What is the point of having an open world, if the actual gameplay content is linear?

grandwizorb said:

Many open worlds in games are just superfluous, there to pad play time and add 'value'. They fill them with collectables or boring side quests where you follow detective vision markers that take you from hotspot to hotspot to make it feel more real, but like many in this thread have said the open world isn't actually used to make the game have a wider range of options except in some rare cases.

I never got why people were so against the MGSV open world, for me it was one of the best parts because it gave you the freedom to complete your objectives that you'd get from an open world but didn't fill it with mindless busywork on the way.

I really think immersive sim type games do better for me these days at really immersing me in an environment than open world games do, because having everything feel more handcrafted and placed makes the difference. Games like Prey and Dishonored give me the open range to decide how I want to approach something, as well as the depth of worldbuilding that they provide to really make you fee like part of the world.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

the joke is, RDR2 uses many immersive sim elements, so far unseen in a AAA production and exactly why so many people think the game is "tedious".

sure, the missions are linear because they want to sell you the cinematic romp which is directed and choreographed, but many things in RDR2 are borrowed from immersive sims.

Besides that is RDR2 one of the most fascinating Open Worlds this gen, how someone could think Horizon or Ubisofts OW games with its icon plastered maps and checklist style themepark events is better than RDR2´s open world that feels like a real world is beyond me

jsnepo said:

For me, open world doesn't always mean it's sandbox. MGSV is a great example of an open world sandbox game.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

this is also true

jsnepo said:

For me, open world doesn't always mean it's sandbox. MGSV is a great example of an open world sandbox game.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is it really. Most people don't relate the two at all, open world is used for almost all games now days, it almost never means sandbox anymore. I think the only problem is is that for some people, because it is open world, it makes you want those things, not necessarily saying that it should be those things.

I think it's just another one of those things where these sorts of games got big off being open world long ago, and now they are phased out to a more easier to digest and easier to grasp narrowed design, mainly because they sell far more and attract far more people. Because of this, all games sorta followed suit, and people just miss it, or would like options. Restrict gameplay but increase size.

Honestly RDR2 is doing more than most AAA open world games, so it's odd that this game sparked the conversation. Maybe because it got close enough to remind people.

Yeah one of the reasons why I can't get into R* games.

Mission: "Kill this guy" -> drives truck into him. Mission failed. Oh so I have to chase him and then shoot him in the head. :/

Meh.

Linearity to satisfy storytelling is BS

Beatle said:

Linearity to satisfy storytelling is BS

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Why?

Alienhated said:

The point of open world is to artificially pad playtime counter, and make people feel like their 100+ hours long game was worth the full price they spent on a single player game. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, certainly that's all it is.

It isn't, you know, supposed to be immersive or anything related to that. Deserts and other natural landscapes aren't big/vast in real life, after all.

ynthrepic said:

BOTW's "story" was mostly just an easter egg hunt backstory bits and pieces through some short, likely out of order cutscenes and some diary notes. Narrative in which you actually participate in and effect the outcome of is barely there at all and the ending is quite disappointing.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

did you play the game? cause the "story" is not even that, that is a the side quest for the backstory 100 years ago. you still can do the full on story of the current time Hyrule.

This is why I cant look at these games the same way after playing BoTW. That game spoiled me.

Pablo Mesa said:

did you play the game? cause the "story" is not even that, that is a the side quest for the backstory 100 years ago. you still can do the full on story of the current time Hyrule.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The "full on story"?

Stance on wide-linear, OP?

Alienhated said:

The point of open world is to artificially pad playtime counter, and make people feel like their 100+ hours long game was worth the full price they spent on a single player game. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

More or less... I agree. It's a really cynical take, but I don't think there are many reasons of substance a lot of times in the big budget space today. The size of these maps are so that you can look at a lot of shit. And a lot of that shit is really cool. Yet most of the time you can't interact with or use any of that space for anything other than looking. Just slowing down and looking at the environment in games is something I think more people should do instead just trying to make progress, generally. But it is ultimately a significant waste of resources to have huge maps and carefully restrict players' paths in them. All that cool shit could be condensed in a smaller area. An open world should mean that there are a breadth of possibilities, moreover a breadth of possible solutions to an objective. It should mean you can fail and ignore objectives too. It shouldn't mean you're required to adhere to a specific set of instructions at risk of a game over screen.

Game over should almost always be the player's death, imo. It should never occur when another character dies or the player strays off a path, unless off the path is something that would kill you.

grandwizorb said:

I never got why people were so against the MGSV open world, for me it was one of the best parts because it gave you the freedom to complete your objectives that you'd get from an open world but didn't fill it with mindless busywork on the way.

I really think immersive sim type games do better for me these days at really immersing me in an environment than open world games do, because having everything feel more handcrafted and placed makes the difference. Games like Prey and Dishonored give me the open range to decide how I want to approach something, as well as the depth of worldbuilding that they provide to really make you feel like part of the world.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

+1. I definitely prefer what I like to call the "mini open worlds" of your Hitmans, Deus Exes, and Dishonoreds most of the time, because they behave how a game with "open" in the description sounds like it would. Agreed on MGSV too.

Alienhated said:

The point of open world is to artificially pad playtime counter, and make people feel like their 100+ hours long game was worth the full price they spent on a single player game. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Not for me. The point of open world games were to be a sandbox with a lot of toys for me to mess around with. For me it started with Driver PSX. I would just drive around, doing stunts, evading police, making movie clips of my getaways, it was a good time all without feeling like I had to do missions for the fun. With GTA3's I mainly did missions to unlock the map fully. GTA San Andreas was my most played GTA game and I think I barely finally finished the story at the end of my playtime with it. I'm not actually sure if I did finish it actually. The fun in GTA:SA was turf wars, just causing random chaos, codes, traveling the country side doing random jumps/stunts, and more codes like flying cars.

Then there was Saints Row 2 - 4, 4 being the one that topped Just Cause 2's open world traversal for me. Speaking of, Just Cause 2 was amazing. Climbing mountains with the grapple + parachute combo, tethering things together, causing chaos, explosions... beautiful. No artificial padding, just pure fun.

In a way GTA3 did ruin open world games with over reliance of scripting and missions.
Open world has become the map of old games and missions are completely separated interest points within.

Would love to see the sandbox affect missions more and in situations and acts from missions having impact on the gameworld outside very scripted events.
IE.
Steal guard towers weapons and then do defense mission, expect guards fighting along you to fight with whatever they find. (Or what you give them.)
Throw dynamites around during mission, find area still leveled for a while or be prepared to pay some of the costs of rebuilding the area. (XCom Apocalypse had this fantastically.. one really had to think if shooting bazooka around is a good idea.)

Restrictive scripting on missions bad thing, accidentally selecting wrong road should not cause end of mission especially when there is no time limit.

Phantom Thief said:

This is true for so many open world games- they have intricate systems, they have all these mechanics, and a wide open world, but when you're actually playing the game, you can't use any of it. You need to stay within a defined, linear scripted sequence.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is becoming increasingly less common as more open world games are released. Red Dead Redemption 2 is a pretty big outlier in this regard.

Alienhated said:

The point of open world is to artificially pad playtime counter

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I hate this hot take so much.

Dr. Caroll said:

Since Far Cry 2 in 2008, Ubisoft have been way ahead of Rockstar in this regard. Give the player a task, and the tools to accomplish it. How they get from A to B is up to them. Ubisoft games let players paint a picture. Rockstar games let them paint by numbers and penalize them for demonstrating creativity.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Accurate.

breath of the wild is just too good, hope we get something as good as it next year, but I am glad people are seeing what I meant when I said horizon a linear game.

Dr. Caroll said:

Since Far Cry 2 in 2008, Ubisoft have been way ahead of Rockstar in this regard. Give the player a task, and the tools to accomplish it. How they get from A to B is up to them. Ubisoft games let players paint a picture. Rockstar games let them paint by numbers and penalize them for demonstrating creativity.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

And that is why there is no real story or it is bad one in Ubisoft games these days.

dex3108 said:

And that is why there is no real story or it is bad one in Ubisoft games these days.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's an entirely different creative decision.

Dr. Caroll said:

That's an entirely different creative decision.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's what happens when you remove linear story from open world games. If you can go wherever you want whenever you want and do whatever you want you can't tell coherent story. That is why I always prefer linear main story in open world games and side content you can do whenever you want.

dex3108 said:

That's what happens when you remove linear story from open world games. If you can go wherever you want whenever you want and do whatever you want you can't tell coherent story. That is why I always prefer linear main story in open world games and side content you can do whenever you want.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The original Far Cry had a 100% linear story. It did not have the linear "do exactly these steps or get a mission failed screen" design you find in Rockstar's games.

Crossing Eden said:

I hate this hot take so much.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The thing about that take is that I don't think padding is necessarily a bad thing, as the tone of that post suggests. I think it's okay to have a lot of space that's first and maybe only purpose is to "artificially" occupy the player's time. I like how these large spaces can make a world feel real because of the time it takes to traverse it. I like feeling like I got my money's worth too. It's just that a lot of games have more than a lot of space and it isn't space that the player can use at some point to accomplish their main objectives. The things I do completing the main objectives—the main narrative is what I usually consider the meat and potatoes of a game. When I'm traversing that excessive space, I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth, I feel like I'm having some of my time wasted.

Just Cause was the definitive empty, dead, world. When you're done flying around after an hour there is just nothing to do.

Rockstar uses its open world to tell stories within their mission structure. They introduce game mechanics in them as well, and they aren't really about exercising player freedom in them, they are about telling a story and establishing characters, along with the world. There are a handful of missions in the game that do give you some room to breath, but they are rare and still feel scripted. This fill in the gap approach is something you are not going to find here and I think that is ok. I think they deliberately went this direction for a reason, and to me it makes sense with their vision of the game. I can understand it not being as interesting, especially if you the story and presentation aren't enough to keep you entertained.

I agree with some of the OP. Rockstar's priority seems to be in building expansive, lively, interactive worlds with immersive gameplay, and strong story driven content through their missions/mission structure. More so than having mission structure based around player freedom, choice, or what it is that's possible outside of the mission. It clashes with the philosophy of the open world design but I think it is a necessary compromise when you want write/craft a story in this way (also you played one of the earlier bounty missions which I am pretty sure is a tutorial--not that it opens up much after that anyway). I had a moment where I got to a town in the game on my own separate from the story, then later revisited that town through a story mission and the cutscene had Arthur acting like he never stepped foot there. It was pretty funny to me since I frequented the town before that. But it's one of those immersion things that take a hit with player freedom but I think Rockstar draws the line a little beyond that.

This game to me has one of the best uses of open worlds I've ever seen in a game. Setpieces all take place in the world, all these things happen in areas you can visit and aren't a one time thing. It all flows naturally and seamlessly and never feels disjointed. I often wonder which missions were made before or after certain sections of the map, because so much of is set up and staged so wonderfully. That aspect of it is cool to think about.

I think the comparison to an Skyrim or BoTW is off. Since the difference in the way these games are telling their story couldn't be anymore different. Shit, do those games even have the amount of prompted cutscenes that a game like this has? In BoTW, Link isn't interacting with anyone or talking to anyone while taking on enemies while in the wild. In Skyrim the game is all about different paths and branches in your story/missions, it is a role playing game lol. Every open world game comes with a certain amount of freedoms and limitations, this will ALWAYS be a thing.

ynthrepic said:

BOTW's "story" was mostly just an easter egg hunt backstory bits and pieces through some short, likely out of order cutscenes and some diary notes. Narrative in which you actually participate in and effect the outcome of is barely there at all and the ending is quite disappointing.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

BoTW tells a story passively outside of the main narrative, and you can find this in the game's world... landmarks, and some sidequest. It may not be in your face but it is subtle and cool for the fans willing to explore the world and use their minds. The exposition itself was told through gameplay. I can understand if some people do not like this approach, that's fair. But to condense the game's story to the amount of cutscenes it has is reductive and wrong imo. Games should be allowed to tell stories in interesting ways, there should be no problem with this. I think MGSV is a better example of a game that failed at trying to tell the story it told, even more so than Zelda if you subtract the story told by its world.

The point of an open world is to let you explore and do side activities. Wouldn't really be as fun or interesting to go hunting, fishing, treasure seeking, bounty hunting, collecting crafting materials, etc in a linear game. In an open world game you can also more appreciate day/night cycles, varying weather, NPC routines/patterns, etc. Open worlds also tend to be more immersive since you can basically live in the game. RDR2 allows you to set up a camp and cook meat from animals you hunted, to me that's really immersive and fun, but not something I'd like to do in a linear game.

I would agree with you that a lot of games don't need an open world, but RDR 2 was the wrong game to try and prove your point.

Although I see your point about Story mode, from what I have seen the open world let you do stuff in many different ways.

Phantom Thief said:

The thing is, open worlds like Bethesda, BotW, and Ubisoft and Horizon to a degree, do this. I'm just curious why so many games like TW3 and RDR2 falter on this front.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Freedom of choice in those scenarios do not really add much of anything imo. Maybe BoTW for sure, but even that has quite a few restrictions outside of the core mechanics presented to you and is sparse in areas that RDR2 shines; just like all the games you listed. Rockstar uses their open world in this game for stories in their missions, and they are not wrong for choosing that direction. Same with Witcher 3. You just do not prefer it. I am actually pretty content with just going with the flow and getting rewarded a pretty neat cutscene or hilarious over the top characters that I would probably miss if I just aimed to end a mission as quickly as possible. I do not want intense freedom in every game I play and I get enough of that freedom in the world itself separate from the story experience. As someone who's very picky with open world games and likes a great cinematic story experience in some games, I am really enjoying the ride.

I havent' played RDR2 but in your example, that can be used also for other games, more than about the story, may be to build a spectacular escape and chase scenario... I mean, in real life would be more "boring", you just shoot/catch him in your way, and done. If the particular catch is linear, then it can become more spectacular... less free, but more "wow effect".

The good compromise would be to have mission like that, and free mission where to use all the freedom the game let you have.

copying two posts i made in an earlier thread:

"in so many open world games, you're just basically playing a normal linear game in a huge map. there's rarely any reason to go out of your way and do your own thing. you get quest after quest after quest pointing you to exactly where you are supposed to be going, and how far away that is, what to do when you get there, and then onto the next quest. side quests feel the same too. plus there's always so much information that's given to you on the map that nothing is left upto you to find and figure out.
what i liked in botw is that it made sense to be open-world, it actually used the huge map to give you the sense that you're having your own unique adventure, it encouraged you to go out of your way and ignore the main quest line and explore the things the world has to offer. it was somehow just fun to traverse the world. climbing definitely helped too, everything you saw seemed accessible and not like a vide game world where you're only supposed to be in places the dev intended you to be."

"this is something that very few games are able to achieve because it's probably extremely hard to do. these huge worlds exist to impress people will their scale, but it's not easy to give the player a lot of freedom and just expect them to have fun in it.
gamers are used to very linear, pre-planned experiences. while they may go "whoa" at the scale of these new huge open-world games, without guidance they'll think "now what?" after fucking around in the world for an hour or two. the reason all these mini-maps and icons and busy-work and points of interest every ten meter exist is simple, they want to emulate what they did in those smaller, linear games in these big, open-world games. they simply don't believe the worlds they've created are interesting/fun enough to be THE ACTUAL POINT of the games. that's where botw excels. the world is just that well designed that they feel easy in letting the player have fun with it, and they feel easy to respect the player and give him/her the freedom to have their own adventure in it. it's obviously very hard, and required a meticulously designed world where everything makes sense and has a purpose. to guide the player through their huge world without obvious markers and objectives and stuff like that, and instead rely on visual cues and the player's own decisions, that's where botw comes on top and passes most other open world games."

Jack Orion said:

Linear gameplay in an open world gives you direction, to guide you through the world. It then leaves the rest of the world as your playground, once you're familiarised with it.

BotW (which I'm guessing is your reason for making this thread because you love that game so much) experiments on this, by taking away that linear guide, and lets the world do the talking instead. It works in some respects; the world is well designed to draw you through it, but works badly in others, for those who don't like to explore for the sake of it, it makes it a walking simulator.

So really both approaches have advantages, so just because you really liked BotW, doesn't mean all games should follow its template. In fact it's interesting that so few games are actually following BotW lead...as of yet anyway.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

BotW has set a strong example as to how future open world games should be designed. It's why you see it influencing Assassin's Creed with the climbing mechanic and the new exploration mode in Odyssey.

is there a great open world game with great non linear story?

takriel said:

BotW has set a strong example as to how future open world games should be designed. It's why you see it influencing Assassin's Creed with the climbing mechanic and the new exploration mode in Odyssey.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

As I explained in my later posts, it isn't a one size fits all approach. To be frank, it's awful for narrative. And if you think simply adding climbing is a sign that other people are copying BotW open world framework then I don't know what to say to you.

Edit: I'm also sure it was pointed out at the time of origins release, that climbing wasn't something they would have been able to add between BotW release and it's. Although they could have played an e3 demo and liked it.

takriel said:

BotW has set a strong example as to how future open world games should be designed. It's why you see it influencing Assassin's Creed with the climbing mechanic and the new exploration mode in Odyssey.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You could climb in AC 1. It was just natural evolution. You will need two more years to see if BotW influenced AAA open world games

aiswyda said:

This is why I don't generally most open world games. When it comes down to it, it just feels like a bunch of bloat with flavor text while it asks me to do one thing (or make a black and white choice) over and over again.



What? You literally have to do 2 things in that game, everything else is optional--it tells you more of the story but it's certainly not mandatory to progress.

On top of that, most of the content in BOTW the player decides how to tackle it. Even if it seems like there is a right way, there are plenty of feasible methods. I watched my housemate and my SO play it at launch, I played it around Splatoon's launch, and then my roommate played it after me. All 4 of us saw different things and tackled quests/exploration incredibly different. Even my SO and housemate (who both are sort of brute force people) utilized unique ways of brute forcing it. This applies to 'story content' as well as just randomly exploring the world--three that immediately come to mind are Revali's divine beast, the final boss, and the labyrinth shrine, all of which we ended up doing totally different.

BOTW is the only open world game I've enjoyed for more than like 3 hours because it was the only one where I felt like I actually could do what I wanted without being denied or punished for doing something "incorrectly".

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But you still have to do those initial missions, the only difference with other games is that in those you are given the basic habilities to reach the final boss and tells you who is the bad guy you must defeat, instead of adquiring them progressively like in most games. It helps that the plot/story in Zelda is really basic. And then you choose... to do things or go after Ganon with 3 heart containers... but i guess the point of such a big world is to explore it, so I'm the end you still do missions/shrined/whatever you would do like in any other games. Sure many of them have different ways to be resolved, which is good, but again, the game is not very 'grounded' so tools at your disposal are wild and weird and that obviously affects design :in games with more real/grounded world, like RDR2, magical elements wouldn't fit.
In HZD you also are free to roam and do missions once you leave the initial area, minus main plot, so i don't see how BoTW is that different really, it has more freedom, yes, at a cost, mainly limited narrative.

Hollow Knight also is somewhere in between... You need abilities but you can skip some of them to reach final boss, or even obtain in different ways (with pure hability instead of air dash for example), or many optional bosses and things to do

takriel said:

BotW has set a strong example as to how future open world games should be designed. It's why you see it influencing Assassin's Creed with the climbing mechanic and the new exploration mode in Odyssey.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Climbing everywhere isn't a BOTW influence. That was part of their early prototypes when they were making Origins. Frankly, BOTW's design choices are where are a lot of devs where already heading towards, Ubisoft especially as far back as 2014 they wanted to go away from linearity and push towards player driven story telling by putting a much bigger emphasis on systemic elements and you're seeing that in pretty much every open world title they make. Even something like the division has it in small ways.

Alienhated said:

The point of open world is to artificially pad playtime counter, and make people feel like their 100+ hours long game was worth the full price they spent on a single player game. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's really what it's starting to feel like at this point.

Pottuvoi said:

In a way GTA3 did ruin open world games with over reliance of scripting and missions.
Open world has become the map of old games and missions are completely separated interest points within.

Would love to see the sandbox affect missions more and in situations and acts from missions having impact on the gameworld outside very scripted events.
IE.
Steal guard towers weapons and then do defense mission, expect guards fighting along you to fight with whatever they find. (Or what you give them.)
Throw dynamites around during mission, find area still leveled for a while or be prepared to pay some of the costs of rebuilding the area. (XCom Apocalypse had this fantastically.. one really had to think if shooting bazooka around is a good idea.)

Restrictive scripting on missions bad thing, accidentally selecting wrong road should not cause end of mission especially when there is no time limit.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It really started with GTA 4. I still remember thinking about how much more linear and restricted 4 was when I first played it. For example, one of the missions in GTA 3 is to kill a mafia don. The game tells you he is in a car on his way home, and to kill him before he gets there. That's it. So I just created a traffic jam in front of his house, and chucked grenades at him when he had stopped in the jam. You don't really get those moments of accomplishing tasks your own way in GTA 4, at least from what I remember.

thevid said:

It really started with GTA 4. I still remember thinking about how much more linear and restricted 4 was when I first played it. For example, one of the missions in GTA 3 is to kill a mafia don. The game tells you he is in a car on his way home, and to kill him before he gets there. That's it. So I just created a traffic jam in front of his house, and chucked grenades at him when he had stopped in the jam. You don't really get those moments of accomplishing tasks your own way in GTA 4, at least from what I remember.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I beat Vice City in an awesome way

You need to kill the big bad and his henchman in your villa, and I kept being gunned down, so I flew my chopper from the roof to the outside drive, got in my car, and drove my car into the building and ran the end boss over, which then hilariously switches to a cut scene where I'm no longer in the car I just used to mow him down

This is the reason I stopped playing GTAV half way through and why I don't plan on playing RDR2. Rockstar seems intent on wasting the potential of their own games and their writing isn't nearly good enough to justify it.

I love RDR1/2's approach to open-world. Definitely beats the sea of tedious, meaningless tasks of Ubi-open-worlds.

Also, there is still tons of stuff to do in RDR2's world, even if none of it is marked on the map, and none of it is tied to the semi-linear mission structure.

Furthermore, I can also appreciate open-worlds as atmospheric window-dressing. The open-worlds added a ton of flair to Mafia 1 and 2 even though there was almost nothing to do outside of the missions. Sadly, Mafia 3 then became the complete opposite and is worse for it.

takriel said:

BotW has set a strong example as to how future open world games should be designed. It's why you see it influencing Assassin's Creed with the climbing mechanic and the new exploration mode in Odyssey.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Err, no thanks. Not all open-worlds should be completely open sandboxes.

It's a fair point OP. Though I consider it more broadly flawed than most, BOTW took a very valiant stab at addressing this problem and while they showed just how much can be achieved by doing away with the traditional constraints, it ended up (to my mind) highlighting just as many reasons why linearity has remained the central lynch pin of these games.

RDR2 isn't a bold paradigm shift in this regard; the first chapter plays out like a traditional adventure game, with all forays into the open world heavily scripted and chaperoned by NPCs that'll chastise you for trying to wander off. I'm not sure what the answer is - even Bethesda pushed closer to the traditional linear path design of games like TW3 and RDR2 in Fallout 4, doing away with much mechanical checks and player agency.

Open world can be great. It's fun to just mess around in GTA or BotW or whatever. I do dislike when it feels like having an open world comes at the expense of better-crafted linear design. The lack of traditional dungeons and narrative in BotW really lowers the appeal for me. While I enjoy it for what it is, I also really like Zelda, and without good dungeons it's not really Zelda. Mario games suffer for this, as well. Odyssey is great and all, but it could have been better if instead of having all that wasted open space they made more linear courses.

