Anyone else have Open World Fatigue?

+
Talonvor;n8801040 said:
You do realize that side quests are not required to complete the main story in the vast majority of open world RPGs, don't you?

There's also the point of view that it's a bad deal for the player if only a third of the game is "enjoyable".

Why not make the "filler" less "filler" - like, more interconnectedness and rippling consequences from your activities - and have it arranged so that the player avoids it mostly due to circumstances he's created (e.g. being someones friend = being the otherones enemy; and chosen characterbuild allowing certain -proverbial- doors to open but not others...) and not out of boredom or frustration, rather than handwaving the valid complaint away with a "you can skip it" (that often leads to skipping the whole game).
 
Last edited:
I used to dream about open world games when I was younger, but I quickly discovered that it's not my thing. I am really tired of open world games given how they're crafted today. With limited time and resources developers have to make a choice: They can design massive open worlds that feels (inevitably) relatively lifeless; or they can design games with a restricted hub system, in which they can invest a lot of creative energy in order to make it an incredibly rich and exciting experience.

I prefer a rich condensed environment that is immersive, with characters that feel alive. I loved Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I didn't care about the fact that I was confined to a hub, because the world felt so alive and exciting. I remember playing the Elder Scrolls (IV and V); I felt so disconnected from the world and I quickly tired of the whole experience. I really respect what Bethesda created with the Elder Scrolls franschise, but it's not something I want to invest much time and energy into.

I think it's vital that Cyperpunk 2077 feels alive and exciting. It's important that we feel connected to the world and the characters. It has to be immersive.
 
Last edited:
Neuronin;n8813820 said:
I think it's vital that Cyperpunk 2077 feels alive and exciting. It's important that we feel connected to the world and the characters. It has to be immersive.
I think the folks at CDPR feel the same way.

After all they got that grant from the Polish Government :
"Comprehensive technology for the creation of “live”, playable in real-time, cities of great scale based on the principles of artificial intelligence and automation and taking into account the development of innovative processes and tools supporting the creation of high-quality open world games."

Something like 7 million JUST for city building. And unlike some (infamous) Kickstarters where they fritter away or pocket the money CDPR will actually use it as intended.

Will it be perfect?
Probably not.
But consider Novograd in Witcher 3 ... it wasn't half bad. So added to that practical experience we have a team 2-4 times larger, more time, and more money.
 
Last edited:
Calistarius;n8607660 said:
Another cool thing to would be if in each hub area you had a choice of maybe 3 or 4 different locations in the area to pick from. Where each different safehouse/base of operations location give the player different kinds of bonuses/effects. Like one location could be a lot more secure, so that the chance of you being found/attacked in your "home" is a lot smaller.

Mike Pondsmith talked exactly about the felling of danger the players could have due to the possibility of being attacked anywhere at anytime. Buying a

gun and getting better with your skills are not only about making the game easier, but rather about the survival in the streets of Night City. Survival is about

hostility, self preservation and most importantly about the unpredictability of events, thus exploring a dangerous city, having the necessity of adaptation

and not knowing what could happen next, both during main missions and during the world exploration, are the factors that make this feeling possible.
 
Suhiira;n8815190 said:
But consider Novograd in Witcher 3 ... it wasn't half bad. So added to that practical experience we have a team 2-4 times larger, more time, and more money.

The (big) problem with places like Novigrad - like all "big bustling cities" - is that while it is a neatly set up simulation, 90% of it exists only for the player to walk through (over and over and over) and look at. The level of meaningful interactivity is negligable at best (it feels more like showing off, than well designed section of a game).
 
Novograd had like 2-3 floors. Nighcity could have any number of floors. Maybe 30 in some skyscrapper.
To be true about novograd even "just streets to walk on" was sometimes used for escort, or spy npc.
It helps immersion to have that one hub where we can just walk along and feel the city, do some quests.
However if in addition to that there will be some instances i would dont mind. (similar to Bloodlines or Deus Ex).
However... CP allows to get own bike or hover car. And that brings "just walking" to the whole new level.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n8821960 said:
The (big) problem with places like Novigrad - like all "big bustling cities" - is that while it is a neatly set up simulation, 90% of it exists only for the player to walk through (over and over and over) and look at. The level of meaningful interactivity is negligable at best (it feels more like showing off, than well designed section of a game).

My greatest fear is that Cyberpunk 2077 will be this empty wasteland, this and spiders, I hate spiders.
 
Lisbeth_Salander;n8822630 said:
and spiders, I hate spiders.

Come on... Look hod sad it is now.




More seriously though, I'd dislike it if the game ended up something like GTA (or even Witcher 3) with a huge cardboard world that looks very nice but that's where it all ends.
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n8823280 said:
More seriously though, I'd dislike it if the game ended up something like GTA (or even Witcher 3) with a huge cardboard world that looks very nice but that's where it all ends.
That need some explanation, since nice landschaft is just preatty. If game gives this moment of slowly roaching at sunset throught white orchand to fight some epic monster... i would take "just" it.
What more could be done, and does any game did it.

Some potencial if player action and background affecting open world and npc reactions. Like if we kill a lot of cops, there will be less patrol on streets and more crime. Or we can just blow up some bridge or building, and it will no more be there. Or we can spread some epidemy.
However... in witcher 3 there was some options which make witch hunters be more visious.

 
kofeiiniturpa;n8823280 said:
Come on... Look hod sad it is now.




More seriously though, I'd dislike it if the game ended up something like GTA (or even Witcher 3) with a huge cardboard world that looks very nice but that's where it all ends.

This is the only kind of spider that I like. Imagine entering a war in the combat zone with one of these.

 
Lisbeth_Salander;n8830170 said:
This is the only kind of spider that I like. Imagine entering a war in the combat zone with one of these.

That only has six limbs though, hence not a spider. :cool:

 
I have no Open-World fatigue but the problem i have is, that most often all of these Open-Worlds nowadays are filled up with unnecessary collectibles and stuff. And Side-quests that are just there to make you run from one place to another without an interesting background. Everything needs to be bigger and vast nowadays, but then these worlds end up empty or just uninteresting. That's the main problem.

Many developers even ruin their games by doing that, for example Mafia 3. Everything except the Open World is good in Mafia 3...but sadly the Open-World makes a big part of it, as it implemented into the Game.

But i would really like to see some more linear Games again, where you follow one path, but you have still some room to explore like Deus Ex or Metro 2033 for example.
 
I'm going all the way back to the OP on this one. I've often wondered what happened to the old Obsidian Infinity Engine system of selecting a "voice pack" for your character that had a distinctive personality. (Granted, they were way hammy at the time, but good fun all the same.) I'm not sure why, with all the dialogue that's generated for modern games, they don't cast a whole bunch of "main characters". Then, as part of character creation, you can pick the voice you want, overall attitude, select animation packages for how your character walks and stands, etc.

I think such a subtle thing would actually make multiple playthroughs much more enjoyable. Say I play through once as low-key, stealthy type, watching my character move about very elegantly. The next time, I'll probably be more tempted to pick up a rocket-launcher and charge in roaring if I play a hulking dude with a gravelly voice who's always rolling his shoulders when standing still. I think that would encourage trying various playstyles.
 
The problem is the amount of voiced dialog expected in modern games (all of it !). It's not just the cost of voice actors but also the number and size of voice files needed. And what if something changes? You'd need to track down and re-record multiple voice actors and update multiple audio files.
 
I actually prefer open-world by default, as I'm generally a sandbox-fan. Singleplayer open worlds might be tricky however due to the need of lots of content or care to fill the huge spaces, whereas multiplayer sandboxes usually have the players deal with that.

At the end, I think SP open world focused games have pros and cons. It's ironic in away, the large world spaces that many consider as beneficial or positive can have drawbacks at the same time, such as the sheer size or option to go into any direction or change the order of events almost appearing as overwhelming or tiresome. Telling a story can (doesn't have to) also be harder in such games if a lot is up to random chance or if the pace is drawn out.

Opposed to this, specific singleplayer games with limited maps where you follow the story almost like a rollercoaster on rails are restricted more, but maybe often better at telling stories as the flow is more direct and condensed. At the end of the day I still prefer open world / sandbox SP RPGs or similar games.

The average SP game with a condensed story, I usually finish within a short time. 20 to 40 hours maybe? Maybe a bit more?

These open world RPGs and whatnot such as Fallout / Skyrim? Countless hours. Many more than 40 at least, and if the game is mod friendly, it can only add to hours and thus result in a good price for a game, given the invested hours.

At the end of the day I prefer the freedoms to pick various sides or go to various locations in no specific order. Open world might not be perfect or have perceived flaws, but for me the benefits usually outweigh the cons. Currently playing FO4 from the start and on survival again. Sure, it's tiresome at times but that's the overall challenge. Build something anew (on survival) from the ground up where you want.
 
I guess it should be defined what kind of "open world is meant.

This is as much an open world:




as this:


But there is the obvious difference in how they work.

Talking merely about the concepts - not the games that are presented there - the latter presentation of an open world is what I'm tired of.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom