Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by BigGuyCIA, Mar 16, 2017.
May I ask what you think of as "correctly?"
I can say which Open world games are not made correctly.
For example all far cry games starting from the second one. All of them are filled with hundreds of tiny caches and some minor loot that does not really matter most of the time.
Watch dogs, saints row 3 and 4 etc. They are open world but they are for the most part filled with pointless filler, which bores me to death.
One of few examples of open world made well are far cry 1 and Fallout NV.
In the first one, the open world is for you to explore and find alternate ways to reach your objective. There are many dangers along the way, few supplies and it can serve as a great way to kill you or surprise you.
In NV there are very few open locations that are kind of pointless. In this game locations have got purpose, you can not go everywhere you want, not with deathclaws and super mutants being in the north. There is a unique loot to be found, new quests etc. I assure you if obsidian put like 50 caches of loot all over the place, I wouldn't even bother.
Mass Effect Andromeda tries to do it and it is not that bad. There are many locations that serve purpose and there is little pointless filler. I also approve of the sense of scale.
Witcher 3 is great for the most part too. There are people in trouble, you can come across new quests, the world makes sense and is filled with danger. You can not just go everywhere, because of that. However, as I mentioned it before, there are too many pointless locations filled with generic loot, especially in Skelige. Outside of that it works well for the most of the time.
Good string 'ere.
Even disagreeing with Ediros; I'd say that a BAD Sandbox game is one where the Sandbox part does not contribute to the game or does so very poorly. Then the games can be worse or better.
Is that so? May I ask what do you think are good open world games?
Also, is there something wrong with my previous post that you disagree with?
It's rather becouse you saying that NV is a great example of a Sandbox and how others like SSR or GTA, bein' pretty subjective, no offense.
I'm not a big fan of them either, as I prefer actual game design and not "make your own fun". But being cold, if the game sacrifices the usual in exchange of a sandbox that isn't good or adds nothing, the it's BAD. For a good one for me, the only kind I really play is The Long Dark and the Minecraft-Terraria-Starbound conga.
I see, I have only played Minecraft, so I did not think of the games you have mentioned. Though I agree that Minecraft is a good sandbox. You explore, the world is dangerous etc. However, Minecraft to me is kind of dull to be honest. You have to come up with your own fun, something I despise a lot. There is no objective outside of what you can come up with.
I wouldn't say NV is a great open world, it has it's own share of flaws. Like too close locations and such. However, I like it despite shortcomings because it tries to emulate the real world. Compared to shitout 4 and skyrim where nothing changes.
While Saints Row and others to me hardly benefit from being open world.
Sandbox =/= Open World...
Well, the main problem with Minecraft is that you hardly need to leave your selected plot of land. Everything that you need out of a very specific array of things like Mooshrooms and materials like Cocoa, Nether Wart and stuff. Building your awesome stuff is only especially rewarding if you play online or have somewhere to share your creations. Setting the goal around that is the good way to play it, I think. My mountanside ranch or my outskirts shantytown that got incredibly rich for raiding a lost city are some of my best gaming memories, honestly.
I'd say that SSR is a good one becouse of changing the city as you progress in the game with improving your gang and getting hold of shops and establishments, while getting that shown in your safe houses ranging from a flat to a huge penthouse. And in the latter you can climb up buildings, fly, dash and jump around Crackdown-style. There are plenty of things arround the map like the latter's weird recon bots with upgrade points or all the "Respect" mechanic awarding you for having fun.
Hm? When are they so?
You know that sandbox games are really not open-word ones... or are you serious?
Sandbox games are games that give you tools and you do whatever you want with the tools (like a kid playing in a real sandbox), sandbox games came from games like the original "Tycoon" and "Theme" games (Zoo Tycoon, Railroad Tycoon, Theme Park, Theme Hospital, etc) that would usually come with a game mode called "Sandbox", where there was no missions or objectives and you could just build whatever you wanted the way you wanted.
Classic RTS games Skirmish mode was also considered a type of Sandbox mode.
Open-world games are games where you can access all or most of the game map from the start or the very early part of the game, and that you're free to come and go as you please.
