Current Events > I prefer closed worlds over open worlds in games

(+) Yeah! (+)

It usually depends on the game for me. But I also don't have a lot of time for gaming these days so I voted closed as those tend to be easier to get through with less time.

The one that offers more content

I like both a lot, its the individual game mechanics that hook me.

Depends on the content-- some open worlds are lots of fun, some are just filled with annoying padding and too many 'find x amount of thingy' crap.

I generally prefer open worlds (or close to it), though I'm quite picky on which ones I'll play.

It depends on the game, I imagine.

Like, an open world RTS would probably be a whole fuckin' mess.

Depends on my mood. I enjoy both when they're done well.

Closed. Open worlds were fun when we were kids with no money and nothing better to do than sink hundreds of hours into one game. Plus we only got one every few years.

Now, when basically everything is open world, I just find them tedious. I enjoy some, like Elden Ring and Cyberpunk, but the best model for me is something like Deus Ex or BioShock (the real ones, not Infinite) where you have meticulously designed levels you can explore to your hearts content before moving onto the next level.

Im fine with open world. Im not fine with open worlds with copy paste and zoning, even the games with great mechanics and original content are ruined by those for me. I can explore for its own sake, I dont need to see a dozen small erdtrees in Elden Ring and copy paste catacombs when I look around, and when I travel to a cool looking sky castle in TOTK the mass of shrines and combat trials I pass before getting to it actually makes the castle less special for me since its cluttered by bullshit. I also dont want the nonsense checklist stuff in these games and although you can ignore that youre still traveling a world specifically made for those things.

It depends for me as well, but I generally prefer closed world and linear games. Often youll find open world are wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle, which just sucks (looking at you, Bethesda)

Open world, closed world, flat world. Idgaf how are the waifus?

Open, gives it more of an authentic feel.

open world tends to cause issues with pacing and a lot of games are super underdesigned because they'd rather be organic than interesting to traverse through

open world is probably better but i think devs aren't consistently good at using open world properly

I'm fine with either if the game is good.

I generally prefer open but some games are better closed. Like a devil may cry like game would be weird open

Exploration in open world games tends to suck. I like exploration in Metroidvania's though, and those are typically not filled with as much or any fetch quest/checklist filler that pads out open world stuff.

GrandConjuraton posted...

The one that offers more content

Since the word content has been dirtied by Ubisofts core design philosophy nowadays I assume you mean actual content, not endless collectibles that make the world map look like a Christmas tree and only serve to give you an achievement. And radio towers.

Closed. I get distracted and bored too often in open world games

Too many games are open world and it makes it impossible to find time to play them again. I don't have as much free time as before so I like shorter games that you can play through multiple times.

Limited open world. Something like Shadow of the Colossus or Sly 3 from PS2 era. Varied environment (SotC), no excessive collectathon, no meaningless padding.

Open.

Closed, I've always bounced off any open world or sandbox game I've tried. Maybe it's because I've been in modding and game design for so long, but peaking behind the curtain and knowing how that shit works really takes the luster out. I like good AI systems in them, but those are hard to come by.

I like open as long as its not follow quest marker and check a list. If its going to be open world I was to just get lost in it and find interesting things.

the ubisoftification of videogames is something that i have come to despise

It of course depends on the game but despite all the complaints about open world burnout when done right its still my favorite by far and I love it.

My favorite games are GTA, RDR, and Skyrim so I definitely prefer open worlds.

Open world is good sometimes but I'm playing ff7 rebirth and holy fuck it is miserable with all the ubishit tier side content

it depends on how it's implemented.

Open world -conceptually- is a good idea, but the actual way it's put together is often a bad fit for games leading to wide tracts of Basically Nothing or the Ubisoft "here's a checklist and some map markers but the actual gameplay is kinda ass" syndrome.

In a number of disappointing open world cases it would be better to take the budget -out- of hundreds of miles of Brown/Grey rocks and rote collectibles (half of which are actually useful maybe), and put it into combat that feels good, encounters that are interesting, or writing that isn't awful.

I like open worlds with base building or a base you can upgrade.

I like large arenas the best.

Dishonored is the perfect example of this.

Open world -conceptually- is a good idea, but the actual way it's put together is often a bad fit for games leading to wide tracts of Basically Nothing or the Ubisoft "here's a checklist and some map markers but the actual gameplay is kinda ass" syndrome.

it's like 'quantity over quality' is a longer way to write 'open world'.

and it's like the devs know it's a bad fit because they have all these player band-aids that you're meant to apply -- like using the horse to traverse all the Basically Nothing in elden ring or how massive worlds are almost universally reduced to traveling via menu. i can get lost in the duke's archives in ds1, but i can't get lost anywhere in the lands between.

Fluttershy posted...

Open world -conceptually- is a good idea, but the actual way it's put together is often a bad fit for games leading to wide tracts of Basically Nothing or the Ubisoft "here's a checklist and some map markers but the actual gameplay is kinda ass" syndrome.

it's like 'quantity over quality' is a longer way to write 'open world'.

and it's like the devs know it's a bad fit because they have all these player band-aids that you're meant to apply -- like using the horse to traverse all the Basically Nothing in elden ring or how massive worlds are almost universally reduced to traveling via menu. i can get lost in the duke's archives in ds1, but i can't get lost anywhere in the lands between.

While I agree with your overall premise, I dont think criticizing Elden Ring that way is fair. Its one of the first open world games in a long time that didnt feel like an Ubisoft checklist and felt like an actual well designed world to explore.

"Open world" is a code word for "we have no idea how to design a game so we just threw everything around randomly and hope you can pick up the pieces" 90% of the time

Gameplay

I prefer Open Worlds when there's a lot to things to loot. Elden Ring, despite not being good at the open world part, still scratches that itch for me.

I enjoy both but I think more focused, tighter environments tend to fare better.

I am so fucking sick of "walk through endless empty green/brown for 15 mins" games. "Open world" was a mistake.

Open world with guardrails... like GTA VC which only opened up the 2nd, larger half of Miami only once you won & got experience defeating the first.

Walking completely aimlessly about without direction can sour an experience. Miyamoto designed his games around that premise - early stage level design all but teaching you mechanics, abilities, & expectations of what may come next.

Closed world, with a world map to traverse. Best of both... uh... worlds.

Too many open world games just include it for the sake of saying "we have an open world" and there's literally nothing to actually do in that open world but walk to your next actual destination.

I honestly can't even fathom why people would prefer closed worlds in games aside from when it allows them to be more story-focused.

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

Damn_Underscore posted...

I like to explore every inch of a game world so for this reason alone I prefer closed worlds in games

Also, how do open worlds (in theory, at least) not allow you to explore every inch?

Closed world. Most of the open world games I played didn't need to be.

I'm guessing old adventure games like King's Quest are closed world even though you can walk completely around the world?

There are good games in both categories. I love Yakuza and I also love Kirby.

If I could design my own, though, they'd (almost?) never be open world.

While I agree with your overall premise, I dont think criticizing Elden Ring that way is fair. Its one of the first open world games in a long time that didnt feel like an Ubisoft checklist and felt like an actual well designed world to explore.

i was probably a little harsher than i really think about it because i do think the map functions well and is visually well-designed in terms of signposting -- i think they've always been good at getting players to look where they want. and i like the catacombs and dungeons, too, even if they're copy+paste.

honestly, i just get annoyed and my thumb gets sore every time i have to run through liurnia.

Open world was cool when it was just "a big world with things to do and places to see"

Now, it seems like open world means "a massive open field littered with 600 checklist collectibles and maybe 7 actual points of interest"

Agreed I've been done with open world games since Fallout 4.

The larger these game worlds get the more barren they become. Holding forward on the controller through empty game worlds gets old quick.

Honestly, most of the criticisms of open world games aren't central to the concept. It's honestly more than anything the drive for biggerer and morer that's causing problems. There are open world games that are smaller in terms of overworld size that are a lot better designed as a result.

Ground Zeroes is a really good example. A lot of players turned their nose up at it, but it has EASILY the best open world I've ever played. As in, it's actually designed for GAMEPLAY. One section over here for tight corridors, check your corners, kind of stealth. One area over here for open space, crawl on yer belly like a snake kind of stealth. A couple of areas that are somewhere in between. One area over here is an actual fortress, where security is tighter, enemies have a better range of vision up on the walls, and there's (almost) nowhere to hide. Then there's the prison by the cliff, which is mostly obscured by a large rock so it's kind of its own little area. Makes sense we because there's a cutscene there. There's an area outside the actual base with no enemies and elevated terrain so you can scope things out and call in your helicopter(s). There are a couple of roads, and a bridge, and a few towers here and there that can add a strategic element to things, since they have better visibility and you can sort of informally capture them.

Now, none of those individual parts are particularly unique, but together, they make a world that's in a completely different league from your typical 17 square miles of desert crap. But honestly, we're just getting started.

Enemies are assigned on a per-mission basis, meaning that while the world is geographically the same, your approach might have to be completely different. And they're not just standing around, or even walking in circles. Their patrols might take them all the way across the map, and they might be walking or running. Sometimes new enemies will enter on a schedule, or on a trigger when you reach a certain part of the mission. Some of these guys will climb ladders or towers to perform lookout duty for a while. Some of them are driving trucks, and get in/out on a schedule to go do other things. Some are actively looking for intruders, while others are just transporting supplies but might see you anyway. Some guys are placed on top of the fortress wall with rifles, or recoilless rifles. All carefully designed as a specific custom-tailored challenge instead of just puked everywhere by a random number generator. Some of them are running behind on their schedule and are jogging from place to place.

And if memory serves, there are only eight collectables, and they unlock an extra mission.

Kind of unfortunate, but IMO they made one major mistake, and that was not altering the enemies' vision range for the smaller environment compared to TPP. It made going full stealth on a number of missions psychotically difficult.