The reason why open world gaming sucks.

[havass]

Because time limits are annoying as hell. I remember playing Dead Rising 2 for the first time and screwing around a lot...until I realised there was a timer on the quest and the game GAME OVER-ed me. Reloading my last save I only had just enough time to rush to complete it...which resulted in me failing it several times because of minor delays in various things.

I never finished that game.

 

[beastro]

Sounds like you've never played Fallout 1.

Yeah, it's not exactly a modern game, but it fits what you're describing.

You have 150 in game days to find a water chip for your vault. Although I'm pretty sure the game automatically ends if you fail. I don't know, I've never let that happen.

When it's this is bugs me. I want to enjoy a game, especially enjoy what was made by others in it, not feel rushed.

I haven't played it that much, but my natural pace in that game isn't too tardy, but it always winds up with the first few settlements overrun by the Master's Army.

I'd like to see their other endings, but I also don't want to turn the game into a speed run when I play it every few years.

You are told that if you don't hurry, you will fail. If you decide to go screw around for a bit, the assassination takes place, but you don't know about it until you arrive at the location.

I don't like an overarching time limit to a game, but I miss these from Morrowind.

I don't know which quests specifically, but in some you had to be at the right place at the right time and the game didn't wait for you to be in the general area for the timer to start ticking like with the latter TES games. There was never a sense that you must get there ASAP and even tripping over a log would screw you up, but you also couldn't give any time to other quests besides maybe stopping by a place on the way and picking up/handing them in.

Examples:
LoZ: Majora's Mask : I understand that it was built around the three day time mechanic, but it still ruined it for me. LoZ games have always been about adventurous exploration while saving the world. I for one can't be adventurous and explore with a timer hanging over my head.

I was really looking forward to that game until I read about the timer mechanic. I passed on it and don't regret it.

My first games of the Zelda series are always my longest.

My favourite thing in OoT was dicking around doing senseless things like killing stuff and riding the horse around the field. It and playing Goldeneye to just blaze through levels killing like mad after beating all the times for cheat items were damn fun when you were bored and didn't have a computer.

 

[Korskarn]

I find most "sandbox" games to be more theme parky-y than "theme park" games. Why? Because everyone in the world sits on their ass until I turn up and it's time to turn on the "ride".

As a particularly horrible example, I was playing Oblivion up to the point in the "main" story where the first portal opened up. I joined with the soldiers in rushing the burning-down church... and then decided "Actually, I feel like doing the guild stuff first" and fast-travelled away.

I then spent the next in-game year becoming the Guildmaster of the Fighters Guild, the Mages Guild, the Thieves Guild, and the Dark Brotherhood - all without anyone noticing that all these guilds were headed by the same person, and without me actually, you know, doing ANYTHING that would constitute being a Guildmaster (all those scribes must be excellent at forging my signature since I didn't do a single piece of guild administration).

Finally I decided, "Hey... I should go back to that main story thing", and when I got back the same guards were crouched behind the same pews dodging fireballs from the same Daedra, in the same church that magically hadn't finished burning down in the year I was away. It made me wonder if the soldiers and the Daedra called a ceasefire every night to build a new church and set it on fire in the hope that I would come back one day.

None of my choices actually MATTERED because the game bent over backwards to try and accommodate me so I could play it "my way". The world wasn't living, it was there just for my benefit - a theme park for me to step on and step off whenever I felt like. If any of my choices had actual consequences: leading the thieves guild meaning the fighters guild had a permanent contract to kill me, abandoning a fight meaning someone dying and never coming back, someone taking over a town in the next 3 game months unless I stop them - things you commonly see in "theme park" games - then I would enjoy it a lot more.

But I could just endlessly build castles in the sand. And then watch as nothing happened afterwards.

 

[scorptatious]

Sounds like you've never played Fallout 1.

Yeah, it's not exactly a modern game, but it fits what you're describing.

You have 150 in game days to find a water chip for your vault. Although I'm pretty sure the game automatically ends if you fail. I don't know, I've never let that happen.

When it's this is bugs me. I want to enjoy a game, especially enjoy what was made by others in it, not feel rushed.

I haven't played it that much, but my natural pace in that game isn't too tardy, but it always winds up with the first few settlements overrun by the Master's Army.

I'd like to see their other endings, but I also don't want to turn the game into a speed run when I play it every few years.

Some of the ending slides are bugged I'm afraid. No matter how fast you beat the game, (at least the version I got off of GOG) the Followers of the Apocalypse and The Hub will always get overrun.

With places like Shady Sands and Necropolis however, they won't count as overrun so long as you don't enter them when they are supposed to be occupied by the Master's Army.

 

[The_Lost_King]

[snip.

