New foundations for Open World Games

[gargantual]

Thought about this after watchdogs, and instead of so many companies GTA and Elder Scrolls chasing, I think Ubisoft should do something entirely different with its open world games to break away from the Assassins creed unlock-the-map formula.

The cross country racing that Driveclub is trying to do? I'd rather see an 3rd person open world combat survival race. Where there's just as much on-foot adventure, and preparation as there's genuine road warrior and fetch quest. Where you have to maintain your vehicle just like you maintain your ship in AC4, or Naked Snake's stamina in MGS3 and days to weeks go by in game-time.

It could be sci-fi, it could be post-nuke setting, could be near future setting but we should have a 'Hidalgo, amazing race, Oregon trail framework of an action game by now where 'resource management, cool secret road detours, and the tortoise and the hare' principle have actual game mechanic resonance.

It'd even make multiplayer tense if groups had to race, scavenge, and work in teams.

Cmon Ubi. Just gave you a free idea. Do something.

 

[Racecarlock]

So, road of the dead 1 and 2?

http://armorgames.com/play/7164/road-of-the-dead

http://armorgames.com/play/15688/road-of-the-dead-2

I don't get it, why would you want to pay for a game you can already play free?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Honestly I just want a mix of what ACB and RDR did in regards to extra stuff.

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood with restoring dying properties that give you regular income is neat (or like Fable does it actually. Renting out houses and stuff to earn) is a great mechanic to earn money in an open world game that doesn't require tons of grinding for cash. Nor does it make it so that every story missions needs a massive cash reward was completion.

I actually hated that part of Assassin's Creed with a passion. The problem with this game mechanic is that it takes money to restore the properties, and by the time the properties are actually giving you enough money to compensate for the money you spent on them the game's almost over and you have all the gear you need, making the extra income totally worthless. It actually makes much more sense to ignore rebuilding the villa and just spending your money on equipment as you get it rather than waiting for your investment to pay out.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Honestly I just want a mix of what ACB and RDR did in regards to extra stuff.

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood with restoring dying properties that give you regular income is neat (or like Fable does it actually. Renting out houses and stuff to earn) is a great mechanic to earn money in an open world game that doesn't require tons of grinding for cash. Nor does it make it so that every story missions needs a massive cash reward was completion.

I actually hated that part of Assassin's Creed with a passion. The problem with this game mechanic is that it takes money to restore the properties, and by the time the properties are actually giving you enough money to compensate for the money you spent on them the game's almost over and you have all the gear you need, making the extra income totally worthless. It actually makes much more sense to ignore rebuilding the villa and just spending your money on equipment as you get it rather than waiting for your investment to pay out.

AC2 it was like that but Brotherhood had much more things to spend money on that were a cheap enough price that you could be earning heaps of money relatively early on.

I just remember wasting tons of money restoring buildings and monuments and getting very little for it. Granted, I didn't actually finish Brotherhood (got burned out on Assassin's Creed because I played 2 and Brotherhood back to back), but I never felt like I had enough money for actual items because I kept burning it on buildings in the lulls between shops updating their equipment.

 

[gargantual]

So, road of the dead 1 and 2?

http://armorgames.com/play/7164/road-of-the-dead

http://armorgames.com/play/15688/road-of-the-dead-2

I don't get it, why would you want to pay for a game you can already play free?

Meh. Sorta. In theory it wouldn't be entirely the same. But a sandbox would have advantages. What if it had a more twisted metal/wacky races feel, and you're competing against groups with their own unique rigs? Imagine what it feels like to get stranded with busted wheels. Lodge up in bad weather, and eventually win by taking the next advantage. You see this concept in travel films like 'Vacation' but we haven't grasped what that feels like in a video game.

We've replicated the feeling of lonliness, fear, the kick of a gun, human movement and agility, what its like to manage an entire fleet. We know what it feels like to fall behind in a race and catch up but only by minutes. Not in a long term haul with considerations like "im out of fuel, short on cash, and might have to play hijacking hitchhiker to get back into play." This type of game would give a player a fresh perspective on competition, compared to everything else thats been over last gen..

 

[Foolery]

The cross country racing that Driveclub is trying to do? I'd rather see an 3rd person open world combat survival race. Where there's just as much on-foot adventure, and preparation as there's genuine road warrior and fetch quest. Where you have to maintain your vehicle just like you maintain your ship in AC4, or Naked Snake's stamina in MGS3 and days to weeks go by in game-time.

Road warrior, eh?

Mach-Rider! Now on the Nintendo Wii U!

In the year 2112, after the destruction of his hometown, the Mach-Rider drives his machine-gun-equipped combat motorcycle, in search of revenge!

Follow his epic journey across an open-world with fully destructible environments!

...and that's all I got.