[ARTICLE] Do Open Worlds Do More Harm Than Good?

[Phinnway]

[ARTICLE] Do Open Worlds Do More Harm Than Good?

Thought this article was worth a share. It's not strictly about The Witcher 3, but TW3 is one of the main talking points.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/09/09/metal-gear-solid-v-and-the-witcher-3-both-suffer-from-the-same-big-flaw/

The issue at the heart of the article is whether open-world level design is worth the amount of effort that goes into it. The author makes the point that even The Witcher 3 and Metal Gear Solid V - two of the best open-world games to come out in recent years - are unable to escape repetitive gameplay elements.

I don't agree with everything he says. I myself am used to playing boring, repetitive games. The average amount of time I put into a game that I play past 10 hours is probably somewhere around 80 hours. So the repetitive elements in TW3 and MGSV are of no concern to me. But I know quite a few people who are tired of open-world level design. So I thought the article was discussion worthy.

So what do you think? Is TW3's open-world top notch? Or is it too big for it's own good? Should it be half the size without all the generic side content, like monster lairs and guarded treasures?

 

[I___Luffy___I]

I prefer open world games over linear games any day. Gta and AC series being my favorite.
I only became interested in Witcher 3 when i learned its a open world game and i love it. its my first rpg game ever and i finished my first playthrough in around 330 hrs. started my 2nd playthrough now exploring the world is the best thing for me.

If it would have been a linear game i might have not even tried it.
and everyone has their own prefrence some like open world games and some dont.

 

[gtcarlson]

For me I find open world really hurts pacing and attention to detail/polish time. On the other hand when it's done like Witcher 3 it makes it feel like you are in a living breathing world not dragged along through set pieces.

Without knowing what they could/would've done if Witcher 3 was more like Witcher 2 or1 I can't say if it's overall for better or for worse.

 

[Mebrilia]

That mostly depends on how the open world is....

Dull and boring ala skyrim? of course...
Beautiful and interesting ala the witcher3 or Morrowind?...now that is another thing... Open world can be do good if only more producers put more offort and love in their work...

A game can have a lot of open areas but if they are filled with boring fetchquest and same places copy pasted over and over is normal the product is low quality

 

[Phinnway]

Maybe I should add that I think the article is wrong purely on the basis that it's not a question of whether open-world is good or bad. It's a question of whether or not it's appropriate for the game. In a game like MGSV, I'm not really sure what having a giant world with 16 enemy forts really adds over simply having 16 BIG maps of enemy forts. But in a game like Dragon Age, Skyrim, or The Witcher I think an open-world is ideal because it suits the player fantasy. RPGs call to mind epic stories like Lord of The Rings, King Arthur, The Trojan War and whatnot. And part of these stories is going on an epic journey and dealing with kings, evil monsters, and what have you. You really can't invoke that sense of adventure without having a map big enough to embark on a epic journey on.

However, I will say that I do think TW3 could've been half the size. I think if Velen remained the same size, Skellige was half the size, and Novigrad was a segregated map that only included the city (instead of including the surrounding farmlands too) I think that would've been ideal.

 

[Garrison72]

While I feel CDPR overshot the map size and ran out of time/resources to properly fill it out - we know that mere months before release they were implementing the question mark Points Of Interest - there's no way in hell I could go back to the level size TW2 offered. Not for Cyberpunk or any other Witcher game. They got too much right. If the world was say, 20% smaller and then had more unique dungeons, caves, bldgs etc? Sure, that would be ideal. The litmus test for the game is hopping off Roach and traversing on foot. You will experience long stretches of nothing happening. Without randomly generated content like Red Dead, they weren't quite able to nail it. And without the extensive dungeons of Oblivion or Skyrim, the same holds true. Bandit camps and monster nests just don't cut it. But still, they're headed in the right direction and will no doubt refine their approach to open world. As far as open world hurting story, the first act of the game pretty much proves that wrong. The story issues are bound to the writing team, not the level designers.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I'm not familiar with Metal Gear Solid games at all, but in general open world games have a big exploration appeal. I personally quite like it. It's a bend on virtual reality, and combined with RPG type of gameplay you can get a great combination. Some repetitive aspects aren't uncommon even in non-open world RPGs (for instance too much combat). So I'm not sure if openness specifically affects it more.

 

[eisberg77]

In RPGs I don't mind open worlds, especially when done right like Witcher 3, Gothic 1 and 2 did. But for first Person shooters I don't like open worlds. I much prefer linear maps for First Person shooters like Wolfenstein New Order.

 

[vesemas228]

From my experiences playing mmos (from loving them to being mortified at being suckered into what are increasingly just monetization platforms).. repetitiveness and tedium are in the eye of the beholder.

Eg, if you're a video game blogger, have no interested in the game, and yet have an article deadline due on friday, something like the witcher 3 is going to cause lots of curses and screaming. Further, curses and screaming also generate clicks, so all the better.

If you want to get immersed in a game setting however, the scorecard of a game literally has different checkboxes.

If all you want is a bunch of connected rollercoaster rides the grading changes completely again.

Completely subjective. Billions of people like candy crush...????

Also, i'm not exactly sure what he was looking for, again outside structure for a blog post.. " Yes, there are some cool areas, but those areas are spread out across a map that was designed with quantity in mind first, and quality second." Is just false. W3 is by a great league forward the most detailed handcrafted environments i've ever seen. Other games have hit perfect in environment design as well, but not at this detail or scope. Hire better contractors forbes.

 

[warbaby2]

Funny, this debate seams to crop up more and more since MGSV and MAD MAX hit, with the latter being a real negative example as to how open world should not be done.

Personally, I think it's starting to loose it's novelty a bit... it also makes it to easy for developers to get away with thin/sloppy stories and replaces engaging, tight gameplay with padding and grindy busywork. As cookie cutter as some of those new open world games are, the illusion starts to wear thin.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

also makes it to easy for developers to get away with thin/sloppy stories and replaces engaging, tight gameplay with padding and grindy busywork. As cookie cutter as some of those new open world games are, the illusion starts to wear thin.

I think few actually ever made good open world games. Bethesda tried, and Morrowind was good, but later ones were not. So quality wore off a while ago already. TW3 was supposed to actually bring it back.

 

[GW3NTLORD]

For me open world is good for games like GTA but for games like Wither its really boring for sure. I love unexpected troubles, quests with puzzle solving, curiosity about further items, quests, monsters, enemies, other characters & almost about everything which Wicther 3 kills everything with its so called open world thing.

The main thing they did wrong is giving unknown location markers on map which kills the game by 50%. I mean if you are going for open world then let us explore it without any hint or warning about what's next going to happen. So for me...

Open World - Kills the location/quest suspense & thrill as even when you are getting quest later you are already familiar with that location because you have already discover it.
? mark locations on map - If you are giving location about everything on map then why the fuck open world is for ?? as well these quests are so repetitive & gives almost same loot. sadly no unique weapons in W3 like previous series.
Gwent - Nice game but ruined almost every character/monster looks. I wish they blurred/locked AI gwent images till that character/monster entry is going to update in our bestiary.
Advance Level Loot - We are getting advanced swords/armor diagrams by discovering open world location which killing suspense about advanced equipments.

So Open world is bad & nothing in this game forcing me to play more & more due to its all open things. At level 20 I have idea about White Orchard, Velen, Novigrad locations & I almost discover every part of Skillage plus level 30+ sword, armor diagrams plus almost every bomb, decotion, oil magic/relic recipe so now everything looks so familiar & unsurprising which makes my game play super boring.


Btw I am not against the open world but it should be unlocked only after some points & developers should keep that "Whats going to happen Next" feeling at least in RPG genre.

 

[mecha_fish]

Was an open world format appropriate for the Witcher 3?

Yes.

Was it executed well?

I'd say also yes. Not perfect, still bits to iron out and I can definitely see that in the future RPGs will be taking full advantage of all the ideas that came to the table during production of the Witcher 3 (i.e. the living breathing world that responds to your actions, the bandits that can loot villages if you kill too many local monsters, the wolves that hunt deer and actually kill them, the corpses that attract monsters/animals of different preferences (e.g. rotten meat vs freshly killed) and so on)

Maybe CDPR bit off more than they could chew, but I think they did pretty well and have a lot of promise as they make more games and improve their ethic.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@mecha_fish: I think for such alive world it's better to look at upcoming Underworld Ascendant. They really made a point to make a comprehensive system for it including biomes and ecology:
https://underworldascendant.com/news/65_update.php

However it's a dungeon crawler and not an open world game.

 

[mecha_fish]

However it's a dungeon crawler and not an open world game.

IDC I'M DOWN.

 

[GW3NTLORD]

when players are talking about "living breathing world" I just want to laugh as these are games & for me games have most important purpose witch is "Entertainment & Fun" Its not possible even in 2050 to make so called perfect "living breathing world" as its impossible & at least for me I really don't need it.

I always love old game like Mafia, Return to castle wolfstain, Prince of Persia - WW, Max Payne 2 due to the fact of great story but now days many games are only focusing on Graphics like Max Payne 3, Far Cry 4 etc. So In near futer also I will going to prefer good story game with decent graphics which going to give me pleasure after my hard work.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

IDC I'M DOWN.

Yeah, I like how they aren't scared of innovating and actually moving things forward in how the game world is made. Here is their post about ecology: https://underworldascendant.com/news/410_update.php

 

[OptoNick]

Depends.

Take Gothic series, for example. Open world never slows down the pace of the story, because roaming and exploring was necessary for progression, it was a part of the story - open world served its purpose, in all of 3 games.

In TW3 it's not. Main quests are always include task 'go to predetermined destination'. And in the only one case when it's kinda not, The Lord of Undvik, we found ourselves on island with a corridor-like terrain; multipath, but still corridor-like linear.
I like open-world in TW3, and there's no big problems with itself, it's just quiet detached from the main story.

As for repetitiveness: give people +100 XP and new sword for completing repetitive tasks, and they'll be utterly happy - that's how all RPGs in history worked, work, and will work It's ok, and it's still could be fun in TW3 after few hundreds of gameplay hours

GTA-like games, MGS V, etc. works differently, no point to compare their takes on open world.

 

[Sardukhar]

"More Harm Than Good" might not be as accurate as "To What Degree are They Worth The Extra Effort", perhaps.

By this I mean that the time and resources devoted to creating an open-world game that is as seductive, complex and involving as, say Deus Ex or Witcher 2 does seem to mean that corners have to be cut to fill that world. And to what degree is it worth your time as a player to wander around on filler quests?

It's hard to say what ratio would satisfy the most requirements. I, too, have no wish to go back to WItcher 2 scale. But I did find Witcher 3 somewhat more..vague near the end. I find MGS 5 almost more like menu-dining for game choices: kidnap? murder? investigate? Select flavour and have meal, repeat. Dessert is research andbase building.

I'd like to feel like a Story is happening all around me, as I adventure through the world. Not so much I wander around and do these "Select Accept To Begin Next Phase of Story" missions. Feels too canned.

So as far as I'm concerned, there is much depth and breadth of gameplay and world-immersion left to be explored in the open-world style.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

when players are talking about "living breathing world" I just want to laugh as these are games & for me games have most important purpose witch is "Entertainment & Fun" Its not possible even in 2050 to make so called perfect "living breathing world" as its impossible & at least for me I really don't need it.

Different people look for different things in an RPG. Making a perfect world (or to correctly phrase it, to perfectly simulate the real world) is almost analogous to creating the real world itself, including simulating the mind, and I don't think game developers have such lofty goals However it doesn't mean that games can't improve and not be stuck in limitations from the past. Technology improves, computing power is not like it was 20 years ago and so are tools that developers have. So are they used to full potential in games? Far from it. That's why innovation there is something to be welcomed.