My problem with open world games

[hellthins]

I love big open worlds. I love the sense of exploration in dangerous territories, of going away from the established cities and seeing what's out there. As long as the terrain is interesting, as long as there are things to find, I enjoy stumbling across these little discoveries. Then again, as a rule of thumb I don't look in game manuals unless I absolutely, positively, have to use it to figure out some more obscure command.

EDIT: That actually redeemed Two Worlds in my eyes, that sense of exploration. Something happened around level 10 and I just stopped paying attention to the quests when I got distracted by a demon in front of a dungeon. Once I cleared out the dungeon for the hell of it, I moved on to start hunting south when I started following a chain of orc war camps. And then I stumbled across a necromancer tower, jacked a skeletal warhorse from them, and made my way past some giant river to an orcish catapult and just went all over the place. I came out 20-30 levels stronger, and traded my piecemeal armor for this awesome black and silver armor, grabbed a shield, traded my claymore for a spear, and became a necro-knight.

 

[Izakflashman]

ya, I agree with simulord. Why dumb things down now?

Open world stuff is great. I thinks its one of the best things thats happened to games. I never felt like I lost direction. I'm A.D.D. enough to go wandering if I get bored of the main quest, but I'll get there eventually.
Oblivion was one of my fav games, so was the original fallouts. They were awesome, even now they are still good. But with oblivion, although it was a little mundane I admit, I never felt like I was at a loss. It didn't feel like I was missing out on anything. Cause I would always have a pile of quests logged ready to go, with my GPS like map to hold my hand. And inevitably I would run across some more quests to keep me handy.
Pyrrians also got a point, More interactivity with the terrain would be good. What was the point of physics and levitation on oblivion when things would just bounce harmlessly off baddies (And yet static traps would hurt you if you so much as nudge 'em)

So I guess I disagree, open worlds rock, although they need a little improvement in some cases. And if you can't find your way, either its bad game design or you weren't paying attention when the NPC was telling you to turn left at the Dark evil tower.

 

[Nutcase]

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.

I'm getting compeletely offtopic with this, but how would you guys like it if, while you are traveling in the wilderness, you would actually play the social game inside the group? They could have all sorts of principles and feelings towards each other. As situations develop, that might lead into some members deserting, some fighting, maybe refusing individual orders they are not comfortable with.

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.

Yes, I'd just like to give the group a decent ability to retreat if they accidentally stumble into an enemy that's just too strong.

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

I loved Oblivion until the (not so) small flaws ruined it for me:

Archers Suck. Period. You can't rely on getting a few shots off before the enemy is close to you, and if you tried to create a D&D-style missile ranger, you FAILED.

Voice acting. 'nuff said. Yahtzee went after this one loud and clear on immersion.

Legitimate game breaks. Forget that trick where you get an infinite amount of an item, these require only a little game knowledge:
-Buy all the 2 and 4 gp alchemical items, and turn them into potions. Gain money and alchemy
-5 items of 20% Chameleon. Game over: I can kill a Minotaur Lord with my bare hands. At skill 5
-I forget the rest of the things me and my brothers came up with.

 

[Izakflashman]

I think what your getting at with the social dynamics would be more than a little bit annoying. wandering through a woodland area, almost at the next city, then your cronies start bantering and talking about how much they hate the cleric for not healing them more often, or how they won't kill the villagers for you. Or in the middle of the combat they run up to you and try and have a convo. I know that's a negative idea, but its the sorta bugs that are just BOUND to come with that sorta thing. It would break flow if done wrong, and even if it was done right people will still complain.
I guess we already got that sorta thing. MMO's can sorta cover the base. Your party will disband if no one likes you, or if you try and lead them into a deathtrap.

 

[Izakflashman]

I loved Oblivion until the (not so) small flaws ruined it for me:

Archers Suck. Period. You can't rely on getting a few shots off before the enemy is close to you, and if you tried to create a D&D-style missile ranger, you FAILED.

Voice acting. 'nuff said. Yahtzee went after this one loud and clear on immersion.

Legitimate game breaks. Forget that trick where you get an infinite amount of an item, these require only a little game knowledge:
-Buy all the 2 and 4 gp alchemical items, and turn them into potions. Gain money and alchemy
-5 items of 20% Chameleon. Game over: I can kill a Minotaur Lord with my bare hands. At skill 5
-I forget the rest of the things me and my brothers came up with.

