Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The most interesting thing I have found on many game forums is that everyone loves open world games. My common thing I have found is that many open world games have been released this year. There is now even an over saturation of open world games as a genre. For a little bit I've even researched the subject on end for weeks and weeks. Watching as some people called for more Open World Games and slowly the games became less and less interesting because of it.

The Main issue with Open World Games is that they offer too much choice, and too many useless ideas that are used. You can play Dragon Age Inqusition as much as you want but at the end of the day you are carrying out fetch quests. Which in the narrative makes no sense. Open World Games in general are extremely expensive to make and create them.

As someone in Game Design. Open World is something quite interesting in that it actually limits player choice and play styles tremendously. Open World Games in general are created to give the player a sense of adventure, its actually a gimmick or idea that it can create this whole idea that you are not on a linear path. Funnily enough. You are still confined to a linear path still. You still have to follow the main story, you still have to follow the same linear item path. Yes you can cheat and skip. But that is still predicted by the Game Devs.

Right now every game wants to be an open World. Watch Dogs, Grand Theft Auto, Far Cry 4, Assassins Creed all are open world. (Thats from this year alone, thats 4 triple AAA Games.)

Yes linearity does get boring but this is one of the reasons why I enjoyed Wolfenstein and A Bird Story more because they knew what they were and executed it perfectly. They built their games quite masterfully they used the environment gave an option to use different weapons allowing for different play styles.

Where in Watch Dogs you are funneled into a single mechanic (Hacking), or you are unkillable if you use the block key(Assassins Creed), or the tone, story, and gameplay are medicore *Cough* (Far Cry 4).

What does Call of Duty Advanced Warfare offer that Far Cry 4 Could offer? Differences of playstyle simply. More approach ability. What did Wolfenstien have that Borderlands does not have? Characterization, a central story, nonlinearity, there is no progression system, there is no crafting system.

There are many things to dislike about Open World Games, as more and more game companies make it. What have we achieved? Except boredom? Players will continue to collect flowers and accomplish non-heroic things in Dragon Age Inquisition. We will continue to have more of the same type of games as long as we continue to go down this route that players want more open world, players want more choices! More meaningful choices that is! Players want crafting systems! Don't you see? This is a problem in the industry that is not what player want, they want engagement. They want to have fun. What is the best thing about Far Cry 4? The fething animals. RNG is probably one of the best things in games, what is more fun walking into a room with the most powerful weapon in the game and slaughtering lower levels. Or randomly walking down the side of a mountain finding a man trapped by bear trap, freeing him, and then he gets attacked by a pack of wolves and then a rhino knocks you off a cliff.

Players enjoy being immersed into a game. Games don't need a fully outed skyrim like Map that you can explore. You can make it small and compacted as long as you have something in the mechanics that are interesting and well placed that make the game feel great to play. Its why we have games like Rouge Legacy, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Diablo 2, these games gave you something different. They offered different ways to play they allowed you to pick and choose they allowed you to have fun with random encounters with big bosses or with interesting mechanics or even story line.

Having Immersive gameplay is the key to a good game, and also being entertained by a game is also key. Games will continue to offer you choices, but that does not make the game better. It just offers you choice. You can be as big as skyrim but if you lack the immersiveness of Skyrim and the story of games like To the Moon.

Gaming is an ever evolving art form, we will continue to progress it and one day we will have that one game that breaks the whole idea that every game needs to be just like this to be a good game.

My biggest problem with open world is how all these stories etc usually have no impact on anything.

Games arent complex enough for my tastes in that regard yet.

For example, in skyrim I can be leader of the thieves guild, be a master assassin and run the mages guild, yet near no one will bat an eye. Occasionally the Guards may something that hints at your character, but at the end of the day you are a nobody from beginning to end.

Things like punching a chicken will invoke the wrath of an entire town who will kill you over it. Despite being in a position of huge authority such as the head mage.

Its just too basic most of the time for me. The open worlds have populations that suffer extreme amnesia and massive events barely cross over each other.

But in saying that, open world games can be amazing. Fallout 1 for example has you start out a nobody and end the game a nobody. The world forgets you because you dont change the world as much as you change the people you are working to save. Not once are you the head mage and yet nobody respects your authority or remembered by the law as a trouble maker etc.

Or DayZ, no story makes open world better. Very little to be confused about. You are the same as everyone else in the game. But its a very different genre of open world.

I guess my opinion on the games is its adding heaps of stuff in the most basic way. The most basic way being heaps of single stories instead of a web of interconnected stories and events.

