Jump to content

Open World RPGs


InCrYsIs

Recommended Posts

I was just arguing this point with some people on another board.  Figured I see what peeps think here.  So, Dragon Age and Witcher are going open world.  I am not a big fan of this.  I don't have a problem with open world but in some instances I would rather have things a little more linear with some freedoms.  Like DAO for instance.  I think DAO made it work as did The Witcher 2.  Skyrim is special and open world works there.  I don't want open world for RPGs to start becoming the norm.  What say you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking really forward to seeing Witcher as a huge open world. I know the story quite likely won't be as immersive as The Witcher 2 was but I am.looking forward to seeing the switcher style on massive map.

 

Dragon Age needs to get bigger and more open. Closer to DAO and as far away as possible from DA2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like open-world games for the simple reason that I get distracted, wanting to explore everywhere, and never complete the main storyline. I've put a substantial number of hours into Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, GTA:VC, and GTA:SA...and I never even came close to finishing the main storyline in any of them.

 

On the other hand, I beat DAO while completing every side quest. I thought that was the perfect marriage between open-world and linear, allowing you to choose what to tackle, but being linear once you do. It also allows for a much better story, which is probably why I played that for over 100 hrs, yet stopped playing all the other aforementioned titles after about 50 hours of gameplay going no where.

 

tl;dr: For just messing around, open-world games are great, but for story, give me linear any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like open-world games for the simple reason that I get distracted, wanting to explore everywhere, and never complete the main storyline. I've put a substantial number of hours into Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, GTA:VC, and GTA:SA...and I never even came close to finishing the main storyline in any of them.

 

On the other hand, I beat DAO while completing every side quest. I thought that was the perfect marriage between open-world and linear, allowing you to choose what to tackle, but being linear once you do. It also allows for a much better story, which is probably why I played that for over 100 hrs, yet stopped playing all the other aforementioned titles after about 50 hours of gameplay going no where.

 

tl;dr: For just messing around, open-world games are great, but for story, give me linear any day.

That sums it up.  I have Skyrim sitting there at 90 hours and haven't finished the main story. I have DAO at over 120 with 3 full playthroughs with expanisons and DLC.  More game isn't always better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, I'm not a fan of open world games.  Like Clay said, I don't ever accomplish anything in open world games. 

 

I think it is because I want to accomplish everything and see everything but I don't have the free time to make it so, or even if I did I don't want to dedicate the time to make it so.   It's why I lost interest in Far Cry 1 and 2 and why I lost interest Crysis so quickly.  I wouldn't ever want to purchase GTA for the PC as its the perfect console game ...rent it or borrow it for the weekend, goof around and return it.

 

RPGs just take it to the next level because they are already huge timesinks without needing a free expansive open world to explore.   It sounds cool.   It sounds like the thing to do.  I just have better things to do.

 

 

As much as I love the original Metroid for being the ultimate sandbox game, I don't have the spare time or dedication like I did as a little kid.   Even poor Dishonored is sitting on my PC untouched because as much as I love that game I get too distracted trying the same mission 20 different ways and don't progress in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is because I want to accomplish everything and see everything but I don't have the free time to make it so, or even if I did I don't want to dedicate the time to make it so.   It's why I lost interest in Far Cry 1 and 2 and why I lost interest Crysis so quickly.  I wouldn't ever want to purchase GTA for the PC as its the perfect console game ...rent it or borrow it for the weekend, goof around and return it.

Far Cry and Crysis aren't really that open-world. They allow exploration, but they're still generally focused, similar to DAO, which is probably why I finished both. But yes, I should have added Far Cry 2 to my list - that is definitely open-world and yet another example of a game I never completed the main story for :lol:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree, an open world game has to have enough care to FILL that world to I'd say atleast 80% with unique content so that it's not a morrowind world of desolation.

 

Linear RPGs do better keep the story focused and really draw you in there and keep the attention. Though I like both styles as long as they're implemented properly (definitely is much easier to make a good linear RPG than an open world one though, far more kudos for developers who can pull off a successful open world RPG)

Edited by IVIYTH0S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me there are two potential issues with open-world RPGs. One is what occupies the world and the other is how the story fills it. What I mean by the first issue is an open world needs to have more than collectibles hidden in it. If the world is just a massive mid-stage area with flags, feathers, orbs, coins, stars, dollars, etc. hidden about for you to collect, I'm not going to spend the time hunting them. (Well, unless there is a reasonable system to find them, like a radar, but we don't need to get into that discussion.) Let the world have missions that aren't weird hidden things that do nothing but fill the world, ie. Skyrim, FO3. Give me something to make my exploration of the world worthwhile, such as the villa in Assassin's Creed 2 (granted, not really an open world game, but that kind of thing). I need an in-game incentive, not an achievement to put the work in.

 

With the second issue, of how the story fills the world, look at Skyrim and FO3. The stories do fill the world, but it is the story of the world that fills it, not the game story. Unless I killed the orphan's parents, found their bodies on a mission, or saw them killed during a mission, I'm not really interested in spending half an hour or more getting the kid to a new home. (I'll do it anyway because I'm a nice person, but why should my in-game character do that if it delays saving the world?) Overwhelm me with those missions and I'm either going to cheat run speed or move on to another game. I'm not sure I'd say the side mission distract me, but they do cause me to deviate from the main story, and sometimes I don't like that.

 

Another game I'd like to bring up with this second issue is Darksiders 2. That is an open-world game and, in my opinion, it's story does not fill it. There are so many elements never explained that could have been. Even if it were completely linear, the story wouldn't be that well explored, but the game would be shorter without the extra missions and the time it takes to cross the world.

 

One open-world RPG I think has a very good design, with regards to this thread, is Saints Row The Third. The story missions and side missions are clearly labelled, so you can't be drawn off the path unknowingly, or at least can return to it quickly; the side missions are related to the story, as they are offered by your compatriots; and completing side missions actually affects the game as you take control of territories, increasing your income and making travel in the territory safer. Also you can get a radar for finding nearby collectibles, instead of just having to look behind every corner. Just Cause 2 is similar, as is Red Faction Guerrilla, and both of those are quite good open world RPGs.

 

tl;dr: At times it does seem like developers are thinking we are all completionists, so filling the world with minutia caters to our interests, but we largely aren't and we don't like seeing our time wasted on meaningless tasks. Keep it interesting or keep it out, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree, an open world game has to have enough care to FILL that world to I'd say atleast 80% with unique content so that it's not a morrowind world of desolation.

 

Linear RPGs do better keep the story focused and really draw you in there and keep the attention. Though I like both styles as long as they're implemented properly (definitely is much easier to make a good linear RPG than an open world one though, far more kudos for developers who can pull off a successful open world RPG)

I would have to say that in terms of unique content morrowind wins. True it isn't all filled out with lush plants and stuff (the game is damn old) but it is full of unique areas. You can tell where you are fairly easily at any time and all the envinments are handcrafted and not radient randomly generated areas. In comparison to both oblivion and skyrim it is much more full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like open-world games for the simple reason that I get distracted, wanting to explore everywhere, and never complete the main storyline. I've put a substantial number of hours into Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, GTA:VC, and GTA:SA...and I never even came close to finishing the main storyline in any of them.

 

On the other hand, I beat DAO while completing every side quest. I thought that was the perfect marriage between open-world and linear, allowing you to choose what to tackle, but being linear once you do. It also allows for a much better story, which is probably why I played that for over 100 hrs, yet stopped playing all the other aforementioned titles after about 50 hours of gameplay going no where.

 

tl;dr: For just messing around, open-world games are great, but for story, give me linear any day.

 

to me, that's the best part. I like creating my own stories, I'm not very interested in the Skyrim main story-line (read: I could care less). I spent a hundred or so hours just walking around, hunting, exploring, that's all the story I wanted out of it. Which is the main reason I'm so excited for Star Citizen (pledge, if you haven't already) 

 

Linear stories are great too, I just prefer to be left to my own and do things the way I want to do them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't like open-world games for the simple reason that I get distracted, wanting to explore everywhere, and never complete the main storyline. I've put a substantial number of hours into Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, GTA:VC, and GTA:SA...and I never even came close to finishing the main storyline in any of them.

 

On the other hand, I beat DAO while completing every side quest. I thought that was the perfect marriage between open-world and linear, allowing you to choose what to tackle, but being linear once you do. It also allows for a much better story, which is probably why I played that for over 100 hrs, yet stopped playing all the other aforementioned titles after about 50 hours of gameplay going no where.

 

tl;dr: For just messing around, open-world games are great, but for story, give me linear any day.

 

to me, that's the best part. I like creating my own stories, I'm not very interested in the Skyrim main story-line (read: I could care less). I spent a hundred or so hours just walking around, hunting, exploring, that's all the story I wanted out of it. Which is the main reason I'm so excited for Star Citizen (pledge, if you haven't already) 

 

Linear stories are great too, I just prefer to be left to my own and do things the way I want to do them. 

 

 

Precisely. I like having direction in my games, but sometimes I just want to screw around and do whatever without worrying about the story. Take Just Cause 2 as an example. Sure, you could play the story and only that, but really, if you had a giant tropical island to drive around, blow stuff up in, and overall just be a menace, would you pass that up? No, and if you do then you are dead to me.

 

With Skyrim, Oblivion, and Morrowind, pretty much the very last thing I did was the main story. I would do every little side quest or faction quest, explore the lands, discover cool items/locations/monsters, and then, when I decided it was time to start the main story, I did that. Sure, I'd do just enough of the main story to get the ball rolling (like having the dragons appear in Skyrim), but typically I'd just start exploring. I remember the first time I played Oblivion, I took the amulet to the Grandmaster of the Blades, and then did everything BUT the main quest until I was more than 100 hours in.

 

The fact that Witcher 3 and Dragon Age: Inquisition are going to be open world is pretty exciting to me. It means that I'll be able to see even more of the game world (well, hopefully for DAI) and just do my own thing for a while. Stories are great, but the ability to just explore the world and see what's over that next hill/mountain is fascinating and something I won't want to pass up. I'll get back to the story, just let me take my time to get back to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...