Am I the only person disapointed with the direction of open world gaming?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Celtic_34 (1286 posts) -

It seems to me so much more could be done with it. Is it a lack of creativity? These are some open world games I've played this gen

1. GTA IV

2. Red DEad Redemption

3. Sleeping Dogs

4. Skyrim

5. Fallout 3

6. Just Cause 2

7. LA Noire

8. Saints Row

9. fable 2

I think these are the best of the bunch. I guess you could put Mass Effect in there as well. It's not open world but it's the same concept just in space. But most of these games follow the same formula with different elements mixed in. You have rpg elements. You have GTA. You have GTA in Japan. You have a fantasy open world rpg. You have a post apocalyptic wasteland rpg. You have an over the top sandbox game. But they are the same formula. Where has story telling gone? It jus seems to me like these companies have basically said this is what fantasy is. This is what an open open world game will be.

I remember playing sierra games back in the day where each game had a very unique storyline. Great writing. There wasn't a specific take on what fantasy was supposed to be. What has happened to different worlds in gaming and better storytelling?

I even went as far to play a game like Alan Wake which seemed to cop elements of a steven king novel which was a bit off the mainstream path but even that is a rehash of things that have already been done.

Are developers just mindless drones these days? Are they completely unintelligent and unable to come up with something new themselves?

Even the gameplay mechanics in these games have become so rehashed to death and just catering to what fans want vs actually creating something new. It's like we are going to clean up our inventory system to make it more streamlined or to make it more realistic vs doing anything new. Take GTA vs Sleeping Dogs it's basically the same game. They add collectables and stupid things to do.

No offense I kind of chuckle when people say oh that game is completely different. It's really not. Is this the direction gaming has taken? Achievements and stupid crap like that? DLC equals more money. Have developers just tried to addict their customers vs actually creating something?

I think the state of gaming is getting close to just bad. People will say gaming is evolving. I disagree. If this is how we are evolving then the human race are idiots who can't think for themselves. I actually give Molneaux some credit for doing something different. But even he seems like a complete douchebag to me and has put flash before substance. He's managed to survive at least.

#2 Posted by Srbanator (790 posts) -
You don't really list any of the faults you believe those games have, you simply say that they are not creative. If you believe that all of those games were uninspired, well.. what ideas are you bringing forward to counter that issue? What is "something new" to you?
#3 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

I played a little bit of Sleeping Dogs. The little I played I enjoyed much more than GTAIV. I liked the setting more, as I'm sort of sick of New York styled/inspired cities. That, and the melee combat was much better. I didn't get to see much of the story, but I liked the protagonist a bit more as well. These small differences were enough to warrant one game from being unique to another.

I think that, as a whole, the open environment genre is probably the most thriving genre out there. I disagree with you completely. The open world games of this generation have felt completely different to me. "They add collectibles and other stupid things to do" - Are you seriously complaining that they give you stuff to do? Stuff to collect for the interested player? Sure, Red Dead Redemption has minigames just like Just Cause 2 does. Both are optional to the main story. One involves playing horseshoes or a casual games of cards, the other has you blowing up everything with an assault helicopter. Are you seriously complaining "lol all open world games have side quests, how unoriginal"?

The Assassin's Creed series plays absolutely nothing like what you listed above. Batman: Arkham City is just as different. Infamous was filled with unique ways of travel and combat with an awesome story. It was frequently compared to Prototype, another open world game that played very differently, and also created it's own interesting universe. Far Cry 2 and 3 are uniquely different from other open world games as they're shooters first and foremost, where Fallout is an RPG with shootery elements.

The open world games are basically the only place that developers flex their creative muscles these days, it seems.

#4 Posted by sukraj (23060 posts) -

me like sleeping dogs me think vely good game yar.

#5 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

Couldn't agree more. I'm currently playing Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning - it's identical to Skyrim, just with a different combat system and art style. I know exactly what I'm supposed to do and how I'm supposed to do it withing 5 minutes of starting the game.

And that certainly isn't limited to open world games. I started on Uncharted 3 and it was identical to Uncharted 2, just set in a different country. Same exact everything, right down to the relationships between the characters which always seem to develop over the course of the game but get reset back where they started at the beginning of the next game. Same "work your way through this ancient building, killing all the enemies and solving all the climbing puzzles, find the treasure, turn around and there are all the bad guys with their guns pointed at you."

It's like I'm always saying: last gen developers could be creative and make a unique game, and if it sold a few hundred thousand copies they made a nice profit and everybody was happy. This gen development costs are so high that if a game doesn't sell a couple million copies at launch they lose their shirts. So they get the marketing guys to create the game, focus groups to approved / reject any "new" ideas, and of course you end up with "Game X sold well, so our game will be as close to game X as possible without violating copyright laws." And you can't really blame the publishers - if they lose money anytime they make something unique, then obviously they're not going to make anything unique. Gamers just want to play the same damn thing over and over and over, so that's what they make.

#6 Posted by Lulekani (2216 posts) -

It seems to me so much more could be done with it. Is it a lack of creativity? These are some open world games I've played this gen

1. GTA IV

2. Red DEad Redemption

3. Sleeping Dogs

4. Skyrim

5. Fallout 3

6. Just Cause 2

7. LA Noire

8. Saints Row

9. fable 2

I think these are the best of the bunch. I guess you could put Mass Effect in there as well. It's not open world but it's the same concept just in space. But most of these games follow the same formula with different elements mixed in. You have rpg elements. You have GTA. You have GTA in Japan. You have a fantasy open world rpg. You have a post apocalyptic wasteland rpg. You have an over the top sandbox game. But they are the same formula. Where has story telling gone? It jus seems to me like these companies have basically said this is what fantasy is. This is what an open open world game will be.

I remember playing sierra games back in the day where each game had a very unique storyline. Great writing. There wasn't a specific take on what fantasy was supposed to be. What has happened to different worlds in gaming and better storytelling?

I even went as far to play a game like Alan Wake which seemed to cop elements of a steven king novel which was a bit off the mainstream path but even that is a rehash of things that have already been done.

Are developers just mindless drones these days? Are they completely unintelligent and unable to come up with something new themselves?

Even the gameplay mechanics in these games have become so rehashed to death and just catering to what fans want vs actually creating something new. It's like we are going to clean up our inventory system to make it more streamlined or to make it more realistic vs doing anything new. Take GTA vs Sleeping Dogs it's basically the same game. They add collectables and stupid things to do.

No offense I kind of chuckle when people say oh that game is completely different. It's really not. Is this the direction gaming has taken? Achievements and stupid crap like that? DLC equals more money. Have developers just tried to addict their customers vs actually creating something?

I think the state of gaming is getting close to just bad. People will say gaming is evolving. I disagree. If this is how we are evolving then the human race are idiots who can't think for themselves. I actually give Molneaux some credit for doing something different. But even he seems like a complete douchebag to me and has put flash before substance. He's managed to survive at least.

Celtic_34
you're probably right. You're also a pretentious douchè bag. But you already knew that too, didnt you ?
#7 Posted by Trinitarian (1300 posts) -
This is a really good blog or a really bad rant. Either way, you didn't propose any thing useful. So, if you think you can do better than these great games go and become a game developer and solve programming and creative problems no one before you has. Or, you can just go out side every-once and awhile instead of trying to live your life through a game, which is probably why you are so dissatisfied with these games. You want them to provide things for you that only real life can.
#8 Posted by Ballroompirate (23052 posts) -

TC make a open world game, tell then I'd take anything you say with a grain of salt and that's being generous.

#9 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

What a load of BS, your argument is purely opinionated, with little to back up the 'lack of ideas' open world games supposedly have. Storytelling in games like GTA and Red Dead has rarely been better, and each open world game does something interesting to keep people coming back. Maybe you just don't like open world games and should stick to linear shooters?

#10 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

minus the melodramatic bits, yeah, there has been repetition in settings this generation just like any other. however, we have still seen some less worn ideas too. each of the numbered assassin's creed games did open worlds in places that haven't really been visited much before with crusades in the middle east, renaissance italy, and colonial america. red dead redemption did the western setting, which had certainly been referenced a lot before (the fallout games and borderlands, as examples) but not a lot of open world games had really gone right at it.

even with repetition of fictional genres, i think it helps a lot if developers focus on realizing what they're making. i mean, we've certainly seen high fantasy before, but skyrim has enough going on to feel like it's own world. it feels completely different from lordran in dark souls (another well realized world).

#11 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6029 posts) -
It's my opinion that the open world format really precludes great storytelling. One of two things generally happens in open world games- either the story feels urgent and you rush from one scene to the next, or the world is so interesting you spend hours exploring and you lose the thread of the narrative. One makes for a great story, but leaves the world feeling small and even claustrophobic, the other makes the story feel shallow and disjointed. There have been very few games that have made me want to keep exploring the world after I've finished the campaign. Matter of fact, the only one I can think of is Mercenaries 2- and that is mostly because blowing sh!t up with airborne high explosives made me feel like a god. I never got more than 6 or 7 missions into Just Cause 2 because free roaming was so incredibly amusing. Arkham City's combat was so awesome I've spent hours in the combat challenges and haven't touched free roam since I completed the game. I've played through RDR twice, but never roamed after finishing the story- the list goes on.
#12 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

My problem is all these open world games seem to be going with the massive sandbox feel. We rarely get game worlds similar to games like Ocarina of Time and so on. Even Zelda changed and went more linear. I wish we would see more worlds like Ocarina of Time's, but realized with the beauty and possobilities of today.

#13 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6029 posts) -

My problem is all these open world games seem to be going with the massive sandbox feel. We rarely get game worlds similar to games like Ocarina of Time and so on. Even Zelda changed and went more linear. I wish we would see more worlds like Ocarina of Time's, but realized with the beauty and possobilities of today.

NaveedLife
I personally am glad we're moving away from "zones" in our open world games. Arkham has brought them back twice in a row and I hated them. Arkham City did better having an open overworld, instead of Asylum's hacked up island but interior maps are still just dungeons in disguise.
#14 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

My problem is all these open world games seem to be going with the massive sandbox feel. We rarely get game worlds similar to games like Ocarina of Time and so on. Even Zelda changed and went more linear. I wish we would see more worlds like Ocarina of Time's, but realized with the beauty and possobilities of today.

El_Zo1212o

I personally am glad we're moving away from "zones" in our open world games. Arkham has brought them back twice in a row and I hated them. Arkham City did better having an open overworld, instead of Asylum's hacked up island but interior maps are still just dungeons in disguise.

First of all, there need not be load times for it to be the way I am saying, though if necessary every now and then, what is the big deal?

Second of all, my issue is that all of these games are just repetitive cities with tons of monotenous quests. I want to see worlds that feel different all over with unique features oozing from every inch of the map. I like sandbox games, but do we really need every open world game to be the biggest yet, with tons of copy and pasted environments, buildings, and items?

Arkham City was a great game, with a lot of improvements on the core aspects, and it's city allowed for a more typical superhero experience, making you feel badass flying around town, but it also kinda lost the unique feel of areas. The game lacked in that aspect in my opinion, with less interesting bosses, more of the same areas, and more repetition. I scored them the same because of this.

Either way, while the arkham series are great and have some of what I want, it is still not quite there. Where are the Zelda's, Okami's, Metroids, Goemon's (Goemon 64), Banjo and Kazooie's and so on? Well we have some of them, but they all changed their formula a good bit.

#15 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

It's my opinion that the open world format really precludes great storytelling. One of two things generally happens in open world games- either the story feels urgent and you rush from one scene to the next, or the world is so interesting you spend hours exploring and you lose the thread of the narrative. One makes for a great story, but leaves the world feeling small and even claustrophobic, the other makes the story feel shallow and disjointed. There have been very few games that have made me want to keep exploring the world after I've finished the campaign. Matter of fact, the only one I can think of is Mercenaries 2- and that is mostly because blowing sh!t up with airborne high explosives made me feel like a god. I never got more than 6 or 7 missions into Just Cause 2 because free roaming was so incredibly amusing. Arkham City's combat was so awesome I've spent hours in the combat challenges and haven't touched free roam since I completed the game. I've played through RDR twice, but never roamed after finishing the story- the list goes on.El_Zo1212o

I wouldn't say that a well-developed open world precludes a good story, but it certainly can distract from it. Games like Fallout 3, GTA IV and RDR had both. I agree about Just Cause 2. There were so many activities and things to find in the Just Cause 2 open world that it was hard to keep focused on the missions, which were strung together by a rather weak story. Stealing attack helicopters from military bases and using them to rain down havoc on the various targets became one of my favorite activities in that game.

#16 Posted by taiwwa (251 posts) -

I actually feel like GTA 4's missions are too scripted and don't allow me enough creativity in doing them.

#17 Posted by wiouds (5261 posts) -

The more open set up of the open world gaming allows from more the player can do, but I find that they are just not as good as the mire linear stages in other games.

For example, Far Cry 3's shootouts are not as good as Halo 4 or Cod black ops 2.

#18 Posted by o0squishy0o (2764 posts) -

The problem I have found with every open world game is that because its so big and open, its a real limitation on what can be achieved. Everything about games is all "smoke and mirrors", so with an open world where you are almost showing everyone behind the curtain of your awesome magic trick, you limit the space you have to try and hide things, in a games case, a place to create certain things because your resources are being hogged by the huge open world.

Games have a certain limit on what they can do, simply put the technology available at the moment is not enough to create a truely dynamic open world. I say this in the sense of in GTA or any open world RPG, do you ever feel like your in an open world? or basically a really big room. I find its more of a massive room with people placed in it to give it a sense of a real world. However nothing random ever happens in these worlds to give it a sense of living. In GTA it sometimes gets close when you see people fight, however things like storylines when they are linear you are automatically limited. Think of it as you know exactly what you are going to do everyday, there is no sense of exploration, there is no sense of excitement because you know whats going to happen, you dont feel as if you can go anywhere because you have/are going to one specific place.

I think for an open world game to really feel open world, you need to feel as if you are living in a place that is living itself. The AI needs to be far more advanced to the point of, someone might randomly try and kill you or someoe might try and kill the king. The king may declare war etc.

Until then, open world games are really just big rooms imo.

#19 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6029 posts) -

The problem I have found with every open world game is that because its so big and open, its a real limitation on what can be achieved. Everything about games is all "smoke and mirrors", so with an open world where you are almost showing everyone behind the curtain of your awesome magic trick, you limit the space you have to try and hide things, in a games case, a place to create certain things because your resources are being hogged by the huge open world.

Games have a certain limit on what they can do, simply put the technology available at the moment is not enough to create a truely dynamic open world. I say this in the sense of in GTA or any open world RPG, do you ever feel like your in an open world? or basically a really big room. I find its more of a massive room with people placed in it to give it a sense of a real world. However nothing random ever happens in these worlds to give it a sense of living. In GTA it sometimes gets close when you see people fight, however things like storylines when they are linear you are automatically limited. Think of it as you know exactly what you are going to do everyday, there is no sense of exploration, there is no sense of excitement because you know whats going to happen, you dont feel as if you can go anywhere because you have/are going to one specific place.

I think for an open world game to really feel open world, you need to feel as if you are living in a place that is living itself. The AI needs to be far more advanced to the point of, someone might randomly try and kill you or someoe might try and kill the king. The king may declare war etc.

Until then, open world games are really just big rooms imo.

o0squishy0o
I feel like Just Cause 2 addressed much of what you're saying here. I've spent hours just wandering through the jungles in that game, stumbling on interesting structures or concealed bases. In regard to the idea of dynamic changes to the world, I think the problem lies in the story- most games take place in a matter of weeks or months- hardly the amount of time it takes for a full scale war to erupt and then be resolved.
#20 Posted by taiwwa (251 posts) -

Firefall is a great example of an open-world game where you have all choices.

I realized that what I dislike about GTA 4 really is how scripted the missions are. Like, after having all of that freedom in the city, you end up having to do some dumb escort mission or wait for enemies to spawn. And watch tons of cutscenes.

You don't seem to have much creativity in the path to victory in missions. The only real fun I have in the game is racking up police stars because there your creativity is all that matters. No mission scripting.

#21 Posted by Ricardomz (2329 posts) -

I kinda of agree.

#22 Posted by Greyfeld (3006 posts) -

It's my opinion that the open world format really precludes great storytelling. One of two things generally happens in open world games- either the story feels urgent and you rush from one scene to the next, or the world is so interesting you spend hours exploring and you lose the thread of the narrative. One makes for a great story, but leaves the world feeling small and even claustrophobic, the other makes the story feel shallow and disjointed. There have been very few games that have made me want to keep exploring the world after I've finished the campaign. Matter of fact, the only one I can think of is Mercenaries 2- and that is mostly because blowing sh!t up with airborne high explosives made me feel like a god. I never got more than 6 or 7 missions into Just Cause 2 because free roaming was so incredibly amusing. Arkham City's combat was so awesome I've spent hours in the combat challenges and haven't touched free roam since I completed the game. I've played through RDR twice, but never roamed after finishing the story- the list goes on.El_Zo1212o

My biggest problem with sandbox games definitely has to do with this. In general, all the side missions and off-the-beaten-path secrets in these sandbox games are completely disjointed from the main storyline. They don't feed into one another at all, which makes it feel like a very much "one or the other" sort of thing.

#23 Posted by alim298 (1469 posts) -

Yeah me too. Those worlds are massive with nothing to do in them...

#24 Posted by mrsniper83 (1552 posts) -
Im confused, all those games have brought something new to the game.Not much to say about GTA because we all know what that has done for the open box world.RDR was amazing and it was nice to have that kind of setting....Maybe, just maybe you don't like open world games.
#25 Posted by xWoW_Rougex (2767 posts) -

Woah woah woah, I'm not sure I could like your post after you stated that you are kinda disappointed with Yakuza? Yakuza is plenty of unique!

#26 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16425 posts) -

I'm having fun with Far Cry 3. I know I'm not disappointed. :lol: