Semi Open Worlds?

[DaHeckIzDat]

You know what I wish there was more of? Probably, since you had to read the thread title to get here, but it's semi open worlds in video games. It seems like every game these days is trying to be an epic sandbox like The Witcher 3 or Red Dead Redemption 2, and honestly I feel like it's getting old. Giant maps are well and good if there are things that make it fun to explore, but pots of developers seem to think that all it takes to make an open world game is to put a fifteen minute walk in between the objective markers.

But do you remember Alan Wake? Its one of my favorite games, and a big part of that is the level design. The levels were linear, but still open enough that you could explore and find cool stuff. I loved thinking "I'm obviously supposed to go that way, but I wonder if they've hidden anything over there?. And usually, there is! Fun little bonuses like episodes of a Twilight Zone knockoff, manuscript pages, and even just little worldbuilding things like museum or trail guides. It gave me the feeling of being able to explore without also wasting my time with unnecessary traveling.

What about you guys?

[Matchstick]

Ooooooh, I like this. Nice topic, DHID! I do agree that, while open-worlds are nice, it's also nice to be dropped into an individual level, and just be left to find your own way. Let me see if I can think of a few examples to add to the discussion.

The first one that comes to mind is Super Mario 64. Individual levels, individual objectives for stars... but only a vague description. The game does not tell you where the star is, nor does it guide you directly to it. It's up to you to find your own way there, and there are often multiple ways to do just that. Not open-world, but what a sense of freedom, for the time!

(In hindsight, I kind of hate that Super Mario Sunshine shows you where the Shine you're supposed to find is located, right when you begin the level. Takes some of the guesswork out of it - but also some of the fun.)

I like how the 2016 Doom reboot handled this, too, though plenty of other games have done it the same way. You start a level being told that there are two or three secrets to find - but it's entirely up to you to figure out where they are, and how to get to them. It makes it fun to explore each level looking for secret passages and places to climb - and there's also a few surprises that are hidden in each level just for fun, and not part of the checklist. For an action game, it does manage to reward you for exploring pretty well!

[DaHeckIzDat]

By weird coincidence, Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation fame just released a new video explaining how open world games are a dying fad and why we'll eventually return to linearity: https://youtu.be/Vg4w9pFD-ao

[Voor]

I think they’re OK as long as there’s a clear objective. What some people call exploring, I call aimless wandering. Lol.

Though I really enjoyed Mario Odyssey, which felt like it had a healthy dose of both.

[JohanOberg]

Japanese games do a lot of semi-open worlds. Think Shenmue and Yakuza, then a bunch of games you've never heard of.
I think it's better than having acres and acres of wasted space, though sometimes I wish they had more freedom like climbing and flying etc, usually in a japanese game a knee-high fence is the same as the great wall of china.

Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation fame just released a new video explaining how open world games are a dying fad and why we'll eventually return to linearity

They may well be dying, but a fad? It's been going on since 2001 or so, 20 years isn't exactly a fad

[VideoGameCritic]

Interesting thread. Back in the mid-90s being able to go "where ever you wanted" was The Dream (TM).

When Super Mario 64 came out, it seemed that dream had come true. For us Playstation gamers however, the closest we could get to that was Croc. LOL. When Blasto came out for the Playstation it was hailed as revolutionary because not only could you go where you wanted, but there was no stopped to load, since it streamed from the disk.

Anyway the problem with real open world games is that you can waste a lot of time looking for the right thing to do to move the game along. It seems like Far Cry did a good job of keeping you moving in the right direction, but I recall many other games that did not.

Yeah I think the novelty of open world games has worn off, and most people prefer a more streamlined, focused experience.

[ThePixelatedGenocide]

My first open world game was Ultima III, on the NES.

It had everything you'd expect from an open world game. A vast world, filled with secrets. The freedom to behave like a complete sociopath. Enemies you're not emotionally invested in. A main quest almost nobody finished because they'd rather play outlaws then ride out of town on horseback...

It was great.

And then I got hooked on Lunar and FFIV, instead. And the Legend of Zelda series.

Because all that open world content offered so much freedom that not a single thing was done well. The graphics were a Colecovision flashback, the combat combined the mind numbing grind of JRPGs with the time wasting of a strategy title, and punished you for leveling up...

And half the character options were just creative ways to screw yourself over. Not that your characters actually had any character.

And yeah, I know that's an older title. But it proves that we've had the capability to make open world titles since almost forever. Hell, ever since Elite, we've even had fully 3d sandboxes.

And we, as a species, all decided we'd much rather play Super Mario Bros 3, Street Fighter 2, and Doom instead.

But here's the thing...

There's Minecraft. And Grand Theft Auto. And Skyrim. And MMOs...including Grand Theft Auto.

And so I think what's happening is the open world game has already evolved. It either fully commits to absolute freedom and simple gameplay mechanics as spice - which is great for hanging out with friends or expressing your creativity...

Or it's just a semi-open world game that's only adding lots of background scenery for immersion. At it's best, it adds to the atmosphere, while also giving you a preview of everywhere else you can go.

And that helps create the urge to explore it all, in a way traditional level design can't offer. Anticipation and more meditative moments between the action are underrated virtues. They make all the best moments, stand out by comparison.

Even if those strengths are lost, as the world becomes too familiar.

It's why we have fast travel. highlighted paths, and maps/menu options that would have counted as strategy guides in another lifetime. It's why we removed difficulty sliders, and added crafting mechanics. Enjoy exploring? Look at all the things you've found that'll let you make things to lower the difficulty of the other bits - it's totally not cheating or easy mode, because you've actually earned them, and it was rather tedious to do so.

Anyways, I think some AAA studios will always abuse open worlds, because of all the Hollywood movies that insist we want to see something really big and expensive and world threatening - you can get away with a lot of mediocre things when you're blinding people with overall spectacle.

Besides, even Nintendo's getting in on the open world thing now. If I want the next bit of great Bower's Fury level design, I have to slog my way through all the empty padding, just so Nintendo can show off how they've theoretically matured.

At least in the sense that they've learned they can make games seem bigger by just making them take longer to complete...