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 discussion (archive)Open World Games(8 posts)(8 posts)
(8 posts)
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 14, 2014
What is gog's opinion on them?

Reason I ask is Batman and Witcher....

I've recently beaten TW2 and it was awesome. Really enjoyed it, not the bosses but rest of the game. The story, the pacing, characters, the world. Very well done. Different from TW1 tough so I have hard time comparing them as games. (oh. the boss fights i did not like.... but in a way I will remember them fondly. )

Now Batman

I really enjoyed Batman: AA years ago. Not a huge Batman nerd but it was really fun game. Don't really have a desire to replay it but I beat that in "one go" (as i played only the game without pausing to play something else)
Now comes Batman: AC and it's meh. It is open world but the only result is that I have to fly like a moron from one side of the map to another. Yes. There are 'tons' of stuff to do. Mooks to beat up, riddler's riddles, sidequests
Yet it only results with me beating them up for xp gain (and its boring already as simple xp gain is not a strong motivator to fight them anymore) skipping the riddles as they have no point (why would Batman solve them if they are not a threat to anyone?) and skipping siequests because they disrupt the flow of the game, which results in immersion breaking.
Example: I am supposed to track Mr. Freeze. I fly for a minute then I hear the phone ringing. It is a sidequest involving Zszaz. If I don't answer nothing happens right? I don't have to. it is a sidequest and me not answering the phone won't cause a damn thing. it will still be there after i do current quest. Yet in game if I didn't answer Zszaz would murder innocent person. Batman cannot let that happen so he must answer. Simple sidequest breaks the flow of the game as it creates conflict between gameplay mechanic and world immersion.
The game is bad. It is subjective opinion. It is bad for me.

Therefore I worry about TW3. That it being open world will make the game shit. Not that the game will be bad but that I would simply not enjoy it, like I am not enjoying B:AC or like I never enjoyed Oblivion and have no desire whatsoever to play Skyrim.

Does anyone else share that opinion?
Posted February 14, 2014
avatar
lukaszthegreat: What is gog's opinion on them?

Reason I ask is Batman and Witcher....

I've recently beaten TW2 and it was awesome. Really enjoyed it, not the bosses but rest of the game. The story, the pacing, characters, the world. Very well done. Different from TW1 tough so I have hard time comparing them as games. (oh. the boss fights i did not like.... but in a way I will remember them fondly. )

Now Batman

I really enjoyed Batman: AA years ago. Not a huge Batman nerd but it was really fun game. Don't really have a desire to replay it but I beat that in "one go" (as i played only the game without pausing to play something else)
Now comes Batman: AC and it's meh. It is open world but the only result is that I have to fly like a moron from one side of the map to another. Yes. There are 'tons' of stuff to do. Mooks to beat up, riddler's riddles, sidequests
Yet it only results with me beating them up for xp gain (and its boring already as simple xp gain is not a strong motivator to fight them anymore) skipping the riddles as they have no point (why would Batman solve them if they are not a threat to anyone?) and skipping siequests because they disrupt the flow of the game, which results in immersion breaking.
Example: I am supposed to track Mr. Freeze. I fly for a minute then I hear the phone ringing. It is a sidequest involving Zszaz. If I don't answer nothing happens right? I don't have to. it is a sidequest and me not answering the phone won't cause a damn thing. it will still be there after i do current quest. Yet in game if I didn't answer Zszaz would murder innocent person. Batman cannot let that happen so he must answer. Simple sidequest breaks the flow of the game as it creates conflict between gameplay mechanic and world immersion.
The game is bad. It is subjective opinion. It is bad for me.

Therefore I worry about TW3. That it being open world will make the game shit. Not that the game will be bad but that I would simply not enjoy it, like I am not enjoying B:AC or like I never enjoyed Oblivion and have no desire whatsoever to play Skyrim.

Does anyone else share that opinion?
In this hypothetical "real" situation that you have where Batman is saving people, does he have the luxury of never multitasking? Has he ever had to deal with 2 or maybe even 3 things at once?

But I get you. I just don't put that much thought into it personally. :)

Edit: I will have to say that I hate those laser sniper rifle goons in Arkham City. They're the worst.
Post edited February 14, 2014 by LiftElement
Posted February 14, 2014
avatar
lukaszthegreat: What is gog's opinion on them?

Reason I ask is Batman and Witcher....

I've recently beaten TW2 and it was awesome. Really enjoyed it, not the bosses but rest of the game. The story, the pacing, characters, the world. Very well done. Different from TW1 tough so I have hard time comparing them as games. (oh. the boss fights i did not like.... but in a way I will remember them fondly. )

Now Batman

I really enjoyed Batman: AA years ago. Not a huge Batman nerd but it was really fun game. Don't really have a desire to replay it but I beat that in "one go" (as i played only the game without pausing to play something else)
Now comes Batman: AC and it's meh. It is open world but the only result is that I have to fly like a moron from one side of the map to another. Yes. There are 'tons' of stuff to do. Mooks to beat up, riddler's riddles, sidequests
Yet it only results with me beating them up for xp gain (and its boring already as simple xp gain is not a strong motivator to fight them anymore) skipping the riddles as they have no point (why would Batman solve them if they are not a threat to anyone?) and skipping siequests because they disrupt the flow of the game, which results in immersion breaking.
Example: I am supposed to track Mr. Freeze. I fly for a minute then I hear the phone ringing. It is a sidequest involving Zszaz. If I don't answer nothing happens right? I don't have to. it is a sidequest and me not answering the phone won't cause a damn thing. it will still be there after i do current quest. Yet in game if I didn't answer Zszaz would murder innocent person. Batman cannot let that happen so he must answer. Simple sidequest breaks the flow of the game as it creates conflict between gameplay mechanic and world immersion.
The game is bad. It is subjective opinion. It is bad for me.

Therefore I worry about TW3. That it being open world will make the game shit. Not that the game will be bad but that I would simply not enjoy it, like I am not enjoying B:AC or like I never enjoyed Oblivion and have no desire whatsoever to play Skyrim.

Does anyone else share that opinion?
Dude i think its about your taste, you probably like more story driven then open world. I really didnt care about the open world of arkham city, i loved the first one better, but oblivion and skyrim, its exploration and getting tangled in quest you meet on the way makes it fun and yea i gotta admit sometime its immersion breaking
Posted February 14, 2014
I personally find that open worlds are more compelling in inverse proportion to their size.

Sleeping Dogs' Hong Kong isn't anywhere near to the size of any of the GTA series' cities, but although much of the scenery is wallpaper, I'm finding everything about it 100% more interesting. Red Dead Redemption seems to be unaffected for me, though, and I like the 'hiking simulator' aspect of the Bethesda Fallouts.

Story driven can work in an open world, hell I loved LA Noire, but it can become a little jarring when you notice that it's essentially set dressing. Then again, I won't deny that the set dressing goes a long way towards immersion, even more so when you don't have a to-do list of menial tasks, which really accomplishes the opposite of what it tries to achieve.

Doing away with an automatic journal type thing/quest tracker and the ability for the player to choose what to keep track of with their own notes (think Deus Ex did a simialr thing) would be an interesting experiment.
Post edited February 14, 2014 by wizardtypething
Posted February 14, 2014
Sleeping Dogs is a good example of open world done right. Most of them are empty spaces ( Bethesda games are excelling at that ). I like to have something to do, some well thought missions, jobs, quests. I'm not keen in just looking at the awesome scenery. I must reckon that most of the open world are hiking simulators and nothing else much.

If you can fill the world properly, without grinding quests or collecting quests, you are doing it right. But if you put repetitive quests ( Skyrim, anyone?! ) and leave a ton of space unused or filled with some respawn places for monsters, you are definitely doing it wrong. New Vegas had a smaller scope, but you could find a lot of stuff to do in the wastelands. There was wacky stuff, serious quests, a sense of discovery of places that actually mattered. Fallout 3 had tons of places and most of them were unimportant or even just playing the role of some c...y dungeon....
Posted February 14, 2014
Even if you can fill the world with amazing quests an open world game still involves running like a stupid monkey from one side of the map to another.

In TW1 in act 4 you spend a lot of time running through fields in doing quests. One of the reasons I dislike Elder Scrolls. so much pointless running.
in GTA its not an issue as you have car, bike and radio stations so it was fun. Would you be able to hire a bard to play some tunes when you ride a horse through forests?
Posted February 14, 2014
Some games pull it off nicely, others wreck it. I did not like Batman AC the first time I tried to play it b/c of the open-worldness as well. But after I got into it, I've really liked it. That said, I've only put in 4 hours and the Batman AA I played until my fingers bled. (it wasn't the summer of 69)

I too worry that OW will ruin W3. But perhaps not. OW games have their own draw and if CDPR does it right, it could be spectacular. I hope so.
Posted February 14, 2014
It really depends. Morrowind, Gothic 2, Risen, Skyrim, New Vegas... amazing open world games. Sometimes though an open world just means more busywork and less focus, like with Batman Arkham City. Basically it depends on the talent of the developer.

I trust CDP to make a great open world game. I think they can do it. Proof is in the pudding though, as they say, so we shall see.
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Open World Games(8 posts)(8 posts)
(8 posts)