We live in an age where the following Japanese series have gone Open World:

We live in an age where the following Japanese series have gone Open World:

>Metal Gear Solid
>Final Fantasy
>The Legend of Zelda

>Metal Gear Solid
Noble attempt but stymied by Kojima having no one holding his leash and subject to the usual pratfalls of open world as well as corporate drama.

>Final Fantasy
More a return to something resembling not just running down hallways and getting in fights, or at least the disguised linearity of the titles back when they were still numbered in the single digits. And what hasn't been said about its troubled development?

>The Legend of Zelda
Made the transition extremely well since so much of its "return to basics" fundamentals are well-suited to the open world non-linear approach.


There's nothing wrong with open world in theory. It's just that too many games, the Ubisoft and Bethesda canons, just vomit minimap icons at you and think cloning and padding activities to get 40-60 hours of "game time" is the same as a dozen or two dozen hours of handcrafted gameplay, which is why there's so much open world fatigue.

I have a much different outlook on this than you, let me illustrate.

>MGS
Basically Kojima wasted time and money on a top of the line motion capture studio for the few cutscenes(basically for trailers), a youtube tv shoy, flying around the world, Silent Hills, and god knows what else. Instead of just making the game good. As a result it was basically the worst MGS entry when it comes to story and attention to detail.

The game at one point had ambition but because Kojima was fucking around trying to make a movie, the game sucked.

>>FF
Square Enix honestly has been going full retard for the past decade and a few years ago it caught up to them. They could no longer spend a lot of money making high quality visuals nor could they pay their employees long-term to make good games. They were forced to shuffle their studios around to pump out essentially shit so they could find themselves in a better place financially.

In XV's case that meant making it look just good enough to keep people talking about it, while pandering to the lowest common denominators. It being open world was basically a gimmick, the game is incredibly short if you're just in it for the story.

>Zelda
Kind of the same as FFXV. Nintendo has been going full retard so they just copped out on making a traditional polished Zelda with a fun story and made an open world game with some creative mechanics. It isn't a notably shit game compared to MGSV or FFXV, but it's depressing to look at it as a Zelda that was in development for so long since it has a lot of shortcomings.

Isn't it fair to say LoZ has always been open world

Well the term has evolved significantly. It means more open-ended now. Previous games you couldn't go anywhere anytime.

Why does Sup Forums hate open world

the last one is invalid as the original Legend of Zelda would be considered an "open world" game by today's standards.

the popular open world games were handcrafted
the current open world games are mostly computer generated

Yeah but it still had an open world to traverse since the very first game, it blocked some areas off for progression but that doesn't make it not open world. It just makes the open world have more depth

ok

They don't, open world games tend to lack qualities great games have though and it's a shame all the money is going toward that.

It's still markedly different than most of the previous games though. I wouldn't have put it in there like OP did but I see where he was going.

Japs have a different idea on what open world games are like

What is your favorite open-world game Sup Forums?

Open world is the only type of single player game that sells these days, with rare exceptions (Uncharted 4).
Sony has three first party studios working on open world games and more exclusive third party games that also are open world (Death Stranding), Nintendo had two (three if you count Mario Odyssey for its open world sensibilities), Xbox had two (Scalebound and Crackdown 3).

People love the genre.

>Final Fantasy

They've always been open-world you fucking retard.

In your opinion is Mountain Blade open world?

Mario Odyssey isn't open world, it's just huge levels that are polished and have more shit in it then every other open world game.

open world game suck because it's mostly empty and wants you to go from point a to point b

>2 out of 3 series on the list already had more than one open world games

Your post is the perfect example of everything wrong with Sup Forums, congratulations.

That's why his mention of Mario Odyssey is in parentheses and why he says if you count it for the sensibilities of open or non-linear design with regards to it's levels. Hitman is not an open world game, but it's levels are open and have very little linearity if any at all, so one might count Hitman as an open world game, even though it has relatively small and discrete levels.

Story(as if any game ever had a good story, lel) and basic gameplay not withstanding, MGSV's open worlds so far haven't really bothered me, the smaller outposts serve as minor content when roaming around fucking off and are close enough to larger outposts that I can usually just run from one to the other once I'm done with a mission, mother base sucks and I hate the target practice mission for the R&D platform, but that's to be expected from a hub that was designed around phone games. It's helped that minor missions can be started just by walking into the relevant area, but is still pretty weak since only a few refresh.

Thats such a broad genre im sure im forgetting something but i'm gonna say Infamous 2.