For example, The Witcher 3 is a open-world (at least I hope so, never played it and don't know much about it's map, but others seem to call it an open-world game) but not a sandbox game, because you can't use the tools to do whatever you want and make the world the way you want, etc. So is Daggerfall and Morrowind.
Minecraft and Terraria are Sandbox games because you can use the tools that the game gives you to do and shape almost everything the way you want.
For example, a good example of a sandbox game that is not an open-world is Kerbals Space Program. You can use the tools to construct whatever you want but you can't go anywhere besides the moon and stuff, it doesn't have an open-world at all.
Fallout New Vegas, or actually even all the old Fallout games are open-world but not sandbox at all for example.
These days games tend to try and be both genres, open-world and sandbox, but those are two different genres, like RTS and RPG (as some examples of games that uses both RPG and RTS we have the Warlords Battlecry games or the Spellforce games). We can have games that are both but the genres are different.
Am I the only one that still can differentiate the genres today? Have the game industry forgot all what game genres are?
Gotcha. But "Sandbox" is a broad term. A lot of games have a "Sandbox" mode. But these open worlds very tend to be too. Zelda BotW allows many means of movement from sand walruses jet skis, atmosphere churning mine carts, riding Dragons' backs, or just gliding around. You experiment with the mechanics freely, with not that much emphasis in negative consequences. Isn't that a sandbox?
That's free roaming, if you can't change the shape of the world with your tools like in Minecraft or Terraria, it's not a sandbox.
Hrm. I concede defeat. I still hold that all games do have a spice of Sandbox due to the basic definition of it.
That's a pretty loose definition of open world if FPS multiplayer games are being thrown into the mix.
The problem isn't that open-world games aren't doing things correctly. There's too much market saturation in the genre and people are sick of it. Fallout 4 was the precursor, Andromeda was the nail in the coffin.
I would argue that both things actually happen at the same time. THERE ARE TOO MANY OPEN WORLD GAMES THAT DO NOT BRING ANYTHING NEW AND JUST COPY FORMULA.
At least that's how I see most of the open world games. GTA, Saints Row, Mad Max, Shitout 4, Skyrim, etc. Filled with pointless filler that does not bring anything and just makes you waste your time.
I do not think Shitout 4 was precursour, Skyrim was beginning of the end. Mass Effect Andromeda is the time when people finally realize that open world games haven't got much outside of being an OPEN WORLD game.
Hopefully, we will see a bit less pointless sandbox in the future and something more like witcher 3 or Fallout NV, where Open World aspect fits the game.
I have to say, Mass Effect Andromeda maybe the funniest game since Ride To Hell. Don't get me wrong, the game is bad, like really really bad but I love it like I do funny bad movies. There is so much wrong with this game that I wouldn't know where to start. If Ride To Hell is The Room of video games then Mass Effect: Andromeda is the Battlefield Earth of games.
Really? I always thought it was bad in the im bored out of my fucking mind sense
It's been watered down to be honest, just like the term RPG or adventure game, which can be used to like almost everything you play today, and when you argue about it, people start to call you names (for some reason ...).
I mean deep down we all know that Bethesda for example, stoped making RPGs along time ago, and just makes open world/action games. Nothing more, nothing less.
So actually, no it isn't really a broad term. It's just that game developers realized that they can sell a million of units if they water it down calling their games some RPSPFGHCHSDHRZDLNCSDH what ever game containing every shit, while pleasing no one.
Yeah, but that's like saying a car and a bycicle are kinda 'similar' because they have wheels.
But in todays gaming everything that has levels and experience is considered already an RPG ... and if it contains choices and dialog it's a 'hard' RPG.
Any game that is padded out with busy work is poorly designed.
There is so much wrong with this game. I know a lot of people like to go after the bugs, glitches, animations and the SJW devs but to me the real problems were the story, characters and dialogue. Oh lordy the dialogue. It felt like Bioware was trying to out Joss Whedon Joss Whedon. Its so cringey. You have characters trying to out quip each other during serious situations where its not called for. Than there is that scene where Ryder and their crew watch a movie together while saying more quipey dialogue. I couldn't help but think of the Marvel movies while watching that scene. I get the feeling that the Bioware writers were binge watching the Marvel movies while writing for this game.
Apparently the writers don't know what attempted murder is.