LogFAQs


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

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2
Damn_Underscore
03/25/24 2:50:46 PM
#51:


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

The games are so big it is practically impossible or just not worth it to do and see everything.

An example is GTA San Andreas, not even that big by todays standards. Getting all the gang territory is one of the bigger side missions in the game, but completing it is totally unfulfilling. Plus I think the game is glitched and getting all the territory is harder/more tedious than it should be

---
Some guys have all the luck, Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks, Some guys do nothing but complain
... Copied to Clipboard!
IceCreamOnStero
03/26/24 4:09:39 PM
#52:


PaperSplash posted...
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.

Its not strictly about a story focus, its about allowing for tighter, more focused progression in general.


---
Dokkan ID: 2365415872
... Copied to Clipboard!
PaperSplash
03/26/24 4:18:55 PM
#53:


IceCreamOnStero posted...
Its not strictly about a story focus, its about allowing for tighter, more focused progression in general.
Tighter and more focused how?
... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys
03/26/24 5:16:53 PM
#54:


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

---
twylite sprinkle
http://tinyurl.com/jeqyas3 https://tinyurl.com/mgvx7h2
... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys
03/26/24 5:22:36 PM
#55:


PaperSplash posted...
Tighter and more focused how?
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.

---
twylite sprinkle
http://tinyurl.com/jeqyas3 https://tinyurl.com/mgvx7h2
... Copied to Clipboard!
Pow_Pow_Punishment
03/26/24 6:00:03 PM
#56:


Hybrid. JRPGs like Dragon Quest are a good example. The world map is big and not as linear as a level of hallways like Final Fantasy 13, but you still have a direction to go.

I know it's a me problem but I can't get through games like Breath of the Wild. I get bored of wandering around aimlessly for a long ass time and then dying instantly when I venture into the wrong area with enemies too strong for my current health level.

---
Currently playing: Skyrim, Hearthstone
Training log: https://powpowpunishment.blogspot.com
... Copied to Clipboard!
PaperSplash
03/26/24 6:11:31 PM
#57:


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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Ratchetrockon
03/26/24 6:13:38 PM
#58:


Openworlds are just like a one time experience per year for me.

I prefer closed worlds w/ simple gameplay most of the time. Like point n click adventures and dmc 3 is pretty simple too compared to modern games kinda (cuz don't need much ingame knowledge to succeed just have to be decent at pressing buttons fast)

---
I'm a Taurus. Currently playing: Dragon's Dogma 2 (PC) & DMC3:SE Ubisoft Port (PC)
He/Him
... Copied to Clipboard!
PraetorXyn
03/26/24 8:24:09 PM
#59:


PaperSplash posted...
And to that I will repeat this in response:

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.
When most of them are lazily designed, that may as well be a distinction without a difference.

The bottom line is most open world games are fun for 20 or 30 hours until the new of exploration wears off, then the vast majority of them become increasingly boring, repetitive, and tedious until youre done with them. They feel like 20 hour games padded with 80 hours of tedious crap.

---
https://store.steampowered.com/wishlist/profiles/76561198052113750
... Copied to Clipboard!
PaperSplash
03/26/24 9:56:54 PM
#60:


PraetorXyn posted...
When most of them are lazily designed, that may as well be a distinction without a difference.

The bottom line is most open world games are fun for 20 or 30 hours until the new of exploration wears off, then the vast majority of them become increasingly boring, repetitive, and tedious until youre done with them. They feel like 20 hour games padded with 80 hours of tedious crap.
Okay, but couldn't that simply be an argument for better open world games, not against open worlds themselves?
... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys
03/26/24 10:09:33 PM
#61:


PaperSplash posted...
Open worlds feeling empty or repetitive is the fault of lazy design, not the open world itself
I mean that's the flaw to anything ever. Any game can be bad because of bad design. What I'm saying is I think it takes more skill to make a good open world game than it does to make non open world game. I wouldn't necessarily call it a closed world game either because lots of games have plenty of options in a majority of the games I've played with the best exploration were not open world.

PaperSplash posted...


---
twylite sprinkle
http://tinyurl.com/jeqyas3 https://tinyurl.com/mgvx7h2
... Copied to Clipboard!
PraetorXyn
03/26/24 10:24:57 PM
#62:


PaperSplash posted...
Okay, but couldn't that simply be an argument for better open world games, not against open worlds themselves?
Have you paid attention to the industry at all for the last couple decades? If you had, you wouldnt ask that question.

Publishers are the ones with all the money to fund games, and money is all they care about. Thats why the Rockstsr / Ubisoft open world checklist collectathon formula took over in the first place, because its easy to repeat and it sells well.

They arent going to give developers the time or resources to lovingly craft a world solely for the sake of making a better game, because they dont give two shits if the game is a 2 out of 10 if they think it might do Madden, FIFA, or COD numbers.

Its also just much harder to do a good open world game in terms of world design. Ive been playing them for decades, and I would cite exactly 4 open world games in that regard:
  1. Morrowind
  2. Fallout: New Vegas
  3. Witcher 3
  4. Elden Ring
I cant think of any others Id even say are designed well, much less excellently.

Meanwhile, BioShock 1 and 2, the original Deus Ex, Thief 1 and 2. Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight and its sequels, and many other non-open-world games are masterclasses in atmosphere and level design, giving you plenty of exploration and freedom within the levels themselves, because having a level to design lets you do that far more easily.

---
https://store.steampowered.com/wishlist/profiles/76561198052113750
... Copied to Clipboard!
InTheEyesOfFire
03/26/24 10:41:16 PM
#63:


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


---
"Oh man would you just shut up already, how come all you sword guys have to talk about how cool your swords are?"
... Copied to Clipboard!
foxhound101
03/26/24 10:54:30 PM
#64:


Closed world. Open world is getting over-done and is not enjoyable unless done extremely well.

I even miss the simplicity of things like level select. Like Sonic Adventure 2 which has no over-world. You just advance to the next level or use level select. Which means all the game focus is on the actual levels and not awkward boringness between them.

---
There are a ton of misconceptions about recycling. Learn how to better at recycling: https://onbetterliving.com/simplify-recycling/
... Copied to Clipboard!
PaperSplash
03/26/24 11:44:14 PM
#65:


So yes, open world games are harder to pull off well. And AAA game development is a race to the bottom, I am well aware. But why is the concept of closed worlds preferable to that of open worlds for so many? Is it just because the latter is easier to mess up?
... Copied to Clipboard!
PraetorXyn
03/26/24 11:58:11 PM
#66:


PaperSplash posted...
So yes, open world games are harder to pull off well. And AAA game development is a race to the bottom, I am well aware. But why is the concept of closed worlds preferable to that of open worlds for so many? Is it just because the latter is easier to mess up?
Because in the real world we have observed closed world games turn out to be great games far more consistently, and there are barely any of them now, while open world games are at this point a horse thats been beaten until it died and then its corpse was beaten until it was pulp inside a 20 foot deep hole. Thats how overdone and samey they are.

Open world 100 hour games were great when we were kids with no money who only got games on birthdays and Christmases and had entire Christmas vacations, spring breaks, and summers to game from dawn til dusk replaying the few games we had.

As adults with full time jobs, other responsibilities, and plenty of money to buy whatever games we want (Im sitting on a Steam library of over 1000) but little time to play them, many of us have come to prefer games we feel respect our time, and most open world games are the antithesis of that, as they seem actively designed to waste our time instead.

There are still good ones that are worth playing. I mentioned 4 above. Im finishing up a replay of Cyberpunk 2077 because of the new update and Phantom Liberty, and while Ive enjoyed it, after 106 hours or so with more to go, you can bet your ass Im tired of it and ready for something else.

---
https://store.steampowered.com/wishlist/profiles/76561198052113750
... Copied to Clipboard!
RetuenOfDevsman
03/27/24 8:42:06 AM
#67:


PaperSplash posted...
So yes, open world games are harder to pull off well. And AAA game development is a race to the bottom, I am well aware. But why is the concept of closed worlds preferable to that of open worlds for so many? Is it just because the latter is easier to mess up?
No, it's just at a different point on the continuum between a puzzle and a sandbox. On the sandbox end, you're given more freedom, but your choices only have the meaning you give them. On the puzzle end, your options are more limited but you're rewarded for finding the solution.

Let me illustrate by comparing a similar encounter from three games from the same series: the tanks in Metal Gear, Metal Gear Solid and Metal Gear Solid V, in order from most closed to most open.

MG1's single tank fight involves a tank moving forward and back down a hallway, firing alternately from machine guns on each side. There's really only one solution. You have to wait for it to roll back and start firing from the other gun, run around the corner, place some mines and retreat to safety. The mines are the only weapon that will damage it, and you cannot use them from a distance. You cannot strafe it because of the buildings. You can't even time it differently because of the guns. And it's a lot of fun, because the solution is interesting, because it still takes skill to implement, and because the challenge affords the solution.

In MGS1, the tank is no longer between buildings, so we can strafe it to avoid gunfire if we want. But we still have no anti-tank weaponry except what we will improvise, and leaving cover will get us shot by the main cannon. So we must disable the cannon with chaff grenades, causing the gunner to open the hatch and fire the machine gun and buying you a few seconds to throw frag grenades in the hatch. It's a little more open, as you can approach it from a couple of different directions, and if you remember the mine trick from MG1, that actually does slow it down. And it's still a lot of fun.

Then in MGSV, there are tanks everywhere. And you shoot them. Lame. Or hell, don't even fight them. Double lame. They did, at least, give you an option you can unlock later in the game where you can sneak up on them and capture them. Which is also lame, especially when you actually pull it off.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Nukazie
03/27/24 8:57:21 AM
#68:


elden ring is just perfection but i still prefer the dark souls approach but i would not mind elden ring 2

i kinda hate western open worlds with so much talking and annoying ass quests and item weight limit and shit like that

---
We suffer from the delusion that the entire universe is held in order by the categories of human thought.
... Copied to Clipboard!
#69
Post #69 was unavailable or deleted.
Sufferedphoenix
03/27/24 10:54:24 PM
#70:


I will say I do find some enjoyment in traveling in a open world map provided the scenery or atmosphere is good.

---
I put my heart and soul into my work and I fear I have lost my mind in the process
... Copied to Clipboard!
IceCreamOnStero
03/28/24 9:03:20 PM
#71:


PaperSplash posted...
Tighter and more focused how?
Less bloat, more structure. Instead of having to worry about where to go and how, you just have to focus on executing whatever task.

Kingdom Hearts 1 isn't an open world, but it illustrates my point well. In KH1, navogation is a genuine task, and knowing how to maneuver around the world is just as much of a feature as the combat. Throughout the game exploration and experimentation with the environment leads to rewards. In KH2, the opposite approach is taken. The vast majority of rooms are one way in one way out, platforming is deemphasised and the only that necedsitates backtracking are a few puzzle pieces. Its very much a "closed world" game. While I enjoy KH1's approach, I love KH2's more. It puts the best parts of the game, the combat, at the forefront and creates an excellently paced experience.

Like I said, I don't think open world's are objectively inferior, but over time I've grown more appreciative of games that just take the "here's a strsightforward path, here's some enemies, go kill em" approach.

---
Dokkan ID: 2365415872
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2