/thread.
-
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.
Games where big environments were detriments
- Thread starter Alphahawk
- Start date
/thread.
decoyplatypus
Member
Suikoden 5 had needlessly large cities. Nearly every one of them could have been reduced by two-thirds.
Banjo-Tooie is another one where smaller worlds would have been a good idea. Not only would it make some of the re-traversal less painful (as the Humba transformations, Mumbo control, and separate Banjo and Kazooie segments make for a lot of re-exploring the same map), but the framerate in certain worlds was just nauseating.
I also tend to think many of the AAA open-world maps are larger than the content justifies, but I actually blame the shallow game design in those titles more than the maps.
Banjo-Tooie is another one where smaller worlds would have been a good idea. Not only would it make some of the re-traversal less painful (as the Humba transformations, Mumbo control, and separate Banjo and Kazooie segments make for a lot of re-exploring the same map), but the framerate in certain worlds was just nauseating.
I also tend to think many of the AAA open-world maps are larger than the content justifies, but I actually blame the shallow game design in those titles more than the maps.
MAX PAYMENT
Member
MGSV.
A TON of unused, empty space.
A TON of unused, empty space.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I think MGSV uses its open space really well, there's no pointless fetch quests, for one.
It drops you in an area, with an objective and gives you a wide space to approach it how you see fit. Literally, it's not designed for you to travel about and spend time in, but just to let you plan your route in the actual "levels".
I definitely think Shadow of Mordor suffers for its "open world" though. It's something akin to MGSV in how it lets you choose how to approach things, but the travel is so boring.
It drops you in an area, with an objective and gives you a wide space to approach it how you see fit. Literally, it's not designed for you to travel about and spend time in, but just to let you plan your route in the actual "levels".
I definitely think Shadow of Mordor suffers for its "open world" though. It's something akin to MGSV in how it lets you choose how to approach things, but the travel is so boring.
For my own answer, definitely MGS V. Mechanically the best MGS, hands down, but also my least favorite because of all the wasted space and the mission system that made every mission feel like a side quest.
After playing so much Overwatch this year, I also have to say BF1. This is obviously a very subjective and personal choice that many people will disagree with, but Overwatch changed me. I used to love BF, but I'm not impressed by the huge environments and high player counts anymore. I no longer see the appeal of trying to push up or fight an enemy while getting killed by a random sniper across the map who you never knew was there. Overwatch is more intimate, with your enemy general a medium distance away. And if you do get sniped, it's not by some random fucking guy. It's by that one Hanzo/Widow, and there are plenty of characters who can get across the small map to shut that sniper down.
The number of Witcher 3 posts are surprising to me. I guess it doesn't need to be quite as big as it is, but I'll playing it now and it seems like one if the better large open world games to me. There are interesting quests all over the place. Many of those quests take you all over the world, which in turn helps you to find more quests organically. I tend to ignore the bounty boards, but not only if there interesting stuff in their, there are also other good ways to find quests (e.g. walking into a store to offload some junk, shopkeeper has a quest for you unexpectedly. Or you're walking down the street and a cutscene triggers for some minor quest. Or you go to talk to an important character for a quest, and there's a dialog option that gives you another quest).
I do see how the Witchers world size is intimidating. It intimidated me at first, and I avoided playing it for months. But once you're committed to it, the world size feels perfect. It feels like a real place, and I think the world makes a lot of sense (so far).
After playing so much Overwatch this year, I also have to say BF1. This is obviously a very subjective and personal choice that many people will disagree with, but Overwatch changed me. I used to love BF, but I'm not impressed by the huge environments and high player counts anymore. I no longer see the appeal of trying to push up or fight an enemy while getting killed by a random sniper across the map who you never knew was there. Overwatch is more intimate, with your enemy general a medium distance away. And if you do get sniped, it's not by some random fucking guy. It's by that one Hanzo/Widow, and there are plenty of characters who can get across the small map to shut that sniper down.
The number of Witcher 3 posts are surprising to me. I guess it doesn't need to be quite as big as it is, but I'll playing it now and it seems like one if the better large open world games to me. There are interesting quests all over the place. Many of those quests take you all over the world, which in turn helps you to find more quests organically. I tend to ignore the bounty boards, but not only if there interesting stuff in their, there are also other good ways to find quests (e.g. walking into a store to offload some junk, shopkeeper has a quest for you unexpectedly. Or you're walking down the street and a cutscene triggers for some minor quest. Or you go to talk to an important character for a quest, and there's a dialog option that gives you another quest).
I do see how the Witchers world size is intimidating. It intimidated me at first, and I avoided playing it for months. But once you're committed to it, the world size feels perfect. It feels like a real place, and I think the world makes a lot of sense (so far).
This.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
I like Drgaon Age Inquisiton, but it's the perfect example. You have a bunch of huge open areas with almost nothing worthwhile to do in any of them.
MGSV is also a good choice. So much emptiness.
Edit: I think the size is fine for the Witcher 3. Exploration is somewhat dull in the game since there's not much interesting or worthwhile to find, but the scope of the game really sells the traveling monster hunter vibe.
MGSV is also a good choice. So much emptiness.
Edit: I think the size is fine for the Witcher 3. Exploration is somewhat dull in the game since there's not much interesting or worthwhile to find, but the scope of the game really sells the traveling monster hunter vibe.
freshVeggie
Member
Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon.
Once I started ignoring the open-world and went quickly to the next mission, the pacing and game became so much better.
Once I started ignoring the open-world and went quickly to the next mission, the pacing and game became so much better.
supermarioworldE
Banned
Donkey Kong 64 is the king of needlessly large levels imo. Even with the bananaport pads to get through different areas of a level, there's still too much dull backtracking and collecting due to the 5 different characters you have switch to. Instead of using any Kong to get all the bananas in the area, each has bananas and locations specific to the character that the others cant get, making you play through any given level five fucking times. With areas being so massive, and the characters being slow as snails (no doubt this was done intentionally to really hammer in the exploration aspect), it takes an ungodly amount of time to clear one level, let alone the next 7 or 8 needed to beat the game.
I played The Elder Scrolls: Arena for the first time a few years back, and one of the things that struck me is that it could benefit from the dungeons being a whole lot more compact.
That's the first major story dungeon after the tutorial, of eighteen total. And the thing is, much of that isn't *interesting* content, either; there's not enough unique elements for the map to be populated with to make exploration in its own right particularly pleasurable.
That's the first major story dungeon after the tutorial, of eighteen total. And the thing is, much of that isn't *interesting* content, either; there's not enough unique elements for the map to be populated with to make exploration in its own right particularly pleasurable.
TheSpaceBetween
Member
Should have been first post. Worst open world ever. Not only was there nothing interesting to do in it, but there was zero variety in terms of the art, making it boring to look at.
Most of the question marks (except Skellige sea chests) had notes that told a small story that was related to the loot you aquired.
You might not like this, but it definitely wasnt as irrelevant as every game out there that has loot chests. At least in W3 you had a small story accompanying most of them. Also lots of question marks were tied with proper full time quests.
Acquiescence
Member
The Witcher 3 had huge environments to explore. Unfortunately, near all of them weren't particularly interesting to roam about in. And I hope you like your villages copied and pasted!
Burnout Paradise's setting is tiny though.
But yeah, the open world was a definite detriment.
Burnout Paradise's setting is tiny though.
But yeah, the open world was a definite detriment.
NeonZ
Member
You likely go to Sylvalum right after getting the Skells, so it has more open areas in order to have space to use the vehicle mode of the Skells without many obstructions, unlike everywhere else in the game. Although the combination of open fields and white whiteness everywhere wasn't a smart choice.
Blaming MGSV's open world for being empty is a mistake IMO and complete misunderstanding of the purpose the open world freedom serves in this game.
MGSV is supposed to be giving the player the tools and the means to approach missions with complete freedom. Most MGSV missions span big areas, often including traveling from one camp to another far away. There are tons of ways to approach and complete each mission and the player is given the means to travel these distances with complete freedom to strategically approach each area as he sees fit.
Please try to imagine having all sorts of open world bullshit get in the way and completely fuck up your perfect stealth run.
MGSV is not about having a world filled with events or people or things that will make you sidetrack from your objective. Its meant to have the player being focused on the task at hand. It was never suppoed to have civilians or NPCs go about their business and roam the world becoming a nuisance to the player and it certainly wouldnt make sense story-wise.
For the above reasons I completely disagree that MGSV is lacking in its open world implementation. This is not an Ubisoft open world game, it is not even "open world" per se as far as activities go, it is just open world in relation to its premise, ie: tactical espionage operations.
As for the environment, you can say it is bland and boring but that is how Afghanistan is and that how Africa is, and since the game is centered around the Russian invasion on Afghanistan, there is not much they could do about this. Personally I was ok with it.
MGSV is supposed to be giving the player the tools and the means to approach missions with complete freedom. Most MGSV missions span big areas, often including traveling from one camp to another far away. There are tons of ways to approach and complete each mission and the player is given the means to travel these distances with complete freedom to strategically approach each area as he sees fit.
Please try to imagine having all sorts of open world bullshit get in the way and completely fuck up your perfect stealth run.
MGSV is not about having a world filled with events or people or things that will make you sidetrack from your objective. Its meant to have the player being focused on the task at hand. It was never suppoed to have civilians or NPCs go about their business and roam the world becoming a nuisance to the player and it certainly wouldnt make sense story-wise.
For the above reasons I completely disagree that MGSV is lacking in its open world implementation. This is not an Ubisoft open world game, it is not even "open world" per se as far as activities go, it is just open world in relation to its premise, ie: tactical espionage operations.
As for the environment, you can say it is bland and boring but that is how Afghanistan is and that how Africa is, and since the game is centered around the Russian invasion on Afghanistan, there is not much they could do about this. Personally I was ok with it.
DragonGirl
Member
It's one of my favorite areas and I particularly love the color scheme.
Darren_z33
Member
Burnout paradise. I'd love a new burnout game with traditional closed circuits.
User 479360
Banned
MGSV being open world ruined it.
But it wasn't fun enough to justify itself. Besides, you can have just about as many varied entertaining approaches in a structured level as an open world one. Ground Zeroes is literally the proof of this.