Open World Gameplay

[Hey Joe]

I've been playing a few Bethesda titles recently, and that has got me to thinkin' about open-world game design. This, in short is presenting a large, open play space and letting the players go where they want. This is in evidence in the GTA series, Fallout 3 and Oblivion amongst others. This thread is to debate the pluses, minuses and successes the approach has had.

Where has the design been pulled off really well, and where has it failed miserably? Are you a fan, or are you a fan of linear titles?

DISCUSS

 

[RAKais]

Crackdown succeeded massively.
Assassins Creed to some extent and Far Cry 2.

Personally, I'd like to see a bit more multiplayer using that sort of gameplay

 

[Metalchair]

i love open world games, id rather play those then linear games. but some big game worlds don exatly have the best detail. evidence is Fallout 3 i love the game but i noticed a lot of copy and pastes of landscapes, buildings, setups, iv also seen some technical messups around the capital wasteland. like rocks levitating because they are part of a circle of rocks that were made as one piece and placed at a curve, making some of them float. but the big open worlds also allow to have more characters if the developers want to take the time to name and voice them all and all that stuff

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Many MMOS pull off open-world well. You get numerous places to visit and things to do. The only real limit used to contain players is monster difficulty.

The older GTA games were great at this as well. Numerous missions and tom-foolery were to be had. The newer games try to tap into this with the main quest broken up by some side-missions, although I found the series to have horribly a rail-roaded main quest.

A recent addition to my collection that I really enjoy is Mount&Blade. You are set loose in a world with a horse and weapon...then pretty much do whatever it is you want, be it raiding villages, warring with kingdoms, or just herding cattle.

 

[DELTA x WOLF]

The GTA series of course
But so far it has to be Fallout 3 out of the best open world and for its detail and the felling that you might not make it through the nuclear apocalypse in real life

 

[Slackenerny]

Wasteland and Ultima IV. Early (e.g. 1980's) examples of excellent open world gameplay.

 

[Coolness]

Pros - almost limitless gameplay, total freedom. Lots of possibility for expansion as well.

Cons - lack of direction sometimes, can be overwhelming, repetitive, boring.

I find a lot of the latter. Open worlds are alright, but a lot of times I want at least a relatively straightforward track to follow. Sometimes ya wanna think, sometimes not.

 

[SimuLord]

Mount & Blade was my 2008 Game of the Year because of how it pulled an open world together and said "here's the world, do what you will, if you want winning and losing go play Madden." I love The Sims for the same reason - it's a toolbox more than it's a game.

Open-world RPGs/GTA-type games are nice, but it probably says a lot about me as a gamer that I find even that too confining. I'd rather play a game like SimCity or any business/tycoon game in sandbox/free-build mode.

 

[Moonmover]

When they are done right, open-world video games are the best video games concievable. You can simply go where you want and do what you want when you want.

However, it is easy to do wrong. The story may feel tacked on *coughElderCoughScrolls*coughcough* The enviroment may be too repetative or undetailed if you don't lavish enough attention to designing it. The enviroment also has to actually be interactive, with plenty of side-missions to do and locales to explore.

You are set loose in a world with a horse and weapon...then pretty much do whatever it is you want, be it raiding villages, warring with kingdoms, or just herding cattle.

My current character is the most bad-ass cowhand ever.

 

[Uncompetative]

Elite

Mercenary

Damocles

 

[Xander15]

far cry 2 i thought did well in the open world gameplay. and as deadly yellow said. In far cry 2 your thrown in the middle of the dessert with a machete, a map, and jeep. than you can go do what you want.

 

[Romicron]

Crackdown succeeded massively.
Assassins Creed to some extent and Far Cry 2.

Personally, I'd like to see a bit more multiplayer using that sort of gameplay

Random game idea popped into my head. Assassin's creed, but in first person, and multiplayer. You're given other players as targets. Minimal radar if any.

I like open world gameplay, as long as there's some semblance of some sort of story. It's usually the last thing I get to. I play until I get bored with the sandbox, then I do the story.

