Psychology of gaming: a few questions.

Been playing Fallout NV recently, and a few things popped up as I was playing that I wanted to get peoples thoughts on. The first thing is how people feel with open world games versus more linear structures: there seems to be a movement from not only developers but gamers in general to expand the worlds that are being created to make them as immersive as possible. Part of the way to do this is to make larger maps of course, and locations which you can travel to and from by your own volition. The idea of a living, breathing world is popping up in many games, irrespective of genre.

Now, I'm sure I can't be the only one, but open world games are kind of daunting. Sometimes (not always) their breadth is almost suffocating, as if I had a case of agoraphobia or something. I'm not frightened of open spaces in real life, but in games I'm almost overwhemled by the size and freedom; Skyrim being a good example. With NV its not as bad, because there is still the sense that you can get around quite easily, but Skyrim is overwhelming to the point where I find myself just giving up. The worst thing is that they're only going to get bigger and denser.

Part of this relates to the feeling of not progressing. In Skyrim, and to a lesser extent other open world games, you could play for 5 hours and still feel like you haven't really achieved anything. In more linear games, you pretty much know you're about half way through; and in an odd way, that is more reassuring or comforting than knowing you could play a game for hundreds of hours without completing it. Trying to immerse yourself in the world is fine, but it feels as if that is coming at the expense of an actual experience.

That leads into my next question: do people really enjoy trophies, sidequests, collection, mini-games and so on? In my experience, that just adds to the overwhelming nature of open world games. It's beyond burdernsome. Some might say "well, just do the main quest", but that doesn't quite take into account the feeling of incompleteness one gets from just rushing through the main quest. Do I do this sidequest or not? What will happen if I do? Will it enrich the experience? And I suppose developers put those things in for a reason, so people like me with such OCD's continue to play the game.

Finally, should difficulty modes exist? Im referring to hardcore mode in NV with this one. Again, as a player, you feel somewhat inadequate when playing on easy, or even normal. Its fine being able to tailor your experience to particular types of gamers, but again I think the ability to choose a setting from the beginning is the wrong way to go about it. From where I stand it would be better if you had one normal setting from the start, and were then unable to unlock a hardcore mode upon completing the game. With NV it might be trickier, because hardcore mode involves survivalist elements, but in other games it would be more advantageous.

I realize these questions are borne out of my own neuroses, but to summarize, the questions are:

1. Do you find open worlds overwhelming?

2. If you had a choice, would you exclude sidequests, trophies, collectables, mini-games altogether?

3. Should difficulty settings be set to normal only (with higher difficulty being an unlockable)?

Open worlds are only intimidating to me if I feel like there's a lack of structure or organization. I felt that way for several hours at the beginning of Deus Ex Human Revolution, but once it all started to click, that feeling totally vanished. I can't think of any recent games that intimidated me, but I never finished Morrowind because of that. I couldn't keep track of everything I needed to do, and stuff just kept piling up so that I would forget half of my quests.

But with Skyrim, once I figured out the quest system and map, which didn't take long, I wasn't intimidated whatsoever. Even though there was a TON to do and a million places to go, I understood the structure and could easily keep track of everything.

No
No
And No.

1. Do you find open worlds overwhelming? - It just takes a few games to get used to the idea of an open world. You've got your main quest and a bunch of sidequests you can complete to level up your character, get more weapons etc., and make the main quest easier. In a really good game those sidequests are interesting, fun, and tie into the main quest in some way. In a bad game they're irrelevant, boring, and serve only to add grinding hours to the thing.

2. If you had a choice, would you exclude sidequests, trophies, collectibles, mini-games altogether? - No. There wouldn't be too much point in having an open world and then making a main-quest-only game out of it. Personally I enjoy doing a bunch of little things and getting trophies and cool weapons for them. And exploring little side-stories, meeting interesting characters and visiting out-of-the-way locations - the whole "I wonder what's over here?" - those are the things that differentiate open world games from linear ones.

3. Should difficulty settings be set to normal only (with higher difficulty being an unlockable)? - No. Different people have different skill levels. Some games on normal are way too easy, others are very hard. The developer can't create a "normal" difficulty that would be suitable for everyone. That's why it's nice to have a choice.

Been playing Fallout NV recently, and a few things popped up as I was playing that I wanted to get peoples thoughts on. The first thing is how people feel with open world games versus more linear structures: there seems to be a movement from not only developers but gamers in general to expand the worlds that are being created to make them as immersive as possible. Part of the way to do this is to make larger maps of course, and locations which you can travel to and from by your own volition. The idea of a living, breathing world is popping up in many games, irrespective of genre.

Now, I'm sure I can't be the only one, but open world games are kind of daunting. Sometimes (not always) their breadth is almost suffocating, as if I had a case of agoraphobia or something. I'm not frightened of open spaces in real life, but in games I'm almost overwhemled by the size and freedom; Skyrim being a good example. With NV its not as bad, because there is still the sense that you can get around quite easily, but Skyrim is overwhelming to the point where I find myself just giving up. The worst thing is that they're only going to get bigger and denser.

Part of this relates to the feeling of not progressing. In Skyrim, and to a lesser extent other open world games, you could play for 5 hours and still feel like you haven't really achieved anything. In more linear games, you pretty much know you're about half way through; and in an odd way, that is more reassuring or comforting than knowing you could play a game for hundreds of hours without completing it. Trying to immerse yourself in the world is fine, but it feels as if that is coming at the expense of an actual experience.

That leads into my next question: do people really enjoy trophies, sidequests, collection, mini-games and so on? In my experience, that just adds to the overwhelming nature of open world games. It's beyond burdernsome. Some might say "well, just do the main quest", but that doesn't quite take into account the feeling of incompleteness one gets from just rushing through the main quest. Do I do this sidequest or not? What will happen if I do? Will it enrich the experience? And I suppose developers put those things in for a reason, so people like me with such OCD's continue to play the game.

Finally, should difficulty modes exist? Im referring to hardcore mode in NV with this one. Again, as a player, you feel somewhat inadequate when playing on easy, or even normal. Its fine being able to tailor your experience to particular types of gamers, but again I think the ability to choose a setting from the beginning is the wrong way to go about it. From where I stand it would be better if you had one normal setting from the start, and were then unable to unlock a hardcore mode upon completing the game. With NV it might be trickier, because hardcore mode involves survivalist elements, but in other games it would be more advantageous.

I realize these questions are borne out of my own neuroses, but to summarize, the questions are:

1. Do you find open worlds overwhelming?

2. If you had a choice, would you exclude sidequests, trophies, collectables, mini-games altogether?

3. Should difficulty settings be set to normal only (with higher difficulty being an unlockable)?

RadioGooGoo

1. Do you find open worlds overwhelming?

2. If you had a choice, would you exclude sidequests, trophies, collectables, mini-games altogether?

3. Should difficulty settings be set to normal only (with higher difficulty being an unlockable)?

RadioGooGoo

1. No

2. No

3. No

1. Yes. I personally don't enjoy games that let you loose in an entire world to explore on your own, mainly because I don't really enjoy exploration to that much of an extent. I can play games like Batman: Arkham City and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, but Bethesda games or any other open world like that I can't really handle.

2. No, not really. Using Arkham City again, I collected all of the Riddler trophies and beat the challenges, because of the fact that extra content was made avaiable to you if you did. So if the game gives me a clear incentive for doing sidequest and collecting things, and if it was enjoyable while doing so, then yeah, I don't have a problem.

3. I don't think so with that. Some people like to start off with hardest difficulty; I know I certainly do when I play fighting games.