• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

The Open World Trend

pkmin3033

Guest
    • 0
    Posts
    I don't know if you've noticed, but the industry these days is saturated with games that proudly boast having an open world as one of their biggest and most appealing features. For those unfamiliar with the term (I can't imagine there are many of you, but you never know) open world games are those which allow you to explore the world freely, lacking the invisible walls or barriers to progression that more linear games have. They are generally described as non-linear, despite most having a completely linear story or progression system that you're required to do if you ever want to finish the game.

    How do you feel about open worlds in video games - is this a trend that you don't mind seeing continue, or one that you'd prefer to see end sooner rather than later? Are there any games you've played that you feel could benefit from having an open world, or any you've played that really didn't need it? How could this trend evolve to be a more positive and engaging one in the future?
     
    Last edited:
    I do not mind it, but please for the love of god don't oversaturate the market with it like they do with every other trend. Not every game needs an open world to be good.

    Considering the types of games I have enjoyed/played I do not think they'd work out in a open world setting.

    Imagine that, a RTS game with an open world... thats a mess waiting to happen
     
    I'm somewhat of an explorer type of guy. If I play an open world game then I want to go into a direction, get lost for a long time and ultimately return al the while thinking that all of it was no waste of time, that I got something out of it. It doesn't have to be a rare item or any type of other gameplay "enhancing" finds.

    I can't say I've found any game so far that in terms of open world-ness compares to the ones I played long ago. Those being Morrowind and the first two Gothic games. Morrowind was vast but it was also complicated which kinda felt nice. It's successors sure brought back an open world, but they also streamlined a lot of stuff which made them kinda boring in the long run.
    The first Gothic games being a lot simpler but at the same time bring in so much character with pretty much every NPC having their own daily routine and conversations about meaningless trife and whatnot.

    It's easy to create an open world, even I could do it. But it's hard to populate it so that it doesn't feel empty.
     
    Dawn said:
    I don't know if you've noticed, but the industry these days is saturated with games that proudly boast having an open world as one of their biggest and most appealing features. For those unfamiliar with the term (I can't imagine there are many of you, but you never know) open world games are those which allow you to explore the world freely, lacking the invisible walls or barriers to progression that more linear games have. They are generally described as non-linear, despite most having a completely linear story or progression system that you're required to do if you ever want to finish the game.

    How do you feel about open worlds in video games - is this a trend that you don't mind seeing continue, or one that you'd prefer to see end sooner rather than later? Are there any games you've played that you feel could benefit from having an open world, or any you've played that really didn't need it? How could this trend evolve to be a more positive and engaging one in the future?
    Click to expand...

    I think I like open worlds when I want to put myself into that world and just hobble along. I enjoy Grand Theft Auto because it allows me to just be a random person in a huge and bustling city. For most of my short bouts with it I rarely do any crimes apart from stealing a vehicle, since I just find it fun to explore the world that the game devs created and feel like I'm visiting the place it was based off of in real life. It's a nice feeling to have that freedom. And if the campaign doesn't hurt from the openness, I'm all for it.

    So yeah, I don't mind if it continues to be a trend. Just as long as it isn't forced into games that are better with a more linear approach. If game devs can't make the open world fun, that's probably a sign that they shouldn't be doing it for their game.

    For games that could benefit from an open world, I'd be interested to see Pokémon do it, more than a small area to explore as a pseudo open world, i.e. the Wild Area. If it doesn't work then at least we know, but I feel like it can work and it'll be a great time if pulled off properly.

    Weirdly enough, nothing comes to mind for a game that didn't need the open world. I haven't played FF15, but maybe that one? I'm not sure. I heard it got criticized for having barren areas, so that's mostly why I brought that game up.

    As long as it's fun, which is a huge part of engaging the player, and that there are true rewards for exploring every nook and cranny, then perhaps we can have a more positive opinion on this open world trend.
     
    I enjoy open worlds but I do think that developers can be a bit too hung up on them at times. I think the simple question of "does an open world add anything significant to the experience" needs to be asked more. Generally speaking though, I'm fond of open worlds since they can make the world feel more real. I just don't think every game and each of their spin-offs needs an open world.
     
    I like exploring, so I really enjoy open world games when there's plenty of interesting areas to explore or easter eggs; TES is one of my favourite RPG series because of that and the open world is the main reason why I enjoy GTA. However for many games I think that faux-open worlds which are actually large self-contained areas are better (Super Mario Odyssey nailed it perfectly, imho), and I think Pokémon is one of those: the Wild Area seems a totally uninteresting and void open world area, which does not obviously fall into the kind of open world I like - even BoTW's open world felt too void for me even if I still enjoyed exploring it, but at least it made sense for it to feelvoid as it's a sort of post-apocalyptic world.
     
    as long as there's a purpose behind the open world experience, then i think it's fine. if it's added for the sake of jumping on a trend, then imo then i believe it's a problem. not every game needs to be open world to be good. while large amount of exploration is definitely a good thing, it's also wise to have each and every journey across a wide map feel meaningful instead of empty.
     
    > Open World exists.
    Yet we still don't have any game out there with a large mall for my character to explore :P
     
    Open World games would be better when they focus on reducing the linearity of the games instead of putting in 'open' world which is just empty. A world is open when you can do whatever you want in it, whenever you want to. When the linearity of the games is reduced, your freedom increases, so there isn't a need for making a large space which has no significant contribution to the story. In certain cases, the extra explorable region has no use but for sidequests. Consider Hebra Mountain and Tarry town(from botw). They don't have any importance in the story, but just locations to serve sidequests and exploration.
     
    I like open worlds but at the same time for me it can be a bit overwhelming. I liked the open world when I tried playing Bravely Default (which I have yet to finish) where it was a bit open but at the same time you could only go so far at one time to keep from getting lost.
     
    I like the concept of open worlds but I think a lot of devs who do it poorly just cram their games with busywork. I own like 10 open world games and most of them I'm probably never going to complete. The only two I ever have completed are:

    - Skyrim (I didn't interact much with the small-scale quests so I can't say for sure but that game definitely didn't fall victim to giving you a million time wasting activities, it was more toned down and the quests that did exist were longer and more interesting)
    - Mirror's Edge Catalyst (I ignored the open world and just played the story bc honestly that game doesn't even need an open world)

    Meanwhile recent open worlds like the ones Ubisoft keep putting out are sooooo much busywork and a map filled with a million icons to overwhelm you. I even love Assassin's Creed Odyssey but it really does love to waste my time a fair bit.

    I'm also playing BOTW now but it's too early for me to have an opinion on that game's open world. I've heard amazing things.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top