HZD is my favorite open world game, so yeah they're already there. Days Gone is absolutely amazing as well, better than most open world games and my favorite game of the year so far.
-
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.
Will Sony become the masters of open world next-gen?
- Thread starter A New Beginning
- Start date
Days Gone is not broken, and it's certainly not boring. I've had 1 very minor glitch in my 30 hours. It's bugs are no worse than pretty much any other open world game.
They aren't even in the top level of open world devs this gen, yet somehow they will surpass the best next gen? Based on....? Sony probably gets my vote for most overrated dev this gen. Lots of hype for B-tier games amongst their peers. They're just mostly kinda... average. With a couple exceptions.
Days Gone is significantly less polished than the likes of RDR2/BOTW. It's also got significantly more technical annoyances than recent Ubisoft open worlds.
The game had like 7 patches in 2 weeks, for good reason. It had a lot of small, but annoying bugs and technical hiccups.
I can see where your coming from. I don't judge purely on interactivity of an open world. I have emphasis on what can be discovered, like how most TW3 side quests were as good if not better than many other games main quest.
Better how? The Witcher 3's sidequests almost all play the same: find NPC, talk, activate Witcher sense, follow, investigate, cutscene, Witcher sense, battle, NPC, quest ends.
If you mean contextualization, sure, I guess.
That's the thing, I'm saying it's objectively not on par with its competitors. Also I specifically said the collect aspect of the game was PS2 era, the Korok seeds were exceedingly lazy and if we pan Crackdown for its orbs, BotW should be panned for lazy collect em all's.
And you're being told that you are objectively using the word objectively wrong.
As well as flat out not understanding how the Korok Seeds workk.
I may need to activate my inner shinobi602 and replay it. Because while that pattern is reminiscent of a side quest that comes to mind, i recall more diversity than that breakdown precludes
There's definitely some that play differently, yes. But the bulk of the sidequests fall under that template.
I don't like this idea that every space in an open-world game has to be "utilised", and I'm wondering if this is some new blowback argument against open-world games because I never used to see it this much 5 years ago.
It shouldn't be forcing you to go to every area for the story, exploration is optional. As long as you can see or experience something different if you go there it's fine (which is the case in GTA).
It's perfectly ok, perhaps even desirable, to have a "linear" game within an open-world.
Yes I am, objectively is based on standards and flat comparisons while subjectivity is more feeling based. I enjoyed playing BotW, but I still found its design lazy compared to other open world titles that had been released over the last decade.
Ok explain the korok seeds where you would either do some random out of place 1 action puzzle on a wall to attain. Or literally just pick up a rock or drop an apple...
The design of BOTW, predicated on physics and chemistry interactions and traversal mechanics that literally no other game on the market has right now, is not a decade old in the slightest.
Korok seeds are meant to be small "world engagement" puzzles, and are available in double the quantity than you need at the most to help ensure that their spread density through the world is enough that you will always find enough to be able to expand your inventory (remember, inventory management is crucial in Breath of the Wild). If your argument is that the world should have more than just Korok seeds as a reward for the micro-puzzles, sure, I can agree with that line of reasoning (though BOTW seems to be an intrinsic rewards game vs an external rewards one in general, so I also fully empathize with people who feel that the game doesn't in general make it worth their while to engage with the world).
Again, I fully understand why you might not like the game, or not like it as much as others do. BOTW has some very radical design elements that can be positively abrasive to some players. I get that! But to claim that the game is objectively rooted in aged design systems is absolutely and demonstrably incorrect, given how many mechanics it utilizes that no other games on the market have yet exhibited.
yeah they've made a good job at not changing the formula on existing IP's and use new ones to make them open. Just don't forget everything that isn't OW and you're good to go.
They have a long way to go to touch Ubisoft let alone Rockstar or CD Projekt Red. Their best titles this gen have been open ended, Sony are the king of open ended linear cinematic games.
Other games have had that, just less of it because every other game recognized that unintended bypasses of game design is bad game design minus exceptions. We see speedrunners doing it all the time, and I am not including straight up map glitching, they'll abuse design oversight to bypass game play. All of BOTW is based around the idea of bypassing the game, which cheapens the entire game. They made a sandbox with only throwaway, uncompelling activity that is better described as a toy than a game. I swear 95% of the interest and appeal is that there have been Zelda games before that were really tight knit, and now the sudden change is where your interest is. If a new IP came out with the same everything as BotW it would have been panned hard.
Same for me.
I had a miserable time with Horizon after it revealed what a pedestrian and bog standard open world game it was underneath it's pretty coat of paint and admittedly neat monster design. Haven't played Spider man yet but I'm not sure it would feel fresh enough (as an open world game) for me to enjoy.
Gravity Rush is kinda rubbish.
BOTW is one of my favourite gaming experiences ever on the other hand.
Just in my personal view, they have a long way to go before they're on the level of R*, CDPR, or Ubisoft. I'd even put Nintendo above them solely for BOTW. The worlds they build look nice, but do not have the same level of craft that the aforementioned put on display. Their open worlds are competently made, but that's about it. No Sony open world has thus far been close to something like Egypt, Velen, Hyrule, or the states in RDR2.
Last edited:
See, if the thesis of your whole argument is that people have been deluded into convincing themselves that they like BOTW because it bears the Zelda brand name, then there's not much discussion to be had here. Not only does that point of view fundamentally insult those who do like the game, it also fails to recognize that just because you view what you call the "toybox" design as something that cheapens the experience doesn't mean everyone else does- in fact, judging by the large scale acclaim, sales, and overwhelming praise for BOTW, most people love what the game does, and don't feel it cheapens itself in the slightest.
As I said, you're entitled to disagree because you feel otherwise, but please don't presume to tell others they are wrong for having a different opinion than you, or worse, that they're just fooled into liking something because they couldn't see past the brand. And just... consider that others can disagree with what you think makes or breaks an experience.
I said well earlier on that I enjoyed playing BotW so stop misrepresenting me. Also I'm not saying people have to agree with me, I'm arguing what I believe without the assertion of you being dead to me if you don't (though given how so much of culture today is "agree with me or you're dead to me" I can see why you jumped to that conclusion).
And I will hold the point because everything you said concedes it: BotW can be enjoyed and loved, but that doesn't change its quality just like Avengers Endgame and Avatar aren't on par with Schindlers List. Just because the former 2 are more enjoyable (or well since I'm using SL, enjoyable at all since i can't see a way to enjoy a viewing of SL that isn't sadistic) it doesn't mean their quality is there. Heck we can switch to food, I enjoy Taco Bell, but that doesn't mean it's quality matches... well really anything else lol.
Again, you are taking your own perception of quality and conflating it to some universal objective standard. That doesn't exist. Might be best to make your peace with it.
Your right, there isn't a universal or perfect objective standard, but we can definitely approach it enough as to make it useful.
And if we go by that, more people disagree with you than agree with you.
I don't want to use ad populum as an argument. I am trying to show you that there is no basis on which to claim a game is or isn't "objectively" anything.
No, they have a very long way to go until they match CDPR or R* in terms of crafting a natural, believable, interactive open world.
Then don't use ad populum and argue on the game itself.
When every other game has innovated past it before it even came out, and it has no unique identifiable attributes besides what it does differently from other Zelda games, it just doesn't add up. All you have is that it was for the most part technically sound. Otherwise it's just bad design decisions like the weapons breaking quickly (hell nioh had an alpha the summer before release and figured out that didn't work even with higher weapon drop rates and the weapon not permanently breaking) and lazy throwaway ideas like korok seeds. Instead of korok seeds have bloody compelling quests, not a short poem that is on par with what a middle schooler could make. Some of this is so basic and was figured out in the ps2 gen. I would only expect some of these elements from indies with insufficient team sizes, but as a full fledge AAA title it's clearly lacking.
I have argued on the game, it's just hard to argue when you dismiss it all with "no", and "No one would like it if it wasn't called Zelda".
I've attempted to explain, multiple times and in multiple ways, what about the game is special. You choose to dismiss it with "it's a toybox". I can't say anything more at that point.
No one has beaten Rockstar Games yet.CDPR the Witcher 3 is up there too,but it is only one game.
lol masters of empty fields with a kuroko seed here and there,and of course copy paste shines everywhere.
I want someone to give me an explanation as to what makes Ubisoft open world games "stand out" as opposed to something like Horizon, which has a much more interesting story, much better character writing, and more involved, challenging, and far more interesting combat design IMO. The only way I can think that they Assassins Creed games honestly stand out is ship battles and just the sheer scale of their worlds.
I see people often talking about Assassin Creed's traversal, but I've played both Origins and Odyssey, and the traversal is literally completely inconsequential because of your ability to go ANYWHERE. It feels meaningless. I might as well be walking on a flat plain if there is nothing more to getting to the highest peak than holding A down and forward.
The combat isn't even close between the two either. Horizon's combat design is multi layered and strategic. Sure the human on human combat isnt that interesting, but its not really the focus of the game, and i wouldn't really argue that its that different in caliber from AC: Origins or AC: Odyssey.
I see people often talking about Assassin Creed's traversal, but I've played both Origins and Odyssey, and the traversal is literally completely inconsequential because of your ability to go ANYWHERE. It feels meaningless. I might as well be walking on a flat plain if there is nothing more to getting to the highest peak than holding A down and forward.
The combat isn't even close between the two either. Horizon's combat design is multi layered and strategic. Sure the human on human combat isnt that interesting, but its not really the focus of the game, and i wouldn't really argue that its that different in caliber from AC: Origins or AC: Odyssey.
Hard to tell. In this gen I vastly prefered The Witcher 3 and BotW to Horizon: Zero Dawn, which felt too much as a traditional open world game that I have played more than enough. Also, I didn't enjoy spending time in the HZD's open world, which was pretty to look at but not that enjoyable to spend time and travel to unknown parts of the land (unlike in the W3 and BotW).
I would be more than OK, if Sony still offers great amount of more linear titles in comparison to large open world games in the next-gen.
I would be more than OK, if Sony still offers great amount of more linear titles in comparison to large open world games in the next-gen.
I would say that sony still has a ways to go when it comes to making open worlds that feel alive. Spiderman and yes even horizon, despite being solid games, felt like the open worlds lacked the dynamicism of something like a rockstar game
They catch up quickly. But I feel that's what they have been doing. Catching up.
They will release a game that does BoTW and probably better than it in various ways, but by that time there will be things from Cyberpunk 2077 that people would be wishing were in their game. Then when they do both, there will be another new Zelda or GTA 6 that once again stirred the pot.
They will release a game that does BoTW and probably better than it in various ways, but by that time there will be things from Cyberpunk 2077 that people would be wishing were in their game. Then when they do both, there will be another new Zelda or GTA 6 that once again stirred the pot.
Witcher 3 is the third game by an open world developer. Zelda is a beloved franchise with many games developed by industry veterans and Red Dead Redemption 2 is made by basically an open world deverloper with so much experience. Horizon Zero Dawn is the first open world game by a developer with a history of FPS games and Insomniac is also not know for open world games. I loved the Witcher series and currently loving RDR2 but i kind of had more fun with Horizon ZD and Spiderman. I'm sure they will improve where as I'm not sure where they can add in the next RDR and The Witcher to keep it interesting. And let's not forget Days Gone's world either. I'd say with the talent in their first party studios there is a shot at it.
Both TW3 and BotW are the first modern open world games in their franchises.
It's a fair comparison.
No, if they can surpass BotW (they can't) they should be, but polishing the Ubisoft checklist open world formula is not being master of the entire genre.
And as others said CDPR has already a more immersive game with TW3 than Spiderman or Horizon. It's not that fun to play, but the ambientation and world setting are amazing. Same with R* and RDRII, as much as I think that the game doesn't play good at all, the world construction, NPCs, historical ambientation... are amazing.
So I expect the next Zelda to be the best open-world gameplay-wise, Cyberpunk to be the best open-world lore/writing-wise and the next Sony open worlds to be the best version of the checklist open world formula (that tbh is already tiring to play, at least to me).
And as others said CDPR has already a more immersive game with TW3 than Spiderman or Horizon. It's not that fun to play, but the ambientation and world setting are amazing. Same with R* and RDRII, as much as I think that the game doesn't play good at all, the world construction, NPCs, historical ambientation... are amazing.
So I expect the next Zelda to be the best open-world gameplay-wise, Cyberpunk to be the best open-world lore/writing-wise and the next Sony open worlds to be the best version of the checklist open world formula (that tbh is already tiring to play, at least to me).
Witcher 1 and Witcher 2 are not open-world games. Witcher 3 is the first fully open-world game by CDPR. Arkham City is Rocksteady's first open-world game. Guerrilla Games have a history of FPS but they hired some Fallout NV and Witcher 3 devs for writing, cinematics, quest direction for Horizon Zero Dawn. Spider-Man's critical path was great but neither it nor Horizon Zero Dawn did anything interesting with their open-worlds.
Uhm, witcher 3 is their first open world game? It's their first multi platform game for current gen and their third game in total? GG devs have far more experience with making games and making games for playstation because they make it only for playstation.
Origins and odyssey have far better designed open worlds for exploration, far better traversal and mobility than HZD. HZD you can only scale shit that's very intentionally places. There's far more verticality in ac. Far more approaches how you tackle side content. Yes the writing is not as good, the characters and story beats aren't great either. But recent two ac games are going for systemic open world approach, where gameplay is the focus, where ai interact with each other without your input. On top of that those two games have much much better realized open worlds, it feels like actual places due to art direction and layout and what purpose those worlds serve.
Horizon is a better game, but it has a bad open world. It never felt like an actual living breathing place, it always felt like a movie set, like a video game map created for fighting robo dinos as its primary function. It's pretty sure, but it evokes nothing, there's barely any identity to it.
Last edited:
Thank you for the response, but I just don't see it. As I addressed. The traversal in Odyssey and Origins are rendered meaningless because all it involves is holding a button and auto climbing. There is nothing involving about it.
Also, Horizon deeply evokes a place. It's very much evokes the borders of Colorado and Utah, albeit in a shrunken form. Their is no competition between the art direction of Horizon and AC. Horizon is truly a unique vision of the far future United States post apocalypse. AC has stunning recreations of historical architecture, but personally I think their art design is kind of ugly beyond the historically inspired aspects. It's very plastic looking.
The size of AC Odyssey and Origins are a detriment to the game and design philosophy.
What system aspects are there? I don't see systems interacting with each other in Origins other than animals attacking other animals and enemies, and those occurrences happen so far and few between, (at least in Origins) that they don't really effect the gameplay in any largely meaningful way.
Don't get me wrong. AC games, are not bad games. I just think they are always JUST short of being truly interesting and good. Origins was the longest I played one, but ended up just being absolutely baffled by it. After 25 hours there was literally nothing driving me forward. Nothing to look forward to other than meaningless numbers crawling up.
Last edited: