The last few games you beat and rate them IV

[Commander Clueless]

@Ceremony

Completely agree about the trend of massive open worlds having nothing in them. It's not that fun anymore to be running around a big empty world just because its big. It's a trend I wish would go away

Open world fatigue is a real thing, and I've been suffering from it for a long time. Heck, I even had trouble with The Witcher III (a great game) initially due to it....and that's one of the better examples of open world in my opinion.

I've come to really appreciate well crafted, more liner story lines just because they seem to be more rare these days.


Good open world games are really something, but far too often developers go for quantity over quality.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Open world fatigue is a real thing, and I've been suffering from it for a long time. Heck, I even had trouble with The Witcher III (a great game) initially due to it....and that's one of the better examples of open world in my opinion.

I've come to really appreciate well crafted, more liner story lines just because they seem to be more rare these days.


Good open world games are really something, but far too often developers go for quantity over quality.

I actually haven't played Witcher 3 or Breath of the Wild yet despite hearing nothing but great things. I can't get excited enough anymore to jump into a massive world with 10,000 things to do. The plethora of side quests, collectibles, and skill trees make the game's primary story and the gameplay itslef to seem tertiary to the gaming experience.

There was a shift in game design however many years ago (maybe 10) where it became all about giving gamers "plenty to do". I'm playing Far Cry 4 and I still very much enjoy it but there's: 150 Propoganda posters to tear down, 20 Masks of Yalung to find, 20 entries in Mohan Ghale's journal to find, and what feels like over 200 loot chests to find. This is all on top of the 20ish radio towers that need to be scaled and the 25 outposts that need to be beaten that themselves unlock very similar versions of assassination/hostage rescue missions.

I understand that sometimes the primary goal of these games is immersion into the game's world so they want to give you things to do in order to feel more immersed. The FarCry series wants to plop you into a cool landscape like a tropical island or the Himalayas and let you spend as much time there as you want. I get it. I'm probably just old school now, but give me more of campaigns like from the "Splinter Cell" series or Halo or Hallow Knight. I want the gameplay and the story to be the top priorities for game design more often.

 

[Ceremony]

You should watch this video:

 

[robertmac43]

If you haven't played Hollow Knight yet you're in for a real treat

This is my second go through of the game. But it has been a long while since I loaded it up so it feels nice and fresh!

 

[robertmac43]

I actually haven't played Witcher 3 or Breath of the Wild yet despite hearing nothing but great things. I can't get excited enough anymore to jump into a massive world with 10,000 things to do. The plethora of side quests, collectibles, and skill trees make the game's primary story and the gameplay itslef to seem tertiary to the gaming experience.

Both well worth playing. I will say if you need some kind of direction in the story BoTW may not be the game for you. It is perfect though if you want to have the agency to do what ever you want in a cool world.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I actually haven't played Witcher 3 or Breath of the Wild yet despite hearing nothing but great things. I can't get excited enough anymore to jump into a massive world with 10,000 things to do. The plethora of side quests, collectibles, and skill trees make the game's primary story and the gameplay itslef to seem tertiary to the gaming experience.

There was a shift in game design however many years ago (maybe 10) where it became all about giving gamers "plenty to do". I'm playing Far Cry 4 and I still very much enjoy it but there's: 150 Propoganda posters to tear down, 20 Masks of Yalung to find, 20 entries in Mohan Ghale's journal to find, and what feels like over 200 loot chests to find. This is all on top of the 20ish radio towers that need to be scaled and the 25 outposts that need to be beaten that themselves unlock very similar versions of assassination/hostage rescue missions.

I understand that sometimes the primary goal of these games is immersion into the game's world so they want to give you things to do in order to feel more immersed. The FarCry series wants to plop you into a cool landscape like a tropical island or the Himalayas and let you spend as much time there as you want. I get it. I'm probably just old school now, but give me more of campaigns like from the "Splinter Cell" series or Halo or Hallow Knight. I want the gameplay and the story to be the top priorities for game design more often.

I would say Witcher III handles the open world concept very well. It very clearly divides the main line of quests, the side quests (which are very good), and the extra, more "open worldy" stuff to do in your quest log. It allows someone like me to play it on a more linear path with a few deviations as I want. The only real bummer is the distance between quests...mostly because the horse is an asshole.

Zelda, on the other hand, is one I couldn't really get into. It has some fantastic mechanics, great puzzles, and an overall interesting world to explore - but there is so much world and not a lot of direction. It relies heavily on exploration to the point of tedium for me. Also, the weapon durability system drove me bonkers, but that's a personal problem.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I actually haven't played Witcher 3 or Breath of the Wild yet despite hearing nothing but great things. I can't get excited enough anymore to jump into a massive world with 10,000 things to do. The plethora of side quests, collectibles, and skill trees make the game's primary story and the gameplay itslef to seem tertiary to the gaming experience.

There was a shift in game design however many years ago (maybe 10) where it became all about giving gamers "plenty to do". I'm playing Far Cry 4 and I still very much enjoy it but there's: 150 Propoganda posters to tear down, 20 Masks of Yalung to find, 20 entries in Mohan Ghale's journal to find, and what feels like over 200 loot chests to find. This is all on top of the 20ish radio towers that need to be scaled and the 25 outposts that need to be beaten that themselves unlock very similar versions of assassination/hostage rescue missions.

I understand that sometimes the primary goal of these games is immersion into the game's world so they want to give you things to do in order to feel more immersed. The FarCry series wants to plop you into a cool landscape like a tropical island or the Himalayas and let you spend as much time there as you want. I get it. I'm probably just old school now, but give me more of campaigns like from the "Splinter Cell" series or Halo or Hallow Knight. I want the gameplay and the story to be the top priorities for game design more often.

I agree with you about open-world games at this point, too often there's plenty of "stuff to do" or places to go, but nothing compelling about them. Game design has been benched for putting a much "stuff" in a game as possible. And while not my favorite series, this is what drew me to Dark Souls as those games have excellent level design.

That said, Breath of the Wild is different. It is close to the opposite of the Ubisoft open-world titles with their endless map icons and tedious side missions. Nintendo has always put gameplay above all else.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

I'm actually a big fan of this video explaining what the problem with a lot of open world games nowadays is:



A lot of open world games don't really feel like open world games when you focus on the story. It's "Go exactly here, then do exactly this, then go exactly over there next to that particular tree." Then all your time in the actual open world just feels like filler while you go from mission to mission. Thinking of Far Cry since the Jim Sterling video was posted, the only thing I found really fun in that game was attacking outposts. It felt so creative, there were so many different ways to do it and was really satisfying when everything works out. But then you start playing the actual story and it's, Hey, let's go through this generic cave so we can focus this cinematic cutscene on you while you fight generic tropical shirt guys. Then it just feels frustrating because you get the sense the game can't decide whether it wants to be open world or on rails and it just hurts the entire experience.

 

[saluki]

My open world fatigue goes all the way back to Skyrim.

I think the reason Red Dead Redemption clicked so well for me (I played it for the first time this year) is that the story is incredibly well engrained into the open world itself and the non-story elements of the game are deeply subservient to the narrative.

And it's simply not TOO big. There's a lot of stuff to see and many places to go but I never once felt overwhelmed. I don't want deal with stuff like feeding myself and my horse, shaving, hiding the body of everyone I kill etc. I just want to get out there and have fun.

 

[Shareefruck]

I just never liked open world games to begin with, personally. I've always felt that the more that control and direction of the experience shifts from the creator's hands to the player's, the more superficial the appeal of games start to feel. The idea of having a do-what-you-want sandbox to play in has always sounded like a childish idea to me.

I have more respect for videogames when they feel more like an advanced and intricately designed digital board game or stage play than when they feel like a free, immersive, escapist travelogue to live vicariously through.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I just never liked open world games to begin with, personally. I've always felt that the more that control and direction of the experience shifts from the creator's hands to the player's, the more superficial the appeal of games start to feel. The idea of having a do-what-you-want sandbox to play in has always sounded like a childish idea to me.

I have more respect for videogames when they feel more like an advanced and intricately designed digital board game or stage play than when they feel like a free, immersive, escapist travelogue to live vicariously through.

Exactly. It’s like these games are trying to say “it’s your world and your gaming experience, do whatever you want in it”. I don’t want that. A good/great video game could very well be considered an art form. As a game designer show me what you want to show me, have me do want you want me to do. This is your ride and I bought a ticket for it.

 

[542365]

I much prefer more classic levels or stages as well. Even in games where the travel should be fun(like Forza horizon with the awesome cars you get to drive) it still becomes a chore rather quickly. I remember hating Need for Speed Underground 2 back in the day because you had to drive everywhere for every race or shop. I missed doing it in a menu, even if that’s obviously less realistic.

That said, it does work for some games. For instance, I can’t imagine playing GTA as a level/mission based game. It still becomes a chore to get to your missions at times, but there are so many times I don’t really want to do missions and would rather mess around in the world.

More games need a good fast travel option. That way, if you want to muck about the world on your way to the next mission, you’re welcome to, but you can also just get right to it if you’d like.

 

[Ceremony]

I just never liked open world games to begin with, personally. I've always felt that the more that control and direction of the experience shifts from the creator's hands to the player's, the more superficial the appeal of games start to feel. The idea of having a do-what-you-want sandbox to play in has always sounded like a childish idea to me.

I have more respect for videogames when they feel more like an advanced and intricately designed digital board game or stage play than when they feel like a free, immersive, escapist travelogue to live vicariously through.

Do you never play video games for fun?

 

[Commander Clueless]

Exactly. It’s like these games are trying to say “it’s your world and your gaming experience, do whatever you want in it”. I don’t want that. A good/great video game could very well be considered an art form. As a game designer show me what you want to show me, have me do want you want me to do. This is your ride and I bought a ticket for it.

I think the best open world games can both take you for a ride and also let you do what you want with it. It's the advantage of the medium and, in theory, can be used as a powerful tool.

However, far too many games use open world as an excuse for a bunch of crap filler IMO. Innovation would seem to be lacking.

 

[Shareefruck]

Do you never play video games for fun?

It's the art vs. entertainment debate in videogame form for me, basically. To me, creative appreciation and designer-to-player expression/engagement is its own kind of fun that is more satisfying, meaningful, and rewarding to me than any brand of fun that's removed from that (like here's a location-- **** around and let loose in it, you can do anything you want). It's not like I have never found myself indulging in that (although I can't really think of many times that I do anymore), but I would find that pretty hollow, not particularly worthwhile and not something to really feel good about, personally. Maybe it could be inadvertently useful as a creative outlet and I could maybe see its value there, but there are better ways to satisfy that as well than bumming around GTAV and being a dick for fun.

To me, if videogames were just about that type of fun, I wouldn't remotely care for the medium and would view it as a soulless time-waster zombifying our youth, the same way that people who are ignorant of their value and shake their fists at it do. It's basically the same way I feel about reality TV, summer blockbusters, or top 40 radio. Maybe if the more meaningful stuff didn't exist in any form providing a more complete and all encompassing feeling, then I would see more of a purpose to what you're referring to, but given that it does, it does basically nothing for me. Just about anything is a better way to spend time, IMO, including probably nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't go as far as to say that open world games are entirely devoid of what I appreciate about games, but the shift in focus to them seems to be based on emphasis on the qualities I don't care for. I have almost zero desire for the escapism or distraction side of things. To me, immersion is only a useful way to realize and appreciate a creative vision, not something I ever want for its own sake to distract me from my life or something.

 

[saluki]

The most maddening open-world related quote of the past 10 years:

"Metro 2033 is too linear".

I don't know how many times I read a version of that and it has pissed me off every time.

 

[Osprey]

I just never liked open world games to begin with, personally. I've always felt that the more that control and direction of the experience shifts from the creator's hands to the player's, the more superficial the appeal of games start to feel. The idea of having a do-what-you-want sandbox to play in has always sounded like a childish idea to me.

You should watch the video that Frankie linked above. It does a good job making the point that doing exactly what the developers want you to when they want you to and being led by the hand to do it treats the player more like a child and makes games feel more superficial. It's when the "control and direction of the experience" is in the hands of players that they're treated the most like adults, IMO. After all, if you're a young teenager who goes to an amusement park with your parents, which is treating you more childishly: your parents letting you go off and have fun on your own or requiring that you stick by their side, go where they go and do what they tell you to? If the former just doesn't appeal to you, that's fine, but a lot of people find the exact opposite appealing for the same reason.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I watched both of those videos and they were pretty good.

 

[Shareefruck]

You should watch the video that Frankie linked above. It does a good job making the point that doing exactly what the developers want you to when they want you to and being led by the hand to do it treats the player more like a child and makes games feel more superficial. It's when the "control and direction of the experience" is in the hands of players that they're treated the most like adults. After all, if you're a young teenager who goes to an amusement park with your parents, which is treating you more childishly: your parents letting you go off and have fun on your own or requiring that you stick by their side, go where they go and do what they tell you to? If the former just doesn't appeal to you, that's fine, but a lot of people find the exact opposite appealing for the same reason.

I'll take a look, thanks.

There are obvious draws to open worlds, and I agree that total linearity isn't the optimal approach either, but as I mentioned, it primarily appeals to the immersion/escapism side of fun (essentially what you're referring to), which I mentioned that I personally see less value in that in general. You wouldn't consider all films childish and superficial, despite being on rails-- there are plenty of opportunties to craft a carefully directed experience without holding someone's hand.

I don't think crafting a perfectly directed open world game is impossible, but it takes so much work, it's so unlikely to be able to perfectly consider and craft every moment, and it results in so many storytelling/pacing compromises and excesses that I don't think the benefits are likely, practical, or worth the drawbacks. To me, the Metroidvania/From Software approaches to crafting gaming experiences are probably the best of both worlds.

 

[Osprey]

There are obvious draws to open worlds, and I agree that total linearity isn't the optimal approach either, but as I mentioned, it primarily appeals to the immersion/escapism side of fun (essentially what you're referring to), which I mentioned that I personally see less value in that in general. You wouldn't consider all films childish and superficial, despite being on rails-- there are plenty of opportunties to craft a carefully directed experience without holding someone's hand.

Movies are very different than games. With movies, you're watching someone else experience things. With games, you're experiencing things, yourself, and making choices that influence your experience. Unlike with movies, freedom and choice are inherent features of playing a game, so the more that you restrict those things, the more that the point of being a game is lost. A lot of gamers aren't very fond of "walking simulators" for that reason.

I, personally, feel that there's more value in immersion, not less. Consider this: what's more fun, watching sports or participating in sports? It's the latter, since it's more exhilarating to participate and know that you can influence the result. Now, imagine if you were being told when to pass the ball, the player to pass it to, when to attack, when to stay back and defend and so on, such that you had no choice in your actions or much effect on the outcome. You may as well just be watching from the sidelines or on TV because what makes playing the sport, or game, special is missing.

Being told a story can be very entertaining, which is why movies and TV shows are so popular, but you generally don't fire up a game for the same reason that you start a movie or show, especially an open world game. The main story in an open world game takes maybe 10 hours. Does anyone play through that and nothing else and then stop playing the game? I doubt it. We sink 50-100 hours into those games because the real draw is the freedom to go where we want, get sidetracked, decide which missions to do, how we want to do them and so on. Such an unstructured experience may not hold value to some, but it holds a lot of value to others of us.

 

[Shareefruck]

Movies are very different than games. With movies, you're watching someone else experience things. With games, you're experiencing things, yourself, and making choices that influence your experience. Unlike with movies, freedom and choice are inherent features of playing a game, so the more that you restrict those things, the more that the point of being a game is lost.

I think that there's more value in immersion. Consider this: what's more fun, watching sports or participating in sports? It's the latter, since it's more exhilarating to participate and know that you can influence the result. Now, imagine if you were being told when to pass the ball, the player to pass it to, when to attack, when to stay back and defend and so on, such that you had no choice in your actions or much effect on the outcome. If someone else is making the decisions for you like that, you might as well just be watching from the sidelines or on TV, because what makes playing the sport, which is a form of game, special is missing.

The problem is, I see a similar lack of substance and value in both watching and participating in sports (or even more-so, going to an amusement park, on or off rails, for that matter) compared to the immense value I see in the creative appreciation side of experiences such as films, music, or storytelling in general (not non-existent substance, just less of it). Open worlds can enhance that brand of fun, I would not argue against that, but as mentioned, I don't find that brand of fun intrinsically interesting or meaningful in the first place, so I don't really respect very much the trade-offs that tend to be made for that enhancement to take place.

I think it's a fair point to say "well then you're not fully appreciating games for ALL of their actual purposes, strengths and advantages over other mediums then," but whether that's true or not, that is ultimately what I value about them. I think there are other game-y aspects that I do appreciate as things unique to the medium, but role playing immersion and choice variance are not really big ones for me.

I actually think the sports question is not that obvious. If we're talking about having a light-hearted game of some sport that I'm only average at, I value the experience of watching and appreciating it played at a high level by some brilliant athlete a million times more than I would messing around with it myself and being immersed in that level of fun. However, if I happened to be excellent at the sport and could creatively express some form of mastery over it, then only that would potentially reach comparable reward for me (but that would be more of a parallel to engaging with game mechanics, not immersion). The immersive thrill of playing the sport alone isn't something that I place a great value on, though-- it may be more thrilling than the immersive thrill of watching a thing go into a thing and going "woo", but that isn't saying much, for me anyways. I'd trade that in for stronger creative direction in a heartbeat.

 

[Osprey]

The problem is, I see a similar lack of substance and value in both watching and participating in sports (or even more-so, going to an amusement park, on or off rails, for that matter) compared to the immense value I see in the creative appreciation side of experiences such as films, music, or storytelling in general (not non-existent substance, just less of it). Open worlds can enhance that brand of fun, I would not argue against that, but as mentioned, I don't find that brand of fun intrinsically interesting or meaningful in the first place, so I don't really respect very much the trade-offs that tend to be made for that enhancement to take place.

I think it's a fair point to say "well then you're not fully appreciating games for ALL of their actual purposes, strengths and advantages over other mediums then," but whether that's true or not, that is ultimately what I value about them. I think there are other game-y aspects that I do appreciate as things unique to the medium, but role playing immersion and choice variance are not really big ones for me.

It seems like you appreciate seeing what experiences others create for you more than you do creating those experiences, yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, but I greatly prefer the latter. Give me the freedom and tools to create my own experience, one that feels unique to me and not the same thing that every other player experiences. That's what I value, especially when it comes to games. There are so many other forms of entertainment where I have no choice but to be an observer--movies, TV shows, pro sports, books, music, online videos, etc.--that I don't want an experience similar to that when it comes to games, which can be much more immersive and that I can actually participate in.

I don't even share people's appreciation for cutscenes. I often rush through them or even skip them altogether. Besides the fact that they're usually worse than the worst TV shows, I fire up a game to experience unscripted gameplay, not to sit back and watch what the developers have scripted for me. I'm playing GTA4 right now and it feels like the cutscenes are as long as the missions that follow them. If I have an hour to game, I don't want to spend only half of it actually gaming. Anyways, I'm kind of ranting now, but it makes a point of how much I value interactivity in games.

Back to the main comparison, I can still enjoy and appreciate a restrictive, linear and/or creatively envisioned game, but I enjoy and appreciate even more the games that give me freedom to use my thinking skills and my own imagination. They may have less value as "art," but I don't judge things by how artistic they are. That feels to me like judging them by a set of criteria that someone else came up with. I judge things by how much I enjoyed them, or, in the case of games, how much fun they were. Sometimes, an artistic, but simplistic and linear game like a side scroller can be a lot of fun, but what I tend to find even more fun are games that allow and encourage me to use my head and solve problems in my own manner. I tend to gravitate to those types of games, whether they're open world RPGs, strategy games, puzzle games or even first-person shooters with elements of those.

Anyways, we're not likely to agree because we appear to value completely different things in games, and that's fine. If all tastes were alike, there'd be no variety, and that'd be worse for all of us.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

XCOM: Chimera Squad - 9/10

I'm sure I'm going to ruffle a few feathers but I might go so far as to say this is my favorite XCOM game. It's definitely smaller scale and more of a rigid story line with premade characters. I'll start by saying customizing squad members was never anything I was interested in, I was always more into leveling up my characters and the gameplay. As a result, the lack of customizable characters meant nothing to me. In fact, this was actually a bit of a benefit since each character had their own personality and voice acting, not that there was much story there but it was a welcome change IMO.

As for the changes, it's less punishing in a few ways. You don't have to rest soldiers nearly as often. You'll have characters get scars instead of being forced to rest between battles but they can still fight, they just lose some stats like less health or less mobility. There are also fewer soldiers, each fight will only have 4 squad members you can bring. Another change that makes things less punishing is there are encounters per mission. Once you clear one encounter, you create a fresh entry into the next battle. The encounters are in relatively small spaces compared to the main line XCOM games but screwing up means you don't have to start the whole mission over, just restart that encounter.

Speaking of encounters, they added Breach Mode. Breaches allow you to place soldiers at set entry points where you can use certain abilities, go in and take your shots followed by the enemy taking their shots and then running to cover. I personally loved the breach mode, I thought it was a great addition. You have aliens as well as humans on your team with a wide variety of powers making setting up your squad more versatile. For example, as opposed to the mainline games, you can use a Cobra in your squad that can pull in any character, friend or foe, and bind foes to lock them into place.

My favorite part of the change though is staggering turns. It's not your squad goes followed by the alien squad and alternating. Now its one character from your squad, 2 characters from the aliens, 1 character from your squad, 1 character from aliens, etc. Everyone is numbered so it's beneficial to try to kill enemies that are going next even if they are harder targets to hit. In the same sense, it makes the game less punishing as well since you won't have a whole alien turn going on before you can make adjustments.

Typical XCOM bugs are still there. Visual bugs with characters aiming the wrong way, camera bugs where the camera doesn't focus on the right character, bugs where 10 seconds go by before an action takes place for some reason. I don't get why they can't seem to fix these, it happens in every game, you'd think it would have been fixed by now but it's the same in Chimera Squad in 2020 as it was in Enemy Unknown in 2012.

Overall, while the core gameplay of tactics is still there between this and the other XCOM games, this one certainly plays quite a bit differently from the baseline games. I can understand not liking it, I personally loved it. I'd be all for them taking some notes from Chimera Squad and adding it to a potential XCOM 3.

 

[Shareefruck]

It seems like you appreciate seeing what experiences others create for you more than you do creating those experiences, yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, but I greatly prefer the latter. Give me the freedom and tools to create my own experience, one that feels unique to me and not the same thing that every other player experiences. That's what I value, especially when it comes to games. There are so many other forms of entertainment where I have no choice but to be an observer--movies, TV shows, pro sports, books, music, online videos, etc.--that I don't want an experience similar to that when it comes to games, which can be much more immersive and that I can actually participate in.

I don't even share people's appreciation for cutscenes. I often rush through them or even skip them altogether. Besides the fact that they're usually worse than the worst TV shows, I fire up a game to experience unscripted gameplay, not to sit back and watch what the developers have scripted for me. I'm playing GTA4 right now and it feels like the cutscenes are as long as the missions that follow them. If I have an hour to game, I don't want to spend only half of it actually gaming. Anyways, I'm kind of ranting now, but it makes a point of how much I value interactivity in games.

Back to the main comparison, I can still enjoy and appreciate a restrictive, linear and/or creatively envisioned game, but I enjoy and appreciate even more the games that give me freedom to use my thinking skills and my own imagination. They may have less value as "art," but I don't judge things by how artistic they are. That feels to me like judging them by a set of criteria that someone else came up with. I judge things by how much I enjoyed them, or, in the case of games, how much fun they were. Sometimes, an artistic, but simplistic and linear game like a side scroller can be a lot of fun, but what I tend to find even more fun are games that allow and encourage me to use my head and solve problems in my own manner. I tend to gravitate to those types of games, whether they're open world RPGs, strategy games, puzzle games or even first-person shooters with elements of those.

Anyways, we're not likely to agree because we appear to value completely different things in games, and that's fine. If all tastes were alike, there'd be no variety, and that'd be worse for all of us.

Agreed, and that's a pretty accurate way of framing our differences, I think.

When it comes to narrative experience, I don't really appreciate absolute control/freedom because I wouldn't be able to come up with something as worthwhile or cohesive as what I hope a creative who's really good at their job can (especially considering the limited tools I would have in comparison)-- the value of the outcome is what matters to me, not the unpredictability, novelty, or agency of the experience. I also wouldn't ACTUALLY be creating the experience for myself anyways-- They're still supplying all of it and I'm just experiencing a small subsection of it in an non-streamlined order. The problem I see with that is that they have to stretch their ideas really thin to cover their bases for any possible thing that I might do, which would almost always result in an unfocused, sub-optimal path. The relationship between development effort and pay-off seems wildly inefficient to me, and I don't think an enhanced sense of agency and unpredictability is worth that trade-off. Besides, if I really wanted to scratch that itch and indulge in my sense of imagination, creativity, and agency, I feel like that energy would be better spent actually trying to do or create something in real life rather than doing it within in the confines of someone else's sandbox. A pencil and paper seems oddly enough a more limitless way to satisfy that desire anyways.

When it comes to engagement and gameplay, I do love the problem solving/puzzle/strategy/design side of games as well-- it's probably the one aspect of games unique to the medium that I cherish, as opposed to something like immersion. I don't really see why open-world progression would involve more puzzle and strategy than non-open-world progression, and those factors are usually better expressed in gameplay mechanics and systems than in the method of progression anyways. I think that strong game design is all about restrictions and knowing what to show/hide as well as what you can/can't do-- I love the minimalism side of it-- just doing what's purposeful and nothing else, and those deliberately limited restrictions are what makes games interesting in a way that just existing in limitless universe (or in real life) can't be. I can't get behind the idea of a game that exists because "I want to be able to access anything and see or do whatever I want to," because I think that compromises the rewards of those design decisions/rules/restrictions, which makes it feel like less of a game and more of a simulation to explore.

After organizing my thoughts about all this, I think I would broadly break down games into three components that you engage with: delivery, game rules, and simulation. I care a lot about delivery, and I think that delivery is stronger when it's treated like a directed and communicated artistic vision. I care a lot about game rules, and I think that their strengths lie in carefully considered and strictly CLOSED restrictions. However, I don't care about simulation, and I agree that they benefit a lot from being more open, free, and immersive.

 

[Aladyyn]

I'm actually a big fan of this video explaining what the problem with a lot of open world games nowadays is:



A lot of open world games don't really feel like open world games when you focus on the story. It's "Go exactly here, then do exactly this, then go exactly over there next to that particular tree." Then all your time in the actual open world just feels like filler while you go from mission to mission. Thinking of Far Cry since the Jim Sterling video was posted, the only thing I found really fun in that game was attacking outposts. It felt so creative, there were so many different ways to do it and was really satisfying when everything works out. But then you start playing the actual story and it's, Hey, let's go through this generic cave so we can focus this cinematic cutscene on you while you fight generic tropical shirt guys. Then it just feels frustrating because you get the sense the game can't decide whether it wants to be open world or on rails and it just hurts the entire experience.

In my eyes the main draw of open world games is crafting your own story with your own character. Minecraft, Mount & Blade, Kenshi are great examples of how an open world game should work like: here's a world, the rest is up to you. But in RDR2 for example, you can't really do the same things, you can't be anyone you want or do anything you want, you'll always be Arthur Morgan, doing things Arthur Morgan did. And it's a damn shame because the world in that game is so brilliant and I'd love to have a sandbox-y experience in it.