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

[The_Lost_King]

It's far to expensive, hard, and long to make a good open world game. There is a reason there aren't that many of them.

Just look at Oblivion - just what was the point in all those copy-paste generic dungeons? Pure filler and a waste of time & space.

Hey, Oblivion was fucking amazing and I spent hundreds of hours there and there are people who have spent thousands of hours, on one character.

 

[Saltyk]

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.

5 comments in till someone pretty much said exactly what I was going to.

Remember what Square said about FFXIII and why it wasn't as open as we would have liked? It was too difficult to create such large worlds, and took immense resources. Well, that applies to a lot.

Sure, games like Infamous will use large open worlds, but that works well with the game. So will GTA and several others. Personally, I look forward to seeing more of Watch Dogs, too. I doubt too many games will use that same idea if it doesn't fit.

And I expect that if every game went that route, it would really push the purse strings. It would probably be a harbinger of the AAA gaming collapse that Jim has been predicting for a while.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I don't think that'll happen because one of the main things about SGWWs is that they're linear as hell, you hardly have to put any effort in compared to an open world game. An open world game needs a lot of interacting components, and consistency. Taking the same approach would lead to a very shallow and bland world that would make for an unenjoyable game, special powers that are incredibly context-specific, and a quest system that insists you do everything in a certain order and walls off some areas unnecessarily. Basically, you can be a lot lazier when you're just making a pretty corridor than when you're making a proper area with roaming enemies and the possibility of the player accessing things out of order.

 

[Ebonrul]

Oh, failure is always an option.

I'm pretty sure that the numbers produced by certain gaming demographics will always be the brass ring for the publishers that cut the checks. I expect a thorough "dumbing-down" of RPGs to the point where anyone can play them by simply scanning the box and getting the gist of what's going on. It's not as though the genre as a whole doesn't already play follow the leader, it always has. D&D was the first gaming blockbuster to get the "[current blockbuster] killer" treatment long before Madden or Halo or Final Fantasy.

However, the true D&D killer was not an RPG that copied it perfectly, but the RPG design that spoke to the capabilities of the platform it was being played on. From Legend of Zelda to Skyrim, the standouts were always the one that looked ahead (or at least looked to the present) instead of looking back, or at the other kid's homework. After spending a Hollywood blockbuster budget on voice acting and special effects and turning out a freshly polished turd a few times, someone will take the hint and make "THE RPG" for that next-gen console (or all of them, I can't predict where lightning will strike, only that it will).

Basically, while I expect that RPGs in the next generation will be marked by noteworthy failures, it's a niche market where originality tends to do better overall than cut-and-paste game design. Someone will make "THE PERFECT RPG" for the next generation.

Just expect to wade through mountains of shit to get to it.

 

[MammothBlade]

For sure, it seems like some some RPGs/adventure games which were not originally open-world are making some sort of transition to a completely open world. Some will fail to adapt to this formula, becoming cheap imitations. MGS5 probably stands the highest chances of failure due to its tendency towards linear storytelling and heavy use of cutscenes. Although the levels in MGS are pretty rich, the overall game formula is at first glance a toughie to adapt that way.

You are probably right on some counts. Skyrim was one of the biggest successes of the past few years. There might be a pressure from executives to create more open-world games just to get a me too product out there, definitely a short-term trend in the works.

Most games are limited in some way or another, by their budget, scope, style, design philosophy, in a way that makes them unique. Sure if you had an unlimited budget, you might be able to create an AAA game which accommodates to every genre, niche, cliche, or whim. Yet the fact is that those which try tend to become ridiculously expensive, or have other shortcomings. That's the problem... a lot of games these days are trying to be catch-all theme parks which have a little bit of something for everyone, maybe holding massive temporary interest much like a blockbuster film. Pre-order this, pre-order that, milk the hype and novelty for all it's (probably not) worth.

On a more positive note, this could help to innovate gaming, creating more replay value in games which otherwise wouldn't be worth a second look after playing them once.

 

[Evil Smurf]

My favourite game from this gen was Saints Row: The Third. I can't get enough of sandbox games.

 

[briankoontz]

There already is an open-world RPG version of Call of Duty - it's World of Warcraft. A huge number - probably most - MMOGs copy some or occasionally nearly all functions of WoW.

As far as non-MMOG semi open-world RPGs go, there's already a Call of Duty - it's the Diablo series.

I'm glad that games like the Elder Scrolls series, the Gothic series, the Witcher series, etc. haven't had the same influence on the industry that Blizzard games do - it means there's enough developer freedom to make fresh games in the genre.

No self-respecting game developer makes clones.

 

[144_v1legacy]

This should be a poll, to justify one-word answers.

No.

 

[ChrisCarTheMarauder]

There already is an open-world RPG version of Call of Duty - it's World of Warcraft. A huge number - probably most - MMOGs copy some or occasionally nearly all functions of WoW.

As far as non-MMOG semi open-world RPGs go, there's already a Call of Duty - it's the Diablo series.

I'm glad that games like the Elder Scrolls series, the Gothic series, the Witcher series, etc. haven't had the same influence on the industry that Blizzard games do - it means there's enough developer freedom to make fresh games in the genre.

No self-respecting game developer makes clones.

Well first off, pretending that Bethesda makes wonderful deep RPGs while shitting on Blizzard makes you look downright foolish, and second off, Bethesda HAS had a huge impact, and there's plenty to back that up, most recently being the fact that Dark Souls 2 is trying to get that audience.

And no, Skyrim IS the COD of RPGs, Todd Howard himself said it was built for that very audience and refers to it as an Action Adventure with RPG Elements. It was brought down for the lowest common denominator.

 

[Brown_Coat117]

To me it depends of the game. The original Mirrors Edge suffered from only one or two was through a level and I think will benefit from having more path open to the player. On the other hand I can't imagine it doing any favors for MGS5 where story (the concluded mess that it already is), and pacing are the main focus. As far as Dragon Age and the Witcher it could go both ways, the hub format has served both franchises very well so far.

 

[daveman247]

I doubt this would happen. Filling an open world with interesting things to do and find is hard man. Damn I wish remember me was open world. Now THAT was an intersting place to be in. Too bad most of it was just background.

Be cool to see how cyberpunk turns out.


I'd be ok with a happy medium, open "arena's" that just let you figure it out. Kind of like how splinter cell or rainbow six does it. That way you can still tell a story at a decent pace but let the player have choice in how to play. I look forward to seeing if blacklist can do it.

 

[viranimus]

Personally I feel its already happened as Bethesda is working hard to be the COD buisness model of RPGs. Hell I think Ive been proactively saying it for over a year now.

 

[Fox12]

Video games will always try to follow in the footsteps of other, more popular video game franchises. That's what happened to survival horror after the release of resident evil. Then the jrpg market thrived for a while. Then modern military shooters got their turn. I would rather see a lot of shoddy open world rip offs then shoddy military shooter rip offs anyway. If the industry is going to go through a new trend, then one of my favorite genres may as well take over. Remember when single player games were "dead?" Now everyone wants single player epic RPG's, and I'm fine with it. Sure most of it will be trash, but there will be gems in there too. Would Silent Hill exist if there had been no Resident Evil? Keep in mind that for every Silent Hill there were 5 Dino Crisis quality games. In the meantime there will still be other diamonds in the rough coming out, games that dare to defy mainstream expectations. Then they'll become huge trend setters and everyone will rip them off, forming the next video game fad. Repeat this cycle until the sun explodes and the earth is decimated.

This goes for all forms of media, of course. It happened with The Lord of the Rings, and prepare, because the crappy Game of Thrones rip-offs ARE coming.

 

[WanderingFool]

I dunno mate. It's a bit like wondering whether you'll get sick of infinite blowjobs...

Now, question: Are these infinite blowjobs continuous? or can you have periods of no blowjobs in between blowjobs? Cause while getting a blowjob may be awesome, I will need to do other things eventually...

OT: Yeah, I can see it possibly happening, its probably happening right now.

 

[Lilani]

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.

The main difference between open-world games and FPS's is that open world games are MUCH more difficult to make. FPS's became widely popular because the mechanics basically came pre-packaged with the Unreal engine. Because of all these pre-existing FPS engines, the process of making a FPS is akin to modding something. You just make the models and the levels, and the programming for your combat and lots of your environmental features is already done from the word "go." Today's FPS is yesterday's platformer, and basically for the same reason. In the 2D era, every other game was a platformer, not only because the code was already written but also because it was a format the gaming audience was used to. Just like FPS's now, making a platformer wasn't a great risk because people knew what sort of a game experience they would be getting.

But open-world games are much more intricate, and a lot more work has to be done to fill up the world properly to offer a barely acceptable experience. If you've got a dev like Bethesda who specializes in open-world games then it's easier for them to spit them out faster because they have an enormous back-catalogue of ideas to work from, and they already have a good workflow with their game engine. But it requires a lot of people and a lot of time to master, and even after you have the team and the mastery it still takes a LOT of assets to fill up an open-world game. So I don't think we're ever going to see open-world games get shat out as fast as FPS games can come out.

 

[jackinmydaniels]

I love me some open world brah. And I can barely get enough of them as is, so, yeah, more open world is fine for me. But I have yet to see any games outside of MGS that have shifted entirely from linearity to open world for the sake of being open, it's not cost effective to pump out a huge open world game every year and expect it to sell. No, I doubt it'll happen, linear setpiece shooters will still be the bread and butter of triple A.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Wouldn't be that bad, to be honest. Open world games are already usually a step above in that they allow and occasionally encourage you to just dick around and make your own amusement, like can I send a car into orbit with enough charges of C4? Or where is the tallest place and can I hurl myself off of it? Better yet, can I survive that without a parachute somehow?

 

[Chie]

I wouldn't mind, but I doubt it. I agree that open world games are hard to do well - there are so many things to think about, and it's not just something you can plug into an existing engine. I would be all for it though... I love open world RPGs.

 

[NoeL]

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.

Go play the first No More Heroes game. It's exactly this.

Anyway, while "afraid" might not be the right term, it's definitely the new trend. Practically every AAA title at E3 was sold as "open world" - how about a little variety? Games like Metal Gear Solid are about linear progression, in both game and story. I can't see an open world MGS working at all - at least not without sacrificing its strengths. That's not to say it can't be a good game, just not a "MGS" game. It would be like putting levels into a Metroid game.