Is anyone else afraid that Open World Games, specifically RPGs will become the COD/FPS of next gen?

[ChrisCarTheMarauder]

What I mean is that everything tries to cater to that audience and it loses the identity of the original franchise.

Last gen(I guess still current until the PS$/X1 launch) we saw an untold number of games turned from great single player affairs to action set piece dudebro extravaganzas with a tacked on multiplayer nobody wanted. "SpunkGargle Wee Wee" as some would call it.

But it seems from the direction a lot of upcoming games want to go(MGS5, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition, etc), instead of following COD, everyone's now following GTA and Skyrim. For some games, that's good, but for others, it's like the tacked on multiplayer: Unneeded and unwanted. There aren't many games that would be better with a shitload of padding and having to walk for 20 minutes to get anywhere.

As for the RPG side, that's a future I fear far more than any DRM laden bullshit: Every RPG trying to be Skyrim is what hell must be like. No more depth, no more memorable quests, no more personality, just bland mediocrity that goes on and on forever.

 

[Bertylicious]

I dunno mate. It's a bit like wondering whether you'll get sick of infinite blowjobs, bouncy castles and hovercraft. Open world is just awesome.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I dunno mate. It's a bit like wondering whether you'll get sick of infinite blowjobs, bouncy castles and hovercraft. Open world is just awesome.

Infinite blowjobs sounds great until you think about in 12 hours time when your cock feels like a shaved carrot

OT I don't mind open world games but that is because i don't value storylines and story tends to get pushed away in the open world setting. I don't mind the odd story driven corridor shooter but since 9/10 games are just that, any step towards more open world settings would be a welcome change. I'd much rather have more puzzle/strategy style games with an emphasis on tactical knowledge and understanding, rather than timing of commands but that is me.

 

[Smeatza]

No, because it's too difficult.
Bethesda have been doing it for years, and they have yet to get it right, just on a purely technical level.
So it will never get to the spunkgargleweewee stage, you simply can't churn out open world games at that kind of pace, and have them be functional.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

No, because it's too difficult.
Bethesda have been doing it for years, and they have yet to get it right, just on a purely technical level.
So it will never get to the spunkgargleweewee stage, you simply can't churn out open world games at that kind of pace, and have them be functional.

I agree, having every game having character have some sort of modding like an RPG maybe a valid concern but the fear that all games would become hugely narratively driven open world games is both unlikely and unnecessary concern. Its unlikely because the cost and effort of putting such a deep story into every single game and its unnecessary because even if they DID put deep stories into most games that wouldn't be a bad thing. Even something like COD could be improved not harmed by putting a compelling story into it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'm not a big fan of open world games because most devs don't know how to make an open world game (I'm even looking at the likes of Rockstar). I'm really afraid how Mirror's Edge 2 is going to turn out because the level design in Mirror's Edge was the best thing about the game, and level design starts going downhill as you build big open cities. Plus, devs then try to include all these additional gameplay mechanics (mini-game like really) that just dilute the core game even more. Hell, Assassin's Creed stopped having any kind of core gameplay way back at Assassin's Creed 2; at least the 1st game tried having core gameplay with the Hitman-esque (and Hitman-lite) main assassinations.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

Infinite blowjobs sounds great until you think about in 12 hours time when your cock feels like a shaved carrot

OT I don't mind open world games but that is because i don't value storylines and story tends to get pushed away in the open world setting. I don't mind the odd story driven corridor shooter but since 9/10 games are just that, any step towards more open world settings would be a welcome change. I'd much rather have more puzzle/strategy style games with an emphasis on tactical knowledge and understanding, rather than timing of commands but that is me.

who says open world means no story? A good RPG should have both, Ultima games for example and Richard Garriott (Lord British) is in the process of making a spiritual successor to Ultima. I know some people would disagree but I love the story in the Bioware games and the other D&D games, Interplay games for example.

 

[tilmoph]

I kind of doubt open-world will become the next tacked on multiplayer/ action set piece. They're just harder to make.

An set piece heavy game with stop and go shooting galleries is fairly straightforward; cutscene, cutscene, single path with set number of baddies and set amount of cover, put in skybox. You don't have to think about multiple approaches because there aren't; you have one path to one destination in sequential order.

An open world game has to allow for a far larger degree of player control, and a larger number of possible actions. It simply isn't cost effective for triple a games that want a sequel every year to try and make something that big at that pace.

What we might get, however, is watered down sandboxes with the illusion of freedom. Basically, you wander around a city with not a lot in it, which acts as a mission hub to linear shooty sections of the current model. No sequence breaking, no sidequests or extra stories to help define the setting, just a bit of running around, maybe a token upgrade shop or two and back to plodding. That seems like a more realistic concern, since we've already seen it happen.

 

[ChrisCarTheMarauder]

I dunno mate. It's a bit like wondering whether you'll get sick of infinite blowjobs, bouncy castles and hovercraft. Open world is just awesome.

Open world does not automatically mean everything is fantastic and magical. A majority of open world games are nothing more than padded shallow shit with mundane combat and boring repetitive quests, and you are an incredibly simple minded human being if you tell yourself otherwise. And I'd much rather play a well crafted and balanced RPG with a good story and likable characters than trudge around a soulless uninteresting expanse that's only big for the sake of being big.

People like you are the problem; This lowest common denominator that thinks everything outside of a particular genre or style is inferior in some way.

 

[ChrisCarTheMarauder]

What we might get, however, is watered down sandboxes with the illusion of freedom. Basically, you wander around a city with not a lot in it, which acts as a mission hub to linear shooty sections of the current model. No sequence breaking, no sidequests or extra stories to help define the setting, just a bit of running around, maybe a token upgrade shop or two and back to plodding. That seems like a more realistic concern, since we've already seen it happen.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. THAT is just awful when you envision it.

 

[shrekfan246]

I dunno mate. It's a bit like wondering whether you'll get sick of infinite blowjobs, bouncy castles and hovercraft. Open world is just awesome.

Chafing (and that's the least of the potential problems that could arise), motion sickness, and air collisions (come on, we've got plenty of accidents driving in two dimensions, do we need to add a third?).

I don't like open world.

While my preferred method of level design is the Deus Ex-style whereby you have massive levels with tons of alternate paths to take depending on how you want to play and how well you pay attention, I'll take a Deadpool or Warhammer 40k: Space Marine or Bulletstorm over Assassin's Creed or The Elder Scrolls any day of the week.

What we might get, however, is watered down sandboxes with the illusion of freedom. Basically, you wander around a city with not a lot in it, which acts as a mission hub to linear shooty sections of the current model. No sequence breaking, no sidequests or extra stories to help define the setting, just a bit of running around, maybe a token upgrade shop or two and back to plodding. That seems like a more realistic concern, since we've already seen it happen.

Let's be honest here: That's pretty much what current open-world sandboxes are anyway. All of the sidequests and extra missions are just so much fluff to pad out the length of the game, and as open as the world looks, going from mission to mission is still a straight line even if you have to spend fifteen minutes traveling all the way across the map beforehand, and missions themselves are almost always "go here and do thing that usually results in the death of a character", just like in 'linear' games.

 

[Chris Tian]

Not all open world games are the same. Skyrim for example is very very large but also very bland, on the other hand games like Gothic and its spiritual successor Risen have much smaller worlds but are far more atmospheric. I for one expect The Witcher 3 to go down the later route.

So I don't think all RPG's are going to mimic Skyrim (extreamly large and bland) even if they take a more open-world-y approach to level design.

 

[krazykidd]

I dunno mate. It's a bit like wondering whether you'll get sick of infinite blowjobs, bouncy castles and hovercraft. Open world is just awesome.

Infinite blowjobs sounds great until you think about in 12 hours time when your cock feels like a shaved carrot

OT I don't mind open world games but that is because i don't value storylines and story tends to get pushed away in the open world setting. I don't mind the odd story driven corridor shooter but since 9/10 games are just that, any step towards more open world settings would be a welcome change. I'd much rather have more puzzle/strategy style games with an emphasis on tactical knowledge and understanding, rather than timing of commands but that is me.

When he said infinite did he mean non-stop? Because that sounds terrible! Now if by infinate he meant" whenever i want "that sounds awsome! I'd take one right now [small] i'm waiting in line at the bank [/small]

OT: god i hope not , i hate open world games . The only one i can stand are the elder scrolls , good thing they are released so far apart . Anyways , too much of anything get's tiredsome and same-ey . That's what developpers/publishers forget .

