My problem with open world games

nikomas1

New member
Jul 3, 2008
754
0
0
Don't get me wrong, I like games were you can choose your own way (good or evil) but games like oblivion and Fallout 3 are just to open. I don''t hate exploring in itself but I get really frustrated when you have to find every quest/town by yourself (or in rare cases, weak guidelines). To a RTS/TBS player like me it's just to overwhelming. If that map in FO3 at least would mark out some guidelines instead of only stuff you know, It would have been much more comfortable to use.The same fact trickles down into MMO games, It's simply to much to take in and learn before you actually can enjoy the game.

I want to know how many of you agree with me on this point, Although most of you will disagree. That I know at least.
 

georgeyboy654

New member
Dec 17, 2008
13
0
0
I think you have a good point, it does get annoying not knowing where to go.

I also think that once something is marked on your map, you can fast-travel to it straight away, rather than having to discover it first.

Just my opinion.
 

NeedAUserName

New member
Aug 7, 2008
3,803
0
0
I know what you mean about finding quests. If I hadn't been using a walkthrough for something else Fallout 3 related, I would never have found out about half the cities, just because they either weren't particularly close to main (story line) areas, or because even if you walk past they are hard to notice, i.e. That Children's town (Little Lampshade?), Its pretty well hidden, and if you aren't looking for it, you will probably miss it.
 

Nutcase

New member
Dec 3, 2008
1,177
0
0
Frankly, I'm more interested in F3 now that I'm hearing it has exploration where you get hints but the game does not hold your hand all the way.

Any less than that, and it wouldn't *be* exploration, would it?
 

PureChaos

New member
Aug 16, 2008
4,990
0
0
i quite like open world games, such as ShadowMan and Metroid Prime. it's being able to explore a place to return a bit later and gain access to new parts of it. it is a bit of a pain when you have to run pretty much the entire way across the map but it's still good when you finally get to the door you couldn't previously open and see what's on the other side.
 

nikomas1

New member
Jul 3, 2008
754
0
0
PureChaos said:
i quite like open world games, such as ShadowMan and Metroid Prime. it's being able to explore a place to return a bit later and gain access to new parts of it. it is a bit of a pain when you have to run pretty much the entire way across the map but it's still good when you finally get to the door you couldn't previously open and see what's on the other side.
Now this is where we differ greatly, I (usually) am in no hurry to go back to a previous level to unlock/explore that specific thing. I guess this is why I like SRPGs and JRPGs. Linear games.
 

anti_strunt

New member
Aug 26, 2008
253
0
0
I like free-form exploration if the rewards are satisfying, both game-wise and emotionally.

In Mass Effect I could drive around every inch of a planet in the fucking annoying dune buggy (heavy, armoured vehicle MY BUTT) only to find... A rare mineral deposit. +1 to some nonsense, passive collect-em-all side quest (there were, what, four or five of those?) and some cash. Whoppee.

In Oblivion I could ride my horse up the sheer side of a mountain all day (that was actually fun, unlike the fucking dune buggy), and find... Nothing. Nothing at all. Perhaps a bear or some random daedra. Perhaps a generic castle with not a single quest related to it and some random monsters and treasure shattered about like an anonymous, computer-generated NetHack floor. Only less immersive.

If FallOut actually rewards exploration, not only with random treasure, but some well-designed, and truely interesting sights which can only be found by searching for them, that would rock.

The problem is basically this: free-form exploration only works well for me if the hidden treasures are actually worth finding; the sights worth seeing; and the entire experience genuinely "cool". Unfortunately, this required good desigs and hard work. Much easier to just use a semi-random digital elevation model, plaster some boring textures over it, and shatter some random, useless trinkets around.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
I disliked Fallout 3 for this reason. I prefer sandbox games such as GTA 4, where the city is not that big and there is an accessible system that allows you to quickly pass through the world.
 

coffin

New member
May 8, 2008
47
0
0
my only problem with F3 is the short as storyline like sure i enjoyed it but i just wanted that little bit more like that last mouth full of coffee or beer its never enough
 

MrBrightside919

New member
Oct 2, 2008
1,625
0
0
I think the problem with me is that I can have a blast in an open world game, completing quests and finding special stuff. The problem is that I also want to follow the story. It's like, once I finish the story of the game I rarely find myself going back into the game for more.

That's probably true for all open world games for me.
 

Incompl te

New member
Dec 13, 2008
1,453
0
0
I agree with you. This is why i enjoyed Fable 2 so much. The golden breadcrumb trail really helps you find your way
 

blaze338

New member
Aug 12, 2008
118
0
0
I don't have a problem with open world games at all i just normally never finish the main story because im normally having too much fun doing all the side stuff like assassin quests and the arena from oblivion
 

Actual

New member
Jun 24, 2008
1,220
0
0
I'm was really enjoying this game till I realised I'd unexpectedly reached the end of the main story campaign. Sooo now I could explore the vast wasteland, but why?

I guess despite my admiration for games that give you free reign to make your own decisions I secretly actually prefer nice linear story lines that hold my hand and direct all the drama. Guess I'm just not as evolved as I'd like.
 

Fightgarr

Concept Artist
Dec 3, 2008
2,913
0
0
I think the openness breaks gameflow for me. Call me uptight for liking my games to be pretty linear, but it strikes me that they're just putting less story for more generic... game. Yeah, I suppose exploring is cool when you have a detailed world, but then make exploring a key element in the story (y'know that thing that games are supposed to be based around most of the time?). In Oblivion it just struck me as a mindless way to cram more hours of game down your throat; and I guess, yeah, it is pretty realistic to have a huge game world but that doesn't make it any less fucking monotonous to play through.
 

CoverYourHead

High Priest of C'Thulhu
Dec 7, 2008
2,514
0
0
I like open world games as long as I can get around fast enough, games like Fallout 3 at least have fast-travel, but I definitely see your point, I'm glad bethesda reduced the size of the world in FO3 from Oblivion.
 

Drift-Bus

New member
Sep 17, 2008
93
0
0
F3 really does

***SPOILER***(kinda)

I found a raider camp which contains, after much exploration, a brothel, with mannequins fitted with warning lights on their breats

it's the little things that count


On Topic, i love open world games EXCEPT FAR CRY 2!!!

Piece of steaming smelly shit! If your going to have open world gameplay, let there be a fast travel option for godsakes! It's too damn big! And don't have enemies respawn at check points once your fifty meters down the road!! ARGH!!! And don't have an enemey jeep appear every two minutes! FUCK!

I hated the game so much I turned it off after three hours
 

Nutcase

New member
Dec 3, 2008
1,177
0
0
anti_strunt said:
If FallOut actually rewards exploration, not only with random treasure, but some well-designed, and truely interesting sights which can only be found by searching for them, that would rock.

The problem is basically this: free-form exploration only works well for me if the hidden treasures are actually worth finding; the sights worth seeing; and the entire experience genuinely "cool". Unfortunately, this required good desigs and hard work. Much easier to just use a semi-random digital elevation model, plaster some boring textures over it, and shatter some random, useless trinkets around.
Yep! If exploration is present, it must be taken seriously, or it will make the game worse.

From the POV of the developers, when the player never sees some content due to not finding it, they must build proportionally more of it to deliver the same quantity of experience. Which costs money. The exploration must appeal to the players so that it offsets this cost.

It's not universally appealing, either, like graphical quality is (other things being the same). Exploration is a relatively quiet, subtle, participatory experience. It's no good if you require the game to actively entertain you.

I don't want to mix up completionist exploration ("there are exactly 100 hidden secrets sprinkled about") and open-world exploration. These have entirely different charms. The first one, at its best, is a subtle puzzle of sorts. The latter is a way to make the world fundamentally more real by projecting uncertainty. A world where you are sure you have seen absolutely everything is, in a sense, a dead world.
 

Dr Spaceman

New member
Sep 22, 2008
546
0
0
The biggest reservation I had about Fallout 3 was its wide-open nature, especially since I absolutely could not get into Morrowind due to its complete lack of direction. However, the exploration was really rewarding. Not only was it oddly calming to wander the Wasteland (with Fallout's wonderfully understated soundtrack) but it seems like you'd always run across something new and interesting. Hell, less than an hour into my second playthrough I discovered a location, very near to Megaton, that I totally missed on my first go-round. It was fun and surprising.
 

Pyrrian

New member
Oct 3, 2007
99
0
0
I like open world games, but the focus has to be more than just space available. Back in Ultima 8 (and even Ultima 9) you got the ability to climb stuff which, while limited, was something that wasn't big in RPGs before or since. Take Morrowind, Oblivion, or Fallout. You never actually get out your hands and climb, you just jump up against something - you don't even dive. It's frustrating because, like in silly old 2D RPGs, you end up getting held up by some debris about waist high. Plus, it takes strategy out of the terrain. For instance, being an archer or sniper would mean a lot more if you could put yourself in a relatively inaccessable location to ambush a target. Really, I'd like to see an open world RPG incorporate some of the movement and climbing aspects of Assassin's Creed into its framework. That'd be fantastic.

Also, we need some more interaction in these environments. I hate coming across useless or static junk. I'd love to be able to use spells or powers to do different things. Using physics to damage people would be great. For instance, if I set a mine and covered it with debris, you'd think that debris could cause some damage. Or maybe I use a levitate spell to suspend a barrel of flammable oil over a fire until some enemies show up, when I drop the barrel so that it shatters and scatters burning oil all over. Maybe I can even set a forest on fire like that. Just let me do unique stuff, so that there's more to the environment than just static objects or useless rubbish.

Finally, give me back the damn party. In Ultima VII and Baldur's Gate you had a party of characters that kept you company in the otherwise lonely game world. This serves two purposes, really. One, you get to choose some companions to come along. I like when they can be either in-game NPCs or user created, just because it's a nice option to have both. Still, the number of people has to be three or more, and it has to be from a pretty good selection. I hate my companion choices in Fallout 3, for instance, and I'd much rather have the Baldur's Gate variety. The other good thing about parties is that you can not use them. Baldur's Gate II, for instance, is a lot of fun to try and play as a solo wizard... because it's not easy to take down a dragon or lich by yourself. It adds a cool challenge when you're doing things solo that were meant for a party - just make sure I get more experience (or whatever equivalent) for doing it this way so I feel rewarded. An important side-note here is that scaling the level of the loot or encounter to the player is lame. I should get to choose how easy or hard I make the game. If I want to raid the hardest areas in the game right away, let me do it and get a good reward. It's great to challenge myself this way.
 

SimuLord

Whom Gods Annoy
Aug 20, 2008
10,077
0
0
Seems like true open-world gameplay is more niche than I thought. I like playing games where I have to figure everything out for myself as long as the manual (or at least the readme) is reasonably good at explaining what things are and how they work. Dissecting a game, often with aid of pen and Handy Dandy Notebook? to keep track of stuff, is how PC gaming used to be and how I've always liked it.