If you're trying to prove you played it, this doesn't really prove much. You could've seen all of this in a youtube let's play, or even just read it all on the wiki.B-Cell said:
Games that are ruined by going open world?
- Thread starter B-Cell_v1legacy
- Start date
B-Cell criticizes RPG for being too RPG-y. That's basically what I'm getting from this.
You might just want to stop buying and playing open world RPGs then and stop saying they're "bad" on the internet. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them bad. Unless you can bring up a better argument than "RPG being RPG is boring. Me only like when the game holds my hand and lets me flail at buttons and schut."
You might just want to stop buying and playing open world RPGs then and stop saying they're "bad" on the internet. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them bad. Unless you can bring up a better argument than "RPG being RPG is boring. Me only like when the game holds my hand and lets me flail at buttons and schut."
Seriously, an RPG tries to flesh out its story and world, and you're going to criticize it for that. Your inability to sit still for more than 10 seconds doesn't mean a game with a lot of dialogue is bad. At least the majority of the dialogue was well written and quite well acted. Imagine if it was just all text dialogue still.B-Cell said:
There are many kinds of RPGs, some story and dialogue heavy, and others that aren't. You should probably stay away from the former, so you can stop arbitrarily calling them bad. If you clearly don't like talk heavy RPGs, why on earth did you buy one?
Yes, Ciri was capable, because her sections were short and only were meant to give you a brief perspective of her journey. It was a story being told to you, that you happened to able to control. A story wouldn't be very good if it was "And then Ciri got killed, so I have to start telling the story over again in a way that won't have her die." Heaven forbid they just had it all be a cutscene that you just had to sit and watch, or else you'd complain about that too.
(Saves to computer)CaitSeith said:
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.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,692
- 3,259
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Hey, I played Witcher 3 and I didn't like it, but to say that the controls in Witcher 3 are in any way worse than the controls in Witcher 2 is absurd. All of the combat and movement in Witcher 3 was a huge improvement from Witcher 2. Witcher 2's combat was actively terrible, whereas Witcher 3's combat was inoffensively mediocre.B-Cell said:
Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar who didn't touch either game, or is looking through Witcher 2 with rose colored glasses and doesn't actually remember the combat in that game at all.
He ain't wrong...B-Cell said:
---
Also, RPGs are in a pretty bad place now as they're the games with the most amount of content but the lowest % of engaging content (generally), that's a pretty piss-poor combination.
---
How many open worlds games actually mesh with the character development/narrative/themes of the game? Not very many, it's just a go-to design choice, just a checkbox to check because it sells basically. Very few games merit their open world at all. Witcher 3 didn't, it could've easily been far more linear experience as that was literally the narrative (going from Ciri clue to Ciri clue basically). Whereas a game like Horizon not only needed the open world for its core gameplay but the narrative and character development was about Aloy discovering a "new" world. Whereas Geralt already knew his world and the narrative is literally just following breadcrumbs. Plus, Horizon's open world contains at least a couple hundred less points of interest than Witcher 3, less is usually more with regards to game design. Design by subtraction, not addition.
MGSV(if they wanted it called 5, they should have called it 5 or least not started using words that had V in them all over the place) had issues with a huge open map that didn't have much to do and forced you to use the helicopter every single mission, but most of the other issues weren't inherently a problem with being open world. They involved poor writing and feeling rushed, which is a shame because the game has a great gameplay engine shackled to a mediocre game. It really doesn't help that this isn'tB-Cell said:
the final story of Big Boss, this is the story of a medic who was being gaslit the whole time
B Cell thinks that a romance plot is out of place in a setting that literally has romance subplots as possible parts of character creation and ingrained in it's style. He's got nothing to say on Cyberpunk on that basis alone.
I disagree. I'd take Skyrim over Witcher 3 any day of the week.Adam Jensen said:
I LOVED Witcher 2. Beat it twice, and then again once Dark Mode got patched in later.
Witcher 3 was the game I got a PS4 for, and even bought the season pass same day.
God.. Witcher 3 is just so boring. Going open world removed any focus the game had. 2 was a masterpiece. I never even bothered beating the story, or even getting far in 3. I didn't like anything about Witcher 3 at all. Combat was a step down, I didn't care about the world or anyone in it... I'll absolutely never understand the praise. Dragon's Dogma, Skyrim, Dragon Age Inquistion, heck, even Assassin's Creed Odyssey are far, far superior open world RPGs, while Witcher 3 set the entire series back.
Aloy's character developement (which is completed by the end of the Proving btw i.e. before the open-world even really opens up) and discovering a new world could've easily been done in a linear or hub based structure as well. HZD has as much reason to be open-world as W3 does. That reason being to give the player the ability to engage with the gameworld at their own pacing outside of the main plot. HZD's interaction is fighting giant robots at your own pacing, and W3's is getting involved in the day-to-day lives of people living in a harsh, war torn world filled with monsters and curses.Phoenixmgs said:
The reason people loved Horizon: Zero Dawn wasn't because of the main plot, it was because of the robot dinosaur battles. And the reason people loved The Witcher 3 wasn't because of the main plot (although it's certainly tons better than HZD's), but because of all the little unique stories you could come across. And the open-world formate facilitates both of these.
Have you replayed Baulders Gate recently. Skyrim has far more character development. "I got attacked. Better go to Baulders Gate. Wait, he's bhaalspawn too. Kill. Game over' There's two complications. Pay the gate keeper. Using a faction to get close to Saverok.Phoenixmgs said:
How much character development was in Fallout 1? I'm irradiated now and can't go home? They give you a more developed backstory between games than they do during the game. At least Skyrim has the need to prove your worth, actually do some training, being a leader during politcal negotiations based on your actions, take out dragon, lead an invasion force. (Please note, I find a lot of Skyrim boring, especially the main quest. This is meant to indicate how piss poor old games were.)
Replayed Morrowind lately? There are a series of quests that I find worse than Fetch quest. Talk quest. Yes, that's right, just talk. You dont even need to convince them. I guess the fun bit was the journey.
Also, why did Geralt need to find out half the clues he got? Most tell a story but doesn't give any insight on where she is. I.e. its chaff
I would totally agree on inhabitants. But it depends on what you mean by world. If we are talking about landscapes, landmarks etc, Skyrim does it better. If you meant worle building... there are some interesting aspects to both, especially if you consider the whole series. If you mean that the world is more interconnected, Witcher better. Same goes for feeling 'more lived in'Casual Shinji said:
This is lore and setting dependent. Velen is ugly by design, and the game is set in that piece of land during a war. Novigrad is better than any medieval city in any video game ever made. It looks and feels like a real medieval city. It's not as gorgeous, mystical and magical as locations in Skyrim or Oblivion though. The same is true for Skellige. On the other hand, Toussaint shits on every Bethesda open-world ever designed.trunkage said:
Well, better how? Skyrim is a much more fantastical place with mountain ranges, and ancient crypts and ruins. And the world is designed to really make you feel this. The world of W3 is one where the fantastical elements, like monsters and magic, aren't treated as fantastical, but as just another issue the people have to deal with. And because of that the world comes across as much more mundane; there's no fantastical vistas, just generally farmland and some towns.trunkage said:
It's also that I grew up on a farm, and the way W3 captures that particular shittiness of the muddy paths with puddles partially encroaching on them, and how the roads cut into smalll forrested areas with scraggly trees is almost perfect. And the settlements have a genuine sense of busyness to them. They feel like real little places where people live, and work, and try to get by. Whereas, not just Skyrim but nearly every other open-world towns/cities, feel terribly artificial.
The combat in TW2 is worse. the movement and controlling in TW3 is far and away worse.Dirty Hipsters said:
Well done for catching up... the gaming community knew that at the end of last generation, game publishers just didn't get the memo as usual.B-Cell said:
I'm going to chime in on this one. The reason being that Mafia 2 was itself an open-world game. It just wasn't a sandbox. Mafia 2 is an exceptional open-world game, it set a gold standard for the genre and 3 was awful. It wasn't because of the shift to "open world", as I said, Mafia 2 already was open-world. It was the shift to grinding, repetitive busywork gameplay. Taking over hoods was new in San Andreas but is a sideshow to actual gameplay. Mafia 2 had a thrilling story with great characters against an interesting backdrop. Mafia 3 had a great backdrop, but failed with the characters and awful gameplay.B-Cell said:
But to answer the question...both BioWare franchises, Dragon Age and in turn, Mass Effect, suffered terrible in becoming the pseudo-open world shitshows that were Inquisition and Andromeda. Combining shallow, unfocused gameplay, without context and a shift to Frostbite, crunch culture and social justice all combined to make travesties that tarnished the name of their franchises and dragged the studios name thru the dirt.
I want to go explore. Witcher doesn't give me much to explore just by looking at the horizon. Even some mountain ranges would be nice.Casual Shinji said:
I came from a farm too. 1.5 mile x 3 mile. 1 lot of scraggly trees in the whole area, where we leave dead cattle if we didn't get the chance to slaughter them beforehand. We had dirt roads too. Had to go on a school bus via them for 10 year. Witcher doesn't look much like what I remember, even though I had that experience. But that's not what's important. I remember seeing mountain in the distance and finally being able to go there one day. Disused railway lines, Silos, dams, old shacks. All with possibly interesting tales.... And the Witcher usually just has heaps of empty space. The Witcher is unrealistic based on how sparse the world is. Which flies in the face of Novigrad, which is well incredibly realised and feel realistic. It feels alive. It feels full to the brim. But the countryside and pretty empty.
Edit: I forgot to add that 'farms' in video games make me want to say, 'You thinks that's a farm? That's cute. Looks more like a garden.' Hence me pointing out the dimensions of the farm