Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Felt pretty open to me, I don't know what disqualifies a game as open world when it has an open world and a sandbox.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is it fair to say Sony is leading the industry when it comes to open worlds?
- Thread starter Rest
- Start date
SLB1904
Banned
thank god they have both
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Sounds like you're talking about what makes a better sandbox rather than open world game
rapid32.5
Member
yeah, I have lost interest in GTA over the years. I seek great single player experiences with fully realized worlds. Sony has impressed me with games you listed, they are definitely above and beyond Ubisoft copy-pasted games and a great competitor to Rockstar. Horizon Zero Dawn and Days Gone were amazing new IPs. And Spiderman with Tsushima.
Last edited:
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
Indeed. To be fair I'm generally disappointed on the gameplay side, it is very, VERY classic. Effective, but that's all.
MiguelItUp
Member
To each their own of course, but I suppose I'm just not understanding this.
What exactly does Valheim and Fortnite do that gives them leverage over other open-world design/experiences? Are they truly so "advanced" that it makes Rockstar and Ubisoft open-worlds appear dead?
I''m genuinely curious. Because when I look at Valheim and Fortnite, both are decent games in their own rights. But I don't see how they hold a candle to the experiences that various Sony, Nintendo, Rockstar, and Ubisoft open-world games have.
Just an interesting angle that I'm trying to see.
MicrosoftMediaPro
Banned
No! Because Zelda: Breath of the Wild is developed by Nintendo 
Mr Branding
Member
Rockstar hasn’t been matched yet. Witcher is better than any Sony open world and so is Botw so no
Yoboman
Member
What areas in God of War cant you access after you progress in the story? You can revisit 99% of areas. Once you hit the Lake of Nine you are pretty much free to go where you like, the only limitations being if you have the items needed
The rest are just standard tenants of game design. Not all open worlds give you complete freedom from the offset. Are the PS2 GTAs not open world because you unlock successive areas /cities as the story progresses? Plenty of open worlds you can’t access everything until you level up further, get additional items etc. It doesn’t stop them from being open world. RDR2 locks you into a linear path for the first few hours before opening up like GOW does. Witcher 3 locks you into one area for the first 20% of the game
HE1NZ
Banned
God of War is just hub based backtracking game. It has less open world than a pre-BoTW Zelda game.
Yoboman
Member
I’d ask the same question of pre BOTW Zelda. Those felt plenty open world to me
HE1NZ
Banned
And yet they're not.
Silent Viper
Banned
Ya not after story but at start you can't and that makes it not true open world.
Unrestricted access to world anytime you want makes it true open world.
And in Witcher 3 , first area is fully accessible and then 2nd area main map also fully accessible moment you enter. God of war areas are tied to mission progression and devs themselves don't call GOW open world.
Here
Last edited:
Silent Viper
Banned
ghost of tsushima static?
Does NPCs react to your open world action like in Red dead, gta and Elder scrolls.
You have set number of activities and you do them over nd over again. Fun few hours then you get tired or atleast or i got tired.
TheMay30thMan
Member
Not at all. Whether you like it or not, that title is currently held by Ubisoft.
SLB1904
Banned
i mean. yeah. if you clear a camp in Tsushima. people will move in give you quests.the npcs conversations are pretty interesting.. some people will say that they would like to join the Mongols because of the rumours of a better life under the Mongols. i think is pretty neat if you ask me.
edit: oh yeah and you actually have npcs in their homes behaving like they are at home. just saying
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
To each their own of course, but I suppose I'm just not understanding this.
What exactly does Valheim and Fortnite do that gives them leverage over other open-world design/experiences? Are they truly so "advanced" that it makes Rockstar and Ubisoft open-worlds appear dead?
I''m genuinely curious. Because when I look at Valheim and Fortnite, both are decent games in their own rights. But I don't see how they hold a candle to the experiences that various Sony, Nintendo, Rockstar, and Ubisoft open-world games have.
Just an interesting angle that I'm trying to see.
There has to be a connection between what you see and how you play, for a world to feel alive.
In RDR2 everything is just wallpaper. Playing on top of an icy mountainous region feels exactly the same as playing in the swamps, which feels exactly the same as playing in the dry desert. It's all just running around wide open spaces waiting to trigger unbelievably stupid AI or cutscenes. The AI itself feels like you're walking around some bizarre Chuck E Cheese band world. Those are dead world's.
In games like Fortnite everything you see gives the player unique advantages and disadvantages. That connects the player to the world so much more than the superficial way Rockstar does it. Being on a mountain feels different than sneaking around a city, which feels different than build battling. Every location gives the players important choices that bring life to the world. Additionally, watching opponents behave in slightly unique ways gives players information he can use to approach differently. It's so much more alive feeling.
With RDR2, you start seeing the simulation after 10 or 20 hours. Oz gets caught behind the curtain way too quick.
Subnautica is a single player game that's world is waaay more interesting than RDR2 as well. The incredibly dumb AI are just fish, which makes sense in that world. Discovering a new zone feels completely different because the world's built in a way that ties players choice to it.
RDR2 and Ubisoft open world's aren't good in the slightest. They sure do look pretty though.
S
Shodan09
Unconfirmed Member
Slightly off topic but have Ubi moved away from cities in assassin's creed to cut down development time so they can still churn out a game every year or two?
BusierDonkey
Member
Arkane really should get into open-world. Prey was a case where loading zones really pulled you out of the game and the game could really have benefitted from the entire station being a single cell.
CaptainConlock
Member
I like Sony games as much as the next guy but Rockstar games really are the apex of open world games. BOTW also runs circles around Sony's open worlds.
thelastword
Banned
Yes, that was a reality many moons ago.
Infamous Second Son
Horizon Zero Dawn
Days Gone
Ghosts of Tsushima
Spiderman
Lots of variety in these, great graphics and production values and addictive gameplay...And you didn't have to wait 10 years across to play all these gems......They are not buggy affairs like Bethesda games, nor do they have awful controls and camera systems like Witcher 3 and RDR2.
Infamous Second Son
Horizon Zero Dawn
Days Gone
Ghosts of Tsushima
Spiderman
Lots of variety in these, great graphics and production values and addictive gameplay...And you didn't have to wait 10 years across to play all these gems......They are not buggy affairs like Bethesda games, nor do they have awful controls and camera systems like Witcher 3 and RDR2.
Easily. I enjoyed Horizon Ghost of Tsushima and Days Gone more than GTA RDR and BoTW.
BoTW is fucking empty world kiddy shit. RdR2 in theory is better than everything however it fails in execution due to designed input delay .. the controls and interaction aspect really kills the immersion.
I played and finished all of them... multiple times...
BoTW is fucking empty world kiddy shit. RdR2 in theory is better than everything however it fails in execution due to designed input delay .. the controls and interaction aspect really kills the immersion.
I played and finished all of them... multiple times...
Last edited:
Aenima
Member
Not really, but they have been doing some quality open world games. Ghost of Tsushima was sublime. But thers better and more industry leading open world games out there. The Witcher 3 is still one of my personal favorites for its exploration, characters and story telling in sidequests, and GTAV for its sandbox fun.
MiguelItUp
Member
Interesting.
Yeah, I guess you're looking from an angle I just don't see.
To me, comparing the size and detail (not just visuals) of RDR2 to Fortnite seems unjust. They're completely different experiences. Of course, no offense to your opinion, but when I look at Fortnite I see absolutely nothing like that. At all.
Subnautica as well. I've heard great things about it, sure. But they're completely different experiences. Again with the size and detail (not just visuals). It again, to me, just doesn't seem just.
Que sera sera, agree to disagree, etc. Appreciate your reply!
Last edited:
No, Sony has always been about following trends instead of setting them. Seeing what sticks and try to add more budget and MKT dollars on top.
In quantity, Ubisoft is still the king. I am not a fan of their games but you can't deny they are they are THE reference when it comes to open world anything. In quality and polish Rockstar is the one to beat. Gameplay and mission design are straight out of the mid 00s though. San Andreas is still their best game.
For RPGS. The Witcher 3 basically destroyed the competition. And Bethesda open world RPGS are unique to this day.
Sony open worlds are good but nothing to write home about. Great production values and serviceable gameplay. Basically Ubisoft games with the caveat of being first party games, hence the added hype by fanboys, forums like this one and all the journalists they have in their pockets.
In quantity, Ubisoft is still the king. I am not a fan of their games but you can't deny they are they are THE reference when it comes to open world anything. In quality and polish Rockstar is the one to beat. Gameplay and mission design are straight out of the mid 00s though. San Andreas is still their best game.
For RPGS. The Witcher 3 basically destroyed the competition. And Bethesda open world RPGS are unique to this day.
Sony open worlds are good but nothing to write home about. Great production values and serviceable gameplay. Basically Ubisoft games with the caveat of being first party games, hence the added hype by fanboys, forums like this one and all the journalists they have in their pockets.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I dont know. I loved the gameplay systems in bethesda games and I didnt really have any issues with the camera in Witcher 3 and RDR2. RDR2 is supposed to be a bit cumbersome to control but thats by design. Witcher 3 was fine and had the same addicting gameplay loop like the Sony excluisves you listed below.
As much as I prefer Sony's open world games over others, by no means do I consider them a perfect product. In fact, they can learn a thing or two from Bethesda, CD Project and Rockstar games.
Take And Fallout Skyrim for instance. Bad graphics, buggy, but in terms of going out, exploring and running into new quests, they are in a league of their own. I dont think I ever finished the main quest in Skyrim. I just went exploring and ended up doing all three guild quests, i stumbled upon dozens of dungeons with their own little stories, and created my own adventures by going hunting for the best weapons and armor. Every Sony game you listed above comes off as extremely linear in comparison. Like wtf is the point of these massive open worlds when you dont use it to create quests and reward you for exploring not just with an item or two but by a brand new story.
Witcher 3 is the only game that comes close to matching that Bethesda feel. I just went around exploring and i would stumble upon quests that would take me to dungeons with new armor sets, monster fights with moral dilemmas, and all kinds of cool shit.
Sony devs have mastered the sandbox. They have mastered the combat. But thats basically it. There is very little sense of discovery, and the side quests are still very basic. They spend most of their time on getting the combat right and the main campaign, but when it comes to the open world they need to learn from Bethesda, CD Project and even Rockstar who know how to craft this lived in world that many sony games just lack.
Reptars Revenge
Member
my butthole says hi
Kokoloko85
Member
Rockstar and WWS are top. CDproject red is up there too. Combat wise WWS wins. Rockstar is taking certain aspects to another level though like immersion and NPC talking.
I loved BOTW too.
Ubisoft and co just don’t compare tbh, like seriously lol.
I don’t conider games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne open world btw
I loved BOTW too.
Ubisoft and co just don’t compare tbh, like seriously lol.
I don’t conider games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne open world btw
Last edited:
captainraincoat
Banned
The only time I would say Ubisoft do a better job
The only good PlayStation open world game I would say is days gone....the rest are not open world or are extremely boring (HZD)
ubi for all its shit still puts out consistently good open world games
The only good PlayStation open world game I would say is days gone....the rest are not open world or are extremely boring (HZD)
ubi for all its shit still puts out consistently good open world games
fallingdove
Member
Sony’s open world stuff is much better than Ubisoft or EA stuff but it doesn’t quite reach the heights of R*.
Kumomeme
Member
if during ps360 era Skyrim has made lot of impact to the point lot of developers inspired from it.
now we see similliar effect with Botw.
Sony indeed made tons of quality game, and doing well with their open world game, but their game not on that level yet. they surely gonna get better though. although some of those title is their team first open world game like Horizon Zero Dawn so there some of impressive feat.
now we see similliar effect with Botw.
Sony indeed made tons of quality game, and doing well with their open world game, but their game not on that level yet. they surely gonna get better though. although some of those title is their team first open world game like Horizon Zero Dawn so there some of impressive feat.
Silent Viper
Banned
Yaah but its not as deep and ambitious as Rockstar and Bethesda games. NPCs will not only react for your every action but also change locations nd all. They remember your actions nd all. This makes open world more immersive and alive.
Plus random events with NPCs, makes exploring world fun.
Ghost and HZD got fixed amount of same activities wherever you go. Chasing fox gets boring after you have done it over 10-15 times.
Darlingcognito
Member
I haven't played a single one since zero sawn and spider man, and I don't miss any of the new ones one bit.
It's still GTA, Skyrim and AC well ahead of anything they do.
It's still GTA, Skyrim and AC well ahead of anything they do.
EDMIX
Member
I don't know if I'm ready to say its the best open world game of last gen, but I'd put it in the top in terms of design. Those artist worked their asses off and its easily one of the best looking detailed open world games of last gen. The Ubisoft artist always do an amazing job with detail, setting, atmosphere etc. So I agree in that respect.
I found myself several times stopping and just looking around at all the details and NPC behavior. They always do a great job in those areas and can be trusted to deliver all the time.
Shmunter
Member
Level of Polish is certainly class leading. Not a fan of open world generally as it rarely serves a purpose and just gets in the way of the game itself. But there are games where the openness of the world characterises the gameplay. Death Stranding particularly.
Division 2 seem to work also.
Division 2 seem to work also.
I can't say that's a fair assessment considering the few open-world games that did push the industry forward this last generation.
The Witcher 3 pushed forward the way narrative can be interwoven with the open-world (something that Assassin's Creed and Horizon Zero Dawn took immense influence from).
BoTW pushed forward the way exploration is done in an open-world (something that many games took immense influence from).
RDR2 pushed forward the way the NPCs and the open-world reacts to you (honestly... nobody came close to what RDR2 was able to do with this).
There is one Sony game that I feel truly pushed the industry forward in open-world games. Death Stranding pushed forward in the way traversal is done in open-world games. Instead of the traversal becoming something you do between the interesting stuff, the traversal itself became the interesting stuff.
The Witcher 3 pushed forward the way narrative can be interwoven with the open-world (something that Assassin's Creed and Horizon Zero Dawn took immense influence from).
BoTW pushed forward the way exploration is done in an open-world (something that many games took immense influence from).
RDR2 pushed forward the way the NPCs and the open-world reacts to you (honestly... nobody came close to what RDR2 was able to do with this).
There is one Sony game that I feel truly pushed the industry forward in open-world games. Death Stranding pushed forward in the way traversal is done in open-world games. Instead of the traversal becoming something you do between the interesting stuff, the traversal itself became the interesting stuff.
Last edited:
Low Moral Fibre
Member
The Sony published ones all tend to be very polished but have super limited interactivity with the world. You definitely can’t go crazy like GTA games with noclip NPCs or NPCs that are rooted to the ground in camps where your weapons are disabled. Whether this bothers you or not is personal I guess.
Everyone’s play through tends to be similar unlike Rockstar games or games like the Witcher where there is so much content. Death Stranding would be a clear exception as people can really experiment here. Some of them would be fine as linear games and the open world is a bit pointless a bit like in L.A. Noire.
Everyone’s play through tends to be similar unlike Rockstar games or games like the Witcher where there is so much content. Death Stranding would be a clear exception as people can really experiment here. Some of them would be fine as linear games and the open world is a bit pointless a bit like in L.A. Noire.
Last edited:
supernova8
Banned
Open as in they gradually shut down all their studios so all the buildings are open because the tenants (developers) left?
Last edited:
Negotiator101
Member
That's harsh.
Negotiator101
Member
Sony does not have better stories or less repetitive gameplay than any Rockstar game. Ubisoft are not great anyway but RDR2 is the benchmark for open world, story, world simulation, characters etc
In all fairness all Sony first party open world games are decent but nothing special. I just don't understand why all this praise is heaped upon them, I sure if another company made these games they'd be scored lower. Just my opinion but I stand by it.
Similar threads
- Poll