Games that are ruined by going open world?

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Hello friends,

In this thread we discuss about plenty of different video games that are ruined going through open world.

so friends, there was a time when any franchise came to console development, it got ruined. now times has change and it shift towards open world. any game today that gone open world got ruined. because open world games are just copy and paste plus having less and less variety and become boring because all you do is travel from point A to point B. so theres plenty of games that were linear before, developers decide to make open world and then they got ruined.

lets take an example

Batman Arkham: The Original Arkham Asylum was by far best in series and once it went open world. it lost all magic. arkham city was inferior sequel in every way then arkham origins and knights failed. it was better as more focused linear game.

Metal gear solid 5: MGS was never about open world yet its one of those game that should have been better as linear game. it become open world, it feel like far cry, too empty and too bland. thus become boring.

The witcher 3: Although its univerally liked game but imo its just another open world game but with better lore and universe. TW2 was better because it was not open world and was more linear focused game.

Rage 2: Not that Rage 1 was kind of amazing. but it should have been improved into what Rage 1 left instead bethesda decide to outsourced it to another bland open world developer who made another bland open world game. another game would have been good as linear.

Ghost Recon: Once a Great realistic hardcore Tactical shooter now another open world third person game. need to say more??

Mafia 3: First Mafia is easily one of the greatest game of all time. amazing game. perfect story, amazing chapter based level design. even mafia 2 was good despite not as good. but Mafia 3 going full open world killed what make mafia good and turn into another GTA clone.

there can be more and more. but they are examples.

so my friends, what this generation taught me that, not everything need to be open world. most of games that were linear before going open world are just ruined.

I will be so mad if ubisoft decide to turn splinter cell into open world. it would kill the franchise even more so than conviction and blacklist does.

so my friend, what games you think are ruined because of going open world? lets discuss.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

The witcher 3: Although its univerally liked game but imo its just another open world game but with better lore and universe. TW2 was better because it was not open world and was more linear focused game.

It's pretty clear to anyone who reads your posts that you never actually played The Witcher 3. Or any of the other Witcher games. And you just demonstrated that again. You basically said that open-world ruined The Witcher 3 because it made it open world and that TW2 is better because it's not open-world. How on god's green Earth is that an argument? Where's the discussion about any of the other gameplay mechanics or any other element of the game?

You're essentially admitting that you don't like open world games. Which is fine. You don't have to like them. But to declare that open-world ruins games like it's some kind of universal truth is, quite frankly, pretty stupid. That's what this topic is. It's not a discussion about which game was ruined by being open-world. It's just your poor attempt to make it look like open-world games are inferior to linear games. And you can't do it because, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

This entire topic is yet another piece of evidence that you never actually played any of the open-world games that you're shitting on. There's nothing you can actually say about those games other than the fact that they're open-world. You never mention any gameplay mechanic or problem that exists because of the game being open-world that otherwise wouldn't exist in a linear game. You can't because you never played them.

so my friends, what this generation taught me

is clearly, absolutely nothing.

 

[Trunkage]

The Witcher 3 had the problem of being compared to Skyrim. While I could understand people's opinion on the narrative being better, most of the landscape was uninteresting and punished exploration. But the cities were incredible. TW2 was segments, and that's how Witcher 3 ended up but with two segments placed together on one map. Either way, both Witcher 2 and 3 were filled to the brim with fetch/ kill quests with the deviation from a normal open world game was if you needed to oil up first.

Ghost Recon is harder. The more tactical games felt very restricted in approaches. Most situations required you to repeat what you did last time. The open world let you be capable of more but it lost the design of the encounter. The open world was fluid and the tactical was static.

Arkham Asylum had you backtracking and looping. It wasted my time. This sort of repeated this in Arkham City, but if I got sick and tired of the developer not designing a good level, I could just find a side mission to do. It broke up when the linear became overbearing.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

The witcher 3: Although its univerally liked game but imo its just another open world game but with better lore and universe. TW2 was better because it was not open world and was more linear focused game.

It's pretty clear to anyone who reads your posts that you never actually played The Witcher 3. Or any of the other Witcher games. And you just demonstrated that again. You basically said that open-world ruined The Witcher 3 because it made it open world and that TW2 is better because it's not open-world. How on god's green Earth is that an argument? Where's the discussion about any of the other gameplay mechanics or any other element of the game?

You're essentially admitting that you don't like open world games. Which is fine. You don't have to like them. But to declare that open-world ruins games like it's some kind of universal truth is, quite frankly, pretty stupid. That's what this topic is. It's not a discussion about which game was ruined by being open-world. It's just your poor attempt to make it look like open-world games are inferior to linear games. And you can't do it because, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

This entire topic is yet another piece of evidence that you never actually played any of the open-world games that you're shitting on. There's nothing you can actually say about those games other than the fact that they're open-world. You never mention any gameplay mechanic or problem that exists because of the game being open-world that otherwise wouldn't exist in a linear game. You can't because you never played them.

so my friends, what this generation taught me

is clearly, absolutely nothing.

i have played plenty of open world games including far cry, assassins creed and yes i played witcher 3 but its been 4 years. all i remember is it has terrible controlling and combat. TW2 has better controls too and it was design better because it was not open world but rather having multiple open structure.

TW3 feel like just another ubisoft open world formula and riding on horse getting boring.

again, a game in your avatar is 10 times better than witcher 3.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Arkham Asylum had you backtracking and looping. It wasted my time. This sort of repeated this in Arkham City, but if I got sick and tired of the developer not designing a good level, I could just find a side mission to do. It broke up when the linear became overbearing.

You're forgetting Arkham City's greatest sin. You could play as Catwoman. And that's a big no-no for B-Cell. Can't have gurls in his big manly video games lol.

TW2 has better controls too

TW3 feel like just another ubisoft open world formula and riding on horse getting boring.

Thank you for proving once again that you never even touched those two games. One of key improvements in The Witcher 3 over The Witcher 2 are controls and responsiveness. Only a liar would say that The Witcher 2 had better controls. It's not even a matter of debate. Literally no one who's played both games would dare to claim what you just did. The fans were thrilled about these improvements. They weren't subtle, they were immense.


And the open-world is absolutely NOTHING like Ubisoft's. You don't even know that Ubisoft attempted to copy The Witcher 3 open-world style in Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey. So quit your lying already. You're busted.

and it was design better because it was not open world but rather having multiple open structure.

This is not a reason. Open-world games aren't inferior to linear games by default. You have to prove that they're inferior by presenting real arguments. And you can't because you didn't play those games. And even if you did you still couldn't because you're incapable of forming a coherent argument. "Linear games are better because they're not open-world and open-world games are inferior because they're not linear" is not an argument. It's nonsensical rambling of a 10 year old.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The Witcher 3 had the problem of being compared to Skyrim. While I could understand people's opinion on the narrative being better, most of the landscape was uninteresting and punished exploration.

I'd say it's the other way around. Skyrim is good if you're in the mood to go loot and dungeon crawl, but the world and its inhabitants are dull as dishwater. The world of W3 felt like a genuine and "believeable" place that made me wanna ride my horsey through it and check out all the places of interest, whereas Skyrim had the liveliness and personality of a maquette.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I'd say it's the other way around.

Pretty much. The Witcher 3 raised the bar for open-world games significantly. RPG's in particular. So much so, that people expect A LOT more from TES VI.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Arkham Asylum had you backtracking and looping. It wasted my time. This sort of repeated this in Arkham City, but if I got sick and tired of the developer not designing a good level, I could just find a side mission to do. It broke up when the linear became overbearing.

You're forgetting Arkham City's greatest sin. You could play as Catwoman. And that's a big no-no for B-Cell. Can't have gurls in his big manly video games lol.

TW2 has better controls too

TW3 feel like just another ubisoft open world formula and riding on horse getting boring.

Thank you for proving once again that you never even touched those two games. One of key improvements in The Witcher 3 over The Witcher 2 are controls and responsiveness. Only a liar would say that The Witcher 2 had better controls. It's not even a matter of debate. Literally no one who's played both games would dare to claim what you just did. The fans were thrilled about these improvements. They weren't subtle, they were immense.


And the open-world is absolutely NOTHING like Ubisoft's. You don't even know that Ubisoft attempted to copy The Witcher 3 open-world style in Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey. So quit your lying already. You're busted.

and it was design better because it was not open world but rather having multiple open structure.

This is not a reason. Open-world games aren't inferior to linear games by default. You have to prove that they're inferior by presenting real arguments. And you can't because you didn't play those games. And even if you did you still couldn't because you're incapable of forming a coherent argument. "Linear games are better because they're not open-world and open-world games are inferior because they're not linear" is not an argument. It's nonsensical rambling of a 10 year old.

.

Lol still accuusing me of lying?? I kinda liked TW2 actually but TW3 design for controllers. Its boring. Dialogues are long and boring. Its only good thing is it has nice lore and thats it.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

still accuusing me of lying

Yes, and this shit below is why:

I kinda liked TW2 actually but TW3 design for controllers.

Absolutely ridiculous.

TW2 worked better with a controller than with a keyboard and mouse, despite being designed primarily for the PC. That's how absolutely clunky it was. Movement during combat was designed more for analogue sticks than WASD. On the other hand, The Witcher 3 was not only more responsive than TW2, but the entire interface was designed for any input device that you prefer and it had dedicated buttons for controls that are not very comfortable to use with a controller. It plays and controls like a PC game is supposed to.

This is something that you would know if you'd played the games.

 

[CaitSeith]

Spoiler: Reading a B-Cell thread...

OT: To be ruined those games need to have something that would had been good, but clashes with badly implemented open world design. If you say "X is inferior in every aspect" then it wasn't ruined by open world.

 

[Squilookle]

I was never interested in Ghost Recon or Sniper Elite until they went open world. Now they're both far more interesting. So there's that.

I would also consider Mafia 1 and 2 to be open world, despite having scripted missions within those open worlds. And I doubt anyone would say that Far Cry got worse by opening up the world from the mostly linear path the first one put you on.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

still accuusing me of lying

Yes, and this shit below is why:

I kinda liked TW2 actually but TW3 design for controllers.

Absolutely ridiculous.

TW2 worked better with a controller than with a keyboard and mouse, despite being designed primarily for the PC. That's how absolutely clunky it was. Movement during combat was designed more for analogue sticks than WASD. On the other hand, The Witcher 3 was not only more responsive than TW2, but the entire interface was designed for any input device that you prefer and it had dedicated buttons for controls that are not very comfortable to use with a controller. It plays and controls like a PC game is supposed to.

This is something that you would know if you'd played the games.

just look at this. the movement, the controls, combat. they all suck. even most hardcore witcher fans would say its combat is weakest aspect.

now i think cyberpunk will be better game due to being first person but it will also suffer from open world fatigue and wont come close to Deus Ex.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

still accuusing me of lying

Yes, and this shit below is why:

I kinda liked TW2 actually but TW3 design for controllers.

Absolutely ridiculous.

TW2 worked better with a controller than with a keyboard and mouse, despite being designed primarily for the PC. That's how absolutely clunky it was. Movement during combat was designed more for analogue sticks than WASD. On the other hand, The Witcher 3 was not only more responsive than TW2, but the entire interface was designed for any input device that you prefer and it had dedicated buttons for controls that are not very comfortable to use with a controller. It plays and controls like a PC game is supposed to.

This is something that you would know if you'd played the games.

just look at this. the movement, the controls, combat. they all suck. even most hardcore witcher fans would say its combat is weakest aspect.

now i think cyberpunk will be better game due to being first person but it will also suffer from open world fatigue and wont come close to Deus Ex.

That video cannot seriously be your only proof of argument...one incident of the horse getting stuck on a simple mapping error doesn't mean the entire concept of a game going open world is botched.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Hey, everyone knows Ride to Hell was so much better after it turned level-based!

Ok, cherry picked example, I know. But this is videogames and a B-cell thread, so get some wine and settle down for a good old fun time where ethics and logic are but mere dots on the horizon of our ever dwindling lives.

Actually, splinter cell open world interests me a little. But I do like globe-trotting locations, so maybe a compromise there, eh...ehhh? Ubisoft do read my posts, don't they?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

just look at this

That's called a bug. And it's been fixed. As for controls and combat, you can't seriously claim that they sucks and at the same time praise TW2 that's literally two steps behind in those areas. You didn't play the game. So just grow the fuck up and stop lying.

now i think cyberpunk will be better game due to being first person but it will also suffer from open world fatigue and wont come close to Deus Ex.

And stop trying to predict things. You're hilariously bad at it.

That video cannot seriously be your only proof of argument...one incident of the horse getting stuck on a simple mapping error doesn't mean the entire concept of a game going open world is botched.

It makes sense if you're B-Cell. The guy will go to extreme lengths to criticise games that he didn't even play and to defend games that are doing the same things that he constantly criticises other games for.

But the simple truth of the matter is that he only likes first person shooters that let you play ONLY as a manly man. And only a couple of third person shooters or action games but only if the protagonist is a man.

The real reason he doesn't like The Witcher 3 is because the story forces you to play as Ciri at certain points. Just like he hates Arkham City because of Catwoman sequences and Max Payne 2 because of that Mona Sax sequence.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

That's called a bug. And it's been fixed. As for controls and combat, you can't seriously claim that they sucks and at the same time praise TW2 that's literally two steps behind in those areas. You didn't play the game. So just grow the fuck up and stop lying.

Yeah because if anyone criticize witcher 3 have not played the game. come on. the game got worse once you reach novigrad. and there all you do is ride horse and talk and talk. some of aspect i like. i like the lore of witcher 3. i like the setting, the universe, unfortunately open world thing killed it for me. its not greatest thing since slice bread. its incredibly overrated but not wolfenstein 2 level of bad. CDPR suck at making good and engaging gameplay.

It makes sense if you're B-Cell. The guy will go to extreme lengths to criticise games that he didn't even play and to defend games that are doing the same things that he constantly criticises other games for.

But the simple truth of the matter is that he only likes first person shooters that let you play ONLY as a manly man. And only a couple of third person shooters or action games but only if the protagonist is a man.

The real reason he doesn't like The Witcher 3 is because the story forces you to play as Ciri at certain points. Just like he hates Arkham City because of Catwoman sequences and Max Payne 2 because of that Mona Sax sequence.

I hate arkham city??? lol thats new to me. it was imo one of the best 2011 game but it arkham asylum was better. series got ruined further by arkham origins (not develop by rocksteady) and arkham knights which have forced batmobile segments. so open world are to blame. the semi linear structure of arkham asylum was best. story was also best.

max payne 2 is weakest game in series because its too easy, and nowheare near as atmospheric and gritty as original max payne.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Yeah because if anyone criticize witcher 3 have not played the game

Plenty of people have criticised The Witcher 3. But you could tell from their criticism that they did in fact play the game. All you did was watch that "WorthABuy" imbecile on YouTube.

 

[IceForce]

I thought OP liked open-world games, and hated linear games. Now I'm confused.

@B-Cell: You liked Far Cry 2, right? Well that's open-world.

 

[ZCAB]

Yeah because if anyone criticize witcher 3 have not played the game

Plenty of people have criticised The Witcher 3. But you could tell from their criticism that they did in fact play the game. All you did was watch that "WorthABuy" imbecile on YouTube.

Now that you mention it, he's been pretty quiet about WorthABuy lately. Probably still angry from when WAB named Red Dead Redemption 2 game of the year and he had to tear all of the Mack posters from his bedroom wall.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Yeah because if anyone criticize witcher 3 have not played the game

Plenty of people have criticised The Witcher 3. But you could tell from their criticism that they did in fact play the game. All you did was watch that "WorthABuy" imbecile on YouTube.

I did beat both. TW2 and TW3. i remember there were 2 path in TW2. Roche path and iorveth path and i choose iovereth path. there was a time when we also played as king henselt. and the main villain letho was more cooler than main villain in witcher 3.

TW2 was very flawed but better of 2 imo. TW3 has just more and more talking and dialogues that make it more and more boring. ciri parts were just hack n slash overpowered.