Moon, if one region is the size of a game you define as open world, does that not make it so?
It seems the definition you're proposing is almost useless, tbh.
It seems the definition you're proposing is almost useless, tbh.
hmmm the DA:I comparison.
Well let me first say that I have no idea on the exact terminologies that these games classify to.
As far as I know, DA:I is predominantly regarded as HUBS and not as an open world and my best guess for this reason is because the entire world is not immediately available on the get go and that some certain areas in certain key quests are no longer traversable after the player has completed that portion.
I believe in the case of W3, devs have said that players can go back (and are encouraged to) to places like white orchard area after the prologue to see how some decisions you made have affected them in the future
Well let me first say that I have no idea on the exact terminologies that these games classify to.
As far as I know, DA:I is predominantly regarded as HUBS and not as an open world and my best guess for this reason is because the entire world is not immediately available on the get go and that some certain areas in certain key quests are no longer traversable after the player has completed that portion.
I believe in the case of W3, devs have said that players can go back (and are encouraged to) to places like white orchard area after the prologue to see how some decisions you made have affected them in the future
Last edited:
What have in common GTA, Watch_Dogs, Just Cause 2, Gothic, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout, Morrowind?
One world.
The term "world" means the entire area of the game, and if the player is allowed to walk from A to B without loading screens or artificial walls, then the world (the entire area of the game) is open.
If the the area is divided in multiple areas, then the world...is not open. Then it is simply a free roaming because the player is allowed to walk from A to B in those limited areas, but not in the entire world.
So Gothic 2 is no longer an open-world game just because it had the loading screen to the Old Mine Colony?
I don't agree that a world has to be seamless to have an open world design. GTA3 is often regarded as the blueprint for open world games, yet I'm sure it had a load screen between the main area and the next one.In fact, Inquisition is not an Open World. Inquisition is a free roaming with Open Areas.
An open world means just one single area without loading screens.
Like those:
I though "multi region" means that this single area is divided in three regions, which are different in terms of level design and art direction.
I guess we'll discover that when the game comes out.
"In an open world there is the possibility to have some small extra area with a loading screen (for example, Liberty City in San Andreas, or the prologue in GTA V),"
And if I remember well, the mine colony is just the last chapter of the game. And,except for that, there aren't loading screens in Gothic 2.
So I think that in The Witcher 3 we will able to walk from Novigrad to Vyzima without loading screens. I'm not sure of that, of course, but that is my feeling about this matter.
Last edited:
Doesn't really matter if it's the last chapter or the first, and neither was it small for that matter, for all intents and purposes it was as big as in the previous game (regarded an open world game). So why can't Witcher 3 be considered open world by these standards?
Of course it matters, Kinley.
The world in Gothic 2 is not divided. The old mine is just another single module, separated from the game's world. Like that small part of Liberty City in San Andreas, or Ludendorff in GTA V.
The mine colony, in the The Witcher 3 could be the equivalent of Kaer Morhen.
So there are 3 regions but 2 of them is side by side so they are seamless(novigrad and no man's land)? and Skellig is so far away it didn't make sense to connect them to the these 2? So actually there are 2 big maps and 3 regions? (any objections so far?) Damn.. so close to be an open-world. Devs should delete the Skellig Islands and we'll have the open-world we desperately wanted. Move on people it's not an open world. Pack your bags.
You can continue to hold on to that notion, I for one do not subscribe to it. Maybe a poll is in order?
Skellige can be considered its own "module" as you call it. The Mine Colony in Gothic was separated from the game world by a loading screen, but you could travel to and from it whenever you wanted and it also had its place in the game world geographically. I consider size and moment of introduction of said map in the game to be irrelevant. Witcher 3, for all intents and purposes is an open-world game.
I really don't understand why people get so hung up on definitions to be honest, does the fact that Witcher 3 is multi-region affect its quality as an open world game in any way?
No.. There are 3 huge maps. And you can go from one to another with fast travel and there will be a loading screen. However each of these maps are open worlds. Meaning you can roam and do whatever you want. Seriously you can't call Witcher 3 not open because of this.
There are two huge maps containing three regions (Skellige archipelago being one, Novigrad and No Man's Land being the other), then additional smaller maps (White Orchard, Kaer Morhen, maybe others that were not revealed yet). Traveling to each of these map requires a loading screen because traveling seamlessly wouldn't make much sense since they are so geographically far apart from each other.
Ok. So... is Assassin's Creed 2 an open world? Is Assassin's Creed 1 an open world?
Hate to clarify but I was being sarcastic. Apparently I didn't do a good job.
Isnt this division between free roaming and open world a bit useless?
In practice, having just a few loading screens between huge regions is pretty much the same as an open world with no divisions, gameplay is largely the exact same, so it doesnt help us much to describe anything important really.
So why use free roaming, to describe the kind of map that basically every game has? because most games have divided maps.
If I tell you "hey, TW3 is a free roaming game", that could be like TW1, i need go and say "yeah but look at open world games, TW3 has open world sized maps but they are not fully open, its free roaming", doesnt make much sense. Plus what does free roaming mean, you have different levels of freedom, and all games have certain places locked up, whats the difference between a free roaming game and one thats not? or are all free roaming games open world then? And what about free roaming open world sized games that eventually turn into a fully open world with no blocks and no divisions?
In practice, having just a few loading screens between huge regions is pretty much the same as an open world with no divisions, gameplay is largely the exact same, so it doesnt help us much to describe anything important really.
So why use free roaming, to describe the kind of map that basically every game has? because most games have divided maps.
If I tell you "hey, TW3 is a free roaming game", that could be like TW1, i need go and say "yeah but look at open world games, TW3 has open world sized maps but they are not fully open, its free roaming", doesnt make much sense. Plus what does free roaming mean, you have different levels of freedom, and all games have certain places locked up, whats the difference between a free roaming game and one thats not? or are all free roaming games open world then? And what about free roaming open world sized games that eventually turn into a fully open world with no blocks and no divisions?
oh se they've included Novigrad and No Man's land in one single map. I didn't know. Well this is even better
. Regarding the other smaller maps do you think they'll be accessible during the game until the end or only during prologue and tutorial?