 

[MysticSlayer]

Not all open world games are the same. Skyrim for example is very very large but also very bland, on the other hand games like Gothic and its spiritual successor Risen have much smaller worlds but are far more atmospheric. I for one expect The Witcher 3 to go down the later route.

Well, they're at least going for a large world:

The Witcher 3 will introduce "a living open world larger than any other in modern RPG history."[3] The setting is more than "30 times larger" than previous Witcher games,[4] requiring players to catch a sailboat for some locations and ride horseback to others. However, fast travelling for the area of known locations is also possible.[3]
The Witcher 3 has been described as "20% bigger than Skyrim,"[5] and CD Projekt RED anticipates approximately 100 hours for the completion of the main story and open-world quests.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_3:_Wild_Hunt

Whether or not it follows the blandness of Skyrim is another matter. I'm not too fond of The Witcher games for various reasons, but if there's one thing they get right, it is atmosphere. Hopefully they don't lose that in trying to outdo everyone in terms of world size.

Anyways, back on topic: I can't really say. It's obvious that open world is popular right now, with games like Skyrim really helping in bringing the genre to popularity right now. However, Call of Duty is still the best selling franchise out there right now, so I don't think people's efforts to leech off its success is going away anytime soon. If anything, games still seem to be going to a more linear nature, as we can see by comparing BioShock and BioShock 2 to BioShock Infinite. Leveling systems in everything is likely due to CoD's success of infusing it into an online FPS. While some games are going down that route, Far Cry 3 and Grand Theft Auto V already had an open-world nature in their predecessors, and leveling systems seem to be the natural progression every genre out there right now. The other major game, Mirror's Edge 2, is being developed by DICE, who came to fame by merging the open-world sandbox genre with online FPS games and creating Battlefield. It makes sense that their other major franchise will take an open-world route.

In the end, it's really just hard to see that games will all be taking an open-world RPG route in the next generation. I can see games already in the genre following in Skyrim's footsteps more, hopefully without all the blandness of that game, but I don't see games from other genres going that route unless there's some connection the franchise or developers already have to open-world gameplay.

 

[Zhukov]

Yes.

"Afraid" isn't quite the word, perhaps "apprehensive", but yes.

I'd rather not see too many games turned into bland, directionless, pacing deprived, flat plains of blandness where 70% of the time is spent commuting around in a desperate and usually fruitless search for the interesting bits.

That said, it does suit some games. Mirror's Edge 2 for example. That's a game about movement (assuming they don't fuck it up, which they well might), so having a large world to move it makes sense.

 

[Chris Tian]

Well, they're at least going for a large world:

The Witcher 3 will introduce "a living open world larger than any other in modern RPG history."[3] The setting is more than "30 times larger" than previous Witcher games,[4] requiring players to catch a sailboat for some locations and ride horseback to others. However, fast travelling for the area of known locations is also possible.[3]
The Witcher 3 has been described as "20% bigger than Skyrim,"[5] and CD Projekt RED anticipates approximately 100 hours for the completion of the main story and open-world quests.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_3:_Wild_Hunt

I have total faith in CDProjectRed, I think they are a smart bunch and wouldn't make a world of that size if they couldn't fill it with the same atmosphere the other two games had.

OT: The major reason why open world will never become the tacked on multiplayer or holy grail everybody tries to copy is, that its way harder to pull off and you can't really "tack on" an open world, the whole game has to revolve around the open world like in Skyrim or GTA for it to make any sense, you can't just try to spread Gears of War over a huge map.

 

[Altorin]

No, because it's too difficult.
Bethesda have been doing it for years, and they have yet to get it right, just on a purely technical level.
So it will never get to the spunkgargleweewee stage, you simply can't churn out open world games at that kind of pace, and have them be functional.

pretty much this. It won't happen.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

No not even remotely worried about that happening. And if it did well all the better.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I would say no, there are lots of them on the horizon, but companies out to make a quick, safe game won't want to make such a huge effort to make an open world game.

Honestly looking at the trends at E3, I'm more worried about co-op and social focused games coming to be the main focus of the next gen. Looking at so many of the next gen games(Division, The Grid, 1889 thing, Destiny, the new 3D Mario etc.) we see all these co-op games, "that are better with others!" Co-op can be fun, but great single player experiences are vital to me personally, and I don't want to feel pressured to play with others to get the best, or "proper" experience.