What is really the right definition\usage of Open Worlds in a video game?

[Dio Brando 5,810]

Probably the most spammed concept in this recent generation of gaming is slapping an "open world" into your game and promote it as this ground breaking feature

 

Don't get me wrong I like openness and choice in my games but the concept of open world has been heavily misused in most games I've played of this gen

 

It's either they slap an empty wasteland with a really really bad fast-travel system so you'd waste 50% of your time running around doing nothing until you reach your objective...........looking at you MGS5 The Phantom Pain(more on this game later),a game where the "open" world is just two empty wastelands you do nothing in but retrieve & destroy missions that are so repetitive 

 

Or make it without giving a clear direction on where you should go to proceed with the main objective(in case you're not doing side ones) so you'd spend most of your time being lost not knowing where to go next

 

 

It's just my stance on the matter but,what I want from an open world game is to give me the following:

 

1A good means of fast-travel to reduce the amount of backtracking

 

2A good map that has a good indication of my surroundings

 

3A mean to mark the location I'm gonna go to and differenciate sidequests from main ones

 

4Have hidden goodies worth a damn that I'd like to go out of my way to collect

 

5Fill it with life.Any sort of human life or wildlife will do just don't make it empty

 

6Give me varied sidequests not repetitive stuff like "Go kill monsters" only(screw you Gran Pulse from FFXIII) or deliver and destroy shit(Screw you MGS 5 The Phantom Pain)

 

 

 

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

Dunno if this helps but "open world" only means there are no invisible barriers or loading screens or at least as few as possible within the limits of the engine and hardware. That's literally it. People and wildlife are world-building aspects not tied to whether a game is open world or not. None of the things you mentioned really have anything to do with an open world or not. In fact, many of them where in games before Open Worlds where even a thing. Strangely, they seem to have become less common as open world games become more prominent.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Isamu_Kuno

[Muke 32]

Dunno if this helps but "open world" only means there are no invisible barriers or loading screens or at least as few as possible within the limits of the engine and hardware. That's literally it. People and wildlife are world-building aspects not tied to whether a game is open world or not. None of the things you mentioned really have anything to do with an open world or not. In fact, many of them where in games before Open Worlds where even a thing.

This here.

[MythrilMagician 6,963]

It's as it says. Open world. The world is open and the game isn't as linear as others. What you listed are basic aspects of an RPG. Open world are games like Xenoblade Chronicles, The Elder Scrolls and Fallout. The map is large, but obviously limited. With open world games, you don't have to follow the story, you can just explore. Do whatever you want.

 

Dunno if this helps but "open world" only means there are no invisible barriers or loading screens or at least as few as possible within the limits of the engine and hardware. That's literally it. People and wildlife are world-building aspects not tied to whether a game is open world or not. None of the things you mentioned really have anything to do with an open world or not. In fact, many of them where in games before Open Worlds where even a thing. Strangely, they seem to have become less common ans open world games become more prominent.

 

Plus this. Though there would be invisible barriers if you consider the end of the map.

[Sora96 17,256]

Don't forget "seamless".

[Dio Brando 5,810]

Dunno if this helps but "open world" only means there are no invisible barriers or loading screens or at least as few as possible within the limits of the engine and hardware. That's literally it. People and wildlife are world-building aspects not tied to whether a game is open world or not. None of the things you mentioned really have anything to do with an open world or not. In fact, many of them where in games before Open Worlds where even a thing. Strangely, they seem to have become less common ans open world games become more prominent.

I meant from gameplay perspective and the common stuff people use to define an open world gameplay

 

I'm not making stuff up y'know

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

I meant from gameplay perspective and the common stuff people use to define an open world gameplay

 

I'm not making stuff up y'know

I was just noting how things like civilian NPCs (those who serve no purpose other than making the world feel alive) engaging collectibles, mini games, and side quests (as opposed to fetch quests and kill quests) and quality maps have faded as more and more Open World games flood the market.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Isamu_Kuno

[Dio Brando 5,810]

I was just noting how things like civilian NPCs (those who serve no purpose other than making the world feel alive) engaging collectibles, mini games, and side quests (as opposed to fetch quests and kill quests) and quality maps have faded as more and more Open World games flood the market.

Here is my question:Why though?

 

Aren't they essential parts?Especially when it comes to fast travel?

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

Here is my question:Why though?

 

Aren't they essential parts?Especially when it comes to fast travel?

I don't know why. For side quests anyway. For people it might be because it takes a lot of data to fill a town and the more data you use to make a larger world, the less data you have to put people in it?

 

Still though, back in the PS2 days if you went into almost any town you where practically tripping over NPCs, nowadays towns are more deserted than a gay bar on ladie's night.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Isamu_Kuno

[Shulk 8,623]

As everyone is saying, an open world is simply a big area to explore with little limitations. Of course, it's what those worlds are used for that can mean the difference between a good open-world game and a bad one. An interesting world is what an open-world game needs, and while I don't have too much experience with open-world games, I know there are a few out there that manage to have the features that these big open-world games boast while going beyond that to make a fantastic experience. For example, Xenoblade X does the concept of an open-world well by adding in a ton of cool places to explore, and having a lot to do aside from just walking around doing nothing. The world actually feels alive, and there are all sorts of interesting alien races you can end up finding along the way. Open world has a lot of potential, and I personally don't like the idea of super-linear RPGs, so I'm hoping that Xenoblade X will just become one of many examples of games that can make engaging worlds that have no limits. I trust that Zelda U can also be a great open-world experience, especially if Monolith Soft does end up helping in its development like they said they wanted to (They helped with Skyward Sword, so it's possible they could help again).

 

 

I was just noting how things like civilian NPCs (those who serve no purpose other than making the world feel alive) engaging collectibles, mini games, and side quests (as opposed to fetch quests and kill quests) and quality maps have faded as more and more Open World games flood the market.

It's funny, because with the exception of minigames (Which honestly aren't even necessary anyway), the Xenoblade games (Xenoblade and Xenoblade X) both have every single thing you mentioned, and use them all very effectively. They're ignored in favor of the popular (AKA non-Nintendo) open-world games, though.

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

As everyone is saying, an open world is simply a big area to explore with little limitations. Of course, it's what those worlds are used for that can mean the difference between a good open-world game and a bad one. An interesting world is what an open-world game needs, and while I don't have too much experience with open-world games, I know there are a few out there that manage to have the features that these big open-world games boast while going beyond that to make a fantastic experience. For example, Xenoblade X does the concept of an open-world well by adding in a ton of cool places to explore, and having a lot to do aside from just walking around doing nothing. The world actually feels alive, and there are all sorts of interesting alien races you can end up finding along the way. Open world has a lot of potential, and I personally don't like the idea of super-linear RPGs, so I'm hoping that Xenoblade X will just become one of many examples of games that can make engaging worlds that have no limits. I trust that Zelda U can also be a great open-world experience, especially if Monolith Soft does end up helping in its development like they said they wanted to (They helped with Skyward Sword, so it's possible they could help again).

 

 

It's funny, because with the exception of minigames (Which honestly aren't even necessary anyway), the Xenoblade games (Xenoblade and Xenoblade X) both have every single thing you mentioned, and use them all very effectively. They're ignored in favor of the popular (AKA non-Nintendo) open-world games, though.

Doesn't invalidate my point. In fact, it only helps to prove it because that's only 2 games out of the dozens of open world games on the market.

[Shulk 8,623]

Doesn't invalidate my point. In fact, it only helps to prove it because that's only 2 games out of the dozens of open world games on the market.

I'm just pointing out that there are still open games that have the aspects you mentioned. I'm sure there are others too, although I'm a bit limited in what recent games I can play, so I haven't experienced many. I'm also pointing out that the games that do have those aspects are just ignored these days since they're not by a popular developer.