Gamecrate makes the case that open world games offer less content than linear games.
More information.
Opinion - Open World Games Are Smaller than Linear Games
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
In my view Dragon Age Inquisition did have a huge world to explore, in addition to travel through. There was plenty of customized story-based content throughout the huge game, and having recently completed it for the second time in my view it is one of the 10-15 best games of all time (still had a bit of room for improvement), in my view clearly better than DA 1 which was a good first game in the series (DA 2 was only so-so). DA 1 and DAI are different enough, though, that they are difficult to compare.
I don't know what removes something from being enjoyable content for this type of reviewer. To each their own, but I found that most of the activities in DAI were enjoyable and not just random things to do, and they fit into the overall story.
I also disagree with the general dislike of open world games. Yes there are many games -- open world or not -- in which the content is not enjoyable, repetitive, etc.
I don't know what removes something from being enjoyable content for this type of reviewer. To each their own, but I found that most of the activities in DAI were enjoyable and not just random things to do, and they fit into the overall story.
I also disagree with the general dislike of open world games. Yes there are many games -- open world or not -- in which the content is not enjoyable, repetitive, etc.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 845
While I thought DAI was the worst of the 3 games (DAO is my favorite) I still enjoyed it. Could only play it once though while the others I did multiple times. All a matter of taste though. There were some design decisions in DAI that simply turned me off is all.
Anyhow in regards to the article ... pfft was my reaction. Open world games, to me anyhow, are seldom about doing the main quest line.
Of course what really matters is how much you like the world and game to begin with. I got over 4000 hours playing Skyrim while others hated it bits. FO4 isn't far behind. Even before I modded I had hundreds of hours in the vanilla versions. Yet there are other open worlds I didn't like.
Anyhow it is just another view point and always good to have such posts for discussion even if I disagree somewhat with it.
Anyhow in regards to the article ... pfft was my reaction. Open world games, to me anyhow, are seldom about doing the main quest line.
Of course what really matters is how much you like the world and game to begin with. I got over 4000 hours playing Skyrim while others hated it bits. FO4 isn't far behind. Even before I modded I had hundreds of hours in the vanilla versions. Yet there are other open worlds I didn't like.
Anyhow it is just another view point and always good to have such posts for discussion even if I disagree somewhat with it.
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
This is pretty much complete nonsense. I could list a dozen linear narrative games without even trying that didn't have much in the way of exploration or other, non plot critical activities along the way. Saying that non-linear games don't have enough of that seems to suffice for this writer as proof that linear games have more. It doesn't.
Second, why the focus on main quest lines? The whole point of an open world game is so that the main quest line isn't the sole focus of the game.
The writer takes a statement that has nothing specifically to do with main quest length (Everyone says that open-world games are huge! "Wow there's so much to do!" everyone says) and refutes it with a statement that does specifically have to do with main quest length. (Have you ever tried to mainline an open-world game from start to finish? The main quest lines aren't actually that long.) If that argument was a boat, it would be on the bottom of the lake.
It is 100% valid to have criticisms of open world game design, and not to like them. But the reasoning quoted here is trash.
Second, why the focus on main quest lines? The whole point of an open world game is so that the main quest line isn't the sole focus of the game.
The writer takes a statement that has nothing specifically to do with main quest length (Everyone says that open-world games are huge! "Wow there's so much to do!" everyone says) and refutes it with a statement that does specifically have to do with main quest length. (Have you ever tried to mainline an open-world game from start to finish? The main quest lines aren't actually that long.) If that argument was a boat, it would be on the bottom of the lake.
It is 100% valid to have criticisms of open world game design, and not to like them. But the reasoning quoted here is trash.
Well I don't agree. 
Still I can agree non RPG open worlds are smaller then open world RPGs.
One consists of random missions with gather x hidden items for bonuses. While the other actually has quests and a campaign similar to how a linear RPG game functions.
Just compare GTA 5 with Skyrim. Totally different.
Still I can agree non RPG open worlds are smaller then open world RPGs.
One consists of random missions with gather x hidden items for bonuses. While the other actually has quests and a campaign similar to how a linear RPG game functions.
Just compare GTA 5 with Skyrim. Totally different.
Zloth
I smell a... wumpus!?
Wow, that's one really weak... oh! It's using Disqus. Kinda cowardly to just snipe from here, I'll post there.
Not much I can add here that hasn't already been said. This article is just...dumb. It's not my intention to try to disparage the author, but if this is the kind of article that Gamecrate normally puts out, it's no wonder I've never heard of them.
Zloth
I smell a... wumpus!?
Bother. Disqus is down and doesn't seem to be coming back up. Here's what I would have posted:
So open world games are actually shorter because SPEED RUNNERS can get through them faster!? That's ridiculous! Speed runners use all sorts of tricks, including in-game bugs, to short circuit the game. Why would you even think of using that as a measuring stick!?
There's not more to do in a linear game than an open world game. There's not even more you're forced to do. The amount of stuff there is to do (whether you tick off a list of "things" or count hours spent in them) depends on how much stuff the developers put in. It's pretty independent of whether the world is open or closed.
Exploration can consist of more things than you list, and more types of information than you seem to be thinking about. For instance, seeing the sights. A linear game can do that, too, by leading you along through the sights (like in Jedi: Fallen Order) but you're pretty limited in the perspective. You can't look at that huge tree from a different mountain, or at a different time of day.
Seems to me that most fast-travel systems only let you fast travel to a place you have already been. They aren't there to let you skip exploration, they are there to let you skip RE-exploration. Exploring an area to find a dungeon can be fun.
There is not just one way through linear games. I suppose it would be possible to make a game like that but I sure haven't seen one. Tales of Berseria, which you list of as linear, sure isn't that way. I went back to towns to do side quests lots of times!
And so on and so forth. Spent too much time on this already.
So open world games are actually shorter because SPEED RUNNERS can get through them faster!? That's ridiculous! Speed runners use all sorts of tricks, including in-game bugs, to short circuit the game. Why would you even think of using that as a measuring stick!?
There's not more to do in a linear game than an open world game. There's not even more you're forced to do. The amount of stuff there is to do (whether you tick off a list of "things" or count hours spent in them) depends on how much stuff the developers put in. It's pretty independent of whether the world is open or closed.
Exploration can consist of more things than you list, and more types of information than you seem to be thinking about. For instance, seeing the sights. A linear game can do that, too, by leading you along through the sights (like in Jedi: Fallen Order) but you're pretty limited in the perspective. You can't look at that huge tree from a different mountain, or at a different time of day.
Seems to me that most fast-travel systems only let you fast travel to a place you have already been. They aren't there to let you skip exploration, they are there to let you skip RE-exploration. Exploring an area to find a dungeon can be fun.
There is not just one way through linear games. I suppose it would be possible to make a game like that but I sure haven't seen one. Tales of Berseria, which you list of as linear, sure isn't that way. I went back to towns to do side quests lots of times!
And so on and so forth. Spent too much time on this already.
mat9813004
Sentinel
As trolling articles go, this is rather good. I feel, while reading it, it is a valid criticism, which is not the same thing as saying it is true. But the potential of the argument is interesting to consider.
TheSHEEEP
Keeper of the Watch
- Joined
- December 13, 2010
- Messages
- 621
Another case of "I have no topic but I must write", it seems.
Essentially blaming open world games for not having a linear game structure is missing the point by so much you might as well be talking about ducks.
That and taking bad open world games with lazy design as examples for all of them is just... I really regret the time I spent reading this.
Essentially blaming open world games for not having a linear game structure is missing the point by so much you might as well be talking about ducks.
That and taking bad open world games with lazy design as examples for all of them is just... I really regret the time I spent reading this.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2010
- Messages
- 621
FurtiveNyctophile
Sentinel
Uhh... Skyrim, New Vegas, ... I feel less intelligent somehow after reading that. Sure, you could beeline the main quest in Skyrim and probably finish it up pretty quickly - not sure about games like Witcher 3 - but does any gamer play open world RPGs that way? I'm currently busy checking out EVERY SIDEQUEST I CAN in Yakuza: Like a Dragon.
That really did seem like an article written for the sake of writing words and little else. You'd like to delve a little deeper here and ask them what open world games are you talking about? What linear games are you talking about?
What in the name of God and All That Is Holy are you trying to say?
That really did seem like an article written for the sake of writing words and little else. You'd like to delve a little deeper here and ask them what open world games are you talking about? What linear games are you talking about?
What in the name of God and All That Is Holy are you trying to say?
There are so many wrong arguments that I wouldn't know where to start.. perhaps with the speedrun one But the subject is interesting - we see open-world RPGs more and more often because there is a demand for them after all, and there are some good points, even if the author misses the opportunity to develop them correctly, or is plain wrong in his conclusion. For example,
The developers cannot rely on a specific chain of events in an open-world approach, since the players can meet the NPCs in any order they choose, and even have partial dialogs with them, that they may complete later. This makes the logic much more complex, and of course the validation too. This requires more dialog options, and more voice-acting if the game features that. IIRC, that was discussed in NoClip's series on The Witcher games.
This means to me that, for the same budget, the main quest and its related sidequests will have to be reduced in scope (be that in length, or depth).
But it's just one measure of the experience, it doesn't take the freedom of how to tackle the quest into consideration. There are other compensations an open world can offer too, the author just doesn't try to identify them because he's too biased.
But the subject is interesting - we see open-world RPGs more and more often because there is a demand for them after all, and there are some good points, even if the author misses the opportunity to develop them correctly, or is plain wrong in his conclusion. For example,That's the main concern I'd have with open-world games, but not really for the reason the author gives (and that I didn't bother to quote).
The developers cannot rely on a specific chain of events in an open-world approach, since the players can meet the NPCs in any order they choose, and even have partial dialogs with them, that they may complete later. This makes the logic much more complex, and of course the validation too. This requires more dialog options, and more voice-acting if the game features that. IIRC, that was discussed in NoClip's series on The Witcher games.
This means to me that, for the same budget, the main quest and its related sidequests will have to be reduced in scope (be that in length, or depth).
But it's just one measure of the experience, it doesn't take the freedom of how to tackle the quest into consideration. There are other compensations an open world can offer too, the author just doesn't try to identify them because he's too biased.
Disqus is up again, you could post a link to this discussion
Carnifex
SasqWatch
I've never understood the concept of trying to get through a game as quickly as possible. I like to make them last, get every dollar back that I've spent in some form of entertainment, not blowing through it simply to set some record that no one would care about, least of all me.
I do get the correlation the author tries to make that distance is a false way to bloat the size of a world. The rest of their argument fails on too many levels to even discuss.
I do get the correlation the author tries to make that distance is a false way to bloat the size of a world. The rest of their argument fails on too many levels to even discuss.
vanedor
Keeper of the Watch
I guess it's useful for reviewers and for fun, as a challenge and make a cool youtube video.
Beyond this, I totally agree with you.
Really good exploration with lots of easter eggs is indeed incredibly rare. I think it's rather something found in MMOs, but since I have only experience with 2 MMOs, I can't really say.
The incredibly satisfying feeling to have found something special is in part achieved with SWTOR with the so-called "Datacrons" , but on the other hand SWTOR is also kinda weak isofar that apart from that, there are mostly only trasure boxes to be found. That, and the very hard to find "Knowledge Objects".
I really don't know qany well done exploration game with lotzs of hidden surprises and easter eggs, but then I didn't play many RPGs in the recent years , so I can't actually judge.
Gothic was one of my first games which did have that rewarding feeling of "I have found something special !".
Because to me, exploration is just dull without anything special to be found.
The incredibly satisfying feeling to have found something special is in part achieved with SWTOR with the so-called "Datacrons" , but on the other hand SWTOR is also kinda weak isofar that apart from that, there are mostly only trasure boxes to be found. That, and the very hard to find "Knowledge Objects".
I really don't know qany well done exploration game with lotzs of hidden surprises and easter eggs, but then I didn't play many RPGs in the recent years , so I can't actually judge.
Gothic was one of my first games which did have that rewarding feeling of "I have found something special !".
Because to me, exploration is just dull without anything special to be found.
Its all about the side quests for me. Games like Baldurs Gate 2 sold me on that long ago so open world design is a plus with its focus on this, as I like moving through areas and having downtime between points of interest. Like many here I did not think the author expressed his ideas well at all but there is a seed of an interesting discussion to be had for sure and I wanted to hear your thoughts on it so thanks for sharing.
Baldur's Gate 2 is no way open world, much less than BG1 which isn't an open world. If open world had an approach similar to BG1 (to improve on various aspects) it wouldn't suffer of so many problem.
If open world includes a BG1 blueprint there would be more open world in my all time fav RPG list, if there was more open world with such blueprint.
The article title is provocative and plain wrong if read at first degree. But there's many valid points.
In my opinion open world is pushing to bigger which push to a world filling with a much lower density and quality. TW3 and Skyrim show the problem clearly.
Open world tend push to bigger because you need space between significant areas. If not it's an open world with very structured landscape, plenty travel obstacles, plenty view obstacles to not see next area is in fact short distance. If you have two towns you can't be able see one from the other. With a BG1 blueprint, one area with a town, another area with the second town, a travel system between both and no need of wide area between both, or tricky view obstacles to hide the problem.
And this bigger size is leading to a ton of problems:
- Worlds are too big to be filled well.
- Horses and vehicles are too much fast paced to allow good exploration design.
- Filling quality suffer a lot.
- A lot of random trash combat in desperate attempt to fill a too big world.
- Open world outdoor is a lot of work already it doesn't let much for caves and dungeons better structured.
- Boredom collecting is typical of open world.
- Arena syndrome is typical problem of open world, and TW3 is awful on that.
- More problems coming from open world.
If I stick to RPG, open world are banned from my top ten fav with one exception ELEX. But it's indie open world, and ELEX2 will tell a lot more in term of what design quality can have open world. Otherwise, nope. Im' playing Pool of Radiance, I did in past but forgot a lot of it. It isn't exempt of flaws, but it's a hugely better RPG than the huge open worlds of Might&Magic 3 and later. That's nothing new, open world is a serious problem for quality.
If open world includes a BG1 blueprint there would be more open world in my all time fav RPG list, if there was more open world with such blueprint.
The article title is provocative and plain wrong if read at first degree. But there's many valid points.
In my opinion open world is pushing to bigger which push to a world filling with a much lower density and quality. TW3 and Skyrim show the problem clearly.
Open world tend push to bigger because you need space between significant areas. If not it's an open world with very structured landscape, plenty travel obstacles, plenty view obstacles to not see next area is in fact short distance. If you have two towns you can't be able see one from the other. With a BG1 blueprint, one area with a town, another area with the second town, a travel system between both and no need of wide area between both, or tricky view obstacles to hide the problem.
And this bigger size is leading to a ton of problems:
- Worlds are too big to be filled well.
- Horses and vehicles are too much fast paced to allow good exploration design.
- Filling quality suffer a lot.
- A lot of random trash combat in desperate attempt to fill a too big world.
- Open world outdoor is a lot of work already it doesn't let much for caves and dungeons better structured.
- Boredom collecting is typical of open world.
- Arena syndrome is typical problem of open world, and TW3 is awful on that.
- More problems coming from open world.
If I stick to RPG, open world are banned from my top ten fav with one exception ELEX. But it's indie open world, and ELEX2 will tell a lot more in term of what design quality can have open world. Otherwise, nope. Im' playing Pool of Radiance, I did in past but forgot a lot of it. It isn't exempt of flaws, but it's a hugely better RPG than the huge open worlds of Might&Magic 3 and later. That's nothing new, open world is a serious problem for quality.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,258
Why do you say BG1 is not an open world? To me, that's exactly what it is, you can move freely, explore and discover new areas while keeping access to the previous ones.
How would you define 'open-world', so I'm sure to understand the other points?
I don't think a big-sized world is a problem either. On the contrary, if the game features empty spaces, it allows the player to explore and find hidden places, NPCs or objects. The game can exploit that to test the player's navigation and deduction skills, by giving clues (that's why I hate the "pointer" features we get on most auto-maps). It adds another dimension to the game, one that compensates the story limitations I've mentioned before.
For example, in Morrowind or Oblivion, you could really get lost or fail to find a part of the quest if you didn't read carefully (perhaps there were quest pointers in Oblivion, not sure anymore).
Even without clues, there's reward in finding something special in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes you haven't had the clue, because you haven't met the NPC giving it, or maybe you killed him/her. Serendipity can be fun too, and it's part of the exploring experience. I usually avoid reddit, but I retrieved this old post making a similar point.
So it doesn't have to be boring. And spending one minute or two travelling to another place is fine, you can enjoy the scenery
That introduces the need to plan one's actions instead of going back and forth when it's possible to avoid it, to avoid spending too much time travelling.The world doesn't need to be packed with interesting features everywhere, and filling the empty spaces doesn't take nearly as much time as crafting towns and villages. What takes a lot of time is writing the quests, their dialogs, and testing all the possibilities, which tend to explode in an open-world game. So empty areas shouldn't have a big impact on the overall quality.
Last edited: