"Open World" RPGs vs. "Narrative RPGs"

[Deleted]

If you look at the spectrum of popular RPGs we are blessed with they all take a different approach towards their game-play and design.

The Elder Scroll series in particular stands out as an RPG series that defines itself via the openness, vastness and detail of it's world. In fact, the world is often the focal point of the whole game where as the narrative is often just an afterthought. Most of the player enjoyment comes from exploring and building their character builds.

There used to be much more of these "open world" RPGs but TES series is by far the most popular.

Now on the other extreme we have very "driven" RPGs who's main focus is on telling an epic tail with relate-able characters and lots of drama. In a way they try to be as cinematic as possible. Popular examples would include the Mass Effect series and the Witcher 2.

Now these are just extremes I'm talking about. Obviously all RPGs contain an element of exploration and character building but to very different degrees.

Now, the actual quality of the product aside, what type of RPGs do you generally favor? The more "open world" one's or the more "driven" one's, each with their respective Strengths and Weaknesses.

Edit: This is about RPGs, not MMO's. Damn you brain!

[Blackout15]

Personally enjoy open world rpgs like fallout and skyrim more than other forms of rpgs. I like the feeling of being able to do anything whenever i want, and that my decisions in the game effect the game world as a whole. In skyrim all i did on the first character i made was explore alot of the world, running through dungeons filled with draugr or trying to find as many dragon shrines as possible. Ive now made a new char with a different set of abilities im focusing on and even though im now following the quests i still like being able to take a break from them or side track mid quest to investigate something interesting.

[mystik]

I don't much enjoy open world much. Oblivion wasn't interesting or very fun FOR ME. I much prefer the Bioware model.

[Caiada]

I'd rather have a balance between the two. Focusing on an open world hurts the central narrative (example: every Bethesda game), but gives the player less choice. Focusing on a strong central narrative gives the player less choice, but a superior linear experience.

I enjoy linear experiences more, but I get engrossed in open world experiences for longer.

[Enders]

Quite simple for me... some games work as open world, some work better as a more linear experience. I don't really have any preference so long as the game plays to its strengths.

[Digglett]

I like both, it really depends on my mood.

[Edge-]

If I had to pick, I'd pick narrative RPG's over open world. That being said though, why can't you have both? I'm all for RPG's that have a strong, driving narrative, but give you ample opportunity to stray off and do your own thing from time to time.

[Deleted]

I love narrative gameplay alot and Bioware has indeed made some great games that supports this gameplay. That being said, I tend to love open world even more. With the ability to do excactly what I want, when I want it is so compelling to me. Sure, you need the occasional sense of urgency, but too much of it tends to just stress me rather than work as I use the games, to relieve my stress.

That's probably one of the reasons I enjoy Skyrim as much as I do. Heck, on an 'alt' character I play from time to time, I'm a Wood Elf with an elven bow, clothes (Green) boots (Green) and a cowl (Green) using Ancient Nord arrows which makes me appear alot like a ranger. He's married to the girl who owns a lumber mill and lives there with her, going hunting from time to time at night, but I sometimes just spend my in-game day time chopping lumber. Equivalent to WoW's fishing I suppose although less rewarding in terms of items and achivements, it lets me just take a deep breath and think what my character might be thinking, feel his way of feeling and immerse myself ito him looking forward to go hunting again.

[Deleted]

Hmm, to be honest, I don't have a clear preference. It depends on how the game is made, but generally, considering two RPGs of equal quality, I tend to go for the open world one.

But a perfect single player RPG for me would be a Skyrim with Biowares companion model. Basically that you get to know them better, chat with them, they are essential so die only when the whole group is dead or you die only when all companions are dead and they would have a bigger story and personal quests.

[Deleted]

That being said though, why can't you have both? I'm all for RPG's that have a strong, driving narrative, but give you ample opportunity to stray off and do your own thing from time to time.

I think i could enjoy something like a Planescape Torment 2 (same authors for dialogue) in a Skyrim sized open world, running its creation engine. Maybe fallouts combat system(VATS and bullet-time for spellcasting).

