Fact: people who dislike open world games are in denial

think about it

open world is just the natural path of evolution for games. an environment that lets you choose your own path is way more engaging than a series of “levels“. new times, new possibilities. get with the times, Sup Forumsirgins

The simple fact is an open world game with the level design and content ratio of a more linear game is the fucking dream.

>Where do I want to go today?
... asks the open world game enthusiast.

>generic fetch quest
>generic assassionation mission
>generic horde defense quest
>generic detective mission where all clues are already marked on your mini-map
The possibilities are endles!

not sure what you're even talking about

people hate open world do so because it's ruining many favorite series.

Missions in open world games often take place in specific, confined spaces that rely on level design you'd see in more linear games anyway. Take a lot of GTA missions, the open world during them often consists of you driving to a specific pre-determined location to do something there, like a warehouse at a dock that was clearly designed to be a set piece for said mission with the way objects are positioned.

Some of the better missions in Sleeping Dogs involved set piece areas, like the chapel.

Many open world games, outside of their missions, provide very little incentive to explore the areas with little things to do that are actually interesting. A lot of times you'd have to make your own fun, and even that can be difficult in the open world games that don't give you that many tools or interesting environments to mess around with.

I like a good open world game, but my favorite ones are usually the ones that have an interesting world and things you can do in it to make my own fun with and/or have a good story and mission structure with enough areas that are structured like conventional levels.

He's saying makiong an open world with just a few fetch quests isn't good and everything in it needs the love and care a normal "level" based world would get.

Just my two cents, I think it depends on the type of game.

A game with less story and more exploration/crafting/fighting/whatever is better suited to being open world, while a game focused on a story does much better when limited to specific levels/locations/etc.

I'm personally very happy that both kinds of games exist, gives me more options about what I want to play.

The negative stigma with open world games came because all devs hopped on the open world hype train without properly filling their worlds with detail or activities, making countless linear games that let you do a couple missions out of order and collect pointless little tokens.

most open world game environments are purely there for scenery or a one-off feature in a mission. ideally most buildings would be accessible, and there would be a ton of side content and generated tasks the game throws at you.

open world is fine as long as its not just cause sized map

Open world would be a great thing for a lot of games but developers don't coherently implement it, and instead rely on boasting a huge space to play around in with no regards as to whether that space is fun to play in.

Open worlds are cowardice.

the fact is designers dont have the skill the develop a living breath world with as much nuance as a linear level.

best level design ever is thief 2 and no game has come close to having levels that feel that real

Sleeping Dog's open-world was fucking boring as hell though.

>The simple fact is an open world game with the level design and content ratio of a more linear game is the fucking dream.
Yes, it's also impossible. Video games aren't made by immortal time travelling robots. Making content for video games takes time.

I have a hard time seeing open world as anything more than a waste of resources in most cases. Even in The Witcher 3, a game I considered myself enthralled with from start to finish, I had to fast travel everywhere and do only the major sidequests after a certain point just to avoid getting burnt out on it.

You can choose your own path in non-open world games. Deus Ex or Thief for instance. Open world doesn't even do it well though. Having a big square with no level design (where part of it is procedurally generated by the devs) isn't as satisfying for choosing your own path as a well designed open map. Plus like said, the actual missions in open world games are generally more linear than the above games I mentioned.

This website is 18+ kiddo

open world is shit. hub worlds like deus ex and bloodlines is in fact the objective best. they enough enough freedom and detail to make exploring those areas worthwhile

Today I will remind them.

You spend most of your time not actually 'playing' anything. You're driving or walking around like an asshole, not doing anything interesting or challenging.

>You spend most of your time not actually 'playing' anything

This is the dumbest post on Sup Forums at the moment.

how can you reload gun if gun is bullet?

Open world games are fine.
Open world sandbox games filled with artificial padding are not.
It's why BoTW got received so poorly here and why it got so many 10/10 reviews from people who only played it for the first couple hours.

sounds kinda like you mad because you like driving around like a dumb twat

Open world game = Toilet
Content = Poop

Would you rather flush a smaller toilet that is filled with poop and save water or flush a really big toilet that barely has any poop and waste water?

>steals car
WOOOOOAAAAA
>runs over pedestrian
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>gets chased by police
HOHOHOHOH VROOOOOM
>has to park his car in an alley for 3 minutes to get rid of police
HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHI
>mission marker starts flashing on minimap
OK LET'S DO A MISSION
>drives around for 5 minutes while avoiding pedestrians this time
TEEHEE
>arrives at mission
I WONDER WHAT IT IS
>"drive to the other side of the map and pick up Jamal"
10/10 I LOVE OPEN WORLD GAMES

You can't make an open world game with the level design of a linear game because the linearity is a facet of the design. Even if you took, say, a Mario Galaxy level and built an open world out of it, stemming from that original linear path, just because the original path is there doesn't mean the level design is the same. The very fact that you aren't restricted to that path anymore changes it fundamentally.

No, I just don't like the walkathon that is botw. I liked odessy, however, and i think just bigger worlds is a good idea compared to being fully open world.

Recently bought Watch Dogs 2, and the world is done pretty well. Running into friendly players and hackers - and engaging in PVP events is pretty damn fun.

Maybe the summon/invasion system can save open-world?

Stalker was the best open world game of all time
and even then it was pretty linear

It's more of the hub based design that people are calling better. CoP's maps are way too big for their content though and people generally criticize it for that.

fact: people who dislike MMO games are in denial

think about it

massive multiplayer online gaming is just the natural path of evolution for games. an environment that lets you choose your own path and interact with thousands of others is way more engaging than a series of “levels“. new times, new possibilities. get with the times, Sup Forumsirgins

I can't talk for anybody but with the mixture of open worlds and lazy developers/game design I can understand why people think open worlds are shit.

Making enough linear paths to seem open world is the way to go

Deus ex seems bretty open world

I guess chess would be more engaging and full of possibilities if every piece could move however it wanted.

The optimal game is "wide linear", not open world. Compare e.g. the first Mirror's Edge to the second.

Open world is always done poorly. I haven't played that many open world games (nor do I want to) but I think Skyrim was enough for me to say "fuck this" and stop playing boring repetitive quests.
I got sick of crawling through dungeon after dungeon with the reward of a few boring items and dialogues. Words cannot describe the weight I have to drag to find the motivation to play games like Skyrim. I've tried many MMOs and they're just more of the same old combat (even MOBAs do it better)
Open World simply requires too much time and effort to make into a good game. I'd rather devs focus on things like level design rather than spending 5 years making another Elder Schools game which completely lacks it. In Open World, nothing fun about the game is condensed and instead developers are forced to spread out dull, weak gameplay across the game like butter onto bread.

>sandbox games filled with artificial padding are not

I think a.c. origins is like this. The witcher 3 is too but it's executed way better. A.c. origins is huge but there ain't shit interesting to do and the to play the story you have to go through long periods of traveling or grinding boring quests to level up to do the next story mission at which point you've forgotten what happened unless you marathon the game

sunset overdrive, sleeping dogs and red dead redemption were the only open world games i enjoyed
ac:origins had a cool map but not a lot to do.