Why do autists get triggered by empty space in an open world game?

Why do autists get triggered by empty space in an open world game?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/E1o-NWNmQLM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I get the complaint, but if the game has the atmosphere to make it pleasant to traverse through then I've got no problem. I genuinely loved riding through long stretches of land in both Red Dead and Breath Of The Wild, taking in the sights.

I dont know, but the huge amount of "empty" space in the game is exactly what I love about it.

It allows you to get more immersed in the world when there aren't HUD markers floating all over the fucking screen telling you where to go in every direction

I guess it's because they desperately like to feel in control and the open world takes that away from them.

Because to a lot of people "content" just means filling the game with lots of dumb bullshit. If you put a random collectible every 5 feet suddenly they wouldn't call it "empty". It's retarded. I guess they want every game to be like BotW where there are shrines and korok seeds everywhere, I guess that is what makes for acceptable content

Imagine a movie with 10 minutes of the cast driving through the city roads.

>Imagine a movie with 10 minutes of the cast driving through the city roads.

youtu.be/E1o-NWNmQLM

It sets the mood you gigantic faggot.

Empty space is good if there's stuff to see, things happening. Even if there's nothing to do.

>games are movies
found the sonybro

And open world fans like to not have to play the game, it's just two types of people

>Open world is a genre about simulating real life to relieve stress
>It's just an empty space with a character in the middle

I wonder why people get mad about that...
Sunshine is an example of a correct open world, because you can actually do stuff, and it's actually nice to be in the world, everything is an actual in-game object, not just a texture on the ground or a bush.

It's only a problem if its uninteresting, which could be solved a variety of ways. If the game is intentionally boring you, then it's bad. Some ADD kiddies might be bored no matter what but meh.

There's nothing wrong with empty travel space.
The problem is when that's most of the game.
Looking at you, NVBs.

Exploring the world has to be fun or relaxing, otherwise there's no appeal in making the world open.

It has to be a world you want to insert yourself in, to forget about real life.

Empty open worlds, might as well be a character floating in black space.

Open world is tricky to pull off.

Basically real world parallels like Red Dead are pretty good because it's extremely hard for the devs to fuck up and make the geography seem unnatural, uncomfortable. Wastelands are fine so long as they serve a purpose rather than pure game padding.
The absolute worst is "open worlds" that clearly funnel and railroad the player around with invisible walls, 0 friction slopes and too much impossible/bizarre geography.

People don't know how to have fun outside of the main story/multiplayer

>not journeying to the fort in mexico and holding out from the cops

Fuck if I know. Im actually the opposite. It really triggeres me when when everything crammed together. You get retarded shit like monster dens two feet away from the capital. Bethshit games are probably the worst offender of this
Witcher 3 did a good job with map space. One of the reasons this game was goty for me

but its relaxing to walk/ride around some big empty fields. at least for me. honestly i like it when there's a lot of places in games that dont necessarily have a purpose and are just there to let the world breathe.

I agree completely. Negative space is good you faggots.

That's like 2-3 minutes max with dialogue, plot and characters as well. Not the point I was trying to make either.
There's almost no reason to go to a lot of areas in Open World games because there is quite literally nothing there.

I'm saying we should focus more on the gameplay here.

one of my biggest pet peeves is people who play games like GTA, do nothing but mission after mission and then say there's nothing to do.

The whole fucking point of games like that are to be creative and do what you want in the freedom of the world with fun game mechanics

Sunshine is neither open world nor good.

No idea, I know anytime I go out in the wilderness it's almost all empty space. You don't just have wildlife standing around waiting to be killed, they avoid people. You COULD get attacked by a bear, or a mountain lion, but the chances aren't once every 10 feet. Empty space is realistic. Enemies clustering around camps or ruins makes more sense, wildlife around dens or watering holes. Plus I light exploring around and sightseeing without being in combat all the time.

If you have a "huge open world" then there should either be stuff in it, or it should be fun or interesting to move through it. A lot of games can't accomplish that and the huge open world becomes a huge boring slog.

I don't see how that's an unreasonable expectation.

If I stand still near the trading post in Tall Trees, I'll get 5 bears walking up to me in a minute

this.
also am I getting my definitions confused?

I thought open world meant "walk in X direction and you'll be fine". Like progression happens when you want it to happen and for all the game cares you could have like 80 hours doing other content before you start the main quest, if there even is a progression line.
3D Mario games offer some flexibility but it's not like there's content beyond doing the levels when presented to you.

I feel like RDR does open world better than any other game

With the hunting, collecting flowers, shooting challenges, it feels like there is a lot to do just riding randomly in the world, and there are also a lot of random events that happen. The hunting/treasure hunting was great too. It's great when a game has a system for making money that encourages exploration: in RDR hunting animals like bears or elk was a good way of making cash

Even open world games have considerably more density than real world.

>Witcher 3 did a good job with map space
>more bandit camps than actual settlements
>more smuggler's caches than actual smugglers
>monsters everywhere
>the world never changes at all NPCs just stand around saying the same line over and over again
>Northern and Nilfgaard armies are literally across the river from each other but you never see them fighting

Open world, free roam, or (more loosely) sandbox are terms for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in regard to how and when to approach particular objectives, as opposed to other video games that have a more linear structure to their gameplay.[1][2] While games had used open world designs prior since the 1980s, the implementation in Grand Theft Auto III (2001) set a standard that has been used in open-world design since that point.[3]

Video games with open or free-roaming worlds typically lack the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally, open-world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations imposed by a game's linearity.[4] Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) or in single-player games adhering to the open-world concept such as the Fallout series. The main appeal of open-world gameplay is that they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game.

In that picture all you're literally doing is walking point A to B. You have to have some form of austism to find open world games good unless they have extensive movement options like Just Cause or BOTW.

I liked Fallout 3's open world because I could look at all the destroyed buildings.

>not just a texture on the ground or a bush.
This shit pisses me off so much about modern open world games.
>Look at this huge vast world
>Whoops, you can't actually interact with 90% of it and it's just there to fill space
The few games that don't have this problem are Deus Ex and the like.
It's not AS bad in Breath of the Wild, but even then it's still like 70%.

Exploration is part of the gameplay, and having all shit withing 3 feet of each other destroys exploration.

The wilderness also works to both add to the atmosphere and concentrate the structured content in smaller areas, too.

Best open world coming through

>The absolute worst is "open worlds" that clearly funnel and railroad the player around with invisible walls, 0 friction slopes
So, New Vegas?

>Paris in Deus Ex
>You can totally break into a decent chunk of the storefronts and apartments
I spent far, far too long exploring that place and I'm still pretty sure I missed stuff.

We need less "open world games" and more "immersive sims."

There are some invisible walls but you can walk straight to Vegas from the starting area if you want.

I enjoy playing huge AAA open world games along with a save file and just roaming around like a virtual tourist. GTA5 was particularly amazing.
I really couldn't give a fuck about the story or the gameplay, which is usually mediocre shooting/combat and pointless fetch quests.

That's maybe one section, and there are at least cliffs in the way. 3 did it far worse, with "oops, this pile of rubble is too strategically placed to compensate for console RAM limits, can't climb over it, better go through the subway"

I agree. A world is no good if it's just a brush in a map maker. When you create an interesting setting people will want to explore it, but that just pulls them out of the experience once they realize it's less a setting and more a movie set. Deus Ex still does this better than pretty much anything else I can think of.

Arkane's last two games absolutely bombed so probably not happening.

BOTW has plenty of open spaces too, fag.

IT's mostly metroidvania cucks who believe every game needs to be like super metroid

So basically a Tarkovsky movie? Spotted the pleb who probably likes capeshit

>no vtmb

No, you can find the special invisibility items and dash to escape the barrier of impossible enemies that are meant to funnel and railroad for the first 3-5 hours of the game.

>impossible enemies
>he doesn't know how to kite cazadores

Someone's never driven 50 miles outside of a city in their entire life.

RDR has invisible walls, retard.

Just bring up the console and kill all nearby enemies if you're gonna be that much of a shit.

There're barely any random events in RDR and they're all basically the same.

Open world is good when it's generated and purposeful. Because it's crafted it has more detail to make the terrain feel more actualized/immersive, with little tidbits and discoveries in between making it feel like it's simulating a journey/adventure. The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most AAA RPGs.

Open world is bad when it's randomly generated like Survivals, Starbound, and No Man's Sky. Usually the worlds are barren, terrain is fucked up with random structure/scenary plots in puzzling ways or locations. This is horribly true especially for SWG where it's literally barren samey terrain for miles on end, and because the game is so old and it's randomly generated the animal fauna is retarded and makes no sense spawning and distancing one wild creature/pig every 100 miles.

BOTW did open world right imo.

>this segment is impossible
>it's actually possible by using some game mechanics
>why not just cheat?

Sounds like you're the shitter here.

t. someone who hasn't played BOTW. only a handful of shrines are easily spottable in the environment. Most are either hidden out of sight or you need to interact with an NPC or with the environment itself so they become visible.

>prey

kek

Honestly never understood this complaint, if you run up along the edges of black mountain you can get by without even aggoing an enemy.

>t. Decided to go straight to Vegas on very first playthrough