It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionWhat feels wrong about the open world concept(14 posts)(14 posts)
(14 posts)
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Posted December 09, 2015
I'm currently occupied with Gothic 2. I can see how it is considered a great game. I'm not knocking it. I bet when I finish I will want another playthrough.
But it seems wrong and weird to have an important mission and constantly be putting it off because I have to gain levels by doing little chores and side quests that don't pertain to my real objective. In Gothic 2 that means persuading somebody's neighbor to stop hammering, helping a fisherman sell fish, and many other time-consuming tasks that aren't any of my business and not part of the mission. I bet if Xardas saw me wading through the sewers looking for somebody's hunting bow he'd kick my ass, fire me, and find another nameless hero.
I like Gothic 2, but open world games often feel unrealistic and get me frustrated by giving me a supposedly urgent mission and then pushing me off track, spending more time on side quests to grind levels than the urgent mission itself.
Posted December 09, 2015
I think that Arkham City was really good at this. That is, balancing the urgency of the main story line to that of all the side quests, which would include cool stuff such as Riddler threatening to kill a civilian, or a reporter under sniper fire.
Posted December 09, 2015
I find this tends to be the trade-off with open world RPGs. Sure, you get the freedom to explore, but you really have to suspend your disbelief if the stroy line is trying to give you any sense of urgency at all.

I'm currently playing through Fallout:New Vegas and while I find it's a great and fun experience, I've actually completely lost track of the main plot because I'm exploring the entire map just finding cool things here and there. Granted, the plot doesn't have the urgency attached to it like some plots do, but there's still no question my character was intended to advance the plot a lot faster than I have at this point.
Posted December 09, 2015
I think Morrowind did this perfectly. After the first part of the main quest you are actually sent away to learn the land and get experience. Also you are free to not believe the in Nerevarine/chosen one story and to just take off on your own.
Posted December 09, 2015
I also like the way Mount & Blade works.
Posted December 09, 2015
avatar
Gerin: ...but open world games often feel unrealistic and get me frustrated by giving me a supposedly urgent mission and then pushing me off track, spending more time on side quests to grind levels than the urgent mission itself.
This is why I prefer the Skyrim structure of making everything flat and gating things by story paths.
Posted December 09, 2015
avatar
Gede: I also like the way Mount & Blade works.
I agree, Mount and blade does this best.

Not very crazy about the open world concept for the most part but I also enjoy the heck out of New Vegas, Xenoblade X, and Dragon's Dogma. I do sometimes think, "Hey why have the Legion (for New Vegas) not done anything significant yet?" And this goes for all games like this. Mount and Blade has lots of urgency when, say, one of your castle or cities are under siege and you need to get over and help pronto. But, that does not mitigate the enjoyment for these kinds of games too much when side quests take precedence over the main plot, which seems to have taken a break for a while.
Posted December 09, 2015
avatar
AnimalMother117: I do sometimes think, "Hey why have the Legion (for New Vegas) not done anything significant yet?"
Heh, yes, exactly. I've put close to 100 hours into the game, my character is level 41 (I did Old World Blues and Honest Hearts) and I haven't even talked to House yet.
Posted December 09, 2015
this is a problem not just for open world games but also any rpg with a side quest. I've always felt like RPGs shot themselves in the foot with the pacing on their main storyline.

skyrim did this really well. there were times you felt compelled to see what happened next like it was really time sensitive and then there were times where you didn't.
Posted December 09, 2015
Here's another possibility: Get rid of the main quest entirely. Include an intro to explain why you are there (or don't) and then make the game consist entirely of side quests and exploration.

Maybe hide a superboss somewhere.
Posted December 10, 2015
avatar
dtgreene: Here's another possibility: Get rid of the main quest entirely. Include an intro to explain why you are there (or don't) and then make the game consist entirely of side quests and exploration.

Maybe hide a superboss somewhere.
I like that idea. There would be only quests. If you did quest A and quest C. Quest F requires A and B, so it is not available. Quest G requires a character that is now dead. So I can now offer quests H, K and N. I'll just choose one randomly from that pool.

The downside is that now you do not feel so much like the main character of a well-crafted story. You are just another entity in this world.
Posted December 10, 2015
avatar
Gerin: I'm currently occupied with Gothic 2. I can see how it is considered a great game. I'm not knocking it. I bet when I finish I will want another playthrough.
But it seems wrong and weird to have an important mission and constantly be putting it off because I have to gain levels by doing little chores and side quests that don't pertain to my real objective. In Gothic 2 that means persuading somebody's neighbor to stop hammering, helping a fisherman sell fish, and many other time-consuming tasks that aren't any of my business and not part of the mission. I bet if Xardas saw me wading through the sewers looking for somebody's hunting bow he'd kick my ass, fire me, and find another nameless hero.
I like Gothic 2, but open world games often feel unrealistic and get me frustrated by giving me a supposedly urgent mission and then pushing me off track, spending more time on side quests to grind levels than the urgent mission itself.
I am confused. I understand your critique. But, if you are willing to play through the whole game and are already looking forward to playing it a second time - then what would the benefit be of changing it? Would you play it more times if the main quest sense of urgency was actually true and disaster befell the world if you dawdled? Would you still be as excited by the game if there were no urgent-sounding main quest?

As with most open world games, you can ignore the dawdling side quests and exploring and just go gung-ho to save the world. In fact, after years of dawdling and exploring, that is what I did with Oblivion. One day I decided I was going to play through the main quest. And I did! I "finished" the game. It was fun. And I was glad I could go back to the same gameworld and dawdle all I wanted again. With some games, you have to start a new game to do that. With Oblivion, you can just keep playing.
Posted December 10, 2015
Many times side quests do seem to be rather irrelevant. Too bad I can't yet think of any suitable examples. And I played Gothic 2 as well! Finished it twice! But can't remember things... Anyway, since usually side quests give loot like gold, they sometimes do make sense and even play very well with the story. I think I remember such time in Drakensang: The River of Time. I needed money to pass somewhere with the ship, but had none. So I did side quests to earn money, get my pass. Side quests felt like an essential part of the game.

Just like Gede, I also like dtgreene's idea. Skyrim felt a bit like without the main story. Maybe if the world would have gone to hell a day by day, it would've felt different.
Posted December 10, 2015
avatar
Dessimu: Many times side quests do seem to be rather irrelevant. Too bad I can't yet think of any suitable examples. And I played Gothic 2 as well! Finished it twice! But can't remember things... Anyway, since usually side quests give loot like gold, they sometimes do make sense and even play very well with the story. I think I remember such time in Drakensang: The River of Time. I needed money to pass somewhere with the ship, but had none. So I did side quests to earn money, get my pass. Side quests felt like an essential part of the game.

Just like Gede, I also like dtgreene's idea. Skyrim felt a bit like without the main story. Maybe if the world would have gone to hell a day by day, it would've felt different.
That kind of direct tie-in makes it ok with me.
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionWhat feels wrong about the open world concept(14 posts)(14 posts)
(14 posts)