-
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.
Why is it so hard to fill an open world with unique and meaningful content?
MrRogers
Member
The question developers/publishers should pose to their staff at the start of development of a new title is... do we have the resources of Rockstar?.. in most cases its a resounding "no"...ok then, lets make a tight semi-linear game.
Open world games are mostly bloated, badly paced, repetitive, copy pasted shite. Developers need to know their limits and capablities. I loathe the genre for the most part and yearn for the days of well paced 10 to 40 hr linear/semi open games.
That said there has been a recent uptick in semi-linear games in the past year with the release of control, FF7, REmakes, ace combat 7, Sekiro, Fallen Order, DMC 5 etc..
it comes down to, if you cant do it like rockstar or CDPR, then please dont subject us to your "open world".
Open world games are mostly bloated, badly paced, repetitive, copy pasted shite. Developers need to know their limits and capablities. I loathe the genre for the most part and yearn for the days of well paced 10 to 40 hr linear/semi open games.
That said there has been a recent uptick in semi-linear games in the past year with the release of control, FF7, REmakes, ace combat 7, Sekiro, Fallen Order, DMC 5 etc..
it comes down to, if you cant do it like rockstar or CDPR, then please dont subject us to your "open world".
Last edited:
polybius80
Member
interesting topic
I have seen games like conan exiles that have a similar problem but implement building mechanics and high dificulty to make exploration more rewarding, it also uses the multiplayer element to make it more meaningful to build a base and gather stuff with your friend or attack other bases both form player and enemy settlements wich in my opinion is very good as the game feels a bit bare bones in single player
I have a question, if you are making an openworld game like Zelda BotW or Skyrim how you will change it to have more meaningful content?
I have seen games like conan exiles that have a similar problem but implement building mechanics and high dificulty to make exploration more rewarding, it also uses the multiplayer element to make it more meaningful to build a base and gather stuff with your friend or attack other bases both form player and enemy settlements wich in my opinion is very good as the game feels a bit bare bones in single player
I have a question, if you are making an openworld game like Zelda BotW or Skyrim how you will change it to have more meaningful content?
Zog
Banned
How well did Skyward Sword sell?
Dark Oni
Member
definitely agree with this also big open worlds are just overwhelming how much side content does one need in a game? i'd rather have some side content in a smaller world while mostly following the main story.
Kumomeme
Member
making games not easy as how fans complaining for..devs need to design the game, make lot of assets, graphical features etc. that take tons of devs resources (money, manpower, time)...even with tons of copypaste/recycle asset still take hundreds of manpower with 4 years of normal minimum AAA game development cycle...dont forget how crunch is part of the process
botw? that game had 5 years development if i not mistaken...xv also around 4 years..bigger the game size, bigger the scope, bigger the development resouces need to be poured
they not fill stuff in the game world in in blink of eye, not to mention they need to allocated all the budget within the hardware capabilities, dealing with bug, and stuff
especially open world games, which is not easy to craft and much more challenging to develop for
botw? that game had 5 years development if i not mistaken...xv also around 4 years..bigger the game size, bigger the scope, bigger the development resouces need to be poured
they not fill stuff in the game world in in blink of eye, not to mention they need to allocated all the budget within the hardware capabilities, dealing with bug, and stuff
especially open world games, which is not easy to craft and much more challenging to develop for
unintelligent orange
Member
at this stage, it is literally for these reasons, probably in the order below:
1. to save development time
2. lazy developers
3. developers build games with DLC in mind, and they end up cutting content from the main game specifically to put into DLC
4. to lengthen the 'experience' and fill in the gaps (filler)
5. to provide more 'realism'
6. because the quality of games have declined to where it is more than acceptable
/thread
1. to save development time
2. lazy developers
3. developers build games with DLC in mind, and they end up cutting content from the main game specifically to put into DLC
4. to lengthen the 'experience' and fill in the gaps (filler)
5. to provide more 'realism'
6. because the quality of games have declined to where it is more than acceptable
/thread
Verchod
Member
RPGs manage this better usually. It's games like Assassin's creed, and other GTA copycat types that struggle to justify having an open world.
If you can't fill it with decent story content then you don't need it to be open world.
I guess size is an issue too. Maybe developers make the map large because they think that's what people want, and again you'll have to spend a lot of time and money filling it.
If you can't fill it with decent story content then you don't need it to be open world.
I guess size is an issue too. Maybe developers make the map large because they think that's what people want, and again you'll have to spend a lot of time and money filling it.
Yep. The secret to making great non-repetitive open worlds was lost even in Piranha Bytes.
The RDR2 and other examples in this thread are so naive and clueless...
Lethal01
Member
Both final fantasy and chono trigger had large world maps that you could explore though, From the beginning we knew the huge value of feeling like you have a world to explore, the problem is that in this day it's a lot harder to convey that without spending millions upon millions.
I think a weak and cheap open world used only to contain well fleshed out areas with them is the best choice.
Last edited:
Holgren
Member
Majora's Mask events are attached primarily to time and what makes it such an special game to me. The world feels alive and things happen without me doing anything.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Yup.
Another reason for repetitiveness in open world games......... I don't think devs even expect gamers to do all the quests. How many towns, caves and buildings are there in ES and Fallout games? Endless. You'll be there all year clearing them out.
If someone wants to do the main quest and also clear out 80% of sidequests, better set yourself up for disappointment because most quests in general are similar.... kill/clear out enemies, fetch quest, escort mission, telegram boy (find and talk to NPC A, then backtrack and tell NPC B what you heard).
I think many gamers would feel open world games were less samey if they only did the main mission and a modest number of side quests and exploring. But if any gamer wants to be a completionist, that's on you.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I'm not a game designer but I'm going to assume it's harder to constantly surprise someone 100 hours into a game when other games can't even surprise you that often over a 10 hour running time. Most of us just look for entertaining gameplay loops in games and worry less about being surprised.
Joe T.
Member
I think some of the common answers here unquestionably have merit, but a game like BotW with such a vast world could have benefited a great deal by even the most minimal of tweaks, like adding hundreds of randomized monster spawn locations where anything from a single red Bokoblin to a whole group of enemies, mounted or not, could be stationary or patrolling.
Something similar could have been worked out with the shrines, like using a variety of enemies rather than just guardians for the battles and maybe dropping randomized sets of enemies in others. That would have helped alleviate some of the issues people have with the vast world and how lifeless or "samey" it might feel due to lack of enemy variety/challenge.
Something similar could have been worked out with the shrines, like using a variety of enemies rather than just guardians for the battles and maybe dropping randomized sets of enemies in others. That would have helped alleviate some of the issues people have with the vast world and how lifeless or "samey" it might feel due to lack of enemy variety/challenge.
Klayzer
Member
Give me focus/linear style games over open air (lol Nintendo) driven software. Somehow the pendulum swung to "games must be open world to be worth its price" for unknown reasons.
Studios need to stick to what they are good at. Rockstar and CDPR should continue to do open world since that is their bread and butter but some other games would work better as a linear game. One person finds success in a certain way and everybody else wants to copy it to the point that things get saturated.
As a writer I know how hard it is to fill even a short story with unique and meaningful content (/Self burn.)
An open world needs hundreds of quests with thousands of lines of dialog, great art and sound, custom gameplay mechanics, etc, and all of them have to be quality. You need a lot of talented people with a lot of different specialties to make something worth playing.
An open world needs hundreds of quests with thousands of lines of dialog, great art and sound, custom gameplay mechanics, etc, and all of them have to be quality. You need a lot of talented people with a lot of different specialties to make something worth playing.
EDMIX
Member
Agreed.
I just hated BoTW lol, its legit imho the most boring Zelda title. I actually like AC Odyssey so much more and Ubisoft doesn't get the credit they deserve. That game was crafted really well and I LOVED exploring it.
I agree though, I want more random locations that offer similar things, but the area looks different. Example. a gas station chain might of course have a similar layout, but many different gas stations exist all over that clearly will have difference based on town, state, management etc. I'd love to see more randomized things that alter how dirty, how big, lights being off like if a light was out in area of the store cause they was in the............lessor part of town lol
This is something that I've always thought about and wondered what is actually holding back a developer from doing that.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Because games cost $80 million like that and not everybody can spend $500 million like Rockstar does. And even they have loads of procedural and copy&paste content.
bumleforce
Member
I disagree a bit here. BOTW has SOOOOOOOOO much wasted space. The world size should just be reduced by 40%. Witcher 3 and red dead I think do open worlds good. Horizion zero Dawn, and forza 4 as well. Assassins creed is example of a game that also needs reduced size and it looks like they are doing that for the new one. Mafia 3 did a bad job as well. Me personally I like big areas without really being an open world like Metro Exodus, Tomb raider and God of war. Just my opinion
Roronoa Zoro
Gold Member
Yeah I would rather devs do smaller world's where everything is unique like Shenmue. So much personality packed in its ridiculous
Keihart
Member
When a game it's well designed i don't think you "NEED" more content per se. It's all about what you are meant to do in said world. Games are not necessarily simulations.
Death Stranding for example, the game it's made around the fact that you want to travel and how you travel, so the sandbox it's not there for finding loot or dungeons and whatnot the sandbox it's there to make traveling interesting and a challenge.
I think BoTW it similar in this regard, because it's also a game focused on traveling, the game world could be way smaller connecting the small villages and the beasts, but it is intended for you to travel trough it, and to overcome the difficulty of it. More often than not, it's harder to climb a mountain than to kill an enemy and the freedom in how you do it makes for some fun personal little tales.
So, i think BoTW doesn't need to have the amount or variety of the side-quests of Witcher 3 necessarily for example. The game does need better dungeons tho and i'm pretty sure that the sequel it's addressing exactly that since it's the obvious improvement needed, you rarely go underground in BoTW. But instead needs a map that challenges you and makes fun traversing it and exploring it.
Finding the master sword it's such a cool and organic moment in the game for example or discovering dragons and farming their materials after hearing the legends.
Death Stranding for example, the game it's made around the fact that you want to travel and how you travel, so the sandbox it's not there for finding loot or dungeons and whatnot the sandbox it's there to make traveling interesting and a challenge.
I think BoTW it similar in this regard, because it's also a game focused on traveling, the game world could be way smaller connecting the small villages and the beasts, but it is intended for you to travel trough it, and to overcome the difficulty of it. More often than not, it's harder to climb a mountain than to kill an enemy and the freedom in how you do it makes for some fun personal little tales.
So, i think BoTW doesn't need to have the amount or variety of the side-quests of Witcher 3 necessarily for example. The game does need better dungeons tho and i'm pretty sure that the sequel it's addressing exactly that since it's the obvious improvement needed, you rarely go underground in BoTW. But instead needs a map that challenges you and makes fun traversing it and exploring it.
Finding the master sword it's such a cool and organic moment in the game for example or discovering dragons and farming their materials after hearing the legends.
Last edited:
Get Blender, Maya or Max, and model and texture a single chair, table or bookshelf that is production quality.
Model and texture a single small building. That includes all the normalmaps, specular maps and whatever the fuck else.
Once you are done (if at all), you won't have any questions remaining.
Last edited:
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
End thread.
vaibhavpisal
Member
I think the point of some open world games is to give a peaceful, meditative experience of walking around, taking in the scenery with appropriate music.
With some fun side activities (main quests and activities) thrown in to break the monotony.
Too much activities could break the immersion.
But not all games are designed with this objective.
With some fun side activities (main quests and activities) thrown in to break the monotony.
Too much activities could break the immersion.
But not all games are designed with this objective.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Because some gamers want freedom to do what they want and not be funneled down a path.
Open world games also have more replayability assuming the gamer is ok with doing repetitive kinds of missions and exploring. When I play open world games, half the time I don't even care about the main mission. I just zoom around the map and whatever I bump into is the new mission.
In linear games you can't really do that unless a gamer wants to repeat grinding through monster battles in the same area over and over again.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Basically Shadow if the Colossus and Xenoblade games.
EightBit Man
Member
#Phonepunk#
Banned
why is it so hard to write a full album rather than a single song?
why is it so hard to write a series novels rather than a short story?
etc.
an open world demands way more content. simple as that, really.
also since the playable area is so large, you have to spread out meaningful content, so that no matter where the player goes he finds something. this inevitably affects the quality of the content in general, since less time can be spent on custom geographically anchored experiences in favor of a general experience that can be placed anywhere in a large map.
why is it so hard to write a series novels rather than a short story?
etc.
an open world demands way more content. simple as that, really.
also since the playable area is so large, you have to spread out meaningful content, so that no matter where the player goes he finds something. this inevitably affects the quality of the content in general, since less time can be spent on custom geographically anchored experiences in favor of a general experience that can be placed anywhere in a large map.
Last edited:
sobaka770
Banned
Cause development of AAA game for most publishers is governed by marketing and trends and is not always driven by designers' vision as it makes more easy money from what I see. It's capitalism at extreme fighting for precious consumer interest by ever greedier and nastier schemes.
Open worlds, games that should last 70+ hours - these are marketing tags and if you ever complained about "corridor shooters" or "getiting your money's worth", that's what publishers are trying to address. The fact is, most games don't need an open world, best games are usually short, focused experiences where gameplay, story and game design work together to form a single package of proper size and length. Control is only 8-10 hours long, Hellblade - same (but sold for 30$). Most games are better off being linear with occasional open areas. Ubisoft popularised open worlds filling them with addictive collectatons which appeal to people's dopamine-addicted brains which allows them today to create 4 different games with exactly same underlying designs: Ghost Reckon, Division, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed. This approach saves money, makes games that last forever, relies on research on addictive behaviour like Skinner boxes and therefore gets tons of sales every year.
That is why when you really think about it, Ubi games are rarely GREAT. They are all in the spectrum of mediocre to good but always overstay their welcome, become repetitive, people are sick of them by the end. That's because they milk your brain as far as it can get and instead of making good stories or innovative gamplay, they just make bigger, emptier worlds filled with garbage and many other publishers follow suit. Bioware jumped on the trend with Andromeda and Inquisition but their story-making is only capable of carrying 30h worth of content - not 100h. It's plain to see in Inquisition gating progress with mindless fetch quests and Andromeda feeling unfocused, spread thin.
CD Project Red has a vision for a game and they don't fear adjsuting everything for that vision. They don't need to make ALL the money, like Valve, they operate a store and reinvest the proceeds in actually good experiences, kind of like Sony. All 3 Witcher games have radically different sizes and gameplay, evolving with each story and what the devs wanted to do with that particular RPG. Sony exclusives are usually a result of trust in the team vision, resulting in top selling games and only Days Gone had a relatively safe open world with some twists. However, these games for fat publishers like Activision, EA and UBi simply don't have enough long-tail sales. Witcher 3 had a very old-fashioned structure without DLC, in-game store - just 2 expacs. Why would EA or Ubi go for that if they can have FIFA and Division-style games giving more revenue for much less effort? Why wouldn't Blizzard be allowed to make Diablo 3 expacs after perpetual money of auction house dried up? Because it wouldn't make ALL the money.
It's not all our fault, we can't individually counteract the amount of psychological research being done to keep us addicted to worthless gameplay loops and number progressions, sapping our willpower to splosh money on lootboxes and experience boosters. Mobile games' strategies are now here and the only solution is to avoid these games like a plague and buy games where you can see the developer vision, not marketing BS.
Open worlds, games that should last 70+ hours - these are marketing tags and if you ever complained about "corridor shooters" or "getiting your money's worth", that's what publishers are trying to address. The fact is, most games don't need an open world, best games are usually short, focused experiences where gameplay, story and game design work together to form a single package of proper size and length. Control is only 8-10 hours long, Hellblade - same (but sold for 30$). Most games are better off being linear with occasional open areas. Ubisoft popularised open worlds filling them with addictive collectatons which appeal to people's dopamine-addicted brains which allows them today to create 4 different games with exactly same underlying designs: Ghost Reckon, Division, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed. This approach saves money, makes games that last forever, relies on research on addictive behaviour like Skinner boxes and therefore gets tons of sales every year.
That is why when you really think about it, Ubi games are rarely GREAT. They are all in the spectrum of mediocre to good but always overstay their welcome, become repetitive, people are sick of them by the end. That's because they milk your brain as far as it can get and instead of making good stories or innovative gamplay, they just make bigger, emptier worlds filled with garbage and many other publishers follow suit. Bioware jumped on the trend with Andromeda and Inquisition but their story-making is only capable of carrying 30h worth of content - not 100h. It's plain to see in Inquisition gating progress with mindless fetch quests and Andromeda feeling unfocused, spread thin.
CD Project Red has a vision for a game and they don't fear adjsuting everything for that vision. They don't need to make ALL the money, like Valve, they operate a store and reinvest the proceeds in actually good experiences, kind of like Sony. All 3 Witcher games have radically different sizes and gameplay, evolving with each story and what the devs wanted to do with that particular RPG. Sony exclusives are usually a result of trust in the team vision, resulting in top selling games and only Days Gone had a relatively safe open world with some twists. However, these games for fat publishers like Activision, EA and UBi simply don't have enough long-tail sales. Witcher 3 had a very old-fashioned structure without DLC, in-game store - just 2 expacs. Why would EA or Ubi go for that if they can have FIFA and Division-style games giving more revenue for much less effort? Why wouldn't Blizzard be allowed to make Diablo 3 expacs after perpetual money of auction house dried up? Because it wouldn't make ALL the money.
It's not all our fault, we can't individually counteract the amount of psychological research being done to keep us addicted to worthless gameplay loops and number progressions, sapping our willpower to splosh money on lootboxes and experience boosters. Mobile games' strategies are now here and the only solution is to avoid these games like a plague and buy games where you can see the developer vision, not marketing BS.
Jbomb19
Member
Agreed. I also think a lot of players disagree on what "meaningful" rewards are. Some people want to see an easter egg or a audio clip that expands the world/story if they go off the beaten path, while other players think exploring is worthless if they don't get an upgrade/new weapon or something similar. Still others think exploring and seeing the visuals are reward enough. I know a lot of people debate Horizon Zero Dawn's open world. To me, seeing a new machine or finding an audio log is rewarding when I explore, while others wanted to see exploration leading to weapons or side quests. Neither of those are better than the other, imo, but it's about what gaming studios decide to fill those corners of the map with. Ideally, it's a balanced mix of all those things.
In most cases nobody needs to have meaningful things in an open world, blah repetitive stuff gets great ratings and sells just as well as a game where they can make dlc concurrently with development of the main game, giving less value to the consumer and more value to themselves.
I remember old computer games used to be full of random missions and interactive elements.
Games aren't about giving a good product, they're about giving the "right amount" that satisfies reviewers and hype people to sell the games to the consumers. Gaming used to be about fun, now it's about making a product you can sell dlc for.
I remember old computer games used to be full of random missions and interactive elements.
Games aren't about giving a good product, they're about giving the "right amount" that satisfies reviewers and hype people to sell the games to the consumers. Gaming used to be about fun, now it's about making a product you can sell dlc for.
anthraticus
Banned
Because players standards are such dogshit and they're happy playing boring repetitive cut & paste mediocrity (and worse)
Last edited: