Evolutions in open world gaming

Since open world games are now so prevalent, and with us having received some landmark titles in that framework (I hesitate to call it a 'genre') over the last few years, I figure it is time for us to take stock of some of the most major, most important games of this nature that we have received.

Here is my list, with my justifications. These are some rules I used:

• I'm only looking at modern open world games (so things like the NES Legend of Zelda are out)
• Hub based games, or games with interconnected levels, don't count (so Xenoblade or Ocarina of Time are out)
• Industry influence and commercial success is being considered
• I did not count any procedurally generated games here (as they aren't open world by virtue of, well, not being designed outside of an algorithm)

These are the ones I'd say are the most important ones, roughly arranged in chronological order:

GRAND THEFT AUTO III (and successors)

Basically, this is the big one- it's the forebear of modern open world games, it's the game that kickstarted the mad rush to begin with. GTA3 was a revelation in its time, and Rockstar has relentlessly polished the formula ever since. To a very large degree, every modern open world game owes itself somewhat to GTA3- and it would be years before other games would approach catching up with Rockstar on this front.

THE ELDER SCROLLS OBLIVION/SKYRIM

Another big one- Oblivion, and in particular Skyrim, are responsible for the modern open world craze that we find ourselves amidst ever since Skyrim came out on 11/11/11 and defied all expectations with its success. When companies like Bioware, CD Projekt RED, Ubisoft, EA, Square Enix, and even Nintendo, all cite your game as a reference, you know you made an impact.

ASSASSIN'S CREED 2/FAR CRY 3

Ubisoft towers may have become a meme, and many of you probably detest Ubisoft's take on open world games- and I'm tired of it myself. But there's no denying the sheer influence (good or bad- many will argue bad) these games had on modern open world games. The entire structure of having an open world littered with icons and sidequests, unlocking a map by climbing a vantage point, and general collectathon design, owes itself to the success of these two games.

THE WITCHER 3

The Witcher 3 is the first and probably one of two games to properly utilize its open world setting with highly focused and effective storytelling. The Witcher 3's world feels like a reactive, live, organic world, and it is set as a stage for the gameplay that takes place upon it. Unlike so many other games, where the open world is set distinctly from the gameplay, The Witcher 3 makes it an inextricable part of its narrative. In the years since its release, we have seen other developers cite and attempt to emulate The Witcher 3- Bioware, Ubisoft, and Guerrilla are the ones that come to mind immediately, but hopefully there will be many more.

THE LEGEND OF ZELDA: BREATH OF THE WILD

This is the newest, latest one. With staggeringly open world design (you can go to the final boss right at the start), a fully reactive and interactive, massive and seamless open world, and a game that makes the entire open world a tightly designed level for the player to play in, emphasizing player agency, and the joy of exploration, at every possible turn, this is hopefully going to give pause to other developers as they consider the extent of player agency and interactivity that they provide going forward. Ubisoft, Ken Levine, Bethesda, Naughty Dog, and more have already acknowledged the influence that Breath of the Wild is likely to have on game design going forward- one can only hope it does.

---

These are my picks, but what are yours? Feel free to use your own rules (you don't have to use mine, I just used them because they seemed sensible to me). I only ask that if you list a game or more, try to justify your pick by explaining why you feel it is important. Have at it!

@getyeryayasout: I would agree with that - I definitely prefer the smaller open worlds and I'm happy to see variation within them, even at the cost of realism (for example a snowy mountain range next to a jungle, so long as it transitions well enough).

@charizard1605:

2 examples that are important for me:

Dark Souls

Not technically 'open world' in the strictest sense, but it helped make hybrid inter-connected levels popular.

The fact that you could run from one end of the map in Dark Souls to the other without without any loading screens at all really helped to immerse you into the world and make it believable. This in turn added to the hopeless, no escape atmosphere so well laid out in the game through its other elements.

Not only that, but all the shortcuts and optional areas make Dark Souls one of the most fun open worlds to explore - all without needing a map and icons.

Metal Gear Solid Phantom Pain

This really brought a new level to emergent gameplay and persistence as far as ai is concerned. Not my favourite game in the world, but a game that would be fun based on the possibilities you have toying about in the huge areas.

GTA San Andreas because swimming isn't instant death anymore.

As far as pure influence goes, that's a solid list.

Personally I've never been a big fan of open world games. I've taken a liking to BotW and MGSV, mainly due to their sandbox strengths. They also have solid mechanics and level design, which have been absent from a lot of these types of games for ages. Rockstar and Bethesda have been giants in this territory for so damn long, yet somehow their stuff still plays like limp dicks and saggy tits.

MGSV failed to make a splash, but I'm hoping BotW's influence carries some weight going forward.

I don't really find anything wrong with climbing the towers in Far Cry 4 to unlock a map. I unlock the towers so I can unlock better weapons and not have to grind in an FPS game.

If both Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4 use it. Oh well. I mean, the Total War games all have a similar feel, layout, and style. I don't see anyone complaining.

The evolution of open world game is that they dont change much. they are still same boring travelling from point A to Point B.

GTA 2 already had a very big open world, you just saw it from a top down perspective :P

GTA: San Andreas' scale was massive.

And so was Just Caus 2's

Another evolution in open world was Assassin's Creed 1s parkour and its pretty incredible for the time crowd tech.

GTA IV was another clear evolution in open world, where it brought a city that felt truly alive and lived in.

As was The Witcher 3. For it's interaction between the open world and the (side)missions you did in it.

I like this thread because it celebrates something. And we don't have enough celebration in SW.

That's not true. Daggerfall had branching paths, a 62,394 mile map and a horse you could pull out your arse.

I think Rockstar and Bethesda are responsible for the best modern open world games have to offer. Ubisoft is trying to kill the genre with their repetitive and predictable formulas.

"The Witcher 3's world feels like a reactive, live, organic world, and it is set as a stage for the gameplay that takes place upon it."

lmfao no it fucking doesnt. that world is so static

You forgot open world superhero games like Spiderman or Batman. They are underrated in those discussions.

ubisoft make better open world than rockstar atleast. I prefer far cry 3 over any GTA or even assassins creed (which i hate) over any GTA.

That's your opinion, sure, but Ubisoft have been following the same formula for over 10 years: towers to unlock areas of the map, side activities based on following icons to clean the map, stories are never interesting, characters i never relate with, too much predictibility and many, many bugs.

That's the consequence of releasing 3 games every year instead a game every 3 years, like Rockstar, Naughty Dog, Bethesda, CDPR, etc. Ubisoft is the fast food of this industry, in my opinion, quantity over quality.

MGS5 and FFXV should both serve as reminders as to how NOT to do open world.

of course ubisoft make same stale games over 10 years. so are rockstars. their games are tend to be more boring than ubisoft.

MGSV though....

It's very odd how Assassins Creed can be so bad, yet Far Cry 4 so, ok.

far cry 4 was bad too. its far cry 3 that is actually good. otherwise AC4 is better game and best in series.

Dragon's Dogma gets my vote because its an open world that is not too large or too small but feels just right. In addition to that the gameplay facilitated multiple play through and the world was designed in such a manner to allow cursory knowledge of the world without being overwhelmed. I think more game developers should focus on the player experience and meaningful interaction with the world than simply big worlds for the sake of being big. I am not a fan of traversing large spans of nothing for the sake of experiences vastness. That is not fun gameplay, that is the tedium formula that many game developers have implemented in their design.

Outside of that, some game devs need to understand that penalizing gamers mobility in open world games is artificial padding and does not improve gameplay for these supersize worlds but adds to tedium. Open world games should encourage replay rather than dissuade gamers due to the burden of traversal or size of the world.

What does Far Cry 3 have that Far Cry 4 doesn't?

optimization, better setting, better missions, better story, vaas is better than pagan min. otherwise they are exact same game.

far cry 4 is far cry 3 but worse in every way. primal is worse than both.

Far Cry 3 is a far more linear and scripted game. Far Cry 4 feels more like a pc game.

Saying that, you do like Doom, that is an out and out console port.

both far cry 3 and 4 are console ports. one is well optimize. other is terribly optimize.

Doom alone shits on both far crys. i only call those games console ports that feel like console games.

Doom has checkpoints, Far Cry 4 let's you manual save.

Ubisoft improved a flawed Crytek series, Id Software re-marketed classic pc grandfather consoles.

No open world FPS beat Far Cry 4 it seems. Far Cry 2 abit shit, but they improve, while Crytek nose-dive Crysis.

my friend, that game is Stalker. thats the open world FPS that beat Far cry 4 3 2 or whatever crap ubisoft make.

Doom has checkpoint? sure but overall it play like old school PC game otherwise it would involve ironsight and handholding.

Crytek first far cry was only good till second half but its not ubisoft that improve it. its crytek themselve when they released Crysis that was better than FC1 in every way.

people focus on the atmosphere of an open world game a little too much. it's important but i'd rather have the empty aesthetics of a phantom pain with it's incredibly varied emergent gameplay over the atmospheric and yet shallow gameplay of a gtav. gtav's world is incredible but i feel no motivation to explore anything and there is little to no variation on the gameplay. the game world is beautiful and intriguing but upon closer inspection it's pretty dull while offering almost no incentive to explore other than "just because." not to mention the missions are mostly copy and paste from previous gtas.

i compare the two because they seem to be at the opposite ends of the style vs substance spectrum.

Arkham games are often overlooked in how they brought open world and linear-AAA-game polish together.

I can't remember a game before them that had buttery-smooth animations and controls, slick metroidvania-esque progression with stellar presentation across the board in an open world environment.

And genuinely cool open world activites too.

I like the more "instanced" open worlds where they have a handful of small, extremely detailed and well crafted open-world levels to explore as opposed to just one giant sprawling open world.

Games like:

-Assassin's Creed series, where you traveled from city to region to town to city, and each area was large enough to not feel cramped, but small enough to be filled with all manner of detail.
-Mass Effect: Andromeda, where you are sent to various planets to explore, and you have these huge indoor and outdoor areas to explore and fight in, and they're all well-crafted.
-Dragon Age: Inquisition, like ME:A,where you have a collection of smaller open-world levels to explore than benefit from a more focused level design
-Batman: Arkham series, which broke up their open-world levels in a manner that A.) allowed for an insane amount of detail and story-telling, but B.) somehow did not feel like the world was shrinking
-Crysis, which while consisting of a series of set levels, each level was incredibly vast and had various objectives that could be executed in various ways. I know it's not open world, but it sure almost felt like it. It's the processed cheese of open-world gaming.

Yeah, that's how I feel about it too.

Sucks that MGSV had to be so far on the other extreme end though. I appreciate everything it does for interaction and playability, wouldn't have it any other way. But damn I'd love to have seen those systems put to work in a world that is more visually interesting and more compelling to traverse. The game is quite literally an infiltration sandbox, which is dope. And I get that the space between bases is meant to play into your freedom of approach. But I feel any game with spaces that large should offer additional incentives for going off the beaten path and exploring, aside from just a great vantage point to begin your attack. Which does happen in MGSV, but it's so damn rare.

This is where BotW is just knocking it out of the park for me. It has so much of the strong interaction that I love about MGSV along with an excellent world to match.

I hope Kojima can pull something that cohesive together with Death Stranding.

@ConanTheStoner:

Yeah mgsv could have been sure fire goat had there been like supply lines running between bases you could intercept or warring factions with which you choose sides and manipulate and well anything else that would make it feel more like territory in the midst of conflict instead of being a violent playground for the players pleasure.

Man i really cant wait to play botw. Sounds like its one incredible experience.

I don't understand why Oblivion and Skyrim are on the list but the previous Elder Scrolls games aren't. Arena is a mess, sure, but Daggerfall and Morrowind were a big deal back in the day. And so was Baldur's Gate, a particularly important game RIGHT NOW, at this very juncture, when the genre that spawned from it is having a big comeback.

Even though you're only considering modern games, it's interesting to see the most recent evolution in open world game design (Breath of the Wild) is so similar in design to the original Legend of Zelda from over 30 years ago. Maybe Nintendo just had it right to begin with really, and no evolution was necessary. Just throw them out into the wild with no hand holding or automatic markers on the map.

Far Cry 3 ran great when I first played and finished it. Then, Ubisoft started releasing patches for those who complained the game was glitchy. Apparently, it fixed their issues. But, the patch made my Far Cry 3 install glitchy. Every time Far Cry 3 crashed, I knew a patch was on the way. I remember posting that here back in early 2013.

Nowadays, I run both Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4. The framerates are about the same for both ~120 fps with drops to double digits.

The story was crap on Far Cry 4. It was crappier on Far Cry 3. The only reason (but a damn big reason) I like both games is the free-explore mode after I finished the SP campaign. In that aspect, I feel Far Cry 4 is the better one because I can fly around any part of the game world and pounce on anything below.

I feel like MGS5 takes the cake that your trying to give to Zelda, its open world zandbox with highly emergent gameplay. Zelda did it a bit prettier. I really do think zelda got overrated, between being zelda so tugging on nostalgia strings for a lot of critics + appeasing the artistic snobbery... Zelda is definitely lacking in interesting narratives / scenarios / characters. I feel like games like skyrim/fallout already include elements of zelda's exploration, but in a much smaller more intimate open world being easier to digest (sorry 100+ hours in zelda, still not done, don't remember nearly anything because there is never any reason to stick around in areas).

The starting point for modern open world games is Shenmue. Its open world wasn't large, but the level of detail it packed into every square meter was astounding. You could interact with every nook and cranny, every NPC was fully-fleshed with their own voices and their own lives, it had day/night cycles with real-time weather, and you could do things like getting a job or play arcade games. It was more forward-thinking than GTA III and way ahead of its time.

There seems to be two main problems with the genre atm: How the hell do you fill the world with engaging activites? How do you balance freedom for the player to discover things on his own with story and some direction to the cool stuff.

It's just real hard to do and people obviosuly have different prefences.

Imo the biggest issue the past couple of years has been overflagging content. This is the Ubi approach. They give you a list of everything you can find in a region and then mark it on a map. I mean wtf is the point? Devs need to tone down the flagging, or at the very least create better options for it in the menus.

BOTW started out as a 2D prototype based on NES Zelda, where they tested out the mechanics, physics and chemistry that eventually made their way to BOTW.

Open world games have come full circle. BOTW has established a link to the past, all the way back to NES Zelda, the game that originally set the basic template for open-world gaming (although Hydlide did it first, but it was Zelda that showed everyone how to do it right).

Yeah, MGSV does it better and with far more flexibility. I kinda felt this way after my first few days with Zelda, but now I'm sure of it.

I think the word emergence is being somewhat diluted in some of these BotW discussions. Not in this thread, (don't think Chaz even mentioned it) but in others I've seen. Yes, player agency (depending on your definition) is abundant in the form of exploration and traversal. No hard-gated sections, no pre-defined paths through the world, the player is free to do as they will at every turn. Interactive elements are also in abundance, there is plenty of direct feedback to the players actions and those reactions can come together to deliver some really fun results. Especially so when multiple systems add up to a desired end result. It always feels good having those "Aha!" moments, knowing that the tools and environment aren't just there for singular rigid/static purposes.

Freedom and interactivity are two very important ingredients for emergence, but while I've experienced loads of the former elements in BotW, I've yet to experience the latter result to any significant degree. Solving a puzzle or overcoming an obstacle outside of the intended method is neat. Taking out an enemy encampment using the environment in tandem with a variety of tools is satisfying. I just can't think of any scenarios that felt like a story of my own. Whereas in Phantom Pain, and even Ground Zeroes, I enjoyed so many memorable sequences that I'll never be able to replicate. The best stories I experienced weren't the ones Kojima barfed out through the narrative, but rather the user created instances that were every bit as awesome and intense as some other games pre-canned set pieces. One of the most boring missions in the game, a repeat mission at that, ended up being the one single mission of MGSV that will stick with me the most, simply because of the events that emerged.

