Flaws on modern open world games

[yurieliakim]

My first post here.

I'm writing about a very specific subject and I would like to get some discussion going.

So for some years this genre, open world games, has become quite popular, specially in fantasy settings and RPGs or the like. But I can't help but feel frustrated over some game design choices which seem to have become the norm for most of these games. Though the title may suggest otherwise, I don't think these choices are actually flaws to everyone, but I believe so. I believe they are in this specific genre.

Imagine you are playing a gigantic open world game with a variety of different areas. Obviously, for such a big area and considering the freedom you have, you would expect you would want to explore this world in this entirety. But that is not always the case. More often than not, the player is not given enough incentive to explore the different parts of this huge world because of many different factors. Though the world is enormous, there is just not enough in these different places to keep you interested. Many games are now doing immense areas for marketing effects, and are not actually filling their games with varied gameplay factors. I believe there is not given, to the players, enough 'exploration incentive'.

I now this is beginning to feel hard to picture for some, but let me give you some examples.

Side quests.

Besides the main quest, games usually have a variety of side quests, no surprises here. But they are not fun to play through most of the cases. Side quests usually follow a very narrow and simplistic structure.
Either you kill things in a certain location or you collect things in some location. Sometimes you kill them in a certain way, but that's it.

When you begin a quest, you automatically receive a notification on the menu. It says exactly what you have to do and where. You already know beforehand where to go, who to kill, what to collect. It is shown on the map. You don't even have any trouble going there, you can just fast travel. Quests are divided in parts as well so you really can't get lost on your way or have any difficulty.
When you are done, you receive exp, cash and sometimes an item. A generic weapon or armor, usually not something you would commonly use, and under leveled. You realize the whole thing was a complete waste of time. Ad infinitum. Some rare times there are side quests that have continuations and go on for longer, maybe some better prizes, but all individual side quests still follow the same over used and over done models. You are probably thinking about some games that are like that as you read.

When you have generic side quests that always follow the same structure, the idea of a bigger world filled with yet more boring chores and optional quests, the game begins to lose its value pretty fast.

I suggest change, and quickly. Unique, clever and original side quests. No menu notifications, no hand holding, no telling you constantly what you have to do and where you have to go. You figure it out for yourself, use your brain and your wits. Unique rewards, that can't be found anywhere else in the game. Quality over quantity. If side quests like that are spread over different parts of the game, people will actually WANT to explore. Replay value goes up, everybody wins.

Any other "flaws" you would like to comment?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Also, secrets, my god, today there's no reason to explore, remember in Morrowind the best armor in the game is a mile from the coast in a place you'd never think to look? Today there's usually some junk equipment, making random exploring completely useless. But the worst company in the business is Ubisoft who just shits out "collectibles" everywhere, Assassin's creed 4 and Far Cry 4 are just ridiculous now with a bazzilion items and I'm the type of person to seek the items despite never really having a reason.

I completely agree. Look at the map in an Assassin's Creed game, it's so littered with collectables and waypoints that you can't actually see the map underneath. For example in Assassin's Creed 2, you have your treasure chests, your feathers, the buildings you can buy, the stores and banks that you renovate, and what's the point of any of it? And Assassin's Creed 2 is TAME in comparison to Ubisoft's current titles. There's so much shit in the world and the majority of it is meaningless, and because there's so many of the collectables you never feel anything special when you find them and you don't remember them.

Take for example the treasure chests in Assassin's Creed, each one has like 50 of whatever currency the game is using, and there are HUNDREDS of the treasure chests throughout the city. If they had like 20 treasure chests and each one had 10,000 of the currency then you'd actually want to look for the chests and remember where they are and they'd be special, but otherwise the chests are just kind of there and oftentimes you'll see one on your map and not even bother with it because the payoff just isn't there.

 

[Elfgore]

There is a thing called "too big" and some open-world games suffer from it. *cough*DayZ*cough*. If I have to wander for hours, through the same boring forest or road, just to reach the fun parts, you need to change something.

Too many collectibles is also an issue, like the posters above mentioned. Assassin's Creed: Black Flag is one of the worst offenders of this.

 

[Scow2]

I think the "Too many collectibles" issue with the games is because they're all marked, and there's no real other way to mark 'you've been here' - especially in large 1st- or 3rd-person games where it's easy to get disoriented and start backtracking when exploring.