Pablo Mesa said:

did you play the game? cause the "story" is not even that, that is a the side quest for the backstory 100 years ago. you still can do the full on story of the current time Hyrule.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Heh, "full on story."

It's optional and there's no real growth in either Link or the world. The beasts come across as minor self-contained inconveniences and doing them shows Link more of his past where he and other characters had an actual story. The fact that you can go straight to Ganon and beat him to death with a stick wearing just your underwear really hurts the impact of doing any of that and all that and has a negative impact on the lore of the world.

I really enjoyed BotW, but it's too open for its own good. It has one of the worst narratives in the series and the lack of linear progressive elements stings. A sequel needs to dial it back and at least figure out how to integrate more traditional dungeons and narrative into the world design.

takriel said:

BotW has set a strong example as to how future open world games should be designed. It's why you see it influencing Assassin's Creed with the climbing mechanic and the new exploration mode in Odyssey.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

BOTW had/has some incredible mechanics. I would not, however, copy Nintendo's implementation of story and story-based objectives, though—to the extent such a thing exists in BOTW.

And this is why I like Ubisoft's open world games from recent few years the most as far as gameplay is concerned because they all provide emergent gameplay where you finish an objective however you want and from wherever you want using any of the tools that you have at your disposal.

R* has always made open world games with extremely linear missions and it has gotten even more linear with each new game because of their cinematic approach. Infact RDR2 even makes your character/horse turn towards where it wants you to go and actively prevents you from going/doing anything other than what it wants.

Phantom Thief said:

The fuck are you talking about? What anti-RDR2 topic have I made recently? What anti-RDR2 topic have I made, ever? When did I ever make a topic saying "I don't understand why publishers have to make way for RDR2"? At most I may have agreed with the premise that every game clearing way for it is foolish (which is is, and I still stand by that, and sales such as in the UK only vindicate that stance), but where the fuck is this supposed raft of anti RDR2 topics from me coming from?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Why do you insist on being disingenuous? I clearly said "argument you made" with regards to publishers needing to make way for RDR2. That's distinctly different from saying you made a topic saying such.

Here is that post thread where you were also underestimating RDR2 sales (thanks to an unawareness of how well RDR actually sold) while misrepresenting opinions by posters that publishers of smaller/mid tier games, not industry juggernauts, are reasonable for wanting to move out of RDR2's window. You questioned the decision/need of publishers to do even though they had done so for GTA V BEFORE it became a sales juggernaut. As was pointed out RDR was capable of selling normal GTA numbers, so if publishers make way for GTA tier sellers (even industry tent poles did so in 2013), why wouldnt they make way for RDR2? Its a unless you believed RDR2 isnt capable of selling like RDR1 did. Its such a blantant disregard for existing evidence that it almost has to be the result of bias.

Not too long after that you continued to insist that RDR wouldnt sell like GTA does even though it had already been pointed to you at least once before that RDR had already sold in the range that GTA games do. In your own topic, not post, you posted the analyst estimate saying it will sell 15M in 6 months compared to the original game's 15M in 7 years. A clear improvement in the rate of sales and yet for some reason you're continue on with the narrative of incorrectly downplaying the track record and potential with absolutely no evidence. Again, typically only those with a bias take that tact.

That's brings us to now, where you have made two topics in 5 days criticizing but not criticizing RDR2 (this topic and the one from friday). Normally I'd chalk it up to a poster who clearly bought into the hype but didnt have existing experience to know they dont really like open world games, but you have a clearly defined history with this game.

Aigis said:

I think the major point is open worlds are built around player agency and being able to do anything you want, its weird when that agency is taken away in the actual story missions themselves. many have to play out exactly per the script. It just makes for an inconsistent game when youre always bouncing between having a ton of player agency to about none which can be annoying.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No they aren't. Which is my point. To say they are that and only that puts limits on what open world games are capable of. As has been mentioned several times before, they can be used to foster story elements (atmosphere, world building). There are open world games across the entire spectrum of how much you want the world itself to be apart of the narrative.

