Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

In multiplayer games, your opponent is there to kill you. In single player, your opponent is there to get ****ed by you.

The last 3 open world single player games I've played were Dragon Quest XI, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, and Halo Infinite. I've only now realized that this genre is literally the digital form of "Hey kid, do you want to play 52 card pickup?!"

You're always this outgunned, outmanned force on a giant map occupied by a world conquering military. Only...they just stand around waiting for you (the player) to methodically kill them bit by bit.

Sure, they all give you these gorgeous maps to pull up, but apparently none of their generals know how to, you know, engage in war? Once you've taken a location over, it's yours for good.

If the player is never under threat from retaliation, why should they take outpost X over outpost Y or Z? If you're playing 52 pickup, the order in which you pick up cards doesn't matter. Your friend/sibling got you and you must pick them up because you said "Sure". That's legally binding.

StarCraft was released in 1998 by 20 Blizzard employees. The AI, in 1998 (22 years ago), wouldn't let you have ****. If you took over one of their bases they wanted it back. What you took over, when, and where it was all mattered back then. Wouldn't

Imagine Chief, Nomad, or the kid wearing the purple dress from DQXI getting intel that's more than simply lore? Isn't that the future we want?

 

[bender]

Don't the Far Cry games feature outposts that will be recaptured by enemies over time? Undead Nightmare did and it was more annoying than it was interesting.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

Don't the Far Cry games feature outposts that will be recaptured by enemies over time? Undead Nightmare did and it was more annoying than it was interesting.

Not that I can remember

 

[The Cockatrice]

So...you're saying the AIs in open world games are bad but in linear ones are not? Ofc an AI in an open world needs to be really fucking well programmed due to the huge amount of possibilities against it but in a linear game like say FEAR or RAGE, they naturally feel smart as hell but then again modern gaming devlopment no longer focus on improving the AI like they used to.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Don't the Far Cry games feature outposts that will be recaptured by enemies over time? Undead Nightmare did and it was more annoying than it was interesting.

I've never played the Far Cry games but let me ask you if it's a timed or random occurrence? Does the outpost automatically switch over or can the player see opposing forces coming, therefore being able to do something about it?

 

[Captain Toad]

That's not just open-world games, but almost every video game. It's also not a problem.

 

[BennyBlanco]

If you want a game with AI that won’t give you an inch, go try AOE4. Even on normal they will harass the shit out of you and stop you in your tracks before you can get anything going.

I totally agree about modern AAA open worlds though. Every once in a while I want a big dumb ubisoft game but most of the time it’s a real bore.

 

[bender]

I've never played the Far Cry games but let me ask you if it's a timed or random occurrence? Does the outpost automatically switch over or can the player see opposing forces coming, therefore being able to do something about it?

No clue of on Far Cry. Those games aren't might cup of tea. Undead Nightmare was timed as they had an achievement for liberating all the cities (Plate Spinner). I *think* you could interrupt the zombies from recapturing but I haven't played it since release.

 

[amigastar]

I remember when open world games had better reputation (Shenmue, GTA, Gothic, Morrowind etc.)
Today its not the case anymore, games like Far Cry series, Assassins Creed and so on got bad rep of being empty or repetitive.

 

[bender]

I remember when open world games had better reputation (Shenmue, GTA, Gothic, Morrowind etc.)
Today its not the case anymore, games like Far Cry series, Assassins Creed and so on got bad rep of being empty or repetitive.

My main issues beyond cut and paste design is:

-Afraid to let players get lost.
-Afraid to let players miss out on content.
-Afraid to have empty spaces

 

[Games of Today]

Don't the Far Cry games feature outposts that will be recaptured by enemies over time? Undead Nightmare did and it was more annoying than it was interesting.

No only Far Cry 2. And everyone complains about it.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

So...you're saying the AIs in open world games are bad but in linear ones are not? Ofc an AI in an open world needs to be really fucking well programmed due to the huge amount of possibilities against it but in a linear game like say FEAR or RAGE, they naturally feel smart as hell but then again modern gaming devlopment no longer focus on improving the AI like they used to.

Linear games don't get this criticism because they don't give players choice. There's no big map. They're not war games with logistical choices.

 

[cormack12]

Taking over the same outpost time and again would really solve the issue of open worlds being reptitive for sure.

Don't you remember how frustrating this was in things like AC III where your deliveries would get raided and you had like 3 minutes to get across the map?

Terrible mechanic. Its bad enough The Division II resets each week but at least thats a GaaS

 

[Ulysses 31]

Naw, not as bad as getting too powerful from all the rewards you get from completing side quests that turn the story quests into cakewalks.

No only Far Cry 2. And everyone complains about it.

Thing with Far Cry 2 was that enemies respawned in minutes.

 

[p_xavier]

Wait, what? DQXI is not an open world game.

 

[Schmick]

No only Far Cry 2. And everyone complains about it.

Enemies would recapture outposts in Far Cry 4 too. I cant remember if Far Cry 3 is the same.

 

[Games of Today]

Naw, not as bad as getting too powerful from all the rewards you get from completing side quests that turn the story quests into cakewalks.

Thing with Far Cry 2 was that enemies respawned in minutes.

They really didn't though. I thin people exaggerate it. You could explore that area as much as you want after clearing it. But if you left the area and moved on sure in 5-10 mins they would return. Which isn't a problem for me anyway it keeps the game active instead of how the new FC games do it and turn the captured outpost into a dead area of the map that has no more gameplay value.

 

[Games of Today]

No the

Enemies would recapture outposts in Far Cry 4 too. I cant remember if Far Cry 3 is the same.

No they wouldn't. You did however have the option to reset all of the outposts in the menu though. But only after you beat the game I think.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Linear games don't get this criticism because they don't give players choice. There's no big map. They're not war games with logistical choices.

Immersive sims do. Thats why I love the genre and why its dying. Naturally in an immersive sim, or generally any open-ended levels like say Dishonored, the AI as well as the level design have to be great. But yeah modern devs dont care, look at Deathloop, immersive sim and it was heavily criticised for its deep shit AI, the masters of the genre. New generation of gamers are really just stupid af and so devs have to adjust to that.

 

[Ulysses 31]

They really didn't though. I thin people exaggerate it. You could explore that area as much as you want after clearing it. But if you left the area and moved on sure in 5-10 mins they would return. Which isn't a problem for me anyway it keeps the game active instead of how the new FC games do it and turn the captured outpost into a dead area of the map that has no more gameplay value.

My memory might be playing tricks on me but I remember having to clear the same outposts multiple times on the same mission.

 

[Games of Today]

My memory might be playing tricks on me but I remember having to clear the same outposts multiple times on the same mission.

Maybe if you killed some enemies but left the outpost/got killed and had to try again. A couple scripted missions in the game had enemies that launched a counter attack of the base you were out but that was it. That may be what you were thinking of.

 

[tusharngf]

farcry2 had random enemies attacking you wherever you go. You are always exposed to something awful there. The feature we are talking about is reinforcements and it's done well in the shadow of Mordor games. You will be always fighting some minions before engaging with a lord.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Maybe if you killed some enemies but left the outpost/got killed and had to try again. A couple scripted missions in the game had enemies that launched a counter attack of the base you were out but that was it. That may be what you were thinking of.

I'm talking about missions in general, had to clear when going to the destination and again when returning. Not clearing often meant getting chased too.

And there were usually multiple outposts to go through per mission...

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Assassin's Creed Odyssey has mercenaries that will actively roam the map and track your whereabouts if you wreck havoc in the game world. I thought they were annoying at first, but over time I did enjoy how it made me have to rethink my strategies.

 

[Games of Today]

I'm talking about missions in general, had to clear when going to the destination and again when returning. Not clearing often meant getting chased too.

And there were usually multiple outposts to go through per mission...

Right I think you may have had to do that for the scripted mission. But I mean if you were just exploring the open world and decided to clear an outpost it would never have enemies again once you cleared it. And they wouldn't counter attack it either.

 

[tusharngf]

Assassin's Creed Odyssey has mercenaries that will actively roam the map and track your whereabouts if you wreck havoc in the game world. I thought they were annoying at first, but over time I did enjoy how it made me have to rethink my strategies.

at least the mercenaries don't attack you during the main quests but capturing some areas can be really painful. I got attacked by numerous mercenaries when i try to capture big forts or camps.

 

[BbMajor7th]

My main issues beyond cut and paste design is:

-Afraid to let players get lost.
-Afraid to let players miss out on content.
-Afraid to have empty spaces

Which is a shame, because the game which is probably most responsible for the kickstarting the open world boom - Skyrim - managed all three back in 2011 on 7th gen hardware. Going back to it after playing more recent releases really shows how much basic elements like that have been lost. And the missing out on content thing is far more than just locations and quests: the modern fad for force freezing the game every five or ten minutes in the opening hours to wall-of-text tutorialise you about systems, mechanics and menu options is fast becoming my biggest gaming turn off. I'd much rather figure stuff out just by playing around with it.

 

[kirby007]

Saints Row lets gangs take back hoods IIRC, tended to be frustrating

 

[bender]

Which is a shame, because the game which is probably most responsible for the kickstarting the open world boom - Skyrim - managed all three back in 2011 on 7th gen hardware. Going back to it after playing more recent releases really shows how much basic elements like that have been lost. And the missing out on content thing is far more than just locations and quests: the modern fad for force freezing the game every five or ten minutes in the opening hours to wall-of-text tutorialise you about systems, mechanics and menu options is fast becoming my biggest gaming turn off. I'd much rather figure stuff out just by playing around with it.

Not really. Skyrim was dumbed down for the masses. I'm not sure you could even be successful in Skyrim without the map and quest markers. Morrowind is a much better example. You had to listen to quest givers and follow sign posts in the world. This probably isn't intentional but one of my favorite things about Morrowind was when a quest NPC gave me the wrong directions to a location which got me completely lost. That could be frustrating as a regular occurrence but as a one-off, certainly made the world feel more real.

 

[KungFucius]

Don't the Far Cry games feature outposts that will be recaptured by enemies over time? Undead Nightmare did and it was more annoying than it was interesting.

I think one of them did or maybe it was an AC game. Regardless it sucked because you had a limited time to get across the map to retake it and of course you were doing something you found to be worth your time to do where you were.

 

[BbMajor7th]

Not really. Skyrim was dumbed down for the masses. I'm not sure you could even be successful in Skyrim without the map and quest markers. Morrowind is a much better example.

I love Morrowind (and wish they'd do an official re-release of that game instead of doing Skyrim over and again), and Skryim might have been dumbed down and more immediately accessible, but it still managed to do everything the prior poster mentioned.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Saints Row lets gangs take back hoods IIRC, tended to be frustrating

How was it implemented though?

If the game randomly turns over old bases that would be frustrating because it doesn't give the players meaningful choice to prevent said takeover. If the player catches the AI en route to said base, and can prepare for the attack, that would be more fun.

 

[TheGodfather07]

a lot of them have too much handholding too. the most recent open world game that had the freedom and exploration feeling was zelda botw. like i got lost in the game world for hours and i wasnt even doing any quests at all. other open world games need that so much because that is the true magic of open world games.

 

[DeepSpace5D]

It’s probably an apt assessment for many games out there, but it really depends on the individual game.

Death Stranding doesn’t fit that mold for example. The Mule territories are clearly outlined on the world map, and you can never really take them over or clear them out permanently. It’s always their territory and you have to steer clear or be prepared to engage them anytime you cross into their area.

 

[CamHostage]

You could explore that area as much as you want after clearing it. But if you left the area and moved on sure in 5-10 mins they would return. Which isn't a problem for me anyway it keeps the game active instead of how the new FC games do it and turn the captured outpost into a dead area of the map that has no more gameplay value.

A game could do more with its locations to keep them fresh when you revisit a spot, sure.

However, the idea that all of the outposts you've conquered could be taken back by enemies and so you would have to return to these areas and re-conquer them could potentially be a real babysitting chore. (GTA San Andreas had a gang turf system sort of like that, if I remember it right you could take a part of town but every once in a while it'd flare up and you'd have a few minutes to stop it or it'd switch back to incomplete.) Doing the same thing over and over again isn't fun for most people, and it would take a lot of specialized work to make each turf battle fun multiple times through in order to be rewarding. (It's hard enough designing that map section and the AI, with chokepoints and the right balance of foes, to be fun once per area, much less every time you roll back into town.) So I'd guess it's probably a feature or a design choice that hotspots get doused once you beat them, as there's a general satisfaction with "accomplishing" the checkpoints of a map, where ideally there would be new things to do (or at least resources to grind out) if you ever had to return to a map spot but otherwise your "progress" would not be reset just because you moved on to another area.

It's a videogame. Sometimes fun is more important than reality.

...That's not to say that a game could not be really fun if they mastered the system of juggling ever-brewing crises. Games are simplified in progression system because that's what most gamers like, but there are gamers who might really like the reality and potential challenge of having more put upon you the more of the map you explore. We've told game designers what we like so often that we are only getting what we like, to the point where games can feel over-simplified now or without those peaks-and-valleys found in older games (which didn't know what we liked as well yet, and so experimented with stuff that many people disliked but that now we look back on and realize had a purpose in the flow of the whole.) Also, a game development studio could do some great work if it made an AI opponent system that had enough complexity and dynamics that the 10th battle for control of a town is just as fun as the first battle.

So, not a bad question to raise, certainly something that, if done right, could be an extraordinary feature in a game, but I can see why game designers have trended towards conquer-and-move-on mechanics.

 

[kirby007]

i think it was Agents of Mayhem actually, once you retook a base the next one was directly taken over, etc. etc.

 

[Deerock71]

I just think they're disorganized and sloppy. Open worlds too adequately reflect the player lol.

 

[V4skunk]

In multiplayer games, your opponent is there to kill you. In single player, your opponent is there to get ****ed by you.

The last 3 open world single player games I've played were Dragon Quest XI, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, and Halo Infinite. I've only now realized that this genre is literally the digital form of "Hey kid, do you want to play 52 card pickup?!"

You're always this outgunned, outmanned force on a giant map occupied by a world conquering military. Only...they just stand around waiting for you (the player) to methodically kill them bit by bit.

Sure, they all give you these gorgeous maps to pull up, but apparently none of their generals know how to, you know, engage in war? Once you've taken a location over, it's yours for good.

If the player is never under threat from retaliation, why should they take outpost X over outpost Y or Z? If you're playing 52 pickup, the order in which you pick up cards doesn't matter. Your friend/sibling got you and you must pick them up because you said "Sure". That's legally binding.

StarCraft was released in 1998 by 20 Blizzard employees. The AI, in 1998 (22 years ago), wouldn't let you have ****. If you took over one of their bases they wanted it back. What you took over, when, and where it was all mattered back then. Wouldn't

Imagine Chief, Nomad, or the kid wearing the purple dress from DQXI getting intel that's more than simply lore? Isn't that the future we want?

Why are you comparing a RTS vs a open world? It makes zero sense.

 

[ANDS]

Not every game features needs to be realistic, particularly if it breaks enjoyment of the game as a whole. As an example, if every game had realistic gun mechanics my enjoyment of first person shooters would (probably) plummet significantly. It's added busy work (like cleaning your gun in RDR or losing ammo on reload as a default option in BREAKPOINT).

. . .same with this idea of recapturing resources (especially when the idea is that you're meant to be pushing back against an enemy as a narrative hook). I will say AC: Valhalla does something interesting. . .in an optional side activity. In the river raids, the more havoc you cause the tougher subsequent raids will be as of course the enemy is getting aware of your activities. Something like that pushed to the base game would be interesting (increased enemy difficulty or exploits locked down that you had hoped to use). Resetting captured resources though. . .not so much.

 

[Fbh]

Far Cry 2 had enemies coming after you and it was usually just annoying.
IMO the biggest issue with modern open world games is that since traversal is usually really automated and everything is shown to you through maps and waypoints, the open world basically functions as little more than a nice looking static background to go from one activity to the other. They'll make everything more seamless and they'll give the game a sense of context, but gameplay wise the games would almost be the same if you just selected the next activity from a menu.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Don't the Far Cry games feature outposts that will be recaptured by enemies over time? Undead Nightmare did and it was more annoying than it was interesting.

In far cry 2 yes, in in fc new dawn you can reset outposts and try again at higher difficulty, in fc5 at certain points during story, you'd become "hunted" and the enemies would come out to get you.
In FC6 there's fights at outposts you've captured, but the enemies can't capture them back, they just have little wars at them with friendly npcs; though they can also reset after you've finished the game.

Shadow of mordor/war of course has the nemesis system, which can actually breed some pretty goddamn powerful enemies, in fact if you don't have all the proper abilities yet, it can create an enemy that's impossible to kill, and you have to run away from them.

AC odyssey has the mercenary system, kinda similar to shadow of mordor, but they weren't tailored to you, they'd just have random abilities that could sometimes be a huge headache if you were trying to capture an area or be stealthy.
AC valhalla has a mission where if you fail to do it on time, similar kind of "mercenaries" will start actively hunting you.
But more importantly it has consequences for people you kill, especially on raids. This means you'll sometimes get randomly ambushed by enemies trying to seek vengeance for their friend/family you killed.

Agents of mayhem had bases that could be taken back by enemies, but it was just annoying really, kinda like FC2

 

[bender]

I love Morrowind (and wish they'd do an official re-release of that game instead of doing Skyrim over and again), and Skryim might have been dumbed down and more immediately accessible, but it still managed to do everything the prior poster mentioned.

The prior poster was me and Oblivion/Skyrim are a large reason why I have that list in the first place. lol

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Why are you comparing a RTS vs a open world? It makes zero sense.

It makes sense when you consider both genres are war sims.

Developers take great lengths to make their games immersive. How is the Covenant or Banished standing around like the Chuck E Cheese band at FOBs the entire game immersive?

Plus, didn't Halo begin as an RTS?

 

[Tschumi]

I think i know what you're saying, yeah i do see your point and i think it is a flaw.

In general i think open world games are a bit old hat by now. Ever since the Witcher 3 I've struggled to really enjoy them. Latest games i really played hard were dishonored 2 and kena, each a month or three ago...

I don't remember, could you lose territory in san Andreas' gang war?

 

[MightySquirrel]

No. #1 problem is that they make you want all corridor games to be open world.

 

[TonyK]

Open world games have worse problems than that.

 

[V4skunk]

It makes sense when you consider both genres are war sims.

Developers take great lengths to make their games immersive. How is the Covenant or Banished standing around like the Chuck E Cheese band at FOBs the entire game immersive?

Plus, didn't Halo begin as an RTS?

Comparing a RTS to fps is silly.
Have you even played a RTS before?
Halo initially began on PC as a fps and ended up on xbox.
There is a trailer on YT of it.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

This is so not true of Halo Infinite because they don't just stay away. The Banished come back and occasionally fly in support or beam enemies down from ships to kill you even in territory you've basically more or less cleansed. I've yet to see them come after a captured FOB, but maybe they do that further in the game, I don't know yet.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

In San Andreas rival gangs would retake districts, if I remember correctly.

 

[I_D]

I suspect I'm in the minority with this one, but I really think the major problem with open-world games is just that the maps are too small.


Games really want to include as much content as possible, so they end up cramming all kinds of shit into a five-square-mile map or something, and then you end up with icons all over your HUD.
If the maps were larger, though, those various HUD objects would look far more reasonable, as they would be spread out over realistic distances.

There are some exceptions (Elder Scrolls games, basically), of course, but it feels like pretty much every open-world game has me running from pockets of enemies to other pockets of enemies, and it usually takes about 20-30ish seconds to run between the pockets.
I understand the need to make games easy to traverse, and to keep the player entertained, and stuff like that. But would it really be that big of a deal to make enemy outposts more than thirty seconds away from each other?

Assassin's Creed, Batman, Zelda, Horizon, Spiderman, Infamous, Halo, Far Cry, Watchdogs, etc. are all basically the same game: Kill this outpost/group of enemies, move a quarter mile in one direction, repeat.



I agree that there are lots of other issues:
- Enemies just stand there, waiting to be killed
- If you move too far from the outpost, it resets and you've wasted all of your ammo
- The outposts themselves are in tactically-idiotic locations
- There's no storyline connecting anything at all
- etc.

But a whole lot of those issues could be made solvable if the maps were just a bit more spread out.
A larger map would also partially, lore-wise, explain why the areas you capture aren't immediately retaken by enemies.