I speak as someone who loves games like Skyrim, and has been part of TES since game one. Have you played Daggerfall? Or any of the five Ultima games?

Linearity is all well and good, but you have to give the player the ability to do it at his own pace. That is the problem with games like Bioshock. They're well written and executed, but they hold absolutely zero replay value. You can do it all again with marginal differences. In the first Bioshock, you had like four plasmids that didn't suck. And you can progress through it once, and realise that the replay will essentially evolve into exactly the same playthrough.

To this day, I'm still playing Morrowind. Despite all it's flaws, it's still one of the best TES games out there due to it's options. On my current character, I'm 20+ hours in, and I haven't touched the main plot. It's precisely stuff like that which make those types of games so good.

I like open world games myself, but my complaint is that a lot of the open world games we are getting aren't open enough. I like when an open world game lets you do things your own way. I like an open world game like state of decay over a open world like assassins creed. Because it's more about taking and leaving the different tools and systems. Too many open world games want to make sure you take and play with everything so you don't really get as much choice as you think you will.

nomotog wrote:
I like open world games myself, but my complaint is that a lot of the open world games we are getting aren't open enough. I like when an open world game lets you do things your own way. I like an open world game like state of decay over a open world like assassins creed. Because it's more about taking and leaving the different tools and systems. Too many open world games want to make sure you take and play with everything so you don't really get as much choice as you think you will.

You mean a pseudo-open world. I think New Vegas fits that description over AC.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I like open world games myself, but my complaint is that a lot of the open world games we are getting aren't open enough. I like when an open world game lets you do things your own way. I like an open world game like state of decay over a open world like assassins creed. Because it's more about taking and leaving the different tools and systems. Too many open world games want to make sure you take and play with everything so you don't really get as much choice as you think you will.

You mean a pseudo-open world. I think New Vegas fits that description over AC.

I wasn't really thinking of NV. I mean that game is kind of restricting at the start, but the game will never force you to use a particular item. I was more thinking about games with open worlds, but closed gameplay. Like how in an AC game you will be forced to do every activity once and use every item once.

I don't know if I am describing this right, but maybe just look at the ship in black flag. Is their a functional difference between your ship or my ship. Is there going to be a functional difference between how you play through the game and how I do. So much of the game is a tutorial that you barely experience the freedom.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I like open world games myself, but my complaint is that a lot of the open world games we are getting aren't open enough. I like when an open world game lets you do things your own way. I like an open world game like state of decay over a open world like assassins creed. Because it's more about taking and leaving the different tools and systems. Too many open world games want to make sure you take and play with everything so you don't really get as much choice as you think you will.

You mean a pseudo-open world. I think New Vegas fits that description over AC.

I think NV is actually the best version of open world. Its linear, but you can play it any way you want. I'm pretty sure you can complete most of the game without fighting, via negotiating. Also, I just really, really fething love New Vegas. I thought it was superior to 3 in every way, but not near as balls hard as 1 and 2.

I think Asherian Command hits it on the head, long winded on the head, but nevertheless.

Many games that have a centralized story or objective (see AC) don't require the massive scope that an open world genre offers. True, it makes for some pretty cool adventuring, but in the end, (like Asherian states) you're still on a set of train tracks headed towards the same station, just with really cool scenery along the way.

Games that don't suffer from the wide-open world effect like the TES series (pardon the lack of knowledge on anything pre-Morrowind), or Fallout, I find sometimes don't even really take advantage of that whole 'living, breathing atmosphere' that so many of them claim to have. For example: something that most people who played Skyrim find annoying, the Civil War. It doesn't really matter which side you choose as nothing really game changing is effected. Sure there are Imperial quest givers/helpers that disappear (frustratingly) but the resolution doesn't actually make the player feel like their work even mattered.

I agree with the OP, the genre is becoming flooded with games all claiming to have an open world, and while that's a fine goal, there are franchises that don't belong, stories that are out of place in the massive worlds they have designed for them. The same could be said for newer games that could have taken advantage of the design but rather stuck to a linear, rail-road sort of approach to their story-telling - Diablo 3 anyone? (Yes, I'm aware that the Diablo series has never truly needed an open ended world, but hey, I can dream.)

In conclusion, I demand a progressive, open-world, space-knight-wizard-rogue, ultimate customization, procedural generated galaxy, space sim. With twenty-six romance options, thirteen straight, twelve not, and one 'other'. Get on it Asherian, I expect a pre-alpha build in six months. Also, include multiplayer and free DLC.

One thing is that I haven't really regretted that a game was open world. I mean some open world games are poorly executed and pointless. (LA:N is kind of pointless as an open world.) On the other hand I can think of a few games that weren't open world that just makes me think aww what a waste. (Metro is my big game I want to see as an open world game.)

 Frankenberry wrote:


In conclusion, I demand a progressive, open-world, space-knight-wizard-rogue, ultimate customization, procedural generated galaxy, space sim. With twenty-six romance options, thirteen straight, twelve not, and one 'other'. Get on it Asherian, I expect a pre-alpha build in six months. Also, include multiplayer and free DLC.

sounds like star wars galaxy when it first launched. If a mon calmarian marries a transdocian is that bestiality? A fish & a lizard, they're kids would probably be amphibians

I think the problem is some people confuse open world with sandbox. They're not the same, but some developers seem to think they are.

In short Open World has many advantages over linear play, so many to the extent that IMHO open world games are out and out superior.

However the progression is indeed easier to see in a linear game.

There is however a way to easily profit from both linear progression and open world. the answser is to produce Chapters.

This is not a new solution, but it is a good one and one sadly often overlooked. the best example of a computer RPG with open world and chapter structure are Gothic and Gothic 2.

Chapters add definitive progression to the storyline with the open world being retained but significantly altered between chapters as the storyline progresses. Each Chapter takes a hard non-reverseable step forward in the storyline alongside changes as to which game areas are open, how they are populated and even where warranted major changes to the terrain. handled well, as Gothic did, the open world is not lost, however the feel of progression is preserved especially as players revisit area visited in a previous chapters and witness the changes.

ITT: Different gamers preferring different kinds of games. Who would have thought!

I disagree with OP's notion that open world games must always feel limiting or even boring. How limiting a game is or feels (which can be two different things!) depends on the individual title as well as the focus and resources of the developer, and as such I'd caution against making any sweeping statements in this regard.

It is also most importantly a question whose answer will differ between individual players, for different people will ultimately look for different things and ways to approach an objective - or even different kinds of objectives! - in the games they play. Some will feel most immersed when they are railroaded down a predetermined path, spending as little "downtime" as possible in a hub where they actually get to influence portions of the story as a player rather than a pre-written character. Others appreciate as much freedom as possible, up to not even being given any actual goals but preferring to set them themselves. Yet others want something in-between, where there is a pre-established story, but they are given different ways on how and/or when to approach a resolution. I feel as if in some way this might also touch upon the thread we had on character customisation, and the value of predefined characters versus player-created ones. Or in other words, the difference between replaying someone elses story, and (to an extent) writing your own.

And, since I've just finished rescuing Thedas, I also contest that the majority of stuff you do in Dragon Age is "fetch quests that make no sense in the narrative". Certainly, there were many optional missions you could do, but they were optional, and most of them suited perfectly to the narrative as a means of representing the Inquisition's growth, or attempts to gain some advantage over its enemies.

If someone feels compelled to do even the missions they consider unsuitable and anti-climatic, then it simply seems they lack the discipline to deal with this kind of freedom. It is quite literally like people suing a fast food diner for making them fat. If this is a problem for them, play more different, more lineal games. But don't complain that open world is somehow wrong or "boring", when in the end it is merely a demand for the industry to cater more to your personal preferences than anyone elses.

Personally, I doubt that the underlying, implied fear of Open World being "the future of gaming" is real. Rather, it is a temporary surge/spike that, just like all other genres, will surely experience an automatic decline again, before seeing another revival next decade. Although I'm not even sure I can agree with Open World being all that common as it is implied here; I seem to see a lot more linear games, at least as far as AAA titles are concerned.

tl;dr: don't confuse "what gamers want" with "what I want"

Tannhauser42 wrote:I think the problem is some people confuse open world with sandbox. They're not the same, but some developers seem to think they are.

It's because the terms are only vaguely defined and there is a considerable overlap between them. Take my currently favourite game, Elite Dangerous - is it open world, or sandbox? It lacks any sort of goal or pre-written plot which is common to open world games like GTA, yet at the same time it also lacks the tools you'd expect from a true sandbox such as empire-building.

There is no officially recognised authority on defining these terms, so people make them up based on their own opinions, which differ from gamer to gamer. Hell, even the wikipedia article on that topic is a mess. There seems to be a general consensus on the basics, but I could think of a lot of games where some people claim it'd be open world and others it's a sandbox. Who's to say who is wrong and who is right?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I like open world games myself, but my complaint is that a lot of the open world games we are getting aren't open enough. I like when an open world game lets you do things your own way. I like an open world game like state of decay over a open world like assassins creed. Because it's more about taking and leaving the different tools and systems. Too many open world games want to make sure you take and play with everything so you don't really get as much choice as you think you will.

You mean a pseudo-open world. I think New Vegas fits that description over AC.

I think NV is actually the best version of open world. Its linear, but you can play it any way you want. I'm pretty sure you can complete most of the game without fighting, via negotiating. Also, I just really, really fething love New Vegas. I thought it was superior to 3 in every way, but not near as balls hard as 1 and 2.

You can do all of that in Fallout 3. Without the Linearity.

The problem is that the two are the polar opposites. FO3 is too Open world. NV isn't Open enough. I.E. The Legion Camp or New Vegas itself.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I like open world games myself, but my complaint is that a lot of the open world games we are getting aren't open enough. I like when an open world game lets you do things your own way. I like an open world game like state of decay over a open world like assassins creed. Because it's more about taking and leaving the different tools and systems. Too many open world games want to make sure you take and play with everything so you don't really get as much choice as you think you will.

You mean a pseudo-open world. I think New Vegas fits that description over AC.

I think NV is actually the best version of open world. Its linear, but you can play it any way you want. I'm pretty sure you can complete most of the game without fighting, via negotiating. Also, I just really, really fething love New Vegas. I thought it was superior to 3 in every way, but not near as balls hard as 1 and 2.

You can do all of that in Fallout 3. Without the Linearity.

The problem is that the two are the polar opposites. FO3 is too Open world. NV isn't Open enough. I.E. The Legion Camp or New Vegas itself.

NV also mixes up the environments. 3 felt pretty bland.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I like open world games myself, but my complaint is that a lot of the open world games we are getting aren't open enough. I like when an open world game lets you do things your own way. I like an open world game like state of decay over a open world like assassins creed. Because it's more about taking and leaving the different tools and systems. Too many open world games want to make sure you take and play with everything so you don't really get as much choice as you think you will.

You mean a pseudo-open world. I think New Vegas fits that description over AC.

I think NV is actually the best version of open world. Its linear, but you can play it any way you want. I'm pretty sure you can complete most of the game without fighting, via negotiating. Also, I just really, really fething love New Vegas. I thought it was superior to 3 in every way, but not near as balls hard as 1 and 2.

You can do all of that in Fallout 3. Without the Linearity.

The problem is that the two are the polar opposites. FO3 is too Open world. NV isn't Open enough. I.E. The Legion Camp or New Vegas itself.

NV also mixes up the environments. 3 felt pretty bland.

Yes But the whole point of Open World is so that you can play it in your way. Not "This game is Open World after you visit New Vegas."

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I like open world games myself, but my complaint is that a lot of the open world games we are getting aren't open enough. I like when an open world game lets you do things your own way. I like an open world game like state of decay over a open world like assassins creed. Because it's more about taking and leaving the different tools and systems. Too many open world games want to make sure you take and play with everything so you don't really get as much choice as you think you will.

You mean a pseudo-open world. I think New Vegas fits that description over AC.

I think NV is actually the best version of open world. Its linear, but you can play it any way you want. I'm pretty sure you can complete most of the game without fighting, via negotiating. Also, I just really, really fething love New Vegas. I thought it was superior to 3 in every way, but not near as balls hard as 1 and 2.

You can do all of that in Fallout 3. Without the Linearity.

The problem is that the two are the polar opposites. FO3 is too Open world. NV isn't Open enough. I.E. The Legion Camp or New Vegas itself.

NV also mixes up the environments. 3 felt pretty bland.

Yes But the whole point of Open World is so that you can play it in your way. Not "This game is Open World after you visit New Vegas."

Well fallout 3 wasn't open till after the vault and that was actually kind of long. NV technically open right after you leave doc's house and that isn't long. NV is a much more directed game though and that applies even after you get to the title town. Like you ever notice how almost every quest in NV leads you to some other arena were you will pick up 2 or three more quests. The quests will do a good job leading you to all the important places. Meanwhile in FO3 you have to stumble on most places. I mean there were citys that I never knew existed till the third play through. (Still haven't been to underworld too.) In NV I was in every town in every playthrough because that is what the quests make you do.

 Lynata wrote:
ITT: Different gamers preferring different kinds of games. Who would have thought!

Exactly that.
In other news:
“A rebuttal of sports games being the future:

Some people like sports games. Other people do not like sport games. Sports games will continue to be made in the future. Games that are not sports games will continue to be made in the future.”

I don't even think it's different types of gamers necessarily. I love an open world game done well, as much as I love a more focused game with a strong narrative... again, done well. Either style of game works, as long as it's a good game.

 thedarkavenger wrote:


Yes But the whole point of Open World is so that you can play it in your way. Not "This game is Open World after you visit New Vegas."

That's why the first thing I do in a new game of NV is load up on stimpacks, med-x and some decent light armor (leather works) and run north of Goodsprings.

Yes, right into the Cazadores. Zig-zag; it helps. Use the terrain to slow them down (Cazadores can get hung up on road signs) and don't stop for anything. Run past the hidden vault (Vault 19) and extra zig-zag when the deathclaws show up, run past the farmhouse the Powder Gangers have taken over that's right next to Vault 19 (in the daytime they hang around outside with laser and plasma weapons and will aggro the deathclaw off you) and KEEP RUNNING. Once the deathclaw is out of sight, you have a fairly clear shot towards NV. You're coming in from the south western part of the city, but it's no trouble to walk to the gate from here. I've done it bunches of times. Skips the several hours long expanded tutorial that is the trip south of Goodsprings.

squidhills wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:


Yes But the whole point of Open World is so that you can play it in your way. Not "This game is Open World after you visit New Vegas."

That's why the first thing I do in a new game of NV is load up on stimpacks, med-x and some decent light armor (leather works) and run north of Goodsprings.

Yes, right into the Cazadores. Zig-zag; it helps. Use the terrain to slow them down (Cazadores can get hung up on road signs) and don't stop for anything. Run past the hidden vault (Vault 19) and extra zig-zag when the deathclaws show up, run past the farmhouse the Powder Gangers have taken over that's right next to Vault 19 (in the daytime they hang around outside with laser and plasma weapons and will aggro the deathclaw off you) and KEEP RUNNING. Once the deathclaw is out of sight, you have a fairly clear shot towards NV. You're coming in from the south western part of the city, but it's no trouble to walk to the gate from here. I've done it bunches of times. Skips the several hours long expanded tutorial that is the trip south of Goodsprings.

And by doing that, you lose out on gameplay time.

My main issue with all open world games stems from the tutorial. Like, Skyrim takes forever. Morrowind had a good one.

If you try to properly teach every aspect of a Open world, then it will likely take you all game and will stifle the whole open world aspect. To do a good open world you have to trust your player to learn on their own and make their own way.

 Lynata wrote:
ITT: Different gamers preferring different kinds of games. Who would have thought!

I disagree with OP's notion that open world games must always feel limiting or even boring. How limiting a game is or feels (which can be two different things!) depends on the individual title as well as the focus and resources of the developer, and as such I'd caution against making any sweeping statements in this regard.

It is also most importantly a question whose answer will differ between individual players, for different people will ultimately look for different things and ways to approach an objective - or even different kinds of objectives! - in the games they play. Some will feel most immersed when they are railroaded down a predetermined path, spending as little "downtime" as possible in a hub where they actually get to influence portions of the story as a player rather than a pre-written character. Others appreciate as much freedom as possible, up to not even being given any actual goals but preferring to set them themselves. Yet others want something in-between, where there is a pre-established story, but they are given different ways on how and/or when to approach a resolution. I feel as if in some way this might also touch upon the thread we had on character customisation, and the value of predefined characters versus player-created ones. Or in other words, the difference between replaying someone elses story, and (to an extent) writing your own.

And, since I've just finished rescuing Thedas, I also contest that the majority of stuff you do in Dragon Age is "fetch quests that make no sense in the narrative". Certainly, there were many optional missions you could do, but they were optional, and most of them suited perfectly to the narrative as a means of representing the Inquisition's growth, or attempts to gain some advantage over its enemies.

If someone feels compelled to do even the missions they consider unsuitable and anti-climatic, then it simply seems they lack the discipline to deal with this kind of freedom. It is quite literally like people suing a fast food diner for making them fat. If this is a problem for them, play more different, more lineal games. But don't complain that open world is somehow wrong or "boring", when in the end it is merely a demand for the industry to cater more to your personal preferences than anyone elses.