And players choosing to build there own narratives for an hour then enjoying the developer's narrative right after that is not taking player agency away. Whatever that balance ends up being is a choice the player makes.

Games like botw and mgsv are kind of good examples of games that give the player a world and builds its mission structure around it,

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In reference to the spectrum I mentioned, those two games would probably be at the opposite end of games like RDR where the world itself is much more important to the narrative. Holding those games as the standard of open world is exactly what I'm talking about as far as limiting the genre. As far as supporting the core narrative they felt more like sandboxes compared to other games. MGS V was especially lifeless and felt like interconnected playgrounds.

It's a way of framing the story the devs want to tell.

Phantom Thief said:

Then tell a story without imposing a vast open world I am forced to traverse and a bucketload of systems I have to manage, if that's what your creative vision is.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is one of the reasons Fallout New Vegas is my favorite game of all time. It manages to be even more open about how you solve problems than Bethesda (because it is a stronger rpg than bethesda's games) but also tells a pretty good story (cause yes, in a true sandbox/open world game a good story is hard to do).

They do it by making the story really be about the world your character interacts with and the turmoil in it. It is not really you character's story but he is the agent on which you influence the story of the world. There fore the story is easy to have one and still be flexible for how some one reacts.

Honestly, I wish more open world rpg makers would look at the story of new Vegas and be inspired on how to do a good open world that is sandbox and still have a good story. But Bethesda (and obsidian when they did new Vegas) is pretty unique in how they just give you the tools and say figure it out for yourself. This is a big reason I still prefer their games over Witcher. Zelda BoTW too (Bethesda could take some inspiration in how it improve exploring and open world from Zelda).

Actually, I honk you pinpointed why I feel no one makes a game that competes with Bethesda and why Zelda BoTW is the only game that doesn't use their engine that I think they should learn from. The fact that they do just give you a choice of tools and options and just tell you to figure it out yourself.

I don't really understand your point, OP. Isn't that like saying "why have a real world if we just end up going to work and coming home anyway"?

While sure the game might lead you a certain way in terms of the missions themselves, it's the context that they're in that makes the game special. Yesterday I did one mission, stopped in a nearby town I hadn't been to yet and dicked around for a bit (bought new clothes, played some Poker), and then realized that I had a mission to do in that same town, so I did it. I could've got there a million other ways, but I got there in my own way. Was the outcome the same? Sure, but that's fine, because the outcome is Rockstar telling a pretty damn cool story. But the open world and the amount of things to do and ways to do them creates the illusion that it's still "my story", and I think that's what's important. I'm the one getting to and from places, who's dealing with shit along the way, I'm the the one doing the missions, wearing the clothes that I bought. If it was a linear game/not open-world, I would feel like I was following Arthur's story and I wouldn't feel like his story is my own. It's also worth noting that you can do the missions at your own pace, and in the order you want. My Arthur is obsessed with hunting and tends to fall into shitty situations, and I help my gang buddies when I can. Yours might be completely different.

Does that make sense? The game is sort of half Western simulator half story-driven game. Could we have one or the other? Definitely. But is RDR2 a really great mix of both? For me it is.

I don't think many here really understand the criticism. It goes far, far beyond "not every game can be Deus Ex". Rockstar games in particular tell you exactly where to go and what to do every excruciating step of the way.

Here's a convoy mission in Far Cry 2. "There's this truck. This is where it's going. Stop it how you see fit".
Here's a convoy mission in RDR2. "We have to save a friend from that boat. Go exactly here. Follow this guy. Slowly. Now stop, right there. Take a look with your binoculars. Yes, we know this is the 4th forced binocular tutorial, just do it. Now stab that guy. Okay, kill the rest in that camp."

Attacking a convoy is like the bread and butter of open world missions, but RDR2 takes the control away from you to the extent that it's just like any other shootout in the end, and you have no choice in the matter. Maybe I'm still in the tutorial phase 15 hours in and it gets better, but considering that GTAV was almost exactly the same way, I'm not holding my breath.