makes waypoints somewhat useless in some cases.

The way I see it, devs wants to give the impression of realistic density so they copy-paste environments to have more villages/roads and "bigger world", but then they sprinkle quests/POI in the game without altering the environment so they can easily move them during development without having to change the "level design". That leads to having to use UI tools to tell players where to go because the environment nor the quest text was designed to do so.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
7,313
No openworld is too big.
It's the amount of repetitive content that can be "too big". Filler. Regardless of the world size.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
No openworld is too big.
It's the amount of repetitive content that can be "too big". Filler. Regardless of the world size.

I rather enjoyed The Witcher's fill her content. :biggrin:
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,836
Without a minimap? Depends on the game. I don't like minimaps and I tend to deactivate them when I can. Also, the problem isn't the map size, because I had to use the minimap in games that aren't open world.

In DX HR/MD, I have to look at the minimap, because that's where you get your information about enemies. Yet, the first DX had none of that and I had no issue sneaking around based on visual and auditive cues.

The Elders Scrolls games (Morrowind and later) never had minimaps and I'm not opening my map all the time because there is enough unique landmarks and different biomes to know where I'm at. The roads, city and village also have their own feels, so it's easy to oriented myself. The compass gives general directions but I don't really need it. You can even recognize a lot of the dungeons/ruins just by the entrance in Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim. I would preferred if they kept Morrowind/Oblivion quest description though, Skyrim was rather light in regard to that and basically requires the quest marker.

In TW3, I tried to play without the minimap and there is a lot more peeking at the normal map to see if I'm getting near where I want to go (forgot about quest markets, quest description are more light than Skyrim). Too much environmental copy-pasting, the map/mini-map has to tell you where are the POI because few of them are lead to via the environment and roads and villages all mostly looks the same (and some of them are just there to be there too). Even navigating Novrigrad is a nightmare, it has about 5 unique areas, but getting to them is done through same-looking corridors of city houses, you are never sure if you are in the right one to get where you want to go.

I had less issues in a game like Saint-Rows 3/4 than GTA at not looking at the map/mini-map too. Saint-Rows is more comicbooky, it always has some special looking tall building(s) you can see from everywhere. It also has different looking enemies by areas. But both games suffer of the same design decisions as TW3 (GTA was the first with that design I believe).

Freelancer is arguable bigger than all the other games I mentioned and while it has a "minimap", it's a radar that tells you what is around you and not really used to navigate. The game does a great job at putting the game content nears unique planets/phenomenon so you are never "lost" and it even makes waypoints somewhat useless in some cases.

The way I see it, devs wants to give the impression of realistic density so they copy-paste environments to have more villages/roads and "bigger world", but then they sprinkle quests/POI in the game without altering the environment so they can easily move them during development without having to change the "level design". That leads to having to use UI tools to tell players where to go because the environment nor the quest text was designed to do so.

Hmm you make some interesting point and I am starting to rethink :) Maybe its not the size of the world but weather if the world was designed to orient and navigate using unique and distinctive landmarks.

I did play Skyrim and earlier ES games without really using the minimap/compass but I had to use the minimap a lot in Witcher 3 and even more so now in AC :Origins.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
TLDR: My obsessive compulsive urges make me finish every quest.

My obsessive urges are tested with games like FFXV, too. Trying to learn to just stick to the interesting stuff and not feel compelled to 100% the game.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,603
I turned the whole HUD off in Witcher 3 then didn't play it for weeks. When I started the game again, I didn't remember that the HUD was off and played for quite a while without it. It still worked great. (The thing I missed most was the health bar!)

I don't feel like I need minimaps very much. I look at them sometimes - especially if I need to decide where to fast travel to get to a place quickly or some such - but most of the time they just take up a barely-seen corner.

Quest markers are another matter. I typically like them and they don't break my immersion. Take Skyrim, for instance. They could tell you that the quest was in a cave that's about a quarter of the way up Mt. Olivard, overlooking the Hoskar's farmstead. Your character, who has likely been in Skyrim for some time (and may well have grown up there) should know right where that is. You, however, have no clue. So a quest marker pops up, which helps you roleplay that character more accurately.

(What isn't so good for roleplaying is that you have to discover everything - even cities known all over the continent! I like discovering things, though, so I'm all for keeping that in.)
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,251
Location
Kansas City
I say open world are not too big, are empty or filled with stupid collectible with no value and without any other point then trying to "fill the world".

Also mini-maps are stupid, to orient yourself you naturally use landmarks, a map and maybe a compass, helped with directions from NPC's or reading road signs or reading a book for examples.

Mini-maps and fast travel are lazy designs.

Remember Gothic?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
354
I agree with azarhal, I think it has more to do with level and terrain design. In Morrowind you could learn the landscape and get everywhere because you recognized the terrain, plus get decent information on where locations are from NPCs. But the land was designed in a way to let you look at the world and learn it, and figure your bearings based on that. Thinking back it was very rare you'd get truly lost in Morrowind because there was always a landmark or the way the terrain was designed to orient you. In a game like FFXV you will always get lost without quest markers because it's enormous but also very flat and doesn't have a ton of landmarks or terrain design to orient you better. Gothic is a perfect example of the first example like Morrowind but it's much smaller in scale. I think large open-worlds need to take notes from Morrowind and just do that on a larger scale. Just my 2. Good point, azarhal!
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,603
I like a variety of sizes for open world games. Elder Scrolls and Assassin's Creed are my favourite RPG and Action game series respectively.

I love the size of the Elder Scrolls games - I've played enough Skyrim that I know where I am by landmarks/terrain without looking at the map and get where I want in cities by memory (except Falkreath - I get turned around in there for some reason.) I love how each house in Skyrim has a purpose and the people work, go to the pubs/shops and go home all at appropriate times.

I remember when I played Assassin's Creed II I was amazed at how many people there were and the size of the cities. I can never navigate there without a map and 90% of the NPCs and buildings are random filler rather than distinct characters or locations, but it gives a different kind of immersion.

I have a lot of love for both approaches.
 
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
46
I get what you are saying but my point was that we can only process so much information so if these worlds get too big we need other aids like minimaps to help us but they have their downside too. I am willing to take a smaller world so that the experience of exploring is bit more personal.

I understand that. As an explorer type of player, I can't comment much to that … The only thing I can say is that in SWTOR - my biggest RPG so far - there are not enough "secrets" to discover in the vast open area, and that's a pity for me, the explorer.

Remember Gothic?

Oh yes ! There were always so many "secrets" to be found ! :) I loved that ! :)
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,946
Location
Old Europe
Back
Top Bottom