Personally, I doubt that the underlying, implied fear of Open World being "the future of gaming" is real. Rather, it is a temporary surge/spike that, just like all other genres, will surely experience an automatic decline again, before seeing another revival next decade. Although I'm not even sure I can agree with Open World being all that common as it is implied here; I seem to see a lot more linear games, at least as far as AAA titles are concerned.

tl;dr: don't confuse "what gamers want" with "what I want"

Tannhauser42 wrote:I think the problem is some people confuse open world with sandbox. They're not the same, but some developers seem to think they are.

It's because the terms are only vaguely defined and there is a considerable overlap between them. Take my currently favourite game, Elite Dangerous - is it open world, or sandbox? It lacks any sort of goal or pre-written plot which is common to open world games like GTA, yet at the same time it also lacks the tools you'd expect from a true sandbox such as empire-building.

There is no officially recognised authority on defining these terms, so people make them up based on their own opinions, which differ from gamer to gamer. Hell, even the wikipedia article on that topic is a mess. There seems to be a general consensus on the basics, but I could think of a lot of games where some people claim it'd be open world and others it's a sandbox. Who's to say who is wrong and who is right?

Its just from experience but one of the things I have found is that Open worlds say they give you freedom when they really don't it gives you this illusion you are free, and what makes it limiting is that by its very nature the open world destroys many opportunities for creative story telling. The only one that uses mechanics in such a way that actually makes it quite interesting is making a narrative through gameplay like in Shadows of Mordor where things become a personal vendetta.

I remember when I played Planetside 2 a true open world first person shooter and how it felt so empty compared to Wolfenstien the New Order.

Over my break that I had I played different games and wrote things and decided to disect them to see what made them good and practiced my skills at game crafting. Finding that through my experiments that open world games often very rarely had great story. Dark Souls 1 having one of the best open world stories ever, but with very little character. The honest truth is that most open world games all that energy is spent actually making the world and the open worldness. You can say how interesting those worlds are but compared to a linear and progressive story it has little weight to it compared to more accomplished games.

If you try to properly teach every aspect of a Open world, then it will likely take you all game and will stifle the whole open world aspect. To do a good open world you have to trust your player to learn on their own and make their own way.

Which is one of the reasons why it can be extremely hard to do that. I mean why do people like games like grand theft auto 5 or games like Shovel Knight? Because they give you different experiences Shovel Knight is a hard game that makes many people feel quite inadequate while playing it. But Grand Theft Auto 5 is fun and simple. At its core it rewards experimentation. But at the same time there is a trade off somewhere. Making a game easy to play and a game have experimentation could easily lead to players being able to abuse a system that the designers did not intend to have happen. I.E. Vanu and their Hover Tanks being prime examples of this.

Abusing the system is 60somthing% of an open world. The whole point is to play by your own rules.

I don't know. I find it very hard to get excited about the "new indy keyword" that everybody is marketing towards. A couple years ago it was "physics" and everybody wanted to make a game involving that. Then we got that point where having zombies made something popular. Now it's "open world/crafting/survival". Most likely due to the inexplicable popularity of Minecraft, which I bought to try out and quickly decided was not worth my time (It's just bloody boring. I can't get behind any game that doesn't give me an explicit goal to work towards).

I guess I tend to take the long view on these things, but I can't help but feel that in a year or so we will get a new keyword and suddenly all the indy games will by using that one. They all seem the same to me, all a bunch of fairly good but not all that amazingly executed ideas trying to push the same concept.

All in all I play games to take my mind off the real world. Having a clear and explicit goal helps in that. If you give me the ability to do anything I just get bored.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I don't know. I find it very hard to get excited about the "new indy keyword" that everybody is marketing towards. A couple years ago it was "physics" and everybody wanted to make a game involving that. Then we got that point where having zombies made something popular. Now it's "open world/crafting/survival". Most likely due to the inexplicable popularity of Minecraft, which I bought to try out and quickly decided was not worth my time (It's just bloody boring. I can't get behind any game that doesn't give me an explicit goal to work towards).

I guess I tend to take the long view on these things, but I can't help but feel that in a year or so we will get a new keyword and suddenly all the indy games will by using that one. They all seem the same to me, all a bunch of fairly good but not all that amazingly executed ideas trying to push the same concept.

All in all I play games to take my mind off the real world. Having a clear and explicit goal helps in that. If you give me the ability to do anything I just get bored.

I agree with that. I think it is more of a phase of gamers in general. Where they think that they really want this. When really they want this. IS more of what they do every time there is a new theme. Everyone right now is wanting more open world games because it is popular because they all believe that would make games better.

Quite a few people here are quite guilty of thinking it is better to have more open world games. When it is more of we need diversity in our games not similarities.

It only breeds lazyness.