Take for example the treasure chests in Assassin's Creed, each one has like 50 of whatever currency the game is using, and there are HUNDREDS of the treasure chests throughout the city. If they had like 20 treasure chests and each one had 10,000 of the currency then you'd actually want to look for the chests and remember where they are and they'd be special, but otherwise the chests are just kind of there and oftentimes you'll see one on your map and not even bother with it because the payoff just isn't there.

This sort of thing actually works, except they mark the treasure chests on your map, which makes it not work. The purpose of lots of largely-interchangeable treasures is to encourage exploration... you're not supposed to find them all. It's just a bit of an incentive to check out somewhere that looks interesting - you get a small payoff for getting to a certain point and looking around the environment. "Ooh! Shiny things!'

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I think the "Too many collectibles" issue with the games is because they're all marked, and there's no real other way to mark 'you've been here' - especially in large 1st- or 3rd-person games where it's easy to get disoriented and start backtracking when exploring.

Take for example the treasure chests in Assassin's Creed, each one has like 50 of whatever currency the game is using, and there are HUNDREDS of the treasure chests throughout the city. If they had like 20 treasure chests and each one had 10,000 of the currency then you'd actually want to look for the chests and remember where they are and they'd be special, but otherwise the chests are just kind of there and oftentimes you'll see one on your map and not even bother with it because the payoff just isn't there.

This sort of thing actually works, except they mark the treasure chests on your map, which makes it not work. The purpose of lots of largely-interchangeable treasures is to encourage exploration... you're not supposed to find them all. It's just a bit of an incentive to check out somewhere that looks interesting - you get a small payoff for getting to a certain point and looking around the environment. "Ooh! Shiny things!'

Except that if the payoff isn't worth it then people won't look for the chests.

You can easily walk through a crowd and pick pocket people on the way to your next objective and it'll be more profitable than scaling that building to get to the chest up there and possibly having to fighting guards in the process, and then having to do it again in another 20 feet.

Fewer chests with more loot is always preferable to tons of chests with barely anything in there. Hell, the opening animation for the chests in Assassin's Creed takes longer than the money inside is worth.

 

[Scow2]

I think the "Too many collectibles" issue with the games is because they're all marked, and there's no real other way to mark 'you've been here' - especially in large 1st- or 3rd-person games where it's easy to get disoriented and start backtracking when exploring.

Take for example the treasure chests in Assassin's Creed, each one has like 50 of whatever currency the game is using, and there are HUNDREDS of the treasure chests throughout the city. If they had like 20 treasure chests and each one had 10,000 of the currency then you'd actually want to look for the chests and remember where they are and they'd be special, but otherwise the chests are just kind of there and oftentimes you'll see one on your map and not even bother with it because the payoff just isn't there.

This sort of thing actually works, except they mark the treasure chests on your map, which makes it not work. The purpose of lots of largely-interchangeable treasures is to encourage exploration... you're not supposed to find them all. It's just a bit of an incentive to check out somewhere that looks interesting - you get a small payoff for getting to a certain point and looking around the environment. "Ooh! Shiny things!'

Except that if the payoff isn't worth it then people won't look for the chests.

You can easily walk through a crowd and pick pocket people on the way to your next objective and it'll be more profitable than scaling that building to get to the chest up there and possibly having to fighting guards in the process, and then having to do it again in another 20 feet.

Fewer chests with more loot is always preferable to tons of chests with barely anything in there. Hell, the opening animation for the chests in Assassin's Creed takes longer than the money inside is worth.

Hmm... long opening animations is a problem. But if you're going up there anyway, nice to get a bit extra for your effort.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Also, secrets, my god, today there's no reason to explore, remember in Morrowind the best armor in the game is a mile from the coast in a place you'd never think to look? Today there's usually some junk equipment, making random exploring completely useless. But the worst company in the business is Ubisoft who just shits out "collectibles" everywhere, Assassin's creed 4 and Far Cry 4 are just ridiculous now with a bazzilion items and I'm the type of person to seek the items despite never really having a reason.

I agree with you as well. I miss the days of wandering off to some distant corner of the map, finding some random cave, and encountering a boss that made the final boss look like a wimp. Or exploring and finding the best gear at the top of a mountain, buried deep inside a cave there.

I would also like to add side quests in general. I don't know if it's just me, or if developers are getting lazy, but side quests in a lot of open world games now don't really feel satisfying. I'm not talking about "collect this or kill that" or even the payoff of the loot. I'm talking about the weight behind them, or the conclusion. In Dragon Age: Inquisition, there have been several quest that just sort of...stop. An example would be these journal entries I found. A hunter was tracking...something (I think it was a wolf) and said that he cornered it in the ruins. I go there, find his body, and that's it. No comment on what happened to him, what he was stalking, or any closure whatsoever. Just a note that said it had been torn up and then pieced back together that read, "Stay away from me or I swear I'll kill you." Um...okay, what was that all about?
Same thing in Mass Effect. I expected so sort of payoff after I found all the Legion of One medallions in the first game. It says that there was a rumor that there was a 13th member and that he escaped. I expected to encounter him at the end, or at least get a message, but no.
And then there are the times where it feels like the side quest should have more impact. I just killed the Emperor in Skyrim. Shouldn't there be...I don't know, some sort of commotion? Not just a random guard every now and then mentioning it?

I'm used to my side quests having that sense of closure to them, like Yuffie's in Final Fantasy VII. Side quests in open world games just seem to die out toward the end.

 

[Scow2]

Also, secrets, my god, today there's no reason to explore, remember in Morrowind the best armor in the game is a mile from the coast in a place you'd never think to look? Today there's usually some junk equipment, making random exploring completely useless. But the worst company in the business is Ubisoft who just shits out "collectibles" everywhere, Assassin's creed 4 and Far Cry 4 are just ridiculous now with a bazzilion items and I'm the type of person to seek the items despite never really having a reason.

I agree with you as well. I miss the days of wandering off to some distant corner of the map, finding some random cave, and encountering a boss that made the final boss look like a wimp. Or exploring and finding the best gear at the top of a mountain, buried deep inside a cave there.

The problem with this is that the world becomes explorable... once. I feel Skyrim's been significantly better in this regard - there are new challenges and encounters in more areas, even if the enemies are the same. Also, loot is limited, but good stuff can be found anywhere (For a limited definition of "Good"). I really wish I could play Dark Souls on my PC.

There are a lot of things that just ruin open-world games in general, some that Developers have problems controlling

1. Environmental Scale. When you first start up a game, everything's big and beautiful and new. I remember starting up WoW when it was new, and was impressed and obsessed with exploring the large Starting Area for my given race - No, not the entire starter zone - just the village, dungeon, and different mob zones. ANd then... wow, it opened up into the WHOLE STARTING ZONE! With all those quests, dungeons, caves, resources, different villages, massive capitol, all sorts of zones. I felt I could play around in there just forever... BUt then, months later, after exploring all of Azeroth... I could never recapture the 'Wow, this is awesome!" feel from how small those starting zones were. The larger the area you've covered in a game, the less attention is paid to the world

2. "Going through the motions" - similar to the above. Grabbing all the exploration points becomes a goal to be rushed to, not something to be savored. I got the Explorer achievements in WoW... but can't tell you a damn thing about where I've been. I've almost 100% Guild Wars 2's map, but no three areas I've been through had the same 'Wow!" factor as just getting from the Black Citadel to the Ashford Atrium and doing the local quests and events. I have places to be and things to do!

3. Playing the Interface, not the Screen. This is an awkward one for developers, and is the much-maligned 'hand-holding'. On one hand, buzzing over a map from PoI to PoI really takes out any sense of exploration and turns you into the Fed-Ex driver when you really want to be Lewis and Clark. On the other hand... not having those interface things is obnoxious when you WANT to be the Fed Ex driver instead of Lewis & Clark.

 

[Prince of Ales]

I think for a real open world experience you've got to work on the procedural content more than the scripted content. Sure, if you had an infinite budget you could finely tune every single encounter and create a truely immersive experience, but that's a pipe-dream from a development perspective. Scripting every last detail is expensive. You're looking at unique models, unique voice-overs etc. and these aren't cheap assets. If you went purely for quality over quantity then I think you'd end up with a game so small that it'd no longer qualify as open world.

Like how Shadow of Mordor worked with its whole Nemesis system. Have to admit, I've not got round to playing it yet, but I've seen enough gameplay to understand what the game is about. And I think that's more along the lines of a real open world experience. As in, everybody has a different experience with the game, and the main game is about getting stuck in with these experiences rather than following some predetermined path to victory. And it's replayable. There's nothing replayable, actually, about having unique voice-overs and storylines for every single encounter. All you can do on the next playthrough is pick up all the side-quests you didn't do the last time. That's not replayability, and it's not open world.

So yeah, I wouldn't say quantity over quality, but I would say better quality for the more generic repeatable content rather than better quality for the scripted one-time-only content.

 

[Fishyash]

In theory, having an open world is superior both aesthetically and mechanically (I find it overall more immersive) to a closed/linear world. As technology and budget improves, the advantages that linearity may bring (for example, designing an area based on what the player is most likely to do, like in NES Castlevania) will be possible in an open world game. As it is right now, there are pros and cons to linear and open world games. And since this thread is about the cons...

The biggest issue to me is the world design. There aren't many open world games that really give their world the amount of detail it deserves. However this will obviously get better and better over time. Hell, it's already improved immensely from the days of early RPGs (which even then could get quite detailed for their time). This is most glaring with lesser games though. Notable examples of games that do it well are World of Warcraft and the GTA series. It's a tremendous task trying to make a detailed, expansive and immersive world though.

The second biggest issue is actually getting from point A to point B, or exploring/interacting with the world. Going back to GTA, there are so many things you can do between the main missions that going from A to B, or exploring, can be an adventure in itself. Going back to WoW, they just pad the areas with quests absolutely everywhere, basically leading you on a trail around the place. Skyrim has side quests and (IMO lackluster) dragon fights. Overall I think open world games should try and follow GTA when it comes to things like that.
Guild Wars 2 is probably the worst that I've played in regards to this. The game litters your map with places telling you to check them out. I'm sorry but when you point things out on the map for me, I can't call it exploring.
Oh, and then there's quick travel. It just feels like a crutch to hide the fact that your world is boring.

Overall I don't really think you actually need to incentivize exploring in an open world game, if your world is good enough, being able to see more of the world is incentive enough for me. Solid game mechanics are key too, exploring and travelling an open world should be enjoyable in itself rather than a boring slog or a bunch of map icons to tick off.

TL;DR: GTA has (IMO) done the open world thing best.

 

[Little Gray]

The flaw to open world games is that your actions have no consequences. Nothing you do has any actual effect on the world which makes it all kind of pointless.

Like how Shadow of Mordor worked with its whole Nemesis system. Have to admit, I've not got round to playing it yet, but I've seen enough gameplay to understand what the game is about. And I think that's more along the lines of a real open world experience. As in, everybody has a different experience with the game, and the main game is about getting stuck in with these experiences rather than following some predetermined path to victory. And it's replayable. There's nothing replayable, actually, about having unique voice-overs and storylines for every single encounter. All you can do on the next playthrough is pick up all the side-quests you didn't do the last time. That's not replayability, and it's not open world.

If you had actually played the game then you would think differently. The nemesis system actually adds nothing at all to the game unless you are really bad at the game and die a lot. If you have played it for twenty minutes then you have played the entire game. All the captains\warchiefs are just regular enemies with x number of randomly generated strengths and weaknesses and after the first half a dozen or so you will have seen all combinations and they become just another enemy except that it has a chance to come back from the dead after you cut its head off.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Side quests.

I suggest change, and quickly. Unique, clever and original side quests. No menu notifications, no hand holding, no telling you constantly what you have to do and where you have to go. You figure it out for yourself, use your brain and your wits. Unique rewards, that can't be found anywhere else in the game. Quality over quantity. If side quests like that are spread over different parts of the game, people will actually WANT to explore. Replay value goes up, everybody wins.

Any other "flaws" you would like to comment?

I agree, I want quality over quantity. Give me entertaining, unique sidequests. And especially for RPGs, more sidequest that involve RPing and less combat oriented.

Open world/sandbox games need to have missions that are more open-ended. Too many missions are far too linear and you're just following instructions basically, it kinda defeats the purpose of the genre IMO. Mercenaries (only the 1st one) was a great example of a sandbox game. It was almost like a puzzle game trying to complete missions with the fraction you're attacking/sabotaging/etc. not knowing it was you. Care was taken to enemy placements and everything. A lot of open world games just spawn X amount of enemies that you have to kill.

But the worst company in the business is Ubisoft who just shits out "collectibles" everywhere, Assassin's creed 4 and Far Cry 4 are just ridiculous now with a bazzilion items and I'm the type of person to seek the items despite never really having a reason.

I think Ubisoft does a far better job with making missions open-ended unlike most open world games. To me, that's kinda the point of the genre. Far Cry and Watch Dogs have plenty of ways to go about completing most missions. I gave up on Assassin's Creed long ago and I recall from AC2, the missions were pretty linear and not very open-ended at all.

 

[RandV80]

I think for a real open world experience you've got to work on the procedural content more than the scripted content. Sure, if you had an infinite budget you could finely tune every single encounter and create a truely immersive experience, but that's a pipe-dream from a development perspective. Scripting every last detail is expensive. You're looking at unique models, unique voice-overs etc. and these aren't cheap assets. If you went purely for quality over quantity then I think you'd end up with a game so small that it'd no longer qualify as open world.

I've been barking up that tree for a long time. Bethesda starting that way with Daggerfall, and while it had it's problems and Morrowind was great they've basically been making Morrowind clones ever since.

I've always pictured something where you have an overhead map that is procedurally generated like in the Civilization, that gets rendered into a 3D world for your character to explore, and back to the overhead map various factions, armies, and agents moving about the map like you'd see in a Total War game. As the various actors move around the map behind the scenes it can update 'quest' scripts on the fly. A princess on a diplomatic mission needs a bodyguard, a town your in comes under siege, etc etc.

That would be my dream 'open world' game at least.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

My biggest flaws are as follows:
The lack of stuff to do once the plot is over. Saints Row 2, 3, 4, Gta Vice City, 4, 5, fallout 3, and New Vegas, basically all of them but Skyrim. The game even ends, period, when some plots are done. I'd like to enjoy my end game spoils, thank you. It's really hard to do that when there's no more remotely worthy opponents. No fun set pieces to go through.

Plot's over, who's really left to fight? In most modern settings, it's cops. I'd rather shoot criminals. Bored me to tears when I enter co-op and see other plays pissing away time shooting cops. Saints Row 2 almost had something going with the pimps, but it just wasn't satisfying. Fallouts have respawning enemy camps but that doesn't stay interesting.

What's there to do besides fight all the time? Clubs, card games, and diversions worth doing other than shooting people. Sure the combat is meat and potatoes, but sometimes ya want the meat between bread, or with cheese, or with rice. sometimes I just wanna visit a club in game, or something and soak it in.

I really want game plus more often.

 

[bug_of_war]

Number one hate - Poor terrain design:

The worst thing an open world game can do (for me) is have a terrain that is a pain to travel. Dragon Age: Inquisition is a good recent example of this, in particular The Storm Coast section of the game. It's far to mountainous, and the game mechanics make it so that traversing the land will either make you slide down and hurt yourself, or find the long, boring and frustrating safe path to take. If the terrain causes frustration, YOU'VE DONE FUCKED UP.

No. 2 - Echoing the useless side-quests/collectibles:

I get why side-quests and collectibles are made, I do, but when you make it a pain in the ass/overly repetitive/completely alien to the main quest, then it seems like a chore to do.

 

[Mister K]

My biggest problem with open world games is that many times developers try to simply make big open spaces for you to roam in without filling it with content (random enemy encouters aside). I'd rather have small but interesting world than huge but boring.

 

[stroopwafel]

My biggest problem with open world games is that many times developers try to simply make big open spaces for you to roam in without filling it with content (random enemy encouters aside). I'd rather have small but interesting world than huge but boring.

Yeah, for example I think GTA5's world is gorgeously realized but outside the main missions there just isn't much to do. Sure, there are a lot of mini-games but none of which I play a GTA game for. Just add a ton of side-missions with nothing but car chases and shoot-outs. People complain the maps of Assassin's Creed games are littered with junk but it's actually one of the things I love about it. There is like some side-mission/collectible/random item or whatever on every corner but none of them are obtrusive in the actual game world itself, so if you just want to ignore it that's fine as well.

The biggest 'problem' with open-world games is inevatible boredom creeping in, so to keep it entertaining you need to have stuff to do. Preferably side-missions that make good use of the strengths of a particular game(like chases and shoot-outs in GTA). Another cool thing is competitive MP integrating into SP campaigns like Watch Dogs did. Granted 'online invaders' originally came from Demon's Souls but it's a concept that also works extremely well in an open world game.

 

[kasperbbs]

My biggest problem with them is that they keep boasting about the size of the map, but who gives a crap if all all of your quests feel copy pasted and pointless, the Herald of Andraste is basically an errand boy collecting shit for random strangers when hes not too busy closing the rifts that fart out demons and whatnot.