Why are normal people enamored by open world

Why are normal people enamored by open world

You can go anywhere!

ok

It'd be a cool idea with unique content and not Banjo Kazooie but worse.

It's fun

For an hour or two

Why are normal people enamored by OP's mom

You can fuck her anywhere!

ok

When I was a kid and I played games, I often imagined being able to explore the whole game world. I would look at the skyboxes and the borders and think it would be cool to just explore and stuff. So the idea of open world was really enticing. But now that I'm older I've come to realize that the true feeling of adventure came from the limitation, of what the borders caused me to imagine. It's the distance and separation that makes for the magic. Actually being able to just go anywhere and roam across an entire map quickly gets boring and stale.

Man I wish the game looked like that.

I wonder what's on top of that mountain?

A shrine

I wonder what's in that cave?

A shrine

I wonder what's behind that waterfall?

A shrine

I don't think Nintendo understands what exploration is.

elaborate?

Almost every single puzzle in TotK involves building a vehicle, like in Nuts and Bolts.

I'll just use the post above yours as an example.

I wonder what's on top of that mountain?

Shrine to a mountain god that you can interact with.

I wonder what's in that cave?

A deadly lizard that's been eating the local townsfolk.

I wonder what's behind that waterfall?

Some guy who's set up camp and gives you fish while talking about his life.

anon tries to copy a shitpost

fucks it up by using the wrong game

I swear the people that turn up to hate things don't play anything. They know fuck all about games.

Nah, I just hate Banjo Kazooie. Collectathon platformers were kinda trash and people only liked them because of "MUH CONTENT" back in the day. There's a reason Mario 64 is looked back on more fondly than any 3D Rare Platformer.
Zelda BOTW and TOTK are like Banjo, but it's more egregious because of the huge map. Back then you'd get jiggys left and right, and I could somewhat excuse it because it's not an adventure game and just a platformer. But these Zelda games give you a korok seed or shrine for 99% of your rewards. The 1% would be weapons and shields that will break, or armor which is the best reward you can get.

The idea of open world was not only enticing but also a good one. It's just that things stale when they become a standard. Millions are thrown into games, so they always go for the safe choices. They have no way of telling how people enjoy environments or sense of discovery. They can only count collectables, side missions, and loot.
It would be great if games had tons of well crafted places with nothing on them just for the sake of exploration. But no, places are often just the same dungeon you've seen five minutes ago, so it NEEDS to give players some material reward. This incentives people to go online and get checklists of objects they need to become OP

No it's not. There's nothing to do in them

Open zone is the perfect medium

Normalfags don't actually like the video game, they like the things they already associate as "reward" from previous games (e.g. enemy pops, jingle plays, get new loot) and open world lets them get that over and over and over without much thought.

Banjo Kazooie is a dog shit game only beloved because the n64's lack of quality games.

Some people are creative and can make their own fun, some can't.

The fun part is the obstacles and how you have to bypass them, not the rewards.

Because Ubisoft conditioned the mainstream audience in to thinking sloppily-made sandboxes are the peak of gameworld design.
In GTA, sure, the better your sandbox the better the game since the game is driving around. In most games open world sandbox is at odds with good encounter design & itemization.

Overcorrection for games trending towards being so on rails that stepping out of the predetermined path was punished by death.

It was cool when it wasnt the norm. Now its just 70% bloat so you cant beat the actual game in time for a refund

you got on the wrong horse

Rdr2 did that and its open world. Your theory is flawed.

Open world is appropriate when you're trying to create a sense of adventure and discovery. Otherwise, it should be connected zones that are more than just hallways but yet contained such that the density of interaction comes at a solid pace.

zoomie not remembering the movie games of the 360/PS3 era

Open world works for a series like GTA, because a major part of the fun is riding in the cars and listening to the music. Like that's a major part of the vibe so it's fun to ride to missions and stuff. But in other games it feels kind of pointless.

Climbing a bunch of towers and other such busywork isn't really creative.

After my current project I want to make an open world game but one with a very good reason to be open world
And it's based on THE NIGHT LAND

Absolutely the same, but instead of what we wanted we got empty, souless ubislop.

Dunno but that game came out far past the time of open world games being impressive or interesting.

Last I checked, GTA 3 predates the 360. They've been making these boring games for over 20 years now. I get that the most egregious open world garbage derives from Asscreed though.

This.

You don't have to do the busywork buddy. It's an open world game. You don't have to do anything.

No one asked for open world. It's being foisted on us via a clandestine conspiracy to prime us for virtual society. Every new open world game is just an opportunity to mine your data and test new concepts, which will get more tedious over time as they approach the tedium of reality. Now that you know this you won't be able to unsee it, but on the other hand you have a choice. Don't do open world games.

Subconsciously I enjoy knowing you can go anywhere, even if I wont do it necessarily.
Like the difference between being a shut in voluntarily where you have the option of going outside anytime you want versus being imprisoned.

