This

This.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vmIgjAM0uh0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I wanted to play Dead Cells but the random levels killed it, would be better with hand crafted levels, add the random mode as a bonus not as the main part.

I liked what MGS3 did.

One area entrance, one exit (usually) everything from then to there is up to you.

Open world is a false prophet that is killing modern games. We need another Renascence

>I want more story-games
lolno

I agree

Open world > Linear

Objectively and functionally purely by their definitions

>dozens of poorly made linear games come out
>"Linear is bad! We want open world!"
>dozens of poorly made open world games start coming out
>"Open world sucks! Give me linearity or give me death!"

>linear means story-driven

MGS3 has god tier pacing.
I wasn't as big fan of the story or the characters as many but just gameplay and content wise it's my favorite Metal Gear game. It's actually fun to play and come back to.
Focus on story has been plaguing open world games just as much. Sandbox games and open world games aren't the same thing.

thats what ruined this

But
>Linear single-player experience
Just means
>Story-game
now, because that's all that's done with it. You're not getting tight and tonally consistent anything, you're getting TLOU another eight times.

I agree. Open world is cancer

the furthest it should ever go is an open play area during levels. I don't need to be running for 15 minutes between waypoints to start missions though. Open world exists only to pad out games and make them longer, giving the illusion of value

Ran out of scale for Competitive Multiplayer Experience?

go play some Elite-like or Space Rangers

or don't, you clearly have your preference

In 2017, yes it does, unfortunately.

Agreed OP
Post essential linear core

I've played the majority of good metroidvanias and I think dead cells is fantastic.

I don't think it works as well when it's obvious you just flipped the actual list. Mix and match a bit to keep people on their toes.

This is the truth, companies jump from bandwagon to bandwagon to grab as much money as possible, regardless of the quality of their own product. This is an industry, regardless what are the customers and what is the product, it's all about money in the end.

It wouldn't surprise me if they were actually cooperating to keep the money flowing. Nobody makes product X until it is time, and when it is time product X suddenly skyrockets to squeeze out as much as possible.

Skyrim and Witcher had more story going for them than Call of Duty ever did so the point is moot. Those are just easy examples too. Even Minecraft got a story mode now.

Replace Quake 3 with Dota 2 and you're good desu.
RTS is a despicable genre with "no fun allowed" plastered all over the damn thing anyway.

but user
that IS an actual list

Does anyone actually like crafting? Minecraft arguably popularised it, but people play it for the building and scavenging, not to make 103 pickaxes, that's just shit that has to be done.

>Reddit memes

I'm willing to give it a shot when it goes 1.0.

No one is stupid enough to believe that so no it's not.

It's not late 2000s/early 2010s anymore. Look at whatever Wii U's got or the new Crash game for example. Open world is a diminishing concept and with people who liked linear but well designed games as children becoming adults and starting to make those games themselves now we're going to have more variety with this in the future as well.
It also helps that AAA has been slowly going out of style again.

>waah why do you have to press buttons in order to interact with a computer system and set input to the abstract ruleset that is a videogame
>calling dota two an RTS

Open world games are not inherently bad.
It's all a matter of how you use an open world.
You don't hate open world games, you hate the ""developers"" of them for not using the format correctly.

A good open world game should play to the strengths that an open world has, not to use it to add padding to an otherwise short game.

I like it in monster hunter. Making a set of gear out of a dead monster that looks like something you might make out of them is swaggy as fuck.

A reasonable stance for sure. When I buy early access I ask myself if what I'm paying is worth it assuming no more content comes. Dead cells was worth 14 bucks or whatever I paid for it as is to me, but I would never tell someone else to make that call.

The true patrician prefers lots of mini-open worlds

>Renascence

>Renascence
What was meant?

holy shit yes, also it seemed like even the smallest enemy took like 3 clips to kill, it took forever to kill anything

Final Fantasy XIII was underrated

It depends, I noticed in that game "The Surge" that they probably picked that system so that you could get the kind of loot you want instead of random drops, if you want leg parts you hit legs, you then use your leg parts to build any set of legs that you want instead of just grinding enemies hoping they drop.

Now that kind of seems like how it was in older games with gold and shops, just more granular.

I'm not sure if it's a good mechanic or not, more often than not in any game I feel like it's just tedious, however I felt that way about going to vendors to sell and buy (+ inventory management) too. I don't know.

At least with minecraft it's kind of a neat mechanic, putting things in specific spots, there's some mystery and fun to it. Most games now you just get parts, hover the item you want, and click "craft"/"build"/"whatever".

Does Dead Cells have some pretty sever hanging for anyone else? It's pretty frustrating when it can just hang in the middle of a jump for half or second and more randomly.

Is it just that I have an older amd quad core? It can't be THAT demanding

> why are vidya not t.v. shows?

The laziness of you fat fucks astounds me.

>clips

I've only put 10 or so hours in but I don't think that's ever happened to me. Maybe check the forums?

Those are also both pretty shallow though, and Witcher especially focused on its story while the gameplay fell flat and was awful.

Point being story is all too often the focus, and you see it more with linear single-player games. Not that it has to be this way, it just is right now.

Wii U sold poorly though, the story-focused schlock on the other consoles didn't. AAA can't die soon enough.

This is why i prefer the Witcher 2 over 3

Dota 2 is absolutely an RTS.

Verify your local game cache maybe.

>I'm such a gamer I praise things that never existed and will never do.
OP literally admitted to be a pewdiepie toddler who never even played games in his life.

Already tried, not sure how that would cause lag though. If a file was missing/corrupted you think i'd just break the game completely

agreed, its kinda sad since if they gave it the structure of the previous one it would've been amazing.

>good single player games have never existed
what?

for the thousandth fucking time, it's not "open world" that's killing games, it's lazy ass devs creating shitty repetitive open world games.

What are some recent games that have actual levels? Not sections of the continuous walk forward like in Last of Us but actual segmented levels with different themes and designs.

>It has to be either purely open world or purely linear

Multiple interconnected linear areas master race

Dishonored 2? Nioh? Prey sorta?

Die you degenerate Barneyfag

File corruption is real weird with games, most programmers trust/expect data to be valid and don't have safegaurds against it during runtime. You get all kinds of crazy shit with file corruption but also just data corrupting in memory, like when someones graphics card is dying you see all kinds of weird shit.

You guys have to realize that prior to this era, we got on devs for making games too linear. In the end, it's not the genre that kills the game cause old devs have done all genres justice. It's just the developers these days aren't making a video game. They're making an interactive experience. Even Nintendo has submitted to using that term now as an excuse to forgo traditional video game values for the sake of accessibility and mass market.

Remember, games use to be by gamers for gamers where programmers slept under their own desks to get shit done.

The image is supposed to be cancer, you autist

>Open world
>Even remotely good
Almost every single open world game is bullshit with nothing do do in it. Zelda got it right and Skyrim was ALMOST right. I'd much prefer something like the old Resident Evil games. Big area with backtracking, but it's all linear, in a way. The true patrician's game style.

Hub World>all

>areas all feel distinct
>much more detail per level since everything is present in one area, rather than spread out
>freedom in where to go without overwhelming the player

>Zelda got it right
Zelda fucked up open world by following Ubisoft design to the T, and replacing sidequests littered all over the map with shrines and literal shit. But they made the gravest sin of all when they actually forgot to give us something to discover in our fucking exploration. Indiana Jones has temples to raid. Link has temples to raid. Botw Link has...mountains to see. And that's it.

>following Ubisoft design to the T
Nice meme

Sounds like that's exactly what you want, you're more concerned with the reward for playing than actually playing.

The reward for any video game based on exploration you little faggot is finding something to actually discover. A game that never gives you said reward is a boring game.

>hey look at all this nothing you get to explore! You love open plains doncha! Don't forget to give us a 10/10 on metacritic good goy!

Yea because games like Bayonetta or Devil may cry or dead space are totaly games that are only good for the story.

sup lee

real shit?

>The reward for any video game based on exploration you little faggot is finding something to actually discover
But that's what Zelda does, retard.

The enjoyment in large part comes from the act of exploring, not primarily from the in-game reward for doing so. That's how Ubishit games are structured, you're saying that's bad but that you also want it at the same time, because Zelda doesn't have that carrot for you at the end of its stick.

>A game that never gives you said reward is a boring game.
And this is exactly my point, that "reward" to you is the carrot on the stick, not the act of actually playing. Super Mario Bros. wasn't fun and enjoyable because I got to the princess at the end or had [X] score at the end of every stage, the act of simply playing the game was enjoyable and was the primary reason for playing.

I've been saying this for a decade now

why not both?

Play Castlvania you mook

>The enjoyment in large part comes from the act of exploring, not primarily from the in-game reward for doing so.
This is so fucking wrong, holy shit.

You see that spirit temple? THAT's what I go for when I had to cross that shitty desert. Thats the gameplay I want. We had to suffer that shitty section because it gave us something good at the end. Botw is all about giving you shitty desert for the entire game and never making your deeds feel rewarded. It's a literal open world game done in the laziest way possible.

A hate that most games are 100+ hours long. I never, ever finish them.

