LogFAQs > #979578003

deoxxys posted...

Because open worlds are often big empty swaths of nothing. There's no reason to explore where is closed areas may mean closed but that doesn't mean they have to be small and actually can be well designed.

Nowadays the Ubisoft design philosophy plagues most open world games. Back in the day, people stopped liking closed or linear games because games like Call of Duty campaign could be a hallway simulator.

The maze level philosophy is the best in my opinion, branching paths, dead ends and make use of verticality.

And to that I will repeat this in response:

Open worlds feeling empty or repetitive is the fault of lazy design, not the open world itself.

deoxxys posted...

You can script events easier, naturally lead players to points of interest, It quite literally focuses the gameplay.

An easy to understand metaphor would be like having a Halloween event where the objective is to scare people. What's going to be easier to scare people, doing it in a big field where the player has freedom to go wherever they want? Or in a haunted house where you know there's only a few hallways they can go down and you can set up surprises along the way.

I suppose you do have a point there. Though plenty of open world games still have largely linear quests or missions, which can allow for that kind of focused gameplay.

I guess I just normally don't like it when the whole game is closed off like that, as at its worst it can feel like a hallway simulator as you mentioned. Scripted progression and naturally guiding the player is mostly fine, but I really don't care for excessive handholding and arbitrary roadblocks.