The reason why open world gaming sucks.
- Thread starter uchytjes
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How the player chooses to tackle the open-world gameplay is their own choice. In order to mend a game that could adapt to that choice, however, developers with the right mind obviously need to form a certain layer of believability tied to the plot while also avoiding the possibility of extracting elements of freedom and, most importantly, the fun in playing with that freedom. Maybe it would be pretty sweet if a ringing urgency is evident throughout several missions in an open-world game and do have consequences if you don't tend to it in the most efficient way, but from what I could see, implementing that into many current games' formulas in a realistic, action-reaction way is not an easy thing to do, although it has been done before, just not to a great extent. Most of this, though, would probably stem from the fact that crafting an experience like so (that would actually end up being 'good') would simply be extremely demanding from whoever's developing; they'd have to account for every possibility and create a game so big and open-ended that the plot would have to practically be a constantly evolving entity, which, if depending on the consequences of your actions and whatnot, can also end up being a mess of a story and a frustrating gameplay experience for, say, people with much more easygoing playstyles, so to speak.
Basically, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's really that necessary. More often than not it's the quality of the implications and smoke-and-mirrors that is looked at, and whether or not there are enough distractions or instances of quality gameplay that will help prevent breaking the illusion rather than actually replacing it with a real consequence itself. Take The Sims, for example; if you want a game where everything you do is stripped bare and raw, you've got it in The Sims (the most efficient example of this now being The Sims 3). If you don't eat, you go hungry; if you're hungry, you can't work as well; if you can't work as well, you won't earn as much money; if you can't obtain enough money to buy food, then you go hungry, and so on and so forth. You actually work to prevent consequences from dragging you down too far and, if you plan on building a successful life for your Sim, will almost always have your eye on the current time and circumstances surrounding 'em. However, the reason this game could pull this off is because plot is non-existent; at its core, it's not impossible to produce urgency or failure because all of it ties in with the nature of the gameplay, which is rather low-concept and doesn't hinge to a single narrative.
Games like Skyrim or Mass Effect, on the other hand..
Basically, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's really that necessary. More often than not it's the quality of the implications and smoke-and-mirrors that is looked at, and whether or not there are enough distractions or instances of quality gameplay that will help prevent breaking the illusion rather than actually replacing it with a real consequence itself. Take The Sims, for example; if you want a game where everything you do is stripped bare and raw, you've got it in The Sims (the most efficient example of this now being The Sims 3). If you don't eat, you go hungry; if you're hungry, you can't work as well; if you can't work as well, you won't earn as much money; if you can't obtain enough money to buy food, then you go hungry, and so on and so forth. You actually work to prevent consequences from dragging you down too far and, if you plan on building a successful life for your Sim, will almost always have your eye on the current time and circumstances surrounding 'em. However, the reason this game could pull this off is because plot is non-existent; at its core, it's not impossible to produce urgency or failure because all of it ties in with the nature of the gameplay, which is rather low-concept and doesn't hinge to a single narrative.
Games like Skyrim or Mass Effect, on the other hand..
They were the worst part of Fallout 3- To YouDr. McD said:The setting and story were actually the WORST part of Fallout 3.Vault101 said:
Lets start off with main story:
The PC's dad is trying to build a fucking water purifier, the water in the Capital Wasteland is radioactive, therefore anyone alive has to have access to purified water, or THEY WOULDN'T BE ALIVE, MAKING THE ENTIRE PURIFIER REDUNDANT.
I'm willing to ignore plot holes on occasion, but when I AM CONSTANTLY SEEING HOLES IN THE MAIN PLOT POINTS, AND CONSTANTLY, I AM GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM.
And then there's the Enclave, the Enclave attack and take over the purifier when you've finished fixing it, but for what?
The purifier is never said to store the water and there is no evidence that it does, and everyone else has access to clean water anyway, what could the Enclave gain by controlling it? Nothing. If they hit the on button, people get clean water anyway, and there's nothing to stop caravans collecting water and taking it to towns further inland. If the Enclave is trying to prevent people getting clean water, why not JUST DESTROY THE FUCKING THING. And then later Colonel Liquidsnakeripoff and President idiot have a civil war in the Enclave, and President R374RD gives you a modified FEV canister because Fallout 2 had the Enclave try to use virus to kill all mutants in the wasteland (including normal humans) and Bethesda only know how to write bad fan fiction. What could I gain from this? Evil points, AND NOTHING ELSE. Since R374RD's kill all non-Enclave with a virus plan seems to be what the Colonel Girlyname is rebelling against, then WHAT IS THE ENCLAVE STILL DOING AT THE PURIFIER?! WHY DON'T THEY DESTROY IT OR JUST FUCKING LEAVE?! And that's NOT EVEN MENTIONING LITTLE LAMPLIGHT. And the side quests ARE JUST AS BAD. I'm not expecting the GREATIST STORY EVAR, I just want SOMETHING THAT ISN'T LITERALLY SHITTY FAN FICTION.
Side Quests:
Most of the Side quests are just boring, but some are VERY, VERY, VERY retarded. Let's start off with Blood ties...
Vampires, HOW THE FUCK ARE VAMPIRES SUPPOSED TO FIT IN THE SETTING?! Yes it's explained, but the explanation is retarded, also...
The power of Atom: Burke offers you money to blow up Megaton, RIGHT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE.
And then the reason Tenpenny gives for wanting to destroy it is "it's ugly".
The Superhuman Gambit:
In a post-apocalyptic wasteland, people have more than enough time to dress up in silly costumes and fight each other.
You forget games are a subjective medium, not objective lol
That was one of the largest complaints about Dead Rising: No ability to just run around and kill stuff in a mode separate from the story mode. "Infinity" mode doesn't count because it did, in fact, have a pretty strict time limit.uchytjes said:
I'd be fine if a game forced urgency and story for the first part of it, and THEN opened up and allowed you to do whatever the hell you wanted, or at least provided a separate mode for it. The issue is that this rarely happens.
The reason this "open world" approach works in games like Fallout 1 (or 2, or 3) comes from the narrative. It actually has a great justification for the all the fucking around and doing quests, unlike Oblivions, which is completely nonsensical.
In Fallout 1 you are searching for something, but you have no idea where it is. Which means you are going to talk to absolutely everyone in search of leads. Right in the beginning of the game, this leads you to Vault 15, which ends up being a dud in you search for the Water Chip, but is a great dungeon for beginning players. At the same time, its no wonder you're doing all the other odd jobs, since you are clearly a fish out of water in this hostile world you have only just come into contact with. You need to learn from experiences with the wasteland and desperately require better equipment. After all, if you die, your vault is doomed.
One important element is of course the time limit, enforcing urgency on the player, but I find this unessential to the overall approach, since Fallout 2 had a similar scenario (Find this macguffin to save your vault/village) and worked just as well in this area.
Games like Oblivion, on the other hand, are just absurd, because the story doesn't mesh with the mechanics of the game, which encourage exploration. You are constantly told that the fate of the world rests on your shoulders. Yet the player likely doesn't give a shit about any of this, and is going to do whatever the hell he wants, and possibly forget the main storyline entirely, while time, for all intents and purposes, stands still. The designers were probably perfectly aware of this, but didn't consider important enough to warrant their intention over other areas of the game.
A better solution might have been to tell you: "We (The Blades) don't know where Martin is, and we need you to help us look for him." Now, the game is actively telling you to explore the world, and by placing him in a not all to obscure place, he will eventually be discovered by most players, at which point they will probably also pursue the main storyline. But if someone starts a new game, they are perfectly justified within the confines of the narrative to ignore the area of the game where Martin could be found entirely, and could do whatever the hell they want. After all, their ingame persona DOESN'T know where Martin is.
The one pitfall of this solution could be the few players who get frustrated, as they through dumb chance happen to not make this discovery, and eventually get frustrated when they can't find anything resembling a main quest. But I would still find this a far more elegant way of making gameplay and narrative work together, rather than the one that was used.
In Fallout 1 you are searching for something, but you have no idea where it is. Which means you are going to talk to absolutely everyone in search of leads. Right in the beginning of the game, this leads you to Vault 15, which ends up being a dud in you search for the Water Chip, but is a great dungeon for beginning players. At the same time, its no wonder you're doing all the other odd jobs, since you are clearly a fish out of water in this hostile world you have only just come into contact with. You need to learn from experiences with the wasteland and desperately require better equipment. After all, if you die, your vault is doomed.
One important element is of course the time limit, enforcing urgency on the player, but I find this unessential to the overall approach, since Fallout 2 had a similar scenario (Find this macguffin to save your vault/village) and worked just as well in this area.
Games like Oblivion, on the other hand, are just absurd, because the story doesn't mesh with the mechanics of the game, which encourage exploration. You are constantly told that the fate of the world rests on your shoulders. Yet the player likely doesn't give a shit about any of this, and is going to do whatever the hell he wants, and possibly forget the main storyline entirely, while time, for all intents and purposes, stands still. The designers were probably perfectly aware of this, but didn't consider important enough to warrant their intention over other areas of the game.
A better solution might have been to tell you: "We (The Blades) don't know where Martin is, and we need you to help us look for him." Now, the game is actively telling you to explore the world, and by placing him in a not all to obscure place, he will eventually be discovered by most players, at which point they will probably also pursue the main storyline. But if someone starts a new game, they are perfectly justified within the confines of the narrative to ignore the area of the game where Martin could be found entirely, and could do whatever the hell they want. After all, their ingame persona DOESN'T know where Martin is.
The one pitfall of this solution could be the few players who get frustrated, as they through dumb chance happen to not make this discovery, and eventually get frustrated when they can't find anything resembling a main quest. But I would still find this a far more elegant way of making gameplay and narrative work together, rather than the one that was used.
The short answer here is "I don't LIKE time limits in games.". I have never liked them. I don't want to see more of them. I want to have FUN.uchytjes said:
Unless it is some kind of quick platformer like Mario, or fighting games, or racing, or puzzle, there is absolutely no reason for some arbitrary timer that makes me rush through the game and not be able to experience it.
Every game I've played that hasn't been one of those types, but still was timed, has been ruined because it was timed.
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.
LoZ: Phantom Hourglass : Screw that timed temple. I stopped playing before I beat the game, because I got so damn sick of having go back to that timed temple every time I beat one of the other temples. Of course I got more time added to the clock each time I came back, but that meant jack squat since it would add a new level to the temple or some new challenge that made the extra time meaningless.
Dead Rising : My explanation is below the quote.
I agree about the arbitrary timed crap.
Now I only played the first Dead Rising, and I only played it for about an hour or so. I called bullshit with the timer when I got to the first boss battle, because I could barely do shit because I kept missing because of the terrible third person zoomed to first person shooting. Of course on top of that, the rest of the game is a bunch more clunky boss battles and escort missions, along with the point of being a photographer and having to take awesome pictures.
All that together is a nightmare to do timed.
I remember when somebody on here tried to counter my complaints by saying that if you beat the game the first time, you unlock an unlimited time mode. That doesn't do anything for me since I will never beat the game with the timer. Plus it aggravates me even more that I would have to do such a thing, because that means the game developers got the order of modes "bass ackwards", because in a properly put together game, timed modes are challenge modes that are for players that want a harder challenge after the beat the game with no timer.
Proper games have challenge modes as the reward for beating the game. As a game developer, it is a big no-no to lock normal play behind having to beat the hard mode. Either take the old route of design and make hard mode unlockable after beating normal mode, or go the modern route and have all modes unlocked from the start. Normal mode should never be locked when I first play a game, because if not, I'll end up quitting about two hours after, because of the obvious bad controls when it comes to having to play hard mode.
Every game I've played that hasn't been one of those types, but still was timed, has been ruined because it was timed.
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.
LoZ: Phantom Hourglass : Screw that timed temple. I stopped playing before I beat the game, because I got so damn sick of having go back to that timed temple every time I beat one of the other temples. Of course I got more time added to the clock each time I came back, but that meant jack squat since it would add a new level to the temple or some new challenge that made the extra time meaningless.
Dead Rising : My explanation is below the quote.
I'm assuming that the "I played 2" means that you only played the second game?Lil_Rimmy said:
I agree about the arbitrary timed crap.
Now I only played the first Dead Rising, and I only played it for about an hour or so. I called bullshit with the timer when I got to the first boss battle, because I could barely do shit because I kept missing because of the terrible third person zoomed to first person shooting. Of course on top of that, the rest of the game is a bunch more clunky boss battles and escort missions, along with the point of being a photographer and having to take awesome pictures.
All that together is a nightmare to do timed.
I remember when somebody on here tried to counter my complaints by saying that if you beat the game the first time, you unlock an unlimited time mode. That doesn't do anything for me since I will never beat the game with the timer. Plus it aggravates me even more that I would have to do such a thing, because that means the game developers got the order of modes "bass ackwards", because in a properly put together game, timed modes are challenge modes that are for players that want a harder challenge after the beat the game with no timer.
Proper games have challenge modes as the reward for beating the game. As a game developer, it is a big no-no to lock normal play behind having to beat the hard mode. Either take the old route of design and make hard mode unlockable after beating normal mode, or go the modern route and have all modes unlocked from the start. Normal mode should never be locked when I first play a game, because if not, I'll end up quitting about two hours after, because of the obvious bad controls when it comes to having to play hard mode.
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.
I never finished that game.
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.scorptatious said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.beastro said:
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.
*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.Vault101 said:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Because that would be restricting and open world games, especially Elder Scrolls games, are all about freedom and exploration.
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.
"You can have fun for a little while, but if you don't do this boring quest, you'll die."
Yeah, no thanks.
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?The_Lost_King said:
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
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.