MGSV gives the player a wider range of tools and mechanics. Its enemies are more complex and come with their own variety of tools. The bases are much more complex than the typical encounter areas in BotW. The multi-phase enemy states are more sophisticated than the somewhat binary enemy states of BotW. And even within those individual states of "aggro", the enemies are capable of more actions at any given time. All of these systems stir together on a deeper level, making the possibility for truly emergent scenarios more common and more unique.

This isn't a knock against BotW by any means, it's not like emergent = better. As a matter of fact, I think BotW is the better game. MGSV is mechanically stronger. It's more free form and flexible on the micro level, whereas BotW exhibits far more freedom on the macro level. But at the end of the day, BotW just comes off as a tighter, much more well executed experience. It's not weighed down by the same baggage and wtf design choices that permeate MGSV.

Point being, there is a good reason why BotW gets much of the praise that MGSV seemingly deserves. MGSVs exemplary systems almost feel wasted on such a structural mess. BotWs systems may not be on the same level, but they're still impressive in their own right and they're tightly woven into a remarkable game. In so many aspects where MGSV falters, BotW overachieves.

It makes sense that BotW gets the cake lol.

Geez, novel post lol. I won't blame you if you don't read all that bro.

'Reactive' gameplay is similar to emergence. I wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference in this case though. In a game like system shock I consider the 'reactive' part more like a chemical reaction, once you toss in a catalyst the game can continue to simulate with new parameters. Zelda isn't like that at all there are these pocket interactions, but the AI isn't smart enough to really do anything and the emergence is more in planning.

I also think the structure in MGS5 makes the gameplay better. Zelda you never have a need to memorize locations. Almost everything is in passing, the world is so big and you have a tendency to move on from areas. And when I say areas, I don't mean the massive area the tower unlocks the map for. I mean when your in a spot looking for stuff, you sort of systematically search it, and move on. Consider MGS5 by the time you finish the missions and moving on to the next map, you have intimate knowledge operating in that area. I feel like MGS5 gets knocked too much for having an incomplete story.

MGS5 definitly deserves to be on the list, it did a free form open world gaming with an incredibly reactive world far better than zelda did. But what would that leave zelda to praise? I think people are forgetting zelda took a lot of inspiration from old school survival games where heavy resource management is apart of almost everything you do in zelda. But it made a modern open world survival game without the need of shitty hunger/thirst meters. Weather effects what you can do or wear, cooking and preparation is incredibly important for survival, you have to manage weapons.. If any one should take inspiration from zelda its open world survival games.

@waahahah: True, it was perfect.

But the story sucked, needed more voice acting and a lot more villages.1

@ConanTheStoner:Actually, I'd have to argue there is tons of emergence in BotW. Check this out:

Shit like this is cool, fun, emergent gameplay, inviting you to interact with the world in all sorts of ways to come up with your own stories. Now, I don't know how it compares to Phantom Pain, given that I played like three missions of it before I stopped back in 2015, but on its own merits, i do want to say that BotW is the most emergent game this side of Skyrim (again, without considering TPP- entirely possible, even probable, that it beats it out).

@charizard1605:

I wouldn't call zelda more emergent than skryim or fallout, there are just different mechanics in play and can lead to different result, zelda has some more physical systems. TPP has far more complex interactive systems though. Zelda tends to have fairly shallow emergent play, A->B but TPP can have a large chain reaction of ridiculousness. I'd even say GTA can lead to more emergent gameplay with spawns/cops.

@waahahah: Man, I definitely gotta play TPP some time

One thing I wonder of BOTW is how well its style translates to games with a more realistic aesthetic and a bigger focus on story (say stuff like the Witcher and Assassin's Creed). The way you manipulate physics seems hard to just carry over if you don't have that fantasy/cartoony wrapping. Physics works best when it's pure and you manipulate simple objects like a boulder etc. How would that make sense in Assassin's Creed. Similarily with the cooking/hot-cold mechanics and so on.

I have a feeling people are underestimating the challenge of translating this stuff. And so they are too optimistic of the effect BOTW will have on the rest of the industry.

It's kind of a similar situation as with Shadow of Mordor were people thought the Nemesis system would be the new thing. But nemesis only really works when you have an endless supply of really generic enemies (aka orcs) so it has actually not affected the industry at all thus far.