Support NeoGAF

[TheLostBigBoss]

That's a bad word now, PR/Marketing doesnt like it.

He didn't get the memo.

You're supposed to say cinematic and emotional.

 

[bigboss370]

Loved Watch Dogs and loved what I've played of Unity so far. Ubi is on the right track

 

[-MD-]

This worries me, vast majority of open world games lately are shit.

 

[privitsan02]

Keep in mind the new style of open world gameplay that Ubisoft have been making came from them merging Assassin's Creed 3 and Far Cry 3 in 2012. It's entirely possible for them to learn that there's more to open world gameplay than that.

Despite that, I've enjoyed Black Flag, Watch Dogs and Far Cry 4. As long as they keep improving on them, I'll be cautiously optimistic. What they really need to work on is replayability and post-game content. Ubisoft open world games are completely useless once you finish them in 15-20 hours. Sort of makes them pointless to buy at full price, which I personally never do. Best way to enjoy their games is always through a 50% discount it seems.

Best wishes.

 

[Big-E]

Open world games have lost my interest. Might be because I am getting old, but I really don't have the time anymore to just go explore around a game for hours and have fun. The last open world game I beat was Saints Row 4 and I pretty much just did the story missions and didn't bother with any of the collectibles unless they were right in front of me.

I loved the Witcher 1 and enjoyed the Witcher 2, but all the open world talk has made me feel like I wouldn't enjoy Wticher 3. Hearing one area is bigger than Skyrim is a negative for me.

 

[Windom Earle]

ubi soft formula is awesome. Best value in gaming.

 

[Chamber]

That's a depressing thread title for me.

 

[Salsa]

climb that shit!

 

[Oersted]

That's a depressing thread title for me.

It is slightly missleading, given the 30% that follow. So there is that.

 

[RoboPlato]

I feel like open world games have a unique advantage on the marketplace. They're big and draw a lot of hours from players so many feel far more confident dropping $60 on them and you can market them with large amounts of varied, spoiler-free gameplay footage, a luxury that linear titles don't have. Because of these factors, it's much more straightforward to market them successfully and there's less risk to publishers in funding them.

 

[fuzzyreactor]

eww, not really a fan of open world

 

[HariKari]

This worries me, vast majority of open world games lately are shit.

They are all copying each other in a race to the bottom. Shadow of Mordor's most interesting bits were the ones not completely built on the AC formula, as an example.

I'm just tired of towers and meaningless busywork quests thrown into areas.

I feel like open world games have a unique advantage on the marketplace. They're big and draw a lot of hours from players so many feel far more confident dropping $60 on them and you can market them with large amounts of varied, spoiler-free gameplay footage, a luxury that linear titles don't have. Because of these factors, it's much more straightforward to market them successfully and there's less risk to publishers in funding them.

They're also easily replicated. Designing a sequel becomes about picking a place and a theme, because most of the systems work is already done.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

They are all copying each other in a race to the bottom. Shadow of Mordor's most interesting bits were the ones not completely built on the AC formula, as an example.

I'm just tired of towers and meaningless busywork quests thrown into areas.

That's kind of the point. Without those its just an empty space and barely pads the game time. They dont want you to beat the game in a weekend.

 

[ninanuam]

I think Ubi are right but they don't seem to understand why they are right, and it shows in the games they make.

My top three games last gen were all open world (Fallout New Vegas, GTA V, Saints Row 2) GTA and New Vegas get by on very little in the way of mini game bullshit. I feel like both of those games get huge mileage out of evoking a time and a place and within those, a feeling.

NV looks like shit but I couldn't stop exploring that world, There might be an interesting character or a trippy scene just over the ridge and there weren't any towers to climb or bases to secure.

Saint Row 2 does have a lot of mini games but that game just resonated with me. I cant tell you why exactly maybe its because its so stupid and weirdly dark. While at the same time having huge amounts of customization.

I'm hoping Ubi eventually learn what makes a good open world game into a great open world game isn't the size of the map or how many collectables there are. But I don't think they will until one of their games totally tanks.

 

[Fbh]

I don't really like open world games, specially not the Ubisoft design.

I much preffer more linear and focused experiences. Nothing beats a well designed level, and for obvious reasons you can't get that quality of level design when aiming for size.

One of the few "open world" game franchises that I really love are the souls games. IMO they have the perfect balance of open world and linear "level based" design. I find exploring and getting to know their worlds way more enjoyable than all of those games that focus too much on size

 

[Raonak]

That's kind of the point. Without those its just an empty space and barely pads the game time. They dont want you to beat the game in a weekend.

But I sometimes do :'(

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

But I sometimes do :'(

Not enough grinding, farming, or fetch quests then. Ubi PR/Marketing team will fix this outrage.

 

[KorrZ]

It's not really freedom if all of your games follow the same template Ubisoft, it might as well be linear in that case. I'm always happy with more open world but please ditch the tower climbing collect-a-thons at least for a few games.

I did really love FarCry 4 though even if it did fall into that template.

 

[CLEEK]

I have honesty never loved any proper open world games. They might be pretty looking sandboxes, but using the game mechanics within them are lacking, and the games progress is usually tired old fetch quests and rudimentary combat. My experiences with the likes of Skyrim, GTA etc all start and end the same. Initially woowed by the vistas and the scale, soon bored of what I can do in these worlds.

Compare to games like Bloodborne, where every enemy, every bit of scenery, every item is obviously crafted and placed by hand and there for a reason.

Game can be influenced by open world and still retain their tight gameplay mechanics. The core shooting in Destiny is as good as FPSes get. Dark Souls expansive world didn't mean the combat and solidity to the core game suffered. I doubt MGSV or Zelda will give up their core mechanics just because the levels are larger.

Large, interconnected worlds = good.
Sandboxes with unfocused gameplay mechanics = bad.

 

[RoboPlato]

They're also easily replicated. Designing a sequel becomes about picking a place and a theme, because most of the systems work is already done.

Good point

 

[toddhunter]

RPG mechanics are now passe huh? The best games of last year were arguably Shadow of Mordor and Far Cry 4. At least the numbers support these as being in demand.

With games like Batman, Witcher, The Phantom Pain, Fallout, Just Cause, Mad Max, Tomb Raider and Uncharted 4 all open world type games, clearly the best stuff coming down the pipe is all open world. The sentiments in this thread are fascinating, but everyone the hate for Ubisoft is as popular as their games lol.

Edit: Forgot about Dragon Age Inquisition being at the top of last year as well.

Popularity does not equal quality. Ubisoft are correct that these kind of games sell well. However, that is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. If all the heavily marketed AAA games are open world? Open world games will sell best.

Meanwhile games like AC, Skyrim and especially DAI are bad open world games. They are boring and empty, they have bad combat and offer nothing new to the genre.

The point is, shit open world games still sell, but that doesn't mean companies like Ubisoft need to make shit open world games. They could make a good open world game and that would sell even better.

Apparently they have no intention of doing so anytime soon.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Linear games. Please. Write a game and then let me play it without having to play side-missions that have no bearing on anything other than the advertised gameplay time.

Yes. I appreciate good level design. We need both but currently there is an imbalance that needs corrected. If development was cheaper in this industry, we might see more variety.

 

[RexNovis]

Destiny is counted as an Open World game in their calculations for the 30%. Destiny is NOT an Open World game. It is very much a hub world game in the vein of PSO ep1&2 and Demon's Souls. Without Destiny counting as open world the success figures would undoubtedly be substantially lower in comparison to other genres.

 

[staticneuron]

climb that shit!

Only if there is something I can break and then slide down a zip line afterwards.

Destiny is counted as an Open World game in their calculations for the 30%. Destiny is NOT an Open World game. It is very much a hub world game in the vein of PSO ep1&2 and Demon's Souls. Without Destiny counting as open world the success figures would undoubtedly be substantially lower in comparison to other genres.

That is a reasonable statement but it is only based off the technicality because you can't walk to each planet seamlessly (or logically). If people were being really honest, each planet is open world in terms of go anywhere and do anything and the planets are pretty large.

 

[Catdaddy]

I like open world but sometimes there can be too much to do. As evidenced by the hundreds of waypoints on the AC Unity map

 

[ROUGE_BLOCK]

Excellent, open world games have been my favourite genre for over 10 years. Soon every game will be open world, and everyone will conform! Muhahahaa!

 

[rjc571]

Uh, this confirms nothing other than that open world games receive a stronger marketing push than other games on average.

 

[Shinypogs]

I like open worlds, let me set off on my adventure and choose how and even if I want to get the main story done. For me the point of an open world is to be filled with interesting characters and content that draws me into the world and makes me care about it enough to do the main story.

There are plenty of poorly crafted and sometimes outright bad open world games but their existence shouldn't mean the end of the concept being used a whole.

 

[pr0cs]

I love open world games but many comments in this thread are reasonable. Ubis take on open world is old and stale. Most of their recent games have the identical collectathon concepts which is old. Open world games are still under served but mostly because so many of them copy the same formula.

My favorite games last gen
Saints Row 2 , made aide missions in many ways more fun than the original story missions. The ai was very very good too,dynamic and reactive making for some wicked experiences

Red faction guerrilla, added the ability to use physics to significantly change every mission. I really hope volition is compelled to make a sequel on this new gen, I can't imagine how more impressive the destruction could be

Crackdown, I liked how open it was not much hand holding. I like being to upgrade skills and having an obvious improvement

Red dead redemption, mesh of story and free form gaming was perfect. Great characters and euphoria really made for some cool realistic physics ,this game needs a sequel badly

Just cause 2, the sheer scope of the game world along with the craziness associated with the grappling hook and chute

 

[Servbot24]

Yeah, when you fucking do it right. Ubi, you dont do it right.

Dying Light did it right. Fallout did it right. Skyrim did it right. Your "Open World" games bore the fuck out of me.

If by "Defining my own experience" is you crafting a big level with a handful of a samey tasks... Well, just no.

Those games are all poor IMO. Open world almost never gets it right, and even when it does it's only here and there.

Thankfully idgaf what Ubi decides to do next. ND, Nintendo, From, Platinum and others are making tightly designed linear games for me.

 

[Skux]

Just making a giant level and putting collectibles all over it does not an open world game make.

"Open gameplay" or "sandbox gameplay" is the true goal of open world design, and even in linear games too (eg Batman Arkham stealth rooms or Deus Ex). Giving players many ways to do something, instead of many things to do and only one way to do it.

 

[Dubz]

This worries me, vast majority of open world games lately are shit.

You should try Dying Light.

 

[AESplusF]

You shouldn't have made that, I mean it makes a good point but it needs to be put down.

 

[Dark_castle]

Actually getting bored of open world games now.

LMAO... This edit is so good, I feel that it deserves its own thread.

 

[DarkJedi24]

Popularity does not equal quality. Ubisoft are correct that these kind of games sell well. However, that is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. If all the heavily marketed AAA games are open world? Open world games will sell best.

Meanwhile games like AC, Skyrim and especially DAI are bad open world games. They are boring and empty, they have bad combat and offer nothing new to the genre.

The point is, shit open world games still sell, but that doesn't mean companies like Ubisoft need to make shit open world games. They could make a good open world game and that would sell even better.

Apparently they have no intention of doing so anytime soon.

Entirely subjective and debatable. Yes, you are correct in saying that popularity does not equal quality. However, quality is not mutually exclusive to popularity. Saying that AC, Skyrim and Dragon Age are bad games however is certainly a contrarian perspective to have in general, but that does not make it a quality one.

Yes there is room for improvement, but the same goes for every game. I get that certain aspects matter more to some than they do to others, but I think calling games bad because of their formulaic design is off base.

 

[Jimrpg]

A large number of "open worlds" just.... frustrate the hell out of me.

I'm playing GTA V right now, and although I'm early on, feels just like GTA IV and to an extent like 3, where the outside world is beautifully realized, but inside gets shafted. I wanted to go to the shopping centre, its closed. The fairground is open, and the hot dog stand is beautifully drawn, but I can't buy a hot dog.

Is it just computing power? It just seems to me that games spend 99% of the time drawing beautiful worlds, but there's not enough time spent on interaction with the world. Not the characters, there's plenty of that in cutscenes. Its the same problem in Assasin's Creed, the entire world is crafted beautifully, but its just a bunch of empty polygons with textures on the outside. You can run around them, on the roofs of the houses, but you can't go inside the majority of the places.

I'd just like to see a really dense game, where everything you see can be interacted with. I'd give up having a super large world for one smaller than in Yakuza where you can go to all the floors in buildings, go into shops and read magazines etc. Travelling between places in the open world just isn't as interesting.

 

[toddhunter]

Entirely subjective and debatable. Yes, you are correct in saying that popularity does not equal quality. However, quality is not mutually exclusive to popularity. Saying that AC, Skyrim and Dragon Age are bad games however is certainly a contrarian perspective to have in general, but that does not make it a quality one.

Yes there is room for improvement, but the same goes for every game. I get that certain aspects matter more to some than they do to others, but I think calling games bad because of their formulaic design is off base.

I'm calling them bad because the formula is bad. You only have to compare those games with earlier entries in the same series to reflect that.

Adding more open worlds while removing depth did not make better games. Is Skyrim better than Morrowind? Is Inquisition better than Origins? They certainly sold more!

You might say yes, but saying otherwise is not contrarian, it is just the reality of what those newer games are, which is nowhere close to where they are could be. So just copying them again because they sell is selling gaming short.

 

[Chanser]

I have the urge to climb towers.

 

[Foffy]

I'd like freedom from Ubisoft's annualization, please.

Oh, and actual freedom in an Ubisoft game. For Ubisoft, it is quite literally a buzzword and nothing else.

 

[pixelation]

Aww hells nah!!!, i prefer my games be linear...

 

[TheLastCandle]

I remember hearing at the start of the gen that open world would be the new FPS. Pretty much spot on.

 

[RexNovis]

That is a reasonable statement but it is only based off the technicality because you can't walk to each planet seamlessly (or logically). If people were being really honest, each planet is open world in terms of go anywhere and do anything and the planets are pretty large.

Planets are no larger than the archstones in Demon's Souls. Destiny is not an open world game. The areas are very limited in scope. There are frequent loading screens to enter exit various instanced areas with a main quest center to return to in order to complete quests and redeem rewards. That is the very definition of a hub based game.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

I can't believe this is what people think this is what video games should be like. Not saying open world games shouldn't exist but it seems like whenever a developer does something different, it spawns a Twitter movement.
Edit: I forgot to mention releasing a game with the scope of AC yearly ain't freaking sustainable. Ubi's gonna crash and burn in the next few years.

 

[Pikma]

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Though good, how long are we going to wait until we starting seeing games being big to be big, phoned in cheap linear story lines and a bunch of fetch quest that mean nothing?

I'm sure we can argue that there are already games that hit these points but it also makes me less hopeful for the future that for the sake of showing big world's, people will gobble it up because it's "open world".

I truly hope this isn't the case.

 

[IvanJ]

I agree with Ubisoft, I love open-world games. It is just so boring to be ushered from one corridor to the next after killing a set number of enemies. Even good games like Bioshock and Wolfenstein bore me and I cannot finish them.
Loved both Watch Dogs and Far Cry from Ubisoft, and with GTA, Dying Light and Borderlands, just to name a few, I have no need to suffer through linear games.

 

[flaxknuckles]

Should have picked an image with enemies in it so you could throw glowing outlines on them

 

[Hellsing321]

The last Ubisoft open world game that I really enjoyed that actually had emergent gameplay was Far Cry 2.

 

[Ogimachi]

Golden age for icon chasing games, I guess.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Can't wait to clear out more icons on my mini-map.

Hahaha yup. Such a succinct but oh-so-perfect summary. "Freedom to define one's experience", my arse.