Why does Sup Forums hate open world games?

Why does Sup Forums hate open world games?

They hate fun and want to be restricted to a corridor.

Because most open world games are quantity over quality

They're overdone at this point. It was a fun novelty when it was just GTA 3 and Morrowind and a few others. Now everyone does it and sometimes a more tightly structured game is better.

It's not open world games in general. It's just that most of them are empty fields of nothing with nothing to do in them.
Remember MGSV? That's the sort of open world that makes no sense. Why even bother creating these vast open fields, when it's just empty mountains and sand?

all open world games are empty though

And that is the problem. I remember playing the beta for Ghost Recon Wildlands and thinking "wow, they did a good job". People just wandering on the roads or doing things in the middle of nowhere breaks this monotonous emptiness quite easily.

>Why even bother creating these vast open fields, when it's just empty mountains and sand?
Freedom of movement and infiltration.

But you'd achieve the same effect with a slightly larger drop-off area like they did with MGSGZ.

They don't. Just look at the most recent BotW dicksuckery.

This. They usually have a lot of open space and don't know how to fill it so you have a lot of pointless running around that wastes time like a motherfucker.

Because memes

Nobody bitches about GTA because the worlds are always populated with at least varying scenery which is almost always traversed with a vehicle.

This makes for more engaging gameplay than WALKING until you have enough green bar energy to sprint for six seconds until you have to WALK again which has become the copy paste formula for nearly any modern open world rpg

They all shallow garbage with no depth at all.
It feels like to see a big ass "painting" but only like 5% of it actually have something while the rest is just flat color.

"Open-endedness" always ends up being really shallow in video games. Either it means the freedom to choose the order in which you want to do all the thousand generic "go to x and fetch/kill y" quests, or it means some kind of VN/Choose-your-adventure-esque thing where even with the choices it's more like reading a book with alternate chapters to choose from or some weird timeline fuckery, not like playing a game. It doesn't feel like you are creating your own story with your choices, it doesn't feel anything like the freedom in pen & paper games, not even like a really bootlegged version of it. This is really just inevitable I guess until we have some major advancements in AI.

The freedom to go anywhere you want in a big world from the beginning is certainly something and was really cool at first but it gets old very fast when there isn't much anything interesting to do in the world.

I hope Chink slayer 9 is good open world.

Because they tend to be extremely derivative, focus-grouped tested, and lack substance. The majority of them can wholly be described as "wide as an ocean, but deep as a puddle."

They tend to sacrifice the quality of other aspects of a game in order to conform to the checklist that determines if the game is open-world or not. Typically, allocating such a large amount of assets to world design and allocating so little to the rest ends up making the game feel like a walking sim except with repetitive gameplay. They don't tend to be creative, they don't mix things up all that often to make the game more fun (Yakuza 0 did this wonderfully, for example. Most turn-based JRPG's even have carnival sections of some sort that split up the tedium of turn-based gameplay.)

In the end, open-world games suffer from being painfully average. As you should know, mediocre things are worse than bad things, because atleast bad things don't waste our time.

BotW is the closest to actually pulling off open world, GTA3 is probably the best of the lot presently.

If it's linear, it will get shit on for being a corridor shooter. If it's open world it will be shit on for "falling for the open-world meme".

People are more likely to post when they want to shit on something than when they want to agree with something. Sup Forums does not collectively hate or praise anything. It's just that the people who want to throw out labels to shit on something will do it, and the ones who like it won't say anything because agreeing with someone doesn't really start what passes for discussion here.

Ground Zeroes was too small. You wouldn't be able to have as much fun sniping or rolling in with a tank if that was the maximum size in Phantom Pain.

I'm not saying it should be _exactly_ like that. But a little less environment to traverse would be beneficial.

I don't mind open world for cape shit or prototype but I'd much prefer a map like big shell or shadow moses, or a linear campaign with good level design (lords of shadow 1) over an empty world with Ubisoft meme towers

Because they are idiots.
90% of open world games have been open world in spirit before.
Look at two examples:
>Metal Gear
Detailed enviroments but focus on small areas. The bases and areas in question you played in where already very open(going back and forth, freedom of movement) so by expanding the original idea, it makes sense to go open world when you want to portray a bigger area.
>Witcher
Both 1&2 were basically semi-open worlds held back by technology. They always portrayed different enviroments and openess, and with TW3 they could finally achieve it, making it the best designed open world in gaming so far.

They talk about open world being shallow of sacrificing things, when in reality open world made everything better it touched. Certainly worked for MGSV and TW3, both the best games in their franchises. What you see on Sup Forums is just a bunch of manchildren angry that games aren't stuck in the 90's anymore.

Skyrim really set the bar high

any other open world game just feels like cheap trash

Also, all the missions involving vehicles needed the amount of space that Phantom Pain had

True, and there's no reason to not make those missions on areas that big. I swear you _try_ not to get it, do you?

>MGSV and TW3, both the best games in their franchises

TW3 is the best game in the franchise but the open world is the least important feature about it.

Also, being better than Portable Ops and IV doesn't make MGS V the best, it just makes it a decent MGS game.

Todd?

What I'm saying is Phantom Pain was the best and fuck all y'all who don't like it

>Sup Forums is one person

Every single game that comes out is "open world". It makes me miss linear as fuck games sometimes.

I also liked MGSV, but I feel like the emptiness of their Afghanistan and Africa hurt the game.
Why not make use of the time and place? Why not have some struggles like Mujahideen trying to capture some Russian outposts?

The only reason TW3 was the best in the franchise was because the menus and the UI were possible to look at without gagging. The level design was worse than 1 and the writing was worse than 2.

We hate modern open world games (except BotW, apparently it was pretty good, I dunno tho as I haven't played it), not all.

Modern open world games are blank, empty and lifeless. They're just maps with Ubisoft towers and boring, repetitive activities sprinkled all over them, with no thought, with no artistic vision and with no actual point.

Play good open world games. Gothic 1 and 2, Stalker CoP (SoC is not open world but you must lay this one too), Morrowind. Perhaps Oblivion, heard it's good, but haven't played it, so not sure.