Zelda did it right, I actually played for 50 hours but I could have fought the final boss whenever I fucking wanted.

Holyshit, did you accidently reverse the images?

>Super Mario Bros.
the equivalent of playing SMB with a botw mindset is that you keep the player always on the world map but never allow them to go into the stage. And the only stages they can play are the minigame ones.

Games like New Vegas or Gothic have the best world design.

-Open World
-But with paths which somewhat limit players options - Not via invisible walls and closed doors but with harder enemies
-Once you get stronger you can go back and open those paths which were hard to open before if you want that

You get the best of both worlds.
A game with the freedom of open world titles but also the quality more linear games get by the game pushing you into certain direction which you seemingly take on your own will

But Bayonetta always gets lumped in with Uncharted and gets called a "cinematic experience" by your fellow shitposters.

If you ask most of today's developers and publishers for a linear, single-player game, you're going to get a story-game, that's just the reality we live in. Actually implementing the solid mechanics and replay value present in the games you mentioned costs too much money and won't move games, a story you tell everyone is great will.

youtube.com/watch?v=vmIgjAM0uh0

reminds me of playing Heroes 2 back in the day, encountering a pack of super-tough monsters like titans guarding some narrow path, getting ass-devastated by them and coming back later with a huge army to find out the monster stack size grew too

more of this please

I want stage selection back.

fuck your lineal levels.

>muh periodically generated open world exploration
il take small handcrafted world filled to its maximum capacity with detail and content over it any day.

I hate open world games.

I mean I like TES and Gothic, but those are RPGs, not actually "open world" in that sense like Far Cry or Assassin's Creed shit that's coming out recently.

Most open world games just use it as an excuse for no level design at all. The only actualy open world game that made me want to explore (besides RPGs) is the latest Zelda game.

>BotW is all about giving you shitty desert for the entire game

Wrong. There was hardly any point of the game where I felt that the exploration was tedious. Traversing the landscape was a great experience and I never specifically sought out shrines, but I always kept my eye out for one while I was running through the mountains.

Both OoT and BotW had some phenomenal exploration and no town gave me the same homely feeling as OoT's Kakariko Village, but you're a fool if you truly think that BotW didn't have a world that was fun to explore.

>Thats the gameplay I want
So, you want something more closely structured to how Ubisfot does their games?

You're not making much sense. You say BOTW is bad because its too much like Ubisof'ts games, which are littered with repetitive points of interest tackled mainly for the reward at the end, but then say you also don't like BOTW because it DOESN'T have that carrot on the stick and you want it to be there, like Ubisoft's games. Make up your mind.
In your pretty little head, I'm sure it does.

probably why G2 is still the king

and probably it's time to talk about the greatest RPG of all time

hey /k/ whats up my nigger

>There was hardly any point of the game where I felt that the exploration was tedious

Man your shill levels are at max. You sound like you would be great at nintendo's treehouse with that kind of shameless marketing.

The difference between Uncharted and Bayonetta is that Bayonetta is easy to start playing and hard to master, while Uncharted is just a mess of a gameplay with tons of corridors with the characters talking and you doing nothing, there's absolutely no challenge in the Uncharted games.

just as planned

>mfw

post OOT zelda games sucked, with an exception to TP, where they momentarily got it right again, but then went back to kiddy WW designs and gave us another track of bad zeldas. Probably need to thank the Wii for that.

what do you call this red guy

Open world ruined Burnout Paradise

Open worlds are categorically bad. They were always a novelty and never should have become a genre in themselves, let alone the AAA standard. The average open world is much worse than the average 3rd person cover shooter, console FPS or platformer when those were the standard because Open world game take too fucking long. It just drags the already bad gameplay out to intolerable levels or good gameplay out to the point of being repetitive.

nightmare manginie

>It wouldn't surprise me if they were actually cooperating to keep the money flowing. Nobody makes product X until it is time, and when it is time product X suddenly skyrockets to squeeze out as much as possible.
you are GREATLY over-estimating the competency of game developers

>Mission based levels

Yeah dawg, that's my shit right there.

He's hitting an interesting point, just missing the mark. The real conspiracy is actually all the big companies owning top news. With little competition and stretches of game releases, their games can always be marketed big cause people are desperate for the next hit game.

I agree with this. It was cool when GTA and RPGs did it, now it's a fucking shore.

Rule of thumb is that if your game has quick travel points to anything other than major areas it's too big.

TES RPG?

manipulating people through the media is easy. people are dumb. but the idea that game developers have any idea what's going to be the next big hit, let alone artifically controlling when these games get made is ridiciulous