• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,614
Over the past few years i played a lot of open world games ranging from smaller ones like Arkham City/Knight to huge ones like Assassin's Creed Odyssey and everything between. But out of all those games i played in only one i felt like i am actually exploring the map and discovering things naturally. That is Red Dead Redemption 2. In all other games after like dozen of hours you saw everything and rest of the world is content that repeats. Many of those game also have content that makes no sense in context of the game and even more of those games have need to push content to your face every few minutes.

Simply entire world in most of the games i played just felt like huge checklist. But that is not case in RDR2. From the moment i started playing that game and for the next 80h or more i spent in that world i felt like i am really exploring that unknown world. And no matter how long i was playing it i was discovering new things and secrets. There were no PoI markers, random events every 2 minutes (and those tat are in the game are far more varied than in any other game), no waypoints. It is just you, and decently sized map designed expertly. Stumbling upon may of the cottages in the game that tell different stories, abandoned US Mail wagon with interesting letter, cave with statues where you need to solve puzzles, guy in a cave that thinks he is devil... Or simple small tings like giant skeleton after you heard from some random person in the town nearby about it.

And don't make me start about treasure maps. They are proper treasure maps where you actually need to know landscape and map to find treasure and not some glorified waypoint.

Every second you spend in that game and in every direction you go there is something to be discovered. It could be big or small but one thing is sure it will be unique. There are some checklist items in the game like Dreamcatchers or Dino bones but even those don't feel like checklist because you actually need to find them in that huge world without any help.

So my question is why can't we have more games where designing map and filling it with content feels more like RDR and less like Ubisoft game? IS players attention span that low these days or developers/publishers have some kind of need to make players don't miss anything and make everything in games so obvious?

And what other games you feel that have similar exploration like RDR2?
 

Hindl

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,668
Because RDR 2 had a budget and development timeline many times that of your average game
 
OP
OP
dex3108

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,614
Because RDR 2 had a budget and development timeline many times that of your average game

That is just an excuse. If we take AC Odyssey for example it took Ubisoft like 3 years to make that game and if they made map 1/3 of the size and focused more on content and variety they could have made much more enjoyable game to explore.
 

Bundy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
20,931
Over the past few years i played a lot of open world games ranging from smaller ones like Arkham City/Knight to huge ones like Assassin's Creed Odyssey and everything between. But out of all those games i played in only one i felt like i am actually exploring the map and discovering things naturally. That is Red Dead Redemption 2. In all other games after like dozen of hours you saw everything and rest of the world is content that repeats. Many of those game also have content that makes no sense in context of the game and even more of those games have need to push content to your face every few minutes.

Simply entire world in most of the games i played just felt like huge checklist. But that is not case in RDR2. From the moment i started playing that game and for the next 80h or more i spent in that world i felt like i am really exploring that unknown world. And no matter how long i was playing it i was discovering new things and secrets. There were no PoI markers, random events every 2 minutes (and those tat are in the game are far more varied than in any other game), no waypoints. It is just you, and decently sized map designed expertly. Stumbling upon may of the cottages in the game that tell different stories, abandoned US Mail wagon with interesting letter, cave with statues where you need to solve puzzles, guy in a cave that thinks he is devil... Or simple small tings like giant skeleton after you heard from some random person in the town nearby about it.

And don't make me start about treasure maps. They are proper treasure maps where you actually need to know landscape and map to find treasure and not some glorified waypoint.

Every second you spend in that game and in every direction you go there is something to be discovered. It could be big or small but one thing is sure it will be unique. There are some checklist items in the game like Dreamcatchers or Dino bones but even those don't feel like checklist because you actually need to find them in that huge world without any help.

So my question is why can't we have more games where designing map and filling it with content feels more like RDR and less like Ubisoft game? IS players attention span that low these days or developers/publishers have some kind of need to make players don't miss anything and make everything in games so obvious?

And what other games you feel that have similar exploration like RDR2?
Bigger budget, way longer dev cycle, more developers, more, more, more, etc.
 

HebrewHammer

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,524
Chicago
The problem with open worlds games these days is a lack of the unexpected.

I think Rockstar has tackled this relatively well - there's the recurring story missions and side quests, but there's also unexpected strangers and moments that mix up the traditional open world formula.

This is why Cyberpunk is struggling a bit with me - I know there's main quests, side quests (that arent' all that varied), and gigs. It's all feeling very expected half way through. It's become a check list.

You need to sprinkle your open world with curiosity, oddities and unique moments.
 

Piecake

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,298
Designing an open world like RDR2, BoTW or Morrowind takes a lot of thought, effort, and care. Its a lot easier and/or cheaper to just stick a bunch of markers on a map and call yourself an open-world game with a bunch of exploration
 

Lobster Roll

signature-less, now and forever
Member
Sep 24, 2019
34,387
Designing anything (an explorable world, a compelling story, etc.) that taps into the user's curiosity and keeps them engaged solely through their own desire to see & learn more is an enormous task.
 

Jaded Alyx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
35,383
For such a lengthy OP, I'm a tad surprised there's zero mention of BotW.

That's the game I automatically think of when such topics arise. It also encourages exploration with the glider and being able to climb anything.
 

Hailinel

Shamed a mod for a tag
Member
Oct 27, 2017
35,527
Designing an open world like RDR2, BoTW or Morrowind takes a lot of thought, effort, and care. Its a lot easier and/or cheaper to just stick a bunch of markers on a map and call yourself an open-world game with a bunch of exploration
Yep. The map in Breath of the Wild was crafted so that you're always headed somewhere of interest, even though the game doesn't blast you in the face with a thousand map icons. It keeps things subtle and rewards the player for their own exploration, with the only hints offered being a few story quest objective markers and the shrine tracker.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,119
Obvious answer is because it takes way more time/effort and the casual market enjoys checklist open world design anyway.
 

Hindl

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,668
That is just an excuse. If we take AC Odyssey for example it took Ubisoft like 3 years to make that game and if they made map 1/3 of the size and focused more on content and variety they could have made much more enjoyable game to explore.
And Odyssey has a bunch of copy paste stuff plastered all over the world and it's fairly static. The player interacts with the world through questing, dialogue, combat, random encounters, etc. That's much easier to do and generate assets for than creating a responsive world with tons of logic that needs to both respond to the player while simlutaneously being robust enough to go on without the player's involvement
 

est1992

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,180
That's a loaded question, for which I do not have the answer but I can't tell you one thing, I'm sick of horses. The open world itself might be barren but at least it was fun to navigate it in Spider-Man.
 

ClickyCal'

Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,687
The big sony open world games basically did the ubisoft style, but better and a lot more structured, imo.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,446
It's also a business. They have hard milestones and if it were easy to do we would have had a new TES game last gen. How long did it take Rockstar to develop RDR2? Like it's nice to want things but from Ubi's perspective Odyssey sold well and Valhalla is selling even better. All indicators are that people like what they are doing.
 

Pirateluigi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,871
Unfortunately i don't own the Switch or Wii U but from what i saw in gameplay videos BotW is also bit limited in Exploration department.

That would be an incorrect assumption.

Anyway, the answer is that it takes a ridiculous amount of effort to create an open world worth exploring. It's a very crafted experience.
 

LCGeek

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,857
There's too many reasons why this happens.

Exploring to me means there is worthwhile content to find most games literally since the PS2 era have reminded me this isn't the case. For the dozens and dozens open world games I've played enough very few ever are worth the full completion.

So besides content is the gameplay loop interesting enough to make me wander the world and have it or see what comes about, again most don't.
 
OP
OP
dex3108

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,614
And Odyssey has a bunch of copy paste stuff plastered all over the world and it's fairly static. The player interacts with the world through questing, dialogue, combat, random encounters, etc. That's much easier to do and generate assets for than creating a responsive world with tons of logic that needs to both respond to the player while simlutaneously being robust enough to go on without the player's involvement

RDR2 world is not that reactive to players. And as i said even smaller unexpected things you find in RDR2 like cottage that was hit by meteorite has more value to me than anything i found in Odyssey. After you spend 10h in Odyssey you saw everything, there is nothing or very little you can find that is new and unexpected. Key is variety in my opinion.
 

DaleCooper

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,852
That is just an excuse. If we take AC Odyssey for example it took Ubisoft like 3 years to make that game and if they made map 1/3 of the size and focused more on content and variety they could have made much more enjoyable game to explore.
Let's be real. That 2/3 is taking way less effort to make than the first 1/3 due to all the copy paste. Even if they made the world smaller, the quest probably wouldn't turn out much better.

I think people need to understand that the size of Ubizoft maps is part of the appeal, particularly for AC.
 

Net_Wrecker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,735
The foundation of this answer is always more unique content, and that requires more time and money. As fidelity and expectations grow, unique content requires even more time and even more money. RDR2 is an impossible ask of 99% of the industry.

Beyond that you need a level of talent and expertise that either calls for years of iteration and mastery over the genre, or radical thinking. Both of these do not just happen.
 

RPGam3r

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,524
For such a lengthy OP, I'm a tad surprised there's zero mention of BotW.

That's the game I automatically think of when such topics arise. It also encourages exploration with the glider and being able to climb anything.

The problem (and I love BotW) is the discovery. The shrines and Korok leave a lot of room for improvement on the rewards side of exploring.
 

badcrumble

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,734
I think this is something Shadow of the Colossus did very well, in part because the navigational tool you have is very intentionally flawed. The world has several neat little areas you can find off the beaten path that are just there for you to look at (though I wouldn't count them as extra things to _do_), and places you'll only really find if you get lost or intentionally go off of the easier paths. Obviously it's a much simpler game than many, though.
 

JimJamJones

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,286
BotW is the GOAT when it comes to exploring the world.

No game has come close to it in terms of things to do and discover in such a large world.

Unfortunately i don't own the Switch or Wii U but from what i saw in gameplay videos BotW is also bit limited in Exploration department.

You could say that. You would be wrong, but you could say it.
 

Dlanor A. Knox

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Apr 6, 2018
4,159
And here I am, finding RDR2's open world boring to explore.

My favorite open worlds to explore are BOTW's and XCX's, for different reasons.
 

SnakeXs

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,111
Unfortunately i don't own the Switch or Wii U but from what i saw in gameplay videos BotW is also bit limited in Exploration department.
giphy.gif
 
Oct 27, 2017
707
Miami, Florida
The two games that come to mind that really made an impression on me when it comes to exploration are " The Outer Wilds" and " Breath of the Wild". The pace of discovery in these two particular titles felt more organic and natural then Bethesda's open world games and leagues above Rockstar and Ubisoft's titles.
 
Oct 27, 2017
39,148
My thought is that the devs design them like a check list. "We need to have it open world so put one town there, some gang hideouts in between and a side mission inside them". -Or so I believe they think when making them.

Rockstar do good open worlds because they design the city first. The culture, the landmarks and the peds. Then they start filling it with content. Read the dan houser interviews by Game Informer as they talk about it.
 

Trace

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,692
Canada
RDR2 feels awful to play and negates the massive budget they threw at it unfortunately.

Skyrim, BotW, Fallout, there's a few games that manage to do it interestingly.
 

Spine Crawler

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,228
And here I am, finding RDR2's open world boring to explore.

My favorite open worlds to explore are BOTW's and XCX's, for different reasons.
BotW was great because you really have no limits to climb everywhere, without any limit.

you can really go anywhere and tackle the game however you like.

in xenoblade x there are clear boundaries because your character simply cannot jump high enough. That changes though with the skells and especially with the flight module.
 

benzopil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,150
Maybe because Ubisoft and others want you to find all the stuff they created? I personally prefer it this way. These "random events" in RDR2 felt more scripted and fake than anything in Odyssey to me.
 
Last edited:

Jaded Alyx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
35,383
The problem (and I love BotW) is the discovery. The shrines and Korok leave a lot of room for improvement on the rewards side of exploring.
I didn't mind the shrines since I was actively looking for them all anyway, but I did mostly ignore any Korok puzzles beyond "place rock back in ring formation". For me, there were many more interesting rewards. Just climbing up a mountain and discovering a whole town or descending into a deep valley and finding an ancient temple - more things to explore!

EDIT: Or finding that giant sword on top of that mountain range, or discovering the Eighth Heroine.
 
Oct 27, 2017
42,700
The problem (and I love BotW) is the discovery. The shrines and Korok leave a lot of room for improvement on the rewards side of exploring.
There's still lots of cool things to find organically through exploration. Eventide Island, the dark forest, the dragons, the various labyrinths, Tarry Town, the Horse God and giant horse, and other random areas and things I'm probably forgetting, although I can understand the argument that the rewards could use improvement. The game was essentially built on finding cool sites and encounters, not on material rewards
 

Pirateluigi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,871
There's still lots of cool things to find organically through exploration. Eventide Island, the dark forest, the dragons, the various labyrinths, Tarry Town, the Horse God and giant horse, and other random areas and things I'm probably forgetting, although I can understand the argument that the rewards could use improvement. The game was essentially built on finding cool sites and encounters, not on material rewards

That feeling when I found an entire village I had somehow missed after 100 hours of playing. The world was incredibly dense.
 
Oct 27, 2017
42,700
That feeling when I found an entire village I had somehow missed after 100 hours of playing. The world was incredibly dense.
It's honestly why I'm glad that the map function that shows you where you've been wasn't introduced till the DLC. It would have just turned the game into filling in any blank spaces in the map instead of just stumbling onto them
 

Servbot24

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
43,155
They are too big.

It's impossible to truly design a world that big on a limited budget so you get tons of copy/paste/random scattered quests and characters.
 

RiOrius

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,083
I feel like part of it is helping players find the content while still letting them feel like they're finding it on their own.

So like, some players are fine with map markers or compass UI saying "there's a cave over there: go check it out." Other people hate this. Then you've got Ghost of Tsushima, where a bird will show up and lead you to that same cave, and this feels better but is kind of the same thing (although the bird won't tell you what it's leading you to, so in some ways that keeps the thrill of discovery alive, but at the same time it can be disappointing to just find a lame haiku spot or something). And then you've got games like Morrowind that throw out map markers entirely and give you text-based "turn left at the big tree" stuff, which some players love but others (myself included) can't stand.

It's a balancing act, and not every player reacts the same way to the same hints.
 

Naner

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,018
That too is a good point.

I enjoy playing games with so called "checklist" open worlds as long as they are fun to move around in or interact with.

Spider Man, Gravity Rush, Far Cry 5, Days Gone come to mind.
It's interesting how this can work two ways. In Spider-Man movement is very fast and fluid, and you easily get where you want to.

In BotW, on the other hand, movement is polished but there is usually a challenge in getting from one place to another. And that challenge is what keeps you going.