The Drawbacks of Adding Open Worlds to Popular Game Series

No, Phantom Pain DID NOT DO OPEN WORLD WELL.

Just because it allowed you to experiment doesn't mean it was good or deep. Now if the game actually changed depending on your tactics while in mission, yeah but it didn't. It didn't adjust during the missions themselves. The world was empty, flat, boring. The ONLY good thing about Phantom Pain was the controls. Outside of that and the graphics, everything else was done POORLY.

Stop being fanboys and look at things OBJECTIVELY.

why keep showing dragon age inquisition when you're talking down about open world games? it came out in 2014, has a very enjoyable open world system that works for both completionists and the casual player and is a great overall game.

The Witcher 3 did quite well when it abandoned the linearity of the first two games and made an open world experience for the third installment.

Does the company creating the open world game have the experience, talent, and budget to create a compelling world that's going to meet the standards of open world games like GTA, Witcher, or Elder Scrolls?

It's possible to have an idea for a game that's too ambitious for the available talent, limited development time, and limited available funds.

I haven't yet played an Elder Scrolls game and said, "That would have been better as a linear title," so my question is whether or not they can pull it off.

As an aside, I have no problem with violence in video games, but I do have a problem with the sensual content.

We've reached the point in the mediums of TV, movies, and games where the sexual content is so extreme it borders on softcore pornography. Otherwise great pieces of entertainment for their medium (Witcher 3 for games, Game of Thrones for HBO) have entered this arena where some of the content makes people uncomfortable to watch.

I can be happy with the fantasy genre without including this stuff in there.

Let's get over the idea that incorporating softcore nudity in visual mediums makes the medium appeal more to adults.

Lord of the Rings is a million dollar fantasy franchise and it attracts plenty of adults without incorporating these elements.

Open world adds mostly to the lenght of the game. They are usually repetitive missions and places so although you have the feel of being able to explore freely around the map. you end up doing the same thing again and again.

Developers shouldn't be creating open worlds just for the sake of it if they can't fill those world with interesting things to do. Catalyst, for example, should never have been open world because the game is more about parkour and there is only so much you can do with that. They should have given us a smaller Arkham Asylum like world that we could memorize with time trials (that I hate but fit the parkour style of the game) forcing us to find the shortest paths and some collectibles that are actually along these same paths. And the campaign missions should have been unique areas that pushed our parkour skills to the limit. Another good example is Mafia III but I won't get into that lest this become an even greater wall of text.

Then you have games like Inquisition that are suited for open worlds but don't use them properly. Collectibles are fine but should not be actual side quests. Side quests in games like this should always involve at least one character, a goal and conflict and how that goal is achieved or not achieved in spite of or because of the conflict. They should, basically, be short stories.

I think that to many of us are focusing to much on the past. For me gaming has just gotten better year after year. Some open worlds may feel bland but I feel like devs are testing the water. Once they get open world develoment down we'll get some truely fantastic titles. MGSV is amazing for me. Xenoblade X had a beautiful open world but lacked some depth but made up for it with fun side quests and funny NPC's. I think we just need to understand that gaming is in a growing phase with so much more system power. Soon we'll get that depth you all want. Good things come to those who wait....

I agree and disagree with the vid. I believe there is a extreme to everything that needs to be taken into account and i think finding a balance is key to creating a experience the audience for titles to enjoy. Creating the balance between linear and open paths for the player to follow can become difficult FF15 has shown the pitfalls to the approach. Hopefully square can take steps in future titles to dance on the line between linear and open paths better but that is yet to be seen.

Pretty fair take, Jean-Luc. Thanks for the video.

Having just finished Final Fantasy XV, I really enjoyed the open world they created. I side quested like a crazy person and didn't regret it one bit. While I had a lot of fun with it, I hope it doesn't become the be-all-end-all standard.

A large amount of the best games of all time were not open world so I do not understand why people want to make all games open world. Why does Zelda need to be open world when it's considered one of the best game series even to this day when none of the games were completely open world?

In my opinion, some of the best games give you the illusion of open world without absolutely and truly being open world. For example Zelda threw you into these worlds but because you lacked abilities or weapons, you couldn't really get too far ahead of yourself. There was a place you really did have to go to linearly at that point in time. In many JRPGs, you have a world map you can "freely" explore, but you lack the means to get to many places at that point in time. Or, if you go somewhere too far ahead, the enemies will be too strong. The good thing about that though is that it's rewarding if you want to overlevel and beat those enemies, only to find either sidequests ahead of where you were or seeing the reason the game developers came up with to prevent you from skipping too far ahead of the story.

I couldn't agree more with this. I thought I was the only one who felt this way. But I honestly feel that games in general are missing the creative heart that made them so special back before there was online gaming and all the other trends now. MGS in particular was an amazing game but they certainly ruined the over all appeal with phantom pain. Haven't played FF15 yet and probably won't. Even the witches 3 bores me at times but still it's the best open world game to date. Just to many fetch quest. But at least you have the option to complete them.

Just boring and pointless time wasting side quests you have to take on because you will be under-leveled and besides I just have to get rid of all those uncompleted blips on my map (my OCD showing - that I don't really have but have that tendency I guess). Side quests should be completely optional and not be required to move on in the main story. I like cutscenes too. Open world seems to replace cutscenes and good story telling in general. You get lots of bs missions instead. 20 - 25 hours in a game is plenty for me (less in many cases). I'm ready to move on to another game at that point. Just my opinion.

Get a new video player Gamespot. This one keeps freezing, doesn't show how much is buffered, and doesn't show the total runtime of the video (apparently I'm at 1:10/0:00). Better yet, embed a Youtube video - at least they usually work, and don't rely on Flash.

I loved open world but MGSV made me sick of it all!

Coming from an MGS fan.

I'm over open worlds. They are being overdone lately..

I've been over open world for a long time. It needs to take a big break. Yes, series like Fallout, The Witcher, Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, etc... should be open world, but stuff like Metal Gear definitely shouldn't. Metal Gear V did not feel like a Metal Gear game. I don't honestly understand the appeal of certain games as open world.

Open world is just the new hottest like how stealth was. I personally don't care for open world games, you just end up with open environment that are filled with boring fetch quest and after a few hours everything just becomes a chore.

Video broken.

Great video and well explained. Nice work Jean-Luc!

I like open world games such as Fallout, Elder Scrolls and my favorite one the Witcher 3. Not every game or franchise needs to be an open world. FF XV did a great job until you reach Altissia. It should have stayed true to open world with a better story. Hopefully, the DLC with correct some of this and the next FF will be even better

I find open world games to be repetitive and boring after a while. Got bored of GTAV and Metal gear solid after few hours play and didn't finish both and do not intend to.

I definitely think open-world design is bringing down a lot of games. I could write a whole article on this myself, the whole open world trend is one I've had an issue with for a number of years now, but I'll just cut to the single biggest element of open-world design that I dislike.

Environmental variety and general level design... it takes a serious hit with most games that have gone open world. As an accessory to that, the mission design and variety has also taken a huge hit in so many open world games.

Personally I prefer a blend of open world and actual stages... basically stages like traditional games, but much larger than in the past. We don't see much of this though!

jean luc picard?

Final Fantasy should not have made the move to the type of open world it created. The format it had was fine. Square should've kept an open world like in 7 or 8 and just had the cities you entered larger.

Another problem with FF15 was the king was wanted and yet the world acted like it was no big deal that he's just wondering around doing fetch quest.

Good material. I think I like it when an open world is implemented in games but I see some downsides as well.

it's up to the developer to make the "change" to open world work of course. if you take simple close-quarters and/or games based on-rails and just drop them into a large open-world scenario, 99 out of 100 times it will just ruin the original confined space game design and end up with a bad free-roam design.

i can't think of any on-rails or small corridor game that even compares to the good open-world designed games though

when it's done correctly; open-world scenarios add a lot to the stories, the environments, and the gameplay options and are generally better games.

I actually prefer open world games. There is more freedom and room for cool stuff to happen.

The issue is the game still has to be made to a high standard. If not a HIGHER standard than linear games because there is exponentially more work to do in a large world compared to a corridor.

It is no wonder that EA can't make open world games they are fucking shit. They can't make linear games either.

If done properly I'll take open world over linear corridor any day of the week.

Probably a testament to how utterly shit this generation has been that there have been so few open worlds done right.

Wow I'm surprised by how many people that agree with this. I thought i was alone. I can't think of a single game that went open world where i liked it better. I think a good example is the Batman Arkham games.. the first one was so much fun and i played the others but something was missing. The best games seem to strike a balance somewhere in the middle of linearity and open world. I think Arkham asylum and the dark souls/Bloodborne games are perfect examples of this. Really hope the open world fanaticism will go away so devs so doing it.

Even Witcher 3's main story suffered from going open world.

Yeah I felt that both Mirror's Edge Catalyst and Shadow Warrior 2 had the same case. Both improved the controls and graphics, but story and level design suffered after they went open world. It changed a lot of the feel of the game.