I actually liked fallotu 3 because of the setting and story, NV was better sure but fallout 3 was playable unlike oblivion/skyrim

*glares* How dare you say Oblivion and Skyrim are unplayable. I will agree that Oblivion was very copy pasta with the forest but it was not unplayable. And do you mean unplayable as in you literally can't play them or you don't like them.

I feel timers are rediculously stupid. It is an open world game meant for exploring, let me fucking explore, not make an open world game into a linear game. If you don't like Oblivions freedom play something without freedom.

 

[SidheKnight]

Open world doesn't suck, just say you don't like it.

I personally love it.

The things you mentioned as the reasons they suck are actually why we play those games. Exploration, smelling the roses, not time constrains.. what's not to like?

 

[orangeban]

Are open world elements detrimental to story telling? I don't think so, all that's necessary is for the side-quests and fucking around stuff to be tied into the main theme/narrative.

A good example is Saints Row The Third, you can spend hours and hours dicking around outside the main quest in that game, but it still feels like you're progressing the narrative because your actions give you control over Steelport, which is the aim of the main quest anyway.

Skyrim is a different example, where there isn't really a main quest (technically there is, but it's not central to the game which is what I mean), it's much more a game about making your own story, becoming the badass hero and whatnot, and therefore all the sidequest stuff is perfectly relevant because it serves that purpose.

Far Cry 2 is also a good example, it's a game with deliberately ambiguous goals, so every action feels relevant simply because "I dunno, it might work, might not, same as the "main quest".

Yes, sometimes the main storyline feels stop-start, or pointless because of the open world elements, but I don't think that's an inherent problem.

However, your idea isn't totally without merit, time limits on missions can be a good way of providing engagement as well as consequences for actions. In Deus Ex HR (spoiler I guess? It's right at the beginning) at the start if you dick around Sarif HQ too long at the start the hostages get shot, which makes it feel like the story is reacting to your actions.

 

[kommando367]

Because that would be restricting and open world games, especially Elder Scrolls games, are all about freedom and exploration.

 

[Artemicion]

A time limit? What, like malaria in Far Cry 2? Because that worked so well.

"You can have fun for a little while, but if you don't do this boring quest, you'll die."

Yeah, no thanks.

 

[Vault101]

*glares* How dare you say Oblivion and Skyrim are unplayable. I will agree that Oblivion was very copy pasta with the forest but it was not unplayable. And do you mean unplayable as in you literally can't play them or you don't like them.

I feel timers are rediculously stupid. It is an open world game meant for exploring, let me fucking explore, not make an open world game into a linear game. If you don't like Oblivions freedom play something without freedom.

unplayable as in its REALLY not my kind of game, after the opening seaquence and screwing around a bit I have nothing more to do, I played skyrim for about 7 hours and never touched it again, because its all good and well to have a BIG OPEN WORLD FOR EXPLORING but when its populated with uninteresting walking task givers and my PC has the role-playing capacity of a camera on a stick then theres realy no apeal, I can go off and do what I want but whats the point really?

and I don't even belive skyrim/oblivion should be excused, Fallout NV manages to give the freedom (albeit arguably a little less) while still keeping things interesting

 

[jackinmydaniels]

Why don't more open world game have time limits you ask? Because that is a horrible idea, open world games are meant to allow the player to freely explore the world created at their own leisure. Otherwise what'd be the point? It'd be like, 'oh hey, we created this HUGE world to explore, but if you don't go to this exact location in five minutes you fail the game.' What would be the point then? You should have just made the game linear if you didn't want me to explore the world.

 

[beastro]

Sounds like you've never played Fallout 1.

Yeah, it's not exactly a modern game, but it fits what you're describing.

You have 150 in game days to find a water chip for your vault. Although I'm pretty sure the game automatically ends if you fail. I don't know, I've never let that happen.

When it's this is bugs me. I want to enjoy a game, especially enjoy what was made by others in it, not feel rushed.

I haven't played it that much, but my natural pace in that game isn't too tardy, but it always winds up with the first few settlements overrun by the Master's Army.

I'd like to see their other endings, but I also don't want to turn the game into a speed run when I play it every few years.

Some of the ending slides are bugged I'm afraid. No matter how fast you beat the game, (at least the version I got off of GOG) the Followers of the Apocalypse and The Hub will always get overrun.

With places like Shady Sands and Necropolis however, they won't count as overrun so long as you don't enter them when they are supposed to be occupied by the Master's Army.

Those are the two.

Thanks for letting me know in on that, makes it less annoying now.

 

[Something Amyss]

In recent years, games have been turning from a linear, story based campaign towards a more open world approach with the story happening to simply wait around while the protagonist goes and screws around for about a month in-game.

lolwhat? There are plenty of games that are still linear, story driven, etc. Linear isn't going anywhere.

Now I know that a major part of most open world games are the exploration aspect, and I also Know that without that I probably wouldn't like them as much. What I'm asking is this: why can't there be some form of invisible time limit? An example of this would be you are given a quest to go save a person from being assassinated in another town. You are told that if you don't hurry, you will fail. If you decide to go screw around for a bit, the assassination takes place, but you don't know about it until you arrive at the location. Also, on the subject of urgency, why isn't there more "in 3 month's time so and so will invade. we have that long to prepare" types of quests? it would allow you to do whatever you want and depending on what/how much you do depends of how the final battle plays out.

In no small part for the reason you've already given. You yourself said you probably wouldn't like them as much with the exploration aspect gone, and this would limit the exploration aspect.

 

[The_Lost_King]

*glares* How dare you say Oblivion and Skyrim are unplayable. I will agree that Oblivion was very copy pasta with the forest but it was not unplayable. And do you mean unplayable as in you literally can't play them or you don't like them.

I feel timers are rediculously stupid. It is an open world game meant for exploring, let me fucking explore, not make an open world game into a linear game. If you don't like Oblivions freedom play something without freedom.

unplayable as in its REALLY not my kind of game, after the opening seaquence and screwing around a bit I have nothing more to do, I played skyrim for about 7 hours and never touched it again, because its all good and well to have a BIG OPEN WORLD FOR EXPLORING but when its populated with uninteresting walking task givers and my PC has the role-playing capacity of a camera on a stick then theres realy no apeal, I can go off and do what I want but whats the point really?

and I don't even belive skyrim/oblivion should be excused, Fallout NV manages to give the freedom (albeit arguably a little less) while still keeping things interesting

I see your point. I still like them though, so each to his own, I also agree that Fallout New Vegas did it better. I loved that game too. It had a good story and interesting characters while still having a cool world.

 

[Treblaine]

Why do Linear games not have timers?

Well there being only one way forward and obvious where you have just explored that certainly does push people forward somewhat but consider the likes of Time Crisis. I think all the advantages for timers in open-world games can work just as well for more linear games.

The thing is it is not immediately apparent that taking the "Magic MacGuffin" to the quest-point is the actual trigger for the "bad event", the game leaves the impression that it is an impending doom that could happen at any moment, it "just happened" to occur the moment you bring the "Magic MacGuffin" to the time and place where it being there with the "bad event" can have an NPC explain the situation to you.

But that's not an essential element of open world games, far more common is pre-existing status as your presence changes events.

Like Red Dead Redemption, the bandits will hold out in Fort Mercer perpetually till you amass a large enough party of comrades and firepower to storm the place. The progression is not "just so happens" it's a direct result of your actions.

The thing about linear games is the game never has to give you a DESIRE to move the story forward, it just rail-roads you along.

And open world HAS to have a more compelling story that you want to continue with.

 

[thesilentman]

snip

So you're saying that open world gaming is sucking is that there's no way to feel pressured about anything, am I right?

And assuming that it's the case, I'd like to direct you to some open world games which are fun and need no such time limit for anything to happen:

-GTA
-Just Cause 2
-Sleeping Dogs
-Assassins Creed (sorta)

That's the only examples coming to mind right now. I think that there a lot more out there that survive on the fun factor alone. Which is one of the reasons that open world gaming appeals to people.

Your idea could work, but only if the gameplay and story cooperate. The only example that I've seen that would work (at least in the feeling of being pressured aspect of what you're suggesting) is Majora's Mask, and I'm not even sure that counts.

 

[vun]

A lot of people play open world games because they're open world, not necessarily because they're interested in the story/main quest.
Oblivion is a prime example; a lot of people will stop doing the main quest before the oblivion gates appear after they've played through it once. Some people do the same in Skyrim; they'll stop doing the main quest before the dragons will start appearing.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ever played Dead Rising? That was annoying as hell. It was fun to run around and it was a bloody amazing game (I played 2) but you end up unable to do shit because of timers. You know I was unable to get the best ending because I was, and I am not kidding, about 10 seconds off the timer, and all my saves didn't let me get back their in time. I was at the FUCKING door, and it just said GAME OVER! LOLOLOLOLOL.

I never finished that game.

Seconded. The Dead Rising games were brutal in that respect. And to top it off they had the evil achievements/rewards for killing x amount. You literally had to grind the entire time (for hours on end) to do it.

Personally, I hate the timed open world. There is a point where gameplay has to take precedence over realism and urgency.

What I would like is for there to be an actual clock in it that you can set the speed to. If I want to play Dead Rising in real time I could or I could speed it up to have 1 hour real time as 6 hours in game (I think that is closer to the ratio that happens in them). This could be applied in every game like that.

PS

An aside.... Rockstar, add some fucking snow to all the other weather effects. You had the engine working for driving in it since Smuggler's Run. Use it.

 

[Sirron Kcuch]

Look at it the other way around: Isn't it a little bit ridiculous to, say, save The Wasteland or Skyrim in 24 hours (in the former, 24 hours from being born)