Because it gives the feeling we can create our own adventure.
Adventure is dead, there's nothing left to truly explore on earth anymore. Linear games are fine but deep down there's a desire to break free from our societal chains and just go ANYWHERE and do whatever. The feeling of discovering something new. Maybe in a different order than other players. Maybe we discover an overpowered sword before other players and we feel badass when we know other players might be struggling.
We want that variety. Deep down we want DYNAMIC, EMERGENT gameplay. We want to be surprised, we want to feel like things are happening in a sandbox in the game that weren't just scripted.

I don't have time to refine this point but there's something there, and I still love open world stuff.

Also to be clear open world games do not equal dynamic or emergent, but they offer the illusion of it better than linear games.

I suspect certain demographics don't know how to make their own fun in a sandbox

you don't have to do the gameplay

Unless its stealing cars and other crimes

You don't have to order every option in a restaurant.

nobody actually enjoys open world
they either play like ten to twenty hours then "finish the game"
or they spend hundreds of hours farming resources despite hating every single second of it (common in women and literal boomers)

Retarded, you can't speak for everyone

Get over yourself, the only difference between open world ones and others is that there's more empty space you need to traverse between the interesting content.

I like the Yakuza games but I don't know if they really count as open world since the maps are quite small.
Still, there's a main story that zigzags around the map and a bunch of side content scattered about that you can do in-between, even fast travel.
The only thing that'd make it not open world is the density, which you'd think you could overlook, but maybe spending tens of hours traversing procedurally-generated terrain is an important part of the open world experience.

Guess it's a semantics thing.

I put 200 hours cumulative into BotW spanning two playthroughs hoping I'd "get it." Big Zelda fan. Never "got it." These games are babysitters. "The rules are that there are no rules," OK so it's barely a game.

Are non-level-based ImSims like System Shock 2 or Prey open world?
Off the cuff opinion, right now.

I put 200 hours cumulative into BotW spanning two playthroughs hoping I'd "get it."

the fuck dude lol
it was fairly obvious it was bad like 40 hours in

nope

oh man this game has a day/night cycle

should I go to sleep in town or venture through the woods...it's going to get dark soon

you might not care about those little decisions but those breathe so much life into games for me. Open world games lean into that much more than linear games.

get over yourself

You're the one trying to tell millions of people who enjoy open worlds that they don't know what they're talking about lol. And empty space is not a bad thing. It's just not your thing, that's fine

forgot picrel

I hear ZELDA NOTES is gonna add some sort of achievement system but I doubt it's gonna be anything cool like "beat Lynel with a stick" or "finish this shrine without jumping"
it's probably "find five carrots" cancer

wasting 200 hours of your life on a game you don’t like

I wonder what's on top of that mountain?

Breath of the Wild actually handled this well at least. You need enough stamina to climb the mountain, so you need to do enough shrines to get up there. Maybe the reward for doing so is bland, but the process wasn't.

Tears of the Kingdom didn't handle it well though. Things like towers that launch you into the sky, and air vehicles, ruined any sense of wondering what was in any particular location because the process was too easy.

live an aimless life without direction

play games where you can aimlessly wander with no direction

gee its a mystery

Millions of people circumcise their children. Millions of people are retarded.

I prefer open world games precisely because it allows me to dictate the journey. I don't want your handholding and theme park ride. If I'm interested in your story, I'll pursue it in-between the free-form adventuring.

At least it was fun flying through the Depths the first time. The otherworldly vegetation and architecture style carried the atmosphere.

Freedom is the default in video games. Linearity is the artificially forced meme that console kids were conned into buying. Zelda was original open world. RPGs were originally open world. Linear garbage like Metal Gear Solid came MUCH later. YOU'RE the rube. The rest of us are playing NORMAL games.

Because people crave that freedom IRL

TOTK is more like Donkey Kong 64 and Banjo Tooie with the amount of padding in it.

Why can't more open world games be like Skyrim? I want the ability to go to different towns and interiors to meet people, do quests I would normally never encounter if I didn't, and own a home and wife.

Why is Bethesda the only one doing this? They have no rival or competitors in this sub-set of RPGs? Why? It can't be that expensive

DINNER DINNER DINNER DINNER DINNER DINNER DINNER DINNER DINNER DINNER

It is expensive but that's not a good reason not to do it. There's like ... well nothing. The closest was Dragons Dogma and Capcom correctly assumed investing tens of millions into that game to make it compete with Skyrim was a bad idea so it's half baked.
Then there is KCD but it's story focused with a defined protagonist and it isn't fantasy so the scope will always be smaller and hit a smaller audience.
Then there's CDPR but that company was on a downward spiral in quality and an upward trend in wokeism so their future games are all going to be worthless. And they wanted more story focused stuff so they were never aiming to dethrone Bethesda.

And no one else does anything similar because you need a massive team to pull it off and you have to have a certain kind of taste and you need to convince your investors it's a good idea.

chargen with multiple races

open world with emphasis on freedom

lots of quests

excellent music

mods

Every indie dev wants to make this game but no AAAs do.

Skyrim is one game dude, it released 14 years ago. Surely you haven't been living under a rock for 14 years straight?

Name a game like it in the last 14 years.

Oblivion Remastered.
Tamriel Rebuilt.

Lets list the criteria.

short, linear main story

gigantic amount of side quests

huge map mostly used for the side quests

Oh gee, let's make a fucking list.
Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom
Witcher 3
Cyberpunk 2077
Grand Theft Auto 5
Red Dead Redemption 2
Xenoblade Chronicles
Minecraft
Elite Dangerous.

Red Dead 2's story was long as fuck.
Same with Witcher 3's.

add a couple zeroes to it and you've got my relationship with online games

if you ignore the hundred good sidequests in totk with characters and locations and action sequences and puzzles that span all of Hyrule, its skys, and its underground then its an empty open world!

It's the journey, not the destination

Why are people enamored by journey

Gee, fucking why, I wonder.

i've played cyberpunk and hackers doesn't even compare...
In skyrim you can heal yourself ,makes them not attacking you or attacking each other,you can destroy them ,you can invoke a minion,you can buff your armor, etc
hacker in cyberpunk doesn't feel "magic" at all
+even if we would argue again ,zones are locked by levels ,there's certains zones with certains levels so.

there's certains zones with certains levels so.

You're really reaching here if you find it mandatory that your rpg with an xp and level system functions exactly the same as Skyrim's.

`
huh this serie of thread is someone asking why open world is like skyrim and i can tell you that the sense of freedom that gives TES games are correlated with the leveled world .
it's a design.

Just saying man, the concept that enemies are constantly equal to your level 100% of the time is a rare thing. Like, even if you don't talk about the rest of Skyrims systems and map, that one system is rare.
We're talking something that FF8 did. If you want a game that copies that exact system, brother, lots of games have unique systems. That's what makes games different.

To me, it's not that open world is inherently the problem at a conceptual level. I actually really enjoy the idea of a large land space of adventure to tackle, and that's what got me to sit down for most of Breath of the Wild. The problem is that these games become so expensive to make, regularly get mismanaged and are so lacking in innovation on top of limitations of space, budget and circumstance, that they're filled with endless troves of the same collectibles and things to do on loop.
Collect the tokens. Solve the puzzle spaces. Wipe out the enemy camps. Activate the towers. Hit some minigame input at several different points in a region. Rinse and repeat in every single region across every part of the game world, eventually becoming a grind and a checklist rather than an organic and interesting experience.

You want to know what keeps people interested in games like Oblivion even 19 years later? Cyrodiil is compact as an open world space, but they fit a bunch of random encounters, various questlines and side quests to discover, lots of shit to stumble into, on top of still going through unique story bits here and there, even though all the dungeons look the same and there's asset reuse everywhere. People actually decried Skyrim partly for this because it dumbed most of the quests down and had even less variety in all the questing instances of things, making the game inherently feel downgrade,d and that problem continued with each successive Bethesda game afterwards.

Open world is doomed by AAA production standards to never actually meet its full potential. You'd be better off budgeting a world map and a bunch of different towns and dungeons strewn across it than more open world shit.

AI will fix this

AI eats up too much power and resources as is to make your fake art and ERP logs, it can't magically fill in an open world with content.

"Open World" has been the endpoint pipe-dream for video games since the 1980s.

that they're filled with endless troves of the same collectibles and things to do on loop.

That's every video game. You actively have to hate all video games.

RDR2 never advertises itself openly as you can do anything open world. it's a story game with an open world. it's naive to think that the world will be filled with quests of higher quality than the main story. you don't even have to spend time in the wilderness if you don't care about crafting satchels or whatever.

Open world games were like early 3d.
Early 3d looked like shit compared to 2d of that time but people flocked toward it because, well, it was a new dimension.
Same with open world, people complained about invisible walls and artificial barriers of blockage for years, the simple act of being able to go anywhere you want was amazing in itself.
Nowadays yeah there's only a handful of games that make proper use of the open world formula but it became a standard for AAA studios for some reason.

Not really and yes it will, the big thing about AAA production standards are the visuals and eventually AI will just shit that stuff out immediately. Assets that are higher quality than the highest quality stuff we currently have.
It may help with content too but the big thing is the art.

They made the gameplay of the sequel antithetical to that of the original, people thought they were gonna get botw2 but they got gmod with a big premade map instead.

yeah and also probably the fact that people played that game already ruined some of that wonder as well

You know how some people look at turn-based games and say "hurr durr who is going to stand there and wait to attack"? Normies are incapable of understanding abstraction so the closest a game is to real life logic the better.

Exploration. But it also depends if the world is well designed.

We need more generic medieval fantasy LOTR-esque games. The experimental shit often falls flat to me because it feels like a jumbled mess. Be experimental with the gameplay, not the setting.