As I get older, I notice that the open world formula is tiring! I much prefer a linear game told well than the same game with add-ons.

I was looking forward to Days Gone. I haven’t had it spoiled for me, so I picked it up and when I realized it was open world, it killed my enthusiasm for it.

I just can’t go hours on end forever just because.

For me, open worlds are almost a Nay! I’ve heard great things about Days Gone, and I want to play it, but the amount of time it will take to go through the story, because it’s open world, I don’t know. I get tired just to think about it.

What about you? Do you enjoy open-world games? Do you seek them?

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I like them, I prefer sandbox games over linear ones. I think it’s the sandbox nature of the game that matters more than open world though.

  • Dae@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It depends. I like Open World games that feel like there’s a purpose to them being Open World.

    Like the Elder Scrolls. The point is for you to feel like you’re living in Tamriel. There’s a point to it being Open World.

    Or Far Cry (which I admittedly haven’t played), where you’re supposed to be lost in some place, deep in a place that is hostile to you.

    And I might get crucified for this, but I honestly feel like the first Breath of the Wild game had no real reason to be Open World. The second one? Yeah, they figured it out. But the first one feels like it was OW just to be OW.

    Tl;Dr, the game has to have a reason to be OW. Otherwise they’re just aiming for quantity of content and poitnlessly hurting the quality.

  • coyotino [he/him]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I hit a wall recently with Star Wars Outlaws. The open world is cool until you realize that every enemy base has two or three possible entry points, complete with yellow-painted paths. There’s no room for creative infiltration - either you do it Ubisoft’s way, or it isn’t possible in the game. The NPCs in the open world just drive around aimlessly. It doesn’t feel like anyone in the world is trying to achieve anything besides you. It makes me realize how far we have come with modern open world games like the recent Zelda games. Without room for emergent gameplay, an open world feels like little more than a framing device for a game that is actually linear.

  • gerryflap@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    12 hours ago

    As long as it’s a bit of a sandbox: hell yeah. But there needs to be stuff happening, things to do. I love games like GTA, Cyberpunk, Just Cause, Stalker, because you can just go around the world and experience random stuff happening. Sometimes I don’t want a goal, but just a sandbox to create my own stories.

  • Ignatz@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Mostly nay. I am not against open-world in premise, but most open-world games do it poorly. I think that a lot of studios make their games open world because these types of games are popular, but don’t give a thought to what that means for their specific game. They want their worlds to seem expansive and think this is an easy solution but it isn’t.

    If you make an open-world game, it needs at the very least two things: a compelling method of traversal (mechanics of interacting with that open world), and thoughtful, intentional design (not just large stretches of trees and rocks between towns). I think Breath of the Wild is a paragon of good open-world design.

  • BruisedMoose@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I find the opposite. I love video games, always have, but these days my time is more limited, I might go months without touching them, and I just play to relax. So over the past 10 years or whatever, things like GTAV, Fallout 4, and AC:Odyssey have worked out really well for me. I can pick them up whenever I want and either settle in for some story or just waste time exploring, doing side quests, finding collectibles.

    Like what would I rather do in real life? Work toward a single goal day after day, or see what’s on top of that mountain over there just because?

  • Dutczar@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I only really like STALKER I think, because it’s generally compressed and dense rather than stretching out over nothingness. It’s technically multiple levels than being overworld I guess.

    I didn’t get Breath of the Wild.

  • Mongostein
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    12 hours ago

    You don’t have to do everything in an open world game. Just go from main mission to main mission and you’ve pretty much turned it in to a linear game.

  • Stepos Venzny@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I like open world games when the time I spend simply being in them without any explicit objective is enjoyable. If I’m thinking “I’m bored, where’s the next task?” then there’s a problem. If I’m thinking “I wonder if I can make a boat that operates by paddling instead of using a fan…” then we’re good.

    (Tears of the Kingdom’s physics don’t work that way, I’m sorry to report. Thing flailed around like it was drowning.)

  • Commiunism@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    16 hours ago

    If an open world is just there for collectibles/unlocks or just feels otherwise unnecessary to the primary selling feature of the game (like story), then yeah its a hard pass.

    Otherwise, if the open world is actually a core part of the game like in most MMO’s such as Old School Runescape, then it can be quite enjoyable.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Depends on the game. I’m still a very long ways away from completing it, so please no spoilers, but Sonic Frontiers? They added enough to the open world that it’s fun to run around and do side stuff in. Pokemon Violet? The charm wore out quick enough, making the region feel way too empty compared to most other gens, so no. No clue on the DLC, but I imagine they’re similarly as empty and devoid of NPCs as well. Games like VoxeLibre on Luanti? Wouldn’t want it any other way!

  • endeavor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Yes for good games like stalker with it’s incredible, unmatched alife or arma where the large world serves a purpose or gta and red dead with it’s detail.

    No to terrible checklist games where the formula is copy pasted across series and not backed up by good ai or good worlds, only with timewasters and checklists, eg ubisoft.

    Personlly ive ended up dropping witcher 3 and elden ring thanks to open worlds but for some reason cyberpunk works for me.

    • HER0@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Arma is an interesting example. I’d say that it is only an open world game in some scenarios, and often times is a linear game that happens to have a big map and sandbox.

      In any case, I’d agree that it having a large world with many possibilities is important for the gameplay and ability to mod/create content across the maps.

  • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Generally nay I think. There are a few I enjoy like Minecraft or Space Engineers.

    But in general open world is just more annoying to deal with.