Technically majora's mask but i consider that a linear game mostly.

Infamous 1 was pretty good too.

And they're all good, what's your point kid?
What, do you want more garbage "open world" games like GTA V and Skyrim? Fuck off

Zelda basically laid the foundations for what an open world game was with its earliest outing. If anything it went linear for a while and came back to having more freedom.

You forgot Atelier

I think you're being too charitable with MGSV because it basically took the worst of both worlds. Its "open world" was an excuse for level reuse. You had the bland unfocused awful level design of an open world but without any of the freedom that design is supposed to afford the player. It totally violates the core tenant of open world in its first mission when you're arbitraily blocked off by a mission-fail boundary from the most reasonable escape option when the Skulls corner you.

>Japan starts making open world games
>2 out of 3 take 7-12 years to get made
>The 3rd was delayed to make it worth buying a new Nintendo console

What did they mean by this?

>>The 3rd was delayed to make it worth buying a new Nintendo console
Then emulated practically instantly. Japan truly is dead.

Hello welcome to 1987 from FF1 to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 then 15.

Sup Forums is the only site where it tries to seriously argue that BOTW, FFXV and MGSV are 5/10. You can ignore those fags.

>Naive child thinks that FF and TLOZ were never an open world
>Made the transition extremely well
Which transition? The franchise started as a open world game then later games minimized those parts and gave it more elements from the adventure genre like kiddy puzzles or NPC's with quirky personalities that nobody gives a shit about

An overworld is not an open world.

>a world open for you to explore
>not an open world

Final Fantasy and The Legend of Zelda were some of the first console games you could actually call "Open world"

BotW specifically was just returning to its roots of open exploration from the original Zelda.

>Final Fantasy and The Legend of Zelda were some of the first console games you could actually call "Open world"
That would be GTA. Neither of these games were open world until this past year.

...

I personally don't think of games with overworlds with individual levels for specific places as open world.

Overworlds like in Final Fantasy, Total War, and Mountain Blade are functionally menus with a non-standard UI.

Neither does anyone who is sane.

What about Fallout 1 and 2?

Are you a dumbass or something? Or do you not understand the difference between a sandbox/openworld game and an RPG?

I don't know about those two games but in FF they are a world and they are open you fucker, you sound like one of those fags that say dark souls is not a jrpg because it doesn't have turn based combat even though it's a fucking RPG made in japan aka japanese RPG.

Never played FO1 or 2

Everquest is an open world MMORPG, the RPG part of it doesn't necessarily exclude open worlds.

Fallout is a open world RPG. There's a big world, you have an objective, and you wander around trying to do things without much direction. Open world describes a game's structure, not its gameplay.

I take offense that you would think that I even care about whether or not something is a WRPG or JRPG, both have the same roots in DnD and the distinction between the two is one of location, I.E. Dragon's Dogma is a JRPG. But I'll shit on FF being open world even more by saying that only the minigames, boss battles, and random trash battles were the only true levels in FF7 and the rest of it was a glorified(no really the backgrounds were great) menu.

You're just being stupid, what are those "menus" that you're talking about called? Overworlds, Now here is the question, in said world, are you free to walk around and explore? Yes, you are. So what do we have? A world that is open for the player to explore, an Open World. Just because you're stupid and think of them as menus it doesn't change the fact that they are world maps of the games.

>Dissidia 012 is an open world game

But the core of the game does not take place on those maps, they're only there to make the process of going from one battle to the next less of a boring slog because perusing through a dwarf fortress tier menu to select anything would get shit on by gamers for being unintuitive. Their whole point is to disguise an unintuitive menu system as something else entirely, and the best ones succeed in doing that.

Yes it is

In FF it's an open field map you explore, the only difference is 1-9 is chibi while XV is 1:1 scale, the purpose of the field functions exactly the same in them all

I disagree.

final fantasy games and zelda games were always open world games

phantom pain and breath of the wild are literally the same game

Fainaru Fantajī Tuerubu

Dissidia is nothing like the FF world maps because there is no towns to explore or dungeons nor is there any narrative purpose for the map, that's literally just the hub map using a shape similar to FF1s map just for entering fights same like in budokai 3, the FF worldmaps in 1-9/15 are physical field of land between towns, settlements and dungeons, they are the actual world of the game which the party are journing over.

because most of them are ham-fisted

Could you fight battles with out being transitioned into a separate level or arena in XV? Invisible walls being thrown up when combat starts wouldn't make that an example of an overworld in my opinion.

Same with classic Final Fantasy

They're functionally the same and in DIssidia 012 you could do more on that worldmap than what you could in previous FFs.

>Grand Theft Auto Vice City isn't an open world game because Malibu Club isn't a single level along with the city.
Ok.

Because it's often executed poorly by completely sacrificing level design and compensating for it by having a bunch of inconsequential encounters scattered around a massive, formless plot of a map that just pinball you back and forth in ramrod straight lines.

We hate shitty open worlds
And I say we, because everyone here can agree on that. No one hates Vtmb for having an open world nor does anyone here hate Morrowind for having an open world.

They aren't because in Dissidia it serves no narrative purpose as there is no towns or dungeons or any journey taking place.

having seamless transitions is just an upgrade, even chrono trigger does that and CT essentially plays like a classic FF

Player perception is key, TLoZ:LA and EQ are open world game because they try to minimize the feeling of going from one level to the next, in Link's Awakening the "overworld" is just a large dungeon connecting the other dungeons, in EQ they tried to make each zone as open as they could and often made the entrances to other out door zones wide to encourage the perception of seamlessly transitioning from one to the next, in M&B it's very clear when you're in a city, a village, or a battlefield, where the meat of the game takes place, and when you're just traversing the world map.

>traditional polished Zelda
Oh boy more shitty linear formulaic Zelda still trying to emulate OoT with the same shitty block pushing toddler puzzles.

Newsflash, it was called Skyward Sword, and people fucking despised it.

thier first open world game was skyrim and skyrim got popular

>Final Fantasy
>The Legend of Zelda
You mean series that started out being open world?

Stalker. Only open-world game to have the environment as an intimidating enemy, too.

SS was dog shit and that doesn't make BOTW any better.

BotW was good because it wasn't another tired OoT rehash.
Zelda was never about >muh dungeons. It was always about the open world and exploration.

MM has 4 dungeons, 2 of them being trash, and people love that game because of its world and atmosphere.

People fucking hate SS because the overworld and exploration is literally non-existant. It's all a linear segment of dungeons and shitty obstacle courses to reach the next checkpoint.

You're saying a lot of completely random shit without refuting me. I don't know what you're trying to say.

Not the guy you replied to, but BotW not being good doesn't refute his point that people ate it up like OP eat's dicks, and from that he's surmising that fans or most fans of the series enjoy the open world aspects of it rather than the more dungeon crawling aspects of the previous 3D games.

Monster Hunter too, though partially by adopting seamless maps than zone-based ones

That would explain why it sold less than said games.

You wanted clarification, I gave clarification. Whether or not dismal sales is an argument against Zelda being open world is a different story, but my first thought is to yes it would be, if only from a business standpoint.

Nintendo have released nothing but shit since the Wiiu came out. This on top of the fact that no one trusts other people's opinions on Nintendo games due to the +5 review points they get means it had no way of saying it was a good game.

This is on top of being on the Switch which no one but nintendo kiddies are buying

Mate I said that because you said "people at it up" and "most fans" which is just no.

Both Final Fantasy and Zelda did open world before.

To argue with you further would be arguing about who said what, and what was meant when they or me said it.

Pic unrelated by the way, I just like that quote.

>Nintendo have released nothing but shit since the Wiiu came out
I feel kinda bad for agreeing with this generalization but I think you have a point.

I like plenty of games on 3ds, but only 4 or so games released on their later platforms even slightly interest me now.

Stop being a faggot. Nintendo DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. They would sell you down the river if it made them an extra dollar. Stop having loyalty to organizations that have no loyalty to anything but making profits.

The 3DS still has a very poor library. It's just the only standard handheld left so it got a few games by disqualification.

Zelda CAN work as an open world. Breath of the Wild just needed more meaningful and varying landmarks/dungeons to inhabit the world to justify that size. Hopefully they'll respond to this criticism next time.

I think FF can work too, but XV's open world was boring as shit, far worse than any open world I've ever played in terms of just being uninteresting (especially for an FF) and having essentially no worthwhile reasons to explore. But I always cared more about the meaty story anyway, and if open world gets in the way of that, like it did with XV, then I'd rather have them go back to linear zone based games.

>Stop having loyalty to organizations that have no loyalty to anything but making profits.

I'm an idort tho, I'm not loyal to ninty or any other company. The reason I haven't gotten any ninty consoles post 3ds is because there's no games for em I'm interested in.