Should trend of every game going open world need to end?

Hey everyone

here im talking about open world games like far cry and gta. a fully open world games which involve too much traveling, side quest etc. and nowadays i see that this is becoming a trend that every game is going full open world. MGS went open world, witcher went open world, batman went full open world and on and on.

to me this is really ruining industry. now i dont mind if game started open world but why ruined a great linear games and turn it into open world? thats the reason why witcher 3 become very boring compare to how great witcher 2 was. why MGS5 become very boring and dull. why batman arkham knights is worst in series and i could go on and on.

I really love semi open world games or linear games with Large and big sandboxy level design but travelling from point A to point B, forced side quest really ruined games. I dont want every game to become open world. just like last generation was full of millitary shooters this generation is full of open world games.

Do you think this trend harm games more than good?

Anything that exists for its own sake in gaming is bad.

RPG elements that exist for the sake of having RPG elements, Player Housing for the sake of player housing, Combat for the sake of having combat. And yes, Open World for the sake of being Open World. Developers should design games with a utilitarian mind.

To correct you, MGSV is NOT an open world game. It is a sandbox clear as day, and the difference between them is large enough.

As for the trend itself, I really don't think it's as big of as issue as people paint it out to be. But one thing I wish developers would stop doing is try to use size as its big draw. The Witcher 3 is probably the only recent open world game that justifies its scope for the most part. Most of the time games go big for the sake of it, and that's simply the wrong way to go.

Basically this, if the games design makes sense, then it's fine. MGSV did not come off as a game where the open world didn't have a point, it's larger issue is that Kojima went way the **** over budget and was going to miss his release window, so Konami said **** you, finish it, we want to be done with you. And as it stands MGSV is clearly missing stuff, because Chapter 1 is more than fine, but Chapter 2 and the way that shit works while knowing that MGS always had difficulty settings speaks volumes of how much of the final stretch of that game was compromised. Especially given Camp Omega was supposed to be a part of the game.

Likewise The Witcher 3 while having balancing issues, also benefited a lot from being open world at the same time. Neither case were misguided or fucking soulless production. You could argue execution issues, but that's another thing entirely.

Ubisofts games are fucking soulless, they make a homogenized open world game. what Mad Max ended up being is a fucking waste of that IP, Just Cause 3 is an example of a rush job and Square doing Square things that led to that production needing the crunch of all crunches just to get the SP mode to what it is today, in general triple A games have a tendency to have a little bit of everything, and not be good at anything.

It's why the smaller stuff from the indie side or the newer middle tier games are kicking their assess these days, because they nail the shit they focus on. Life is Strange actually has good characters and a plot, Her Story actually presents something novel, Ori and the Blind Forest has tight movement mechanics and a more organic world design (admittedly major metroid-like cardinal sin), Rocket League absolutely kills it on the gameplay front, Shadowrun: Hong Kong doesn't promise the fucking son, and as a result is a better paced, tactically satisfying, enjoyable crpg sequel to Shadowrun Dragonfall.

It's why Platinum and From Software's games happen to actually be good, where as something made by Ubisoft or present day Square-Enix is grade A garbage that just happens to look pretty.

first there ain't a "LARGE" difference between Sandbox and Open-World games , what makes them really different is the limit of things you can do , 2nd https://www.vg247.com/2014/06/12/mgs-5-the-phantom-pain-is-open-world-not-a-sandbox/

I wouldnt say its ruining the industry but its certainly lost its magic. Open world isnt new for console gamers any more. There was a point whereby simply being open world was the exciting new innovation, now gamers dont bat an eyelid if their series suddenly increases in scope. Would anyone care if the Next GTA map was double the size of V?? I doubt it. Its not innovative, its not exciting, its how that open world reacts with the player that matter ultimately.

There's nothing more depressing than an open world with very little to do in it. It comes across as wasteful. I own my fair share of open world games but my favourites tend to be more linear in nature. Its interesting to see that the games I enjoy the most are linear but the games I have clocked up the most hours playing with...are open world. Although its tragic to see it does suggest I play games I dont enjoy as much for longer than games I enjoy the most, probably due to travelling and side quests.

Fallout 4 is the exception to this rule. I have enjoyed that game from start to finish and my ONLY criticism of it is the power armour being largely unnecessary. I cant wear it without feeling like im cheating. I dont get the love for it at all.

Actually there is a big difference between the two. One centres itself on immersion towards the game world while the other thrives off exploitation and creativity. With the amount of different tools and scenarios provided to you at any given time, MGSV falls heavily on the latter. You have objectives you can pursue within an open environment, but beyond the missions and side-ops there's nothing else to engage in. The game takes more cues from the likes of Crysis than anything else. The only thing that really contests this is the free-roam option, but the environment and overall game design has an inherent sandbox nature to it.

So yeah, I couldn't care less about what that article states, especially when it was written over a year prior to the game's release.

To me, this new "Open world is the new "linear corridor shooter"" thing is a false equivalency created by gamers, because gamers NEED something to complain about, and the thing we all hated last gen (linear corridor wack-a-mole TPS) arent as prominent anymore.

Its like a person who regularly sleeps with Victoria Secret models, complaining that the women he sleeps with are "too beautiful". We're getting everything we want now, and we've run out of targets to hate, so now some people are starting to prop up sandbox/open worlds to fill that role.

Nah, it's more so dull uncreative design is going to still be dull uncreative design even if you open the levels up.

Linear corridors weren't a problem, because there are plenty of great games that played in linear corridors (both last gen and the generations before it). Likewise it's not like now we're getting dull open world games, this existed before too. Concepts aren't necessarily bad, execution is the larger issue. And yeah some of the open world stuff has been good (The Witcher 3, Metal Gear Solid V), also been some dull ass games, which I would have been dull given the execution, even if they weren't open world games.

No, because it worked for The Witcher and Dying Light.

But if you're going to do like Far Cry 4 and make your world bigger for the sake of it being bigger, without actually having anything interesting to do in it. Than yeah, that is a bad idea.

The Witcher 3, Dying Light: The Following and GTA V are great examples on how to make your world bigger... While also making it feel like it's a real world where people live in, and also having a lot of interesting stuff to do.

Well to keep it short :

As long as open world makes sense to the overall game design and its that big in order to NOT only give the impression of something "big" but its there with a purpose , open world games ( like Witcher 3 ) are great.

Everything else is just open world just for marketing reasons or to give you a pseudo-impression of a big world. Thats what i think for example Zelda Wii Us open world might be.

Then again its about taste also so...

the witcher 3 was only interesting untill you went to novigrad and then game starting to become extremely boring. they just turn it into talking simulator with too many dialouges that are very boring and i was forced to skip again and again.

and ciri parts... they are absolutely useless and did nothing to game.

Ciri's parts were meant to be a change of pace and express how powerful she is as a character, through gameplay no less, and the talking, that's The Witcher's better qualities. The action and dungeoning sure as hell isn't. And that goes back to the previous games too lol.

Either scenario had less to do with the open world not being a good fit with the witcher, as much as the pacing not being there and the execution not being there for stuff you didn't agree with. The story being a wild goose chase doesn't help matters either in that regard. But if that plot was told in a structure similar to Witcher 2, it would still have the same issues man.

The worlds of Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4 are pretty small when it comes to open-world size. I much prefer the appearance of an island (Far Cry 3) than a bowl (Far Cry 4). The ability to travel by air makes them smaller still. I prefer their implementation than say, Crysis or the first Far Cry. I found those worlds too restrictive for my tastes. Having invisible walls enforced by gunships, ships, or even sharks aren't my idea of boundaries.

I also don't like being funneled to the next action scene like most linear and many sandbox games. I like to get to my destination in my own time and I don't mind being sidetracked on the way. The worlds of Kyrat and Rakyat have the best balance for me. I often find myself just walking or flying around, admiring the scenery. Post-SP campaign, I find myself going back to Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4 the most compared to say, GTA V or The Witcher 3.

I always found the ablility to reset outposts and recapture them quite fun and keeps me coming back for more. Great for short bursts of gaming.

Not every game should be open world, but I do enjoy them the most.

that idiot that played MGSV like an open-world game

To be honest I prefer open world games to on rails games.

Also there is nothing stopping open world games having enclosed hand crafted areas. Even games like the 'Souls series would benefit from open world, it would be great to explore more of the world and find some dangerous things off the path, make it like 'Souls 2 where you go the wrong way at the start you get fucked up good.

MGS5 and The Witcher 3 are the best games in their respective franchises exactly because of the depth their open worlds lend to their gameplay and design.

Open world point A to point B donot make game a good. what make game interesting is level design. MGS5 has rather bland world. witcher 3 universe is nice but missions are so boring with all useless talking non sense.

I did not say those two were good because they were open world. I said their open worlds were excellent and lent great depth to their gameplay and their game design. The two statements are worlds apart.

MGS5 has a bland world because it isn't supposed to be GTA. It perfectly accomplishes what it set out to do and is exactly what it should be like. It serves its purpose perfectly well. TW3 is as excellent as it is because of its incredible game world, more than anything else.