Psh, your just smarter at maths than the average console gamer it was made for... Including me. I picked up every piece of yarn and wooden cup I came across in the vain hope that 0+0 gold would one day equal 1. To much evolution in school for me I think.

 

[Fenring]

I can see your point, but I like the adventuring part, otherwise I would have finished Oblivion, Morrowind, and to a certain extent Mass Effect much quicker. Instead I got a ton of play time for 60 bucks, which I liked.

 

[jakefongloo221]

look the best way for bethesda to make a mmonopoly on open world is to add more variety. the only times i truly really honest to god had fun is when i played the quests that i didn't understand that creeped me out or made me choose between some really hard decisions, oh my sister has been kidnaped by bandits and ultimatly you have a choice to save the sister or get money from the bandits by going away. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO how about a hooker comes up to you and says your cute on the house but when you climb into the bed you wake up with nothing but underwear and shes a serial killer who steals men's stuff then throws them into a dungeon. You then have to escape the trap filled dungeon by the skin of your teeth and just for even more individuality you wake up with a decapitated head staring at you! thumbs up!

Open worlds can only be successful if they make you want to explore them. And they all have the same problem the bad guys only get harder by upgrading themselves wouldn't it be awsome if you were just walking in fall out with no purpose just walking and you get a radio transmission curious you turn it on and theres a sniper pinging you telling you to drop all weapons if your perception is high enough you could find out where he is or if your agility is high enough maybe you could stick a side arm in your boot or something.

Come on people random events i want things to surprise me else i'd play a linear game also it would help if bethesda hired some voice actors who would god damn emote. I literally drop the controller at how i have to report to a kid his dad is dead and he doesn't give 2 shits, he doesn't even give 1 shit, he doesn't even give a fart he's just like whatever

 

[jakefongloo221]

oh i would also like to mention i hate parties i'm 99% of the time a stealth based charecter and it kinda ruined it when i line up a shot or sneak up with a knife then i hear the BOOM BOOM BOOM of my parties' foot steps charging down the hill facing the what used to be 2 bandits now 5 because of large rocks comepletely go up and prison shower him. Then when i say good riddance they turn and chase me don't know if you notice but stealth based charecters only dammage....in stealth at least in the begining kind of a gamble but well you get my point

 

[mokes310]

Understandable. I too, hate wasting time not knowing what I'm doing. On the other hand, I've found that with most of the open world games, there was some little hint as to where I needed to go, or what I needed to do. I haven't played Fallout 3, but I'm sure I'll be in for a surprise when I do!

 

[Magnetic2]

I love the idea of coming back to places to open up new stuff. I was disappointed when I loaded up BioShock and saw you could return to each level, I thought "Nice, secrets in waiting" then at the end of the game I realized there is only one (un precisely one!) reason to go back, and it's to open a chest that contains ordinary stuff.

For me it's a curiosity thing, like, ooo! remember there is a high ledge I can't get to now! So I can pat myself on the back later for remembering where all the "couldn't get to before, but can now" places there are.

As for open world game play as in find it do it, it is rather overwhelming at first, but once you learn the world it's really not that different from linearity, your still doing the same stuff, just maybe in different ways for a varied game experience. You can't say, make your own quest, that would be a true open world system.

 

[Izakflashman]

You could make your own quest, but it would be a bit boring. Fire all your arrows into a field of those dumb bush things from oblivion and then see how many you can find, which is none. Or get a million paint brushes and make a stairway to heaven. *Rocks out on a guitar*
That's the great thing about free roaming, your not stuck in a constrictive environment. You can wander round till you can find enough barrels and boxes to pile up against the fence to get over it instead of wandering around trying to find the keys. I'm referring to trespasser by the way, which was the freaky as, and pretty cool for its time. That's just something you can't do on things on Jrpgs etc, using initiative is frowned upon in a lot of games. I feel as though open ended ones (Mostly) try and stimulate that.

 

[Pyrrian]

I'm getting compeletely offtopic with this, but how would you guys like it if, while you are traveling in the wilderness, you would actually play the social game inside the group? They could have all sorts of principles and feelings towards each other. As situations develop, that might lead into some members deserting, some fighting, maybe refusing individual orders they are not comfortable with.

It's not a bad idea, necessarily. There is a point at which it becomes too micromanagy, though. If it got too involved it could become kind of like the Sims, where you spend so much time telling your doofus to take a bath, clean the house, cook his food, and go to work that it totally dampens the fun.

That said, I've always liked a bit of banter or interaction with my party members. Remember in Baldur's Gate II how your party members would talk back and forth, or give eachother a hard time? That was pretty nice - often very amusing, too. Leaving also makes sense when you do something awful. For instance, if you've got some good-guys on your team, they might leave if you kill an innocent beggar somewhere. Ulktimately, though, it'd be nice if the vast majority of party interactions were optional. Banter is pretty passive, so it isn't a problem for that to occur. But things like feelings or romance subplots could get cumbersome.

The other thing I'd like to see is to get rid of the whole good / evil slider, as well as scrapping the universal "fame" meter. I think it would make much more sense if there was a localized "reputation" meter, which could be a bounded positive or negative. So, say you saved a boy from a small town, you might gain positive rep with people in and around that town, but it probably wouldn't travel the land. The best mental illustration of this I can give is to have you think of reactions as circular objects. Also, the degree to which people know or care would be different. If you saved the prince from rebellious nobles you might gain reputation with informed loyalists, lose reputation with rebellion sympathizers, and have your deed be completely irrelevant to the common population outside the capital. This all has to be bounded, though, because most of those rebellion sympathizers aren't going to come after you. Some might even not care, and some may try to get you to work for them.

 

[falcontwin]

I love open world games I played morrowind (plus all the expansions) for close to a year without even touching the main story, The only reason I went and did the main story missions was bacause I ran into the ghost fence or whatever it was called that would not let me go any further. I love open games just for the fact I can wander around and do whatever without there needing to be a Reason behind it.

 

[ev219674]

I haven't played Fallout 3, but here's my two cents anyway.

For me open world games are the most challenging and often most satisfying games that I play. Don't get me wrong, they frustrate the living hell out of me without a guide of some sort, but usually I'll try and forgo guides my first time playing anything, but I digress. It all depends on your patience levels and willingness to explore the game as much as possible before shoving your foot through the screen.

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

I loved Oblivion until the (not so) small flaws ruined it for me:

Archers Suck. Period. You can't rely on getting a few shots off before the enemy is close to you, and if you tried to create a D&D-style missile ranger, you FAILED.

Voice acting. 'nuff said. Yahtzee went after this one loud and clear on immersion.

Legitimate game breaks. Forget that trick where you get an infinite amount of an item, these require only a little game knowledge:
-Buy all the 2 and 4 gp alchemical items, and turn them into potions. Gain money and alchemy
-5 items of 20% Chameleon. Game over: I can kill a Minotaur Lord with my bare hands. At skill 5
-I forget the rest of the things me and my brothers came up with.

Psh, your just smarter at maths than the average console gamer it was made for... Including me. I picked up every piece of yarn and wooden cup I came across in the vain hope that 0+0 gold would one day equal 1. To much evolution in school for me I think.

The first one happened when I tried to play something other than a sword-swinger or a battle mage: Bows, stealth, buffing magic is not enough.

As for the breaks, most of them were found by one of my brothers, who breaks games by nature, and without necessarily trying. When we stopped playing, he was running through Oblivion Gates to see if he could make a Daedric Armor of Feather +125 (from Portal Stones) to replace his Daedric Armor of Strength +20, just so he could carry more random loot before returning to his house.




But about Open-world games in General: I like the idea, but I haven't found one that actually WORKS, other that D&D (PnP version). In all of them I've seen (Mostly Oblivion), it's too easy to be good at everything (Yes, I can kill you with one spell, or one swing of my sword, or I could just beat you to death with my hands), or become all-important (I'm the Archmage, and the Grey Fox, and the leader of the Assassin's Guild), or just do nothing and let the world wait (It's been a year since I got out of prison, and still haven't rescues Martin. Don't you think he should be dead by now?).

And that whole Leveling thing is weird. I like having places where I can't go and things I can't do until I'm a higher level. But no, I can technically win the game at level 1. I just need to pick a set of leveling skills I plan never to use.

 

[Nutcase]

I'm getting compeletely offtopic with this, but how would you guys like it if, while you are traveling in the wilderness, you would actually play the social game inside the group? They could have all sorts of principles and feelings towards each other. As situations develop, that might lead into some members deserting, some fighting, maybe refusing individual orders they are not comfortable with.

It's not a bad idea, necessarily. There is a point at which it becomes too micromanagy, though. If it got too involved it could become kind of like the Sims, where you spend so much time telling your doofus to take a bath, clean the house, cook his food, and go to work that it totally dampens the fun.

That said, I've always liked a bit of banter or interaction with my party members. Remember in Baldur's Gate II how your party members would talk back and forth, or give eachother a hard time? That was pretty nice - often very amusing, too. Leaving also makes sense when you do something awful. For instance, if you've got some good-guys on your team, they might leave if you kill an innocent beggar somewhere. Ulktimately, though, it'd be nice if the vast majority of party interactions were optional. Banter is pretty passive, so it isn't a problem for that to occur. But things like feelings or romance subplots could get cumbersome.

If you had to play a "group minigame" that cost nothing to play, and the only reward from doing well at it was that the group does not deteriorate, that would be micromanaging and would suck. It's not what I'm suggesting.

Instead, the actions that change the group dynamics would sometimes have external costs and rewards.

A person who appears to be a brilliant fighter wants to join your group for a particularly difficult trip. He's a vampire, but in the group, only your character seems to be able to tell. Do you tell him to take a hike, forgoing all that power? Threaten him into leaving the group's necks alone, and hope the group never finds out? Tell the group what he is, which will severely eat into their morale for as long as the vampire stays on?

 

[Pyrrian]

If you had to play a "group minigame" that cost nothing to play, and the only reward from doing well at it was that the group does not deteriorate, that would be micromanaging and would suck. It's not what I'm suggesting.

Instead, the actions that change the group dynamics would sometimes have external costs and rewards.

A person who appears to be a brilliant fighter wants to join your group for a particularly difficult trip. He's a vampire, but in the group, only your character seems to be able to tell. Do you tell him to take a hike, forgoing all that power? Threaten him into leaving the group's necks alone, and hope the group never finds out? Tell the group what he is, which will severely eat into their morale for as long as the vampire stays on?

Yeah, that sort of thing would be totally fine. I'd actually like an RPG where you could do anything from going solo, building a party, or creating a band of militia / fielding an army. In those cases, you could definitely have some interesting interactions with your camp. You could have all sorts of ideas or events that let you sculpt your band into raiders, valiant militia, rebels, or even a legitimate kingdom army.

If you're familiar with Mount & Blade, that goes part of the way. There's not much interaction with the people, and there's not really much reason to keep your force small because there's a lot of emphasis on fighting larger armies of opposing kindoms. However, I think it'd make a great starting point, from which you could build greatly on the game by increasing the possible interactions (both with characters and the environment).

 

[SimuLord]

If you had to play a "group minigame" that cost nothing to play, and the only reward from doing well at it was that the group does not deteriorate, that would be micromanaging and would suck. It's not what I'm suggesting.

Instead, the actions that change the group dynamics would sometimes have external costs and rewards.

A person who appears to be a brilliant fighter wants to join your group for a particularly difficult trip. He's a vampire, but in the group, only your character seems to be able to tell. Do you tell him to take a hike, forgoing all that power? Threaten him into leaving the group's necks alone, and hope the group never finds out? Tell the group what he is, which will severely eat into their morale for as long as the vampire stays on?

Yeah, that sort of thing would be totally fine. I'd actually like an RPG where you could do anything from going solo, building a party, or creating a band of militia / fielding an army. In those cases, you could definitely have some interesting interactions with your camp. You could have all sorts of ideas or events that let you sculpt your band into raiders, valiant militia, rebels, or even a legitimate kingdom army.

If you're familiar with Mount & Blade, that goes part of the way. There's not much interaction with the people, and there's not really much reason to keep your force small because there's a lot of emphasis on fighting larger armies of opposing kindoms. However, I think it'd make a great starting point, from which you could build greatly on the game by increasing the possible interactions (both with characters and the environment).

I've got a Mount & Blade character whose whole reason to exist is to get rich. I've spent hours on end dissecting the game's economic engine and playing it as if it were a trade sim. Sure, I've got an ass-kicking army, but it's a means to an end; my army exists solely to scare bandits away (and occasionally whup bandits when I get into a violent frame of mind) and to do quests for guildmasters so I can improve my standing in towns and get better prices, feeding back into my character's desire to be the richest man in Calradia. What's awesome is that I can play that way while having another character who is a loyal servant of the Vaegir king, another who is a mercenary and freelance hellraiser, and the potential to create others to fill any niche I want in the game's wide open world. Throw in a mod or three and it's like the old Transformers toys: "more than meets the eye".

 

[a7r0p05]

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.

Backtracking gets REALLY annoying though, and the Metroid series is famous for that.