[Twoflower]

I dont see any fun in running along a pre-defined path. I dont read quest texts. If I want some epic story, I read a book. I play mmorpg's for the interaction with other people.

[VXFadhel]

Both are fun to play. To each got disadvantages and advantages. Some people get lost in "open world" RPGS and others just trivialize the game. While in 'narrative' RPGs you might want to get off the "road" and do something different for a while but you cant because its not there. Combination of both is the best, you get some of this and that.

A good example of 'narrative' and 'open' is Megaman/Rockmen, you can kill bosses randomly (its doable but might be hard for some) or use the their weakness to kill them. You can kill the easy boss (which might have a harder stage) first to gain his weapon or go with the easy stage but hard boss (can be easy). Some might think its "open" since you can do any stage in any order you like which is true, but you can also follow the weaknesses thing as well. Its stage driven, not RPG, keep that in mind of course. Hope I didn't derail the thread or something.

[Rocketsurgeon]

The more open, the better. I can count all the narrative-free rpgs I've played on one hand. There's always some point or purpose. Being free to go about it in the manner you wish is what really makes a gameworld come alive for me.
I think back to the first Fallout game. Your vault breaks. You need to find a replacement part. You've got a year to get it. Good luck, champ! You choose the direction you travel in, the urgency you have for the main objective, and your associations with the different groups you meet. Thats beautiful design.

[Kisho]

If I'm forced to choose, I'd lean more towards the Narrative driven RPGs, which are more linear but generally have a much stronger story as a result. As an amateur writer myself I have a soft spot for stories in general, and if a game has a bad story it can really kill my enjoyment of it. This is why I absolutely loved Dragon Age and Mass Effect: the stories are simply superb (with ME being superior, but DA still holding its own remarkably well) and I can get truly lost in it. I can feel for the characters; I get excited, sad, angry, frustrated, determined, scared and all the rest, right alongside the characters.

That said, open world RPGs definitely have their appeal. I've recently been loving Skyrim, as the obvious example. I also really enjoyed Oblivion. These both have a good enough story, but it's definitely sacrificed in favour of more freedom. Which is fine; it just appeals to a different personality than mine.

But honestly, I count ME and ME2 as some of the best story-telling I've seen in a game to date. So yes... If I have to choose, I definitely go for Narrative-driven RPGs. A good story is what makes or break a game for me, after all.

[Flextt]

Well, I enjoy both a LOT. Mass Effect 1 and Fallout 3 are two of my favorite games and represent their niche very well, so I cannot really decide between the two, as ME's story feels so epic, while I also enjoyed exploring every inch of the world in Fallout 3 and saw cool stuff, e.g. the cannibalist village lol.

Generally, I like open worlds if there is a lot to discover. Skyrim kinda lacks it. For me, it feels like they sacrificed quality for quantity. There are LOADS of locations and the world is huge, the landscape is beautiful, but on the other hand, there is not much going on.

Then again, I like narrative RPGs, if I feel strongly motivated by the story.
So I guess, a decent combination of the two would be the perfect RPG for me

[Drakhar]

Open world, always and forever. That is what an RPG should be, for both MMO and single player. Story-driven content is nice, but the freedom is what makes it an RPG.

Burn the rails they placed in front of you and travel out into the unknown.

[Crusch]

Open world all the way.

Games like Mass Effect bore me in a minute.

[BatteredRose]

I kinda like both actually, so it's difficult for me to pick. I suppose it depends what I'm in the mood for at the time.

[Deleted]

my preferred choice would be an RPG with an a lengthy main narrative with tons of optional side stuff to do. My main complaint with Skyrim is it takes very little to get daedric armor and when you do there is no challenge in the game. Such things should come as a reward from doing lengthy side stuff and fighting tough bosses so the player doesnt feel so cheated wearing them.

[Valeron]

I will cop-out and say both. If they are well made then I enjoy them equally.