Anyone else hoping next gen breaks the trend of AAA open world exhaustion?

[Echeyakee]

People call it open world exhaustion, but it's a bad term. Look at Disco Elysium. It's an open world game, but nobody is complaining about it. So what people are tired of are... ubisoft games. Games that are chock full of paltry and busywork things that keep you playing but provide no real enjoyment. Unfortunately they are also incredibly good at keeping players "engaged" as humans like clearing things off a list and completing small, manageable tasks.

And with every damn AAA game having wet dreams of being a world hit P2P live service trash, I don't see it going away. Also halo is now open world game with map markers, so don't get your hopes up.

[ryanmahaffe]

I don't have issues with games moving in the more open approach, in fact my personal tastes would have most games being mmo-lites or open world games anyway
My big issue is that devs aren't trying to make interesting open worlds, just bigger ones. I would rather a world that takes 30 minutes to traverse that is filled with interesting vistas and activities than a bland uninteresting world that takes 5 hours to cross.

[Athulua]

open world seems to be FOTM of 2010-2020 decade.
Just like WW2 shooters were produced by the dozens in early 2000's.
it was a nice change of pace, as the technology started to allow producers to actually create those big open world maps that don't have annoying loading screens everywhere.

I like open world games that allow you to simply have fun, without dropping a ton of menial busywork on you.

Some of the best memories I have is with Just Cause 2. I barely touched the story in this game, i went to just explore and steal stuff. The map in this game was absolutely massive. Way bigger than any RPG i played or any GTA game i played.

[Agent Smith]

Some open world games have a bunch of pointless/bad side content that just wastes your time. And sometimes that side content is mandatory to progress. In this instance, Open World is indeed bad.

Of course there are games like Bethesda's titles and The Witcher 3 that use the Open World format really well and enhance their games greatly as a result.

Im not sure I agree. I mean I understand what you're saying, but in an open world, its not 'wasting time' unless you're just trying to blow passed the main story line? I was never in any hurry to blow passed any game. I love these games too much to feel like side quests are a waste of time.

What I love about WoW is, they mark their main quests with a more orange/amber exclamation point color and the rest are pure yellow.

I should be honest and add that, I am indeed taking the term "Open World" and only talking about my experience playing the Fallout games and GTA-V. So maybe you're right? Maybe.

P.S. I never played any Witcher game.

[Poppincaps]

Im not sure I agree. I mean I understand what you're saying, but in an open world, its not 'wasting time' unless you're just trying to blow passed the main story line? I was never in any hurry to blow passed any game. I love these games too much to feel like side quests are a waste of time.

What I love about WoW is, they mark their main quests with a more orange/amber exclamation point color and the rest are pure yellow.

I should be honest and add that, I am indeed taking the term "Open World" and only talking about my experience playing the Fallout games and GTA-V. So maybe you're right? Maybe.

P.S. I never played any Witcher game.

The issue is that in some open world games, the difference in quality between the main quest and the side content is pretty significant. I'd rather just play the Main Story that is good than have to play a bunch of side content that is so basic and uninteresting.

Also the two open world games you picked are some of the best ones lol. There are some that are a lot worse.

[Skizzit]

Im not sure I agree. I mean I understand what you're saying, but in an open world, its not 'wasting time' unless you're just trying to blow passed the main story line? I was never in any hurry to blow passed any game. I love these games too much to feel like side quests are a waste of time.

What I love about WoW is, they mark their main quests with a more orange/amber exclamation point color and the rest are pure yellow.

I should be honest and add that, I am indeed taking the term "Open World" and only talking about my experience playing the Fallout games and GTA-V. So maybe you're right? Maybe.

P.S. I never played any Witcher game.

Side quests that are actual quests with have stories and such are fine. The Witcher 3 was great for this. The problem is games like the Assassin's Creed series that has stuff put in the game for no reason other than to pad out the runtime. Talking stuff like a ton of little camps or towns on the map that have no story, just a list of generic tasks that repeat over and over. Like kill X number of baddies, take out the head baddie, collect X number of random items, find the one special item, free X number of prisoners, and so on. A little of t his is fine, but the AC games has just gotten worse and worse. I swear AC Odyssey was 75% that sort of thing with 25% actual unique missions.

[kaintk]

Serious question what open world game released recently doesn't allow fast travel? I can't think of one. So not sure what to take of this post.

well not released ashe of creation will be very limited fast traveling

[Poppincaps]

But these games would've likely be just as bad and boring if they were linear with questhubs and stuff like that. If they can't pull off interesting side content in an open world, they wouldn't magically have done it in another format. "Kill 5 boars" is just as uninteresting in a corridor as in an open world.

Neither open world nor linear corridors are inherently better than the other, it's the execution. But many think they can do good marketing with "an open world as big as 5x Russia!" and poor fools fall for that.

Not magically, but the time spent creating and populating an open world could instead be put into making more interesting side quests. And I'm not saying that linear or open world is better than the other, but I do think that a lot of games have adopted the open world genre because it's the "new hotness" when they really didn't need to.

[Tech614]

well not released ashe of creation will be very limited fast traveling

I'm not in the business of comparing shitty, soon to be mailed MMOs to AAA open world SP games.

[zhero]

I've found myself once again longing for tightly controlled, curated levels and cross sections/"corridors" that allow for far more detailed environmental storytelling and set pieces. Being handed a wide open map now just makes me sigh and wonder how much of it is tedious checkpoint unlocking, camp clearing and the same 6 things on repeat like the "Ubishit" archetype making a visit once again. Like puzzles and bosses have taken such a dramatic step back in favour of the same 'climbing up the yellow painted thing' naughty dog 'cinematic platforming' and 'kill a camp/horde' on repeat as a replacement and i feel like creativity and variety has really suffered as a result.

But they still make money so i can't be a common opinion right?

Whats your take on the idea, do you want another gen and another 5+ years of open world games being the focus of the majority of big budget releases? Are things like Another Horizon and another Spiderman having you excited for more years of map clearing checkpoint gameplay?

it isn't a more detailed experience caused by corridor style gameplay, just a controlled/linear one. a game choosing linear gameplay, in my opinion, is a step backwards, towards interactive movies, becoming just a story and less of an interactive experience.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with open world games, just the things trashy/lazy developers add to fill it.

[Daedius]

Open Worlds for me is a double edge sword. If it's too large I'd find it daunting, and quickly lose interest with the game after being side tracked so much.

[Ragnarohk]

I'm looking for the (almost?) total opposite. Are there any new games like Heavy Rain / Beyond Two Souls / Life is Strange? Interactive drama/action adventure. I like the cinematic experience with the ability to chime in and make decisions.

If anybody could recommend one I would appretiate it.

[EllieNora]

I know what you're saying because it wouldn't hurt me to have a linear game with dlc adding more storylines on again. You know, kinda closer to Resident Evil, this is a zone, you do your objective in this zone and you move on. Biohazard 6 had it perfect.

[Ausr]

I have to stagger playing open world games or else I just get burned out on them. I played AC Odyssey *for example* and noticed for open world games, I want to complete them, but I feel it just becomes serious tedious shit and I just want to get over. Then I don't play another open world game till after I play an RPG or something more linear.

They're essentially the current gen's collect-a-thon games that was prevalent during the PS1-2, N64 days.

[RampageBW1]

There's nothing inherently wrong with Open World games; it's what is done in the world that counts and how it's populated.

I like Linear games too, HL2 was one of the best games I've ever played. But I also like exploring my surroundings, and that's something that is not really done in games that rely on linear paths.

If anything, I am tired of game developers making games that are set in an open world, but populate that world as if it were linear. "That mountain, you can climb it and there's nothing up there" is entirely the wrong approach to open world. If there's nothing up there, it might as well not be there at all. I mean, I guess it means that Open World games would take longer to develop, but if the pay off is a populated world, then it's worth it. Otherwise if the developers are just making an open world purely for the "See! We can create an expansive world!" then they should just go back to linear games.

[Mojo03]

It'd be cool if they made an open world game, that actually felt like a world, instead of a checkpoint theme park.

[Neuroticaine]

I don't know about you but i'm pretty tired of it. I saw ghost of tsushima and thought it looked great till i saw open world and just lost all interest. the game could be the best of its kind but "see that mountain? you can climb it and see theres nothing there" has well and truly gotten all the interest out of me it can.

I'd recommend rethinking your stance on this one eventually. Ghost is open world, yes, but it's not an overwhelming open world like the likes of what you see from Ubisoft games. Plus the game world is absolutely beautiful and the organic exploration of finding points of interest is refreshing. If you're a completionist, you'll eventually find yourself looking at the map and filling out objectives, but even then, the amount of activities pales in comparison to your Assassin's Creeds and whatnot.

[Advent]

I hope not. I adore open world games. Linear, hallway games make me feel stifled and restless. It's part of why I actually enjoy Ubisoft games, because they open up their worlds and let me do whatever I want in them.

[zealo]

Wouldn't mind more of them so long as they properly embody that "open" part of the term. Like, Ghost Recon Wildlands tier sized.

There's a lot of things to shit on that game's design for, but I loved how mindbogglingly huge the world actually was, 400 square kilometres is enormous, enough for it to actually feel like a real place in a lot of ways.

[kail]

They're essentially the current gen's collect-a-thon games that was prevalent during the PS1-2, N64 days.

Useless collection in open-world games is my biggest issue with the genre. It was dumb when I played Black Flag, the handful of Far Cry games, and others. One moment I will never forget was actually collecting all the wall runes in Shadows of Mordor (the first one), and all that popped up was an achievement. No cutscene, extra story, character unlock, or w/e. Just an extra 10 pts to my Xbox account. I dropped the game right then and there.