 

[FallenPrism]

I usually stick with more linear games, because I generally have little patience for getting lost, in purpose or in location. If I don't know what I'm supposed to do or where I'm supposed to go to do it I get bored very easily, so linear games are usually a safer bet. That being said, open-world games where I know I can set my own purpose, and there are plenty of clues within the game for how to go about it quickly and efficiently (i.e. without getting lost), it has a pretty good chance of going on my "games to play again" list.

 

[Nutcase]

Open world games would be much more interesting if they weren't always about showering the simplest parts of your brain with immediate rewards like money/xp/gear. If I don't want to think, I'll go play a good arcade action game.

I just downloaded the Ultima IV engine remake + original data pack + enhanced data pack (heads up guys: these are free as in beer). Gonna give it a try when I have the time.

 

[Draygen]

Usually I will pick a sandbox rpg over a linear one if possible. Though a sandbox is far easier to mess up. Sometimes I just get in a rut with some open ended games though. For instance, in Elder Scrolls, if I play a thief, I play a thief that steals everything that isn't glued down properly. If I play a warrior, I play a warrior that steals everything that isn't glued down properly. If I play a caster, I play a caster that steals everything that isn't glued down properly. And so on and so forth.

Then you have Fallout 3, where you get some choice in the matter. Namely, "I'm going to kill that guy with an assault rifle," or "I'm going to kill that guy with a board with a nail in it."

Sandbox games have their merits, I just wish more time was spent creating a more flowing and non-constricting story than they spend right now. Also, the only MMO I've seen that has nailed down the sandbox style in any sort of reasonable style would be Ultima Online.

 

[bluemistake2]

if the matrix path of neo was open world i'd kill my mother for that

 

[KDR_11k]

Open worlds where open worlds make sense. That is, they have to give you something meaningful or interesting to do everywhere (or nearly everywhere) rather than just being an oversized hub level with specific locations that put you into missions and that's it. The worst offender was probably No More Heroes.

When 95% of the world consists only of area to run through or maybe randomly encounter some uninteresting stuff that's 95% filler.

Take for example the X games. There are space stations in every sector (except maybe the hostile ones that are instead filled with stuff that wants to kill you) and every space station is interactive and might be different (due to the fluctuating prices), you can build your own station everywhere to make the location even more interesting to you, etc. A random street in, say, Saints Row doesn't do much unless there's a point of interest located there (which is not the case for most roads), you can beat up passerbys but you can do that anywhere to the exact same effect and it's not particularly useful anyway.

Most open world games just present you with a large empty space and a few points of interest that just take longer to reach because of the empty space. Even worse, many of them are still designed to have a linear progression that just sends you all over the emptiness instead of throwing you right into the next mission. Then they say "look we added a few random NPCs that you can kill to the empty space" and make it sound like that's freedom. Because you get to choose between "kill him" and "ignore him" (unless the NPC attacks you) on a whole bunch of respawning nobodies.

 

[Uncompetative]

Ok. Assume you have a city, like in GTA. It should be able to be run as a simulation that not only includes pedestrians, traffic & the subway, but it needs to have constantly active Artificially Intelligent NPC Agents. So, ultimately you could sit back and watch it and things would happen. Where is the Mayor? Where is the Chief of Police and D.A.? Where are the leaders of the Triads and the Mob?

Developers need to represent a society in flux which remains in balance over time despite being dynamic from hour to hour.

Then they need to bring in your character to mix things up, to be a catalyst or "lightning rod".

Do you rise through the ranks of the Police and clean up the city, or run for Mayor? Do you take control of a gang or set them against each other and profit from the assassination contracts they give you.

Rockstar needs to stop forcing a narrative down players throats in a game that is meant to be non-linear and instead cultivate a system.

 

[gamshobny]

I personally think open-world gameplay is overrated. The thing is, as a developer, you can't really set out a path. Sometimes, that's good, but it does mean loads of bugs and no way to integrate the story into a game; you'll have to do that solely by your objectives.

What I like best is the way fable did it; not completely open-world but with different areas, each having three or four entry points. This, in my own oppinion, gives the best of both worlds.

 

[Brokkr]

I really like how the open world gameplay is incorporated into games such as Crackdown, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. However, there are certain gaming genres that